Discussion in 'Community' started by JediNemesis, Sep 14, 2006.
No, it isn't. But you are entitled to your opinion, because it's an opinion, and not a fantasy.
Thanks. I'm glad I've got permission.
i might even be watching anonymous. it looks kinda nice. emmerich did [link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/oct/27/roland-emmerich-anonymous?INTCMP=SRCH]an interview with the guardian[/link] and they talked a lot about how much stage performance is in it. now that sounds good actually.
"James Lileks, in the Star Tribune review, noting favourable responses, including one where a critic wondered if Emmerich had anything to do with it, says the devious message must be that a shlock-merchant like Emmerich wasn't involved, but, like the film plot itself, must conceal the hand of some more experienced filmmaker, whose identity will be much debated for centuries to come."
Obviously, his illegitimate father, Kubrick, didn't want to be involved.
Doesn't matter that Kubrick has been dead for some time, either, 'cause he had obviously stockpiled a bunch of movies for that eventuality. All that Rolly had to do was add CGI and hey, presto!
Reminds me of what some Shakespeare scholars tried to do with some of the more unpopular plays like Cymbeline, Titus Andronicus, and Pericles
They aren't universally accalimed so OMG Shakezpeare couldn't wrote them!@(!(!(!OMG!@@#!@!
That's why I kind of hate the authorship debate because sometimes it is a lot of picking and choosing based on personal preference. Also, Macbeth probably had a sizable portion of it written by someone else and so this authorship debate says nothing about quality.
I don't like Roland Emmerich's films but cheers to him for trying something different.
Shakespeare wrote plenty of potboilers, but even they are generally interesting. And I assume dear old Oxford wouldn't have made a mistake like the clock that strikes in "Julius Caesar"
Saw the film. It runs too long, and is complete hokum, but it's good fun. I'm not sure how anyone could take anything it posits remotely seriously, and I'm not even sure the filmmakers do. But what they have done is created a compelling and richly layered political thriller. Certainly the best thing Emmerich has ever directed. Also, it's worth watching purely for Rhys Ifans' performance.
I love critic-speak. Compelling to whom? Richly layered with what?
The Elizabethan love-child plot is beyond stupid.
The real problem is that like "Braveheart" people *do* take it seriously. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the audience, unfortunately; especially the audience for something like this.
Certainly not to the reviewer, because that would make no sense. Probably to stray dogs and orphan children.
I hear tell newts are into compellation.
I agree that this is kind of annoying on the other side. Clearly, Will had a hand in Titus Andronicus and a lot of the other lesser plays; the co-authorship is a lot more obvious in some of them, like Pericles, which uses a lot of conventions Shakespeare generally didn't use. I guess my main beef with the authorship debate is that I've yet to hear a single compelling reason not to simply accept the credited author as, in fact, the author.
The most curious element is that a person would supposedly want to *hide* the fact he's a genius.
Compelling to me, I'd guess. I didn't take a straw poll after the movie; sorry.
Richly layered with motivation, subtext, intrigue. Many moving parts that all depend on each other in the telling of the story. Things lacking from most films at the multiplex.
Hysterical hokum, but no more than serving children to their mother in a pie. The way it functions in the story has its purpose.
But what exactly is the audience for this? I mean, that has been something I haven't understood since I first heard about this movie? Who exactly is supposed to go see it and love it? NPR's reviewer got it pretty spot on when he said, "It's liable to confuse those who don't know anything about Shakespeare and incense those who do." I mean, the Oxfordian cult is a pretty small group; they can't buy that many tickets. So, you've got people who care about Shakespeare and thus despise the Oxfordian idea with a passion and people who don't care about Shakespeare. How are any of those people likely to go and see this movie?
But movies sell to more than just niche audiences. More than just comics fans go to see comic-based movies. There were probably more people who say The Other Boleyn Girl for Portman and Johansson than because they'd read the book or were Tudor history aficionados. People like costume dramas and thrillers and, going by the box office returns of his previous pictures, they tend to like Emmerich too. Then again, there's probably also a third group: people who like Shakespeare, people who don't care about him, and people who hate him with the fiery passion of a million boring high school English classes, who may avoid a movie about him on general principle. Except Shakespeare in Love says otherwise. Anyway. This one I'll almost certainly check out as a rental but is not worth the theater price for me.
rhys ifans is in it, i don't see any reason not to see it
I guess, but isn't a movie about an actor stealing credit from the guy who wrote his plays a lot different from a billion dollar blockbuster about a guy who fights an evil clown in a bat suit. I mean, the one seems that you would go see it, even if you had no context for the source material; the other kind of doesn't.
Case in point; how many people saw The Other Boleyn Girl? I'd say you're right about the motivations of the people who saw it; but you forget the main assertion that should be made in that sentence: "There were probably more people who didn't see it at all." I didn't; and I don't know a single person who did. I asked around at work the other day; I couldn't find anybody who'd even heard about Anonymous. This is obviously not because it's not being advertised; the blitz is pretty obnoxious, from where I sit. It's because people that don't care about Shakespeare are going, "Huh, a movie about Shakes . . . ooh, something shiny!" and then never thinking about it again.
Yeah, but who likes thrilling costume dramas by Roland Emmerich? I mean, I don't know anybody who loves Emmerich because of his astonishing eye for period detail or costume design.
Good point; I keep forgetting that its possible for someone to actively dislike Shakespeare.
There's always the possibility that Shakespeare in Love really was a great movie; it did win Best Picture, and I doubt Anonymous will be doing that. We bash the mass audience a lot, but occasionally they do recognize quality and lack thereof.
The problem is that crap seems to drive out art to an alarming degree. Example: I wanted to watch "All Quiet on the Western Front" (dir. Lewis Milestone). All I could find were a dreadful colour remake. This is true of a lot of movies; they are superseded by the remakes in popular consciousness despite the quality of the remake might be (and generally is) much lower.
Here we have a movie showing Shakespeare as a homicidal buffoon; Ben Jonson as a fool; William Cecil, one of the very greatest men in British history as a straight-laced idiot; Queen Elizabeth, one of the most able British monarchs, having illegitimate children all over the landscape, etc. etc. No only is this not accurate, it's distressing to me to find people know so little about the history of England, because it is indeed very important to our current state.
I won't pretend to analyze why people find conspiracy theories so entrancing. "JFK" is a crock, frankly; Oswald almost certainly acted alone, and Jim Garrison persecuted an innocent man for his own self-aggrandizement, in often illegal ways, and in a manner that amounted to judicial persecution. That's a much more interesting story than what landed on the screen, but it's far less likely to make money, I guess. In the case of Shakespeare, portraying him in this way is painful to me; I'm not saying he was a great man, because I don't know that, but he certainly was a great artist, and deserves better. Jonson, too. Cecil, three. Elizabeth, four.
I experienced a form of this in the "Kings of England" thread in the Senate. As soon as I mentioned Oliver Cromwell, a historical figure for whom I have a great deal of admiration, the posters trotted out the cliches about him--he slaughtered the Irish, he was a religious fanatic, and so on. Nothing about being the best ruler of England in decades, reforming the English political and financial system extensively, and thus enabling England to become a great power in the next century. Nothing about his protection of the rights of Jews and Catholics, which he did do. Yes, he was determined to quash rebellion in Ireland, and he did it ruthlessly. But that's not the whole story.
I foresee having to listen to people telling me that some dilettante semi-talented aristo wrote Shakespeare's work for years. Damn.
I think you put too much stock into this. We are still talking about a film by Roland Emmerich. And I will say that most Shakespeare academics see the authorship debate as foolish with a few exceptions who are considered on the fringe. The fact is it doesn't really hurt the quality of the plays if someone else wrote them.
Look at it this way though. This is the first film that that he has made since The Patriot to actually have a coherent plot, and first the film he has made since Stargate to have an original and interesting premise.
[link=http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/11/21/111121sh_shouts_idle]Eric Idle chimes in[/link].