The education of Roland Emmerich--this is priceless!
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Reedy
Oct 18, 2011, 11:56:39 AM10/18/11
to Forest of Arden
Emmerich says he became convinced that Shakespeare could not have
written the plays after he read internet discussions.
"When I first read the script, my first question to John Orlov, the
screenwriter, was, 'What of this is true?' He said, 'A lot. You should
just go on the internet and start reading up.' And that's what I did.
"When somebody is a scholar of William Shakespeare and tries to write
about a man who is very little known about, he has to look at his work
and go from there and use conjecture to fill out whatever he thinks
happened."
Critics of the Oxfordian argument question why the earl, who was
content to publish inferior works under his own name, would want his
best work attributed to someone else. They also point out that his
productivity was apparently undiminished by his death in 1604, after
which at least eight Shakespeare plays were written.
Emmerich says that his film was not meant to be taken as a literal
truth. "I'm not a scholar. I'm a filmmaker. It's way beyond my
horizon."
He says he chose the earl of Oxford because he was the most
interesting subject for a film. "Yes, there is this problem that he
died too early, but I don't think there is a problem if you say he
started writing earlier."
He says his scepticism about Shakespeare being the author was echoed
by Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi, who star in the film.
"It is a very serious film. It is done with very serious actors, some
of the most eminent Shakespearean actors in England, and they all
believe what I believe. That should tell you that this is not
something to make fun of."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/oldest-literary-conspiracy-theory-trotted-out-again/story-e6frg8nf-1226070455829
written the plays after he read internet discussions.
"When I first read the script, my first question to John Orlov, the
screenwriter, was, 'What of this is true?' He said, 'A lot. You should
just go on the internet and start reading up.' And that's what I did.
"When somebody is a scholar of William Shakespeare and tries to write
about a man who is very little known about, he has to look at his work
and go from there and use conjecture to fill out whatever he thinks
happened."
Critics of the Oxfordian argument question why the earl, who was
content to publish inferior works under his own name, would want his
best work attributed to someone else. They also point out that his
productivity was apparently undiminished by his death in 1604, after
which at least eight Shakespeare plays were written.
Emmerich says that his film was not meant to be taken as a literal
truth. "I'm not a scholar. I'm a filmmaker. It's way beyond my
horizon."
He says he chose the earl of Oxford because he was the most
interesting subject for a film. "Yes, there is this problem that he
died too early, but I don't think there is a problem if you say he
started writing earlier."
He says his scepticism about Shakespeare being the author was echoed
by Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi, who star in the film.
"It is a very serious film. It is done with very serious actors, some
of the most eminent Shakespearean actors in England, and they all
believe what I believe. That should tell you that this is not
something to make fun of."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/oldest-literary-conspiracy-theory-trotted-out-again/story-e6frg8nf-1226070455829
Adam Selzer
Oct 18, 2011, 10:44:30 PM10/18/11
to Forest of Arden
Man, any time you say you became convinced of something after reading
internet discussions, you're just setting yourself up to look stupid.
And the Marlowe theory would make a MUCH better film, if you ask me.
For some time there was a delightful group on live journal dedicated
to making up a TV show called "Marlowe: Gay Atheist Spy." "He likes
boys...he talks %^&* about Moses...he fights crime. Tuesdays at 9 on
the CW."
I would like to see the movie, though. I wish they'd written in the
scene of Oxford farting in front of the queen. Sure, it's just a John
Aubrey story, but that's still a better source than what they're
using, eh?
Adam "John Aubrey is My Homeboy" Selzer
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/oldest-literary-conspiracy-...
internet discussions, you're just setting yourself up to look stupid.
And the Marlowe theory would make a MUCH better film, if you ask me.
For some time there was a delightful group on live journal dedicated
to making up a TV show called "Marlowe: Gay Atheist Spy." "He likes
boys...he talks %^&* about Moses...he fights crime. Tuesdays at 9 on
the CW."
I would like to see the movie, though. I wish they'd written in the
scene of Oxford farting in front of the queen. Sure, it's just a John
Aubrey story, but that's still a better source than what they're
using, eh?
Adam "John Aubrey is My Homeboy" Selzer
John W Kennedy
Oct 19, 2011, 9:52:26 PM10/19/11
to ardenm...@googlegroups.com
On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Adam Selzer wrote:
> I would like to see the movie, though. I wish they'd written in the
> scene of Oxford farting in front of the queen. Sure, it's just a John
> Aubrey story, but that's still a better source than what they're
> using, eh?
> I would like to see the movie, though. I wish they'd written in the
> scene of Oxford farting in front of the queen. Sure, it's just a John
> Aubrey story, but that's still a better source than what they're
> using, eh?
The story about Oxford and the fart may not be true, but, as far as I know, Aubrey can be trusted as to the existence of the /story/. And that says a thing or two about Oxford's contemporary fame.
--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages