Well, I could give a blow-by-blow of why the Oxfordian theory fails, and fails horribly, but that's not what everyone wants...so...the movie...
I'll put it this way, in bullet-form:
-It was "dumber" than even I thought it would be with its arguments and just the plot structure (really, the first 15-25 minutes are VERY confusing with the time shifts...my friends were really thrown off as well, it's just not done smoothly, and it takes you about half an hour in this 2 hour movie to figure nout when you are at which point, since it shifts around between two or three time periods)
-YES, this film DID make the argument that De Vere wrote "A Midsummer Night's Dream" at the age of 9...AND come up with a short poetic verse for a young Elizabeth at that age right on the spot upon request to boot! I'll ask again...actor familiar with the theatre, or nine-year old super-savant who invented whole genrres of theatre AND poetry at nine...and we're supposed to believe the ACTOR is the least likely scenario?
-In terms of the look...it looks nice, I'll concede that--not nearly as groundbreaking as some are making it out to be (with the exception of the Globe itself, THAT looks just spectacular...granted Emmerich clearly has no idea how this place worked, but I',m getting ahead of myself...it LOOKS perfect, and real, and the aerials of it are gorgeously rendered)
-In terms of ACTING, though...I think one of my friends said it best:
If you're an actor/writer being portrayed in this film, you suck.
If you're a nobleman/the Queen...you fare FAR better.
Ben Jonson was maybe the oddest of all, they gave him a sort of Christian-Bale-Batman sort of voice because...Jonson was clearly a fan of The Dark Knight? I dunno, but he sounds terrible, and overreacts to jsut about everything, and is totally unconvincing.
Christopher Marlowe is probably the msot 1-dimensional character in this, and is TERRIBLY done, I'm almost tempted to call it a bigger character-screw-up than Shakespeare himself...Marlowe's jsut made out to be a complete and unrelenting asshole on EVERYTHING and to EVERYONE...ALL. THE. TIME. It doesn't matter the situation. He randomly pisses on Thomas Dekker, for goodness' sake...no reason, just to make Marlowe out to be an asshole (let's leave aside the fact the play Marlowe pisses on here--The Shoemaker's Holiday--was produced after his death...trust me, there are stupider things regarding Marlowe and his death to come.)
WHY is Marlowe such an asshole? I have no Idea. It's not to mkae De Vere look better by comparison--they never meet. It's not to make Shakespeare look worse by association--here, they're not friends, and not even on civil terms. It's not to be a critic of the politics in the play...he's basically jsut there to be an asshole.
Which makes Shakespeare "killing him" in this film...well, it sort of detracts from the pathos Emmerich's going for there, doesn't it? I mean, Shakespeare's dealt with as a villiage idiot, but at least--for the most part--he's dealt with as either a greedy idiot, or just a drink-and-have-fun sort of idiot. So really, Shakes IS more likeable than Marlowe here...and Marlowe even baits Shakespeare...so really...why are se supposed to feel badly for Marlowe dying?
In real life--because he was a brilliant (if Anti-Semetic) poet and playwright.
In this film--I have no idea, we never even see any Marlowe plays or any sign of his writing genius...I guess Emmerich figured he was out to get Shakespeare, might as well make it a two-fer and get TWO of the greatest writers of that Age at once.
So, Jonson's a bad Batman knockoff, over-the-top, and just a joke...Marlowe's a directionless asshole...
I guess it's time to discuss the Actor from Stratford himself.
I've already said he's played as an idiot...but if I'm to be honest...
Aside from De Vere himself--who we're supposed to sympathize with de facto--Shakespeare's easily the most likeable character, even in a film assassinating his character.
He's not as badly over-the-top as Jonson...he's not an asshole like Marlowe...the Royals are either forgettable or else jsut snobbish, 1-dimensional, TV-college-dean types you expect to be shouting "ROBOT HOUSSSSEEE!" any moment now...
(Thank you for the shameless Futurama reference, that gave me more joy than the movie itself.)
Really, Shakespeare here is just a goofball of an actor at best, enjoying drinks and girls when he can get them, and at his worst...
Well, Shakespeare's "bad" part comes when he tries to blackmail De Vere into paying him more moeny for a theatre...
But it's VERY hard to side against Shakespeare, as the theatre Shakespeare wants to build is...THE GLOBE ITSELF.
I mean, he's not even keeping this extra money--for the most part--he's jsut using it to build what he, as an actor, thinks would be a better theatre for these great plays...and HEY! What do you know! This Globe Theatre place seems to become a great, iconic hit!
I can see, then, why we're supposed to hate Shakespeare.
The OTHER big strike agaisnt Shakespeare, in the movie's argument, is Shakespeare's supposed to have murdered Marlowe.
Now.
Let's leave aside for the moment Jonson says Shakes slit his throat, when Marlowe was, in reality, stabbed in the eye.
Let's leave aside the fact fact in real life Jonson was a devout follower of Shakespeare, writing poems about him and the Preface to his works in 1623, and didn't hate him.
Let's leave aside the fact Marlowe dies here in 1598, when the man died in 1593.
Let's leave aside the fact Marlowe died as a spy, and NOT in a writer-fight.
Let's leave aside the fact Shakespeare AND Jonson were, in all likelihood, nowhere near Marlowe when he died, as they've never, EVER been linked in the slightest way.
Ignore ALL of that.
Here, Shakespeare murders Marlowe...because Marlowe...
Says Shakespeare can't write, can't even write a letter...doesn't even know what an "e" looks like.
Now, stop--for just a moment.
The film already acknowledged, by this point, the obvious--that if Shakespeare was an actor, he WOULD have known how to read and WOULD HAVE BEEN LITERATE...after all, how else could he read out and act De Vere's lines?
Marlowe knows this.
Now, if you READ the letter "e," presumably, you know how to WRITE the letter "e."
We can even go so far as to--GASP!--suggest that if Shakespeare could READ "to be or not to be, he could PROBABLY write that sentence out again, as, well, if you can read the sentence and know what the words mean, as the film allows, you PROBABLY can write it, too.
Maybe you can't write ORIGINALLY...but you'll AT LEAST be able to write the letter "e" if you've read it and know what it means, as the film says Shakes knows, right?
But APPARENTLY...NO!
Marlowe, in a bar, charges that Shakespeare can't write the letter "e," or anything, and Shakespeare seems unable to do so...and THIS is why he murders Marlowe...offscreen.
If you're thinking at the moment...
1. That's a bit of an overreaction, as this is their first significant meeting...YEP!
2. That doesn't make sense, if you can read "e," you can at least know how to write it...YEP!
3. Given the political turmoil surrounding the plays in this film, and Marlowe being s spy, why get inton a fight with Shakes, why not just point this out to the guards...YEP!
ALL Valid points...NONE are adressed...Shakespeare kills Marlowe...FOR NO REASON!
WHOEVER wrote those plays, Shakespeare or Marlowe or De Vere or Bacon, just turned over in their grave with the sheer amount of logical FAIL that portion of the film has.
And really...that's it!
That's ALL the rationale we're given to dislike Shakespeare...
He "extorts" more money so he can buy a better theatre, ie, The Globe...
And he murders Marlowe with about five or six logical issues raised and none adressed.
Sooooo...why am I supposed to hate him?
Because he "stole" De Vere's plays?
Even THAT fails!
De Vetre TRIES to give his plays to another to ahve their name on it!
He tries to give it to Jonson...and Jonson won't do it!
Shakespeare WILL be the frontman!
Without him, De Vere has no one to put on his plays for him!
So...really, in an odd way...this film DOES make a pretty strong case for the argument...
Without Shakespeare, we WOULDN'T have had those plays, as no one would have put them on.
So while Emmerich tries so hard to make Shakespeare out to be an idiot and a fool we should all dislike and view as a vulture...he comes across as just another guy, part of the period, and all attempts to nail him fail miserably.
The actual ACTING of the part is still buffonish and over-the-top, but as far as writing good, deceitful characters goes...
Shakespeare: Dozens
Emmerich: 0
But this isn't the ONLY way the film fails to give this implausible theory plausiblity...
As much as this is hyped as "The film to prove Shakespeare was a fraud" by Emmerich...as much attention as it's garnered for that claim...
Would you believe the authorship question is the B PLOT?
Yes, that's right, the MAJORITY of the time is NOT spent on the authorship question, or even on the literary scene and figures.
Instead, the Political Drama involving a failed revolt vs. Elizabeth and De Vere's incestuous relationship with her is the A Plot...and...
It's slow.
It's choppy.
It's convoluted.
It has a VERY disappointing ending.
And yet, here AGAIN, what's supposed to elevate De Vere instead shoots the argument in the foot...because Emmerich does something he was not AT ALL qualified to do:
Try and prove his point by interpreting Shakespeare's plays for "proof" De Vere wrote them all in response to this political drama he half-bastardized, half-re-wrote.
And THIS is where, if you've even the SMALLEST inkling of knowledge about these plays, you facepalm at the sheer interpretative failure.
This isn't even nit-picking the tiniest lines a tertiary character might have said...
These are the main plots and backgrounds of the plays themselves.
This is the sort of stuff you are taught--I was, anyway--in GRADE SCHOOL, not even college-level here, basic grade-school foul-ups.
A selected list:
-To start with just a stylistic issue...we've ALL seen the traditional Shakespearean acting delivery, loud and projecting one's voice and facing out towards the audience, because when you're in an open-air theatre and speaking to thousands in an era before accoustics really was very well udnerstood and before microphones, you need to project. As a result, you'll understand why I was facepalming when Emmerich directs his snippets of Shakespeare plays and has characters WHISPER lines and have people all the way in the balcony and all throughout the crowd cheer or laugh or shout as if they all heard it...sorry, sound just doesn't work that way, and again, there's a whole STYLE of acting baed on this LOUD PROJECTION of lines Globe Audiences would have heard...someone needs to tell Emmerich seeing a play in an old, open-air theatre isn't like watching a movie, ie, PEOPLE DON'T WHISPER, AND FOLSK AT THE BACK DON'T NOTICE TINY MOTIONS.
-A Midsummer Night's Dream is, yes, performed as a 1-kid show by 9-year old De Vere...and it was fine when he did it as a kid as a comedy...but the same people watching the same play 30 years later charge it as being a politically-charged play all of the sudden...they allow him to put on a play they already saw him put on before and already were fine with, but instantly hate it and change their mind because...ummm...because...well...
-On that SAME note...it's said by someone that these plays feature "the finest stagecraft ever seen!" And the plays DO feature elaborate sets. ...Do I need to explain why this is completely and utterly wrong?
-"Henry V" is performed...and is shown as being the first one performed by "Anonymous" (Shakespeare takes credit afterward) but...well, even if you haven't read the play, you'll probably know there are two whole plays, Henry IV Part 1 and 2, that precede it and give it full context...these palys WOULD have been performed in sequence and in a cycle...but not here...somehow everyone already KNOWS all they need to know from Henry IV Parts 1 and 2. It doesn't fly to say "Maybe they 'did' those plays off-screen, and we're just introduced to this play as the first because the Prologue and St. Crispin's Day speeches are so poweful and memorable...no. They make it clear that this is the first one De Vere has put on, by "Anonymous," Shakespeare takes credit as the crowd chants for a playwright, and all future plays are by Shakespeare. So no hand-waving here...the Theory ITSELF even has Henry V early, thus breaking up the tetralogy, with the rest of the parts done later, so as to fit th absurd new timeline. So yeah...basic chronological sense is thrown out the window here. You don't have to be an English major with a major Shakespeare-streak to tell 4 comes before 5, and that Hery V was NOT the first done, and so the huge political rammications that follow in the film from the play would NOT have forced the author of Shakespeare's palys to remain Anonymous...but hey, that's just using common sense, and not CGI sense.
-De Vere has to use Shakespeare because 1. He doesn't want the stigma of print, as most in the era didn't, and 2. His plays are supposed to ALL be SOOOOO political that if he were ever discovered to be the author, he'd be killed. Cue a production of "Twelfth Night" on the stage. ...As much as I'd MUCH rather see a production of THAT than this piece of garbage...anyone want to tell me how a play about twins in this romantic comedy=Elizabethan politica drama over who succeeds Elizabeth?
-Ditto "Romeo and Juliet"...this relates to Royal Succession and political parties HOW? De Vere isn't arguing for the factions to put their differences beside them in the film so we can't say his Montagues and Capulets are analogies and he's trying to tell them to stop the fighting...so, again, HOW is this fitting in with the "this is too dnagerous to be performed!" theme? (Oh, and for the 2-point conversion of stupidity, Shakespeare wants to play Romeo--a reference to "Shakespeare In Love?" Riiight...THAT won Best Picture, Emmerich...I don't think you want to draw comparisons to THAT right now--but Ben Jonson reprimands him and tells him Writers are NEVER Actors...even though many if not most of the playwrights in this era WERE actors as well. Again, someone needs a trip back to Sophomore English class...)
-The crowd cheers BRUTUS in "Julius Caesar" for murdering Caesar, and proclaiming freedom, as if to imply the play is a call for revolution and freedom via this method. Those who HAVE read the play will seem to recall a certain "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech, and that the civilians in the play ultimately side with Antony and Caesar and NOT BRUTUS...and THAT is the political message of the play, DON'T overthrow leaders--see: Elizabeth--because the leaders of the revolution may be worse. Not saying that view is right or wrong, just that it's the view of the play, and why it's generally held Elizabeth asked for such a play from the Bard...but hey...that'd require Emmerich toa ctually READ the plays he's claiming to know better than English professors, right?
-We have "Macbeth" performed, too...and, again, as much as I'd really rather see that to this film..."Macbeth" was written AFTER Elizabeth died, and put on because James I of Scotland wanted a Scottish play. Even better, it's accepted by even Oxfordians that Shakespeare/De Vere must have collaborated with Thomas Middleton on bits of it...and HE'S nowhere to be seen...and won't be along until the 1600s, anyway...so HOW is this working for Elizabeth, when the play itself was for James I? An d HOW is this connected to the political intrigue? And HOW was it done with no Middleton yet? ...I thought so...next paly, please...and oh, good, MY FAVORITE...
-Well, what kind of Shakespeare-sabotage could this film claim to be without attacking the most famous and well-known of all Shakespeare's gems, "Hamlet" itself? Well, De Vere as a young man stabs a man behind a curtain in a fit of...rage...or love-angst...or...well, he sort of does it randomly and without warning or real provocation, and of course this either never happened or was never recorded as happening, but forget THAT, THIS helps to serve as an inspiration for "Hamlet!" (I'll be fair, though, and say that this IS one of the few moments of the film I enjoyed, the mini-performance of "Hamlet," as...well, they use a troupe of actors for these minute-long snippets of the plays, and whoever they got to paly Hamlet gave a pretty decent "To be or not to be" speech, if we're going to forgive he whispered the whole thing and somehow a crowd of thousands heard it all...)
-And the last play done is..."Richard III!" Appropriate enough, a film bastardizing history features a paly infamous for it...but HERE it's used to incite a riot against the noblemen...with the whole crowd spilling out of the Globe, SOMEHOW informing all of London (sriously, thousands of GCI-people are clearly shown just joining the mob and not having seen the play) to storm the Bastille (or so it appears) and then...they're shot and that's the end of De Vere's palywrighting career. Nevermind the paly being one of the earlier plays to be done. Nevermind "The Tempest" or even "The Two Noble Kinsmen." No, this is the end, brought about by a phantom revolt...because otherwise, this was the greatest massacre never written about, as literally hundreds or thousands of people are shot, all in one go. So yeah...THIS is the more-credible version of how the plays of Shakespeare came about?
Etc.
So yeah...as far as using the plays to justify this shift in authorship goes, in the film...
And there's a TON more, but let's skip to the end-game of the B-Plot here:
Eventually this political storm passes.
So NOW De Vere can publish his plays under his own name, right?
...No, because he can't take the stigma of being published, as no respectable writer is.
But wait!
...Isn't a basis for the Oxfordian argument that Shakespeare never published his work?
Can't have it both ways...
If you CAN'T publish--why punish Shakespeare historically for not doing so?
If you CAN--what's stopping De Vere...nothing plot-wise now, so...?
Better STILL--how are you going to explain the SONNETS?
The PLAYS are given the bullshit treatment by Emmerich, to try and explain why surely these were written in this political drama and by De Vere...
But Shakespeare wrote 154 sonnets--what of THOSE?
Not discussed.
Why?
...Perhaps because we have some ideas as to who SHAKESPEARE THE MAN wrote these to...but not De Vere.
...And perhaps because the first 14 or so are generally udnerstood to have been written for PAY...but surely an EARL as rich as De Vere was in the movie wouldn't have had to write for pay?
But the film DOES take pains to show us "Venus and Adonis" being published...
And tries to link that to De Vere...and to be honest, I'm not totally familiar with it, so I'll pass on this one, but as the implication is that De Vere is writing to Elizabeth as a sort of cruel love...I somehow doubt that works.
And that brings us to Elizabeth herself.
And here it's a bit of a matter of taste:
If you're looking for Elizabeth as the Virgin Queen, in control, intelligent, calm...you'll hate this literally-bastardized version of Elizabeth-The-Whore-Queen.
If you're looking for a rawer, frailer Elizabeth, and don't care that she's essentially turned into a Freudian nightmare and a Royal-Bastard-Producing-Machine...Vanessa Redgrave does a good acting job...
It's not her fault the part's so contrary to history, and so, for what she's given, she acts it well.
But that, a few aerial shots, and the "St. Crispin's Day" and "To be or not to be" speeches as performed in the snippets, are ALL I have to praise.
The rest, sadly, is NOT silence, but rather a loud, jumbled, bumbled mess, with a dozen or more plotholes, and the more you know, the worse it is.
Out of 5 stars...
I'd give it 1 star, half for the shots of the Globe, and half for Redgrave's Elizabeth and those speeches in the Globe that work.
It's garbage.
It's long.
It's even more idiot than I thought it would be.
And, again...the more you actually know, the worse it is.
To be fair, I saw this with three friends:
One liked it on sheer entertainment, but thought the argument was crap as well...
One agreed it was just stupid...
And one loved the look of it, and went so far as to praise some of the plot itself, but also found the argument poorly put and unconvincing (and she HATES Shakespeare, so if anyone ever would've clung onto an anti-Shakespeare theory...)
So, if you're seeing it for just entertainment and eye-candy:
We were split, 2 vs. 2...watch it on mute on DVD, maybe, just don't expect too much.
If you're looking for a compelling story and argument...
0-for-4...
So, by unanimous decision, the winner, and STILL champion of the English language...
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE!
(Exit pursued by Bear...and a crowd of people protesting the length of this review...) ;)
mental illness or evil?
)
)
)
)
)