Shakespeare - Anonymous Protest

XxMCRxBabyxX

Had an English student friend post this on her facebook today claiming that the film was ridiculous and should be stopped by all means.

Shakespeare signs covered in protest of Anonymous film
COMMENTS (297)

Nine road signs have been temporarily taped over

Shakespeare's name is being removed from signs in Warwickshire in a campaign against a new film which questions whether he wrote his plays.

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is taping over nine road signs for the day to coincide with the premiere of Anonymous at the London Film Festival.

It criticised the film as an attempt to "rewrite English culture and history".

A memorial in William Shakespeare's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon is being covered with a sheet.

The sign on The Shakespeare pub in Welford, where the Bard is said to have enjoyed his last drink, is one of 10 pub signs that are being covered.

'Enormous legacy'

Diane Owen and Katie Neville gave the BBC's Jenny Hill a tour of Shakespeare's birthplace
The trust said it wanted to highlight the potential impact of the film's "conspiracy theory" that William Shakespeare was the "barely literate frontman for the Earl of Oxford".

Anonymous stars Rafe Spall as the Bard, Rhys Ifans as the Earl of Oxford, Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth I, and asks "Was Shakespeare a fraud?"

It reignites the age-old debate over the authorship of Shakespeare's work, taking the view that it was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, and not William Shakespeare who was in fact the true author of the famous plays.

"This film flies in the face of a mass of historical fact”

Dr Paul Edmondson
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
Dr Paul Edmondson, head of knowledge and research at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, said: "This film flies in the face of a mass of historical fact, but there is a risk that people who have never questioned the authorship of Shakespeare's works could be hoodwinked.

"Shakespeare is at the core of England's cultural and historical DNA, and he is certainly our most famous export.

"Today's activity barely scratches the surface, but we hope it will remind people of the enormous legacy we owe to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon."

I'm just wondering whether you guys here in literature would agree? Personally I just see it as a film about a theory that has been around for centuries and really cannot see the problem but maybe others with more understanding could show me what I'm not seeing!

Kinski

Dr Paul Edmondson, head of knowledge and research at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, said: "This film flies in the face of a mass of historical fact, but there is a risk that people who have never questioned the authorship of Shakespeare's works could be hoodwinked."

Nooooo!!! What a catastrophe!

I doubt that that many people care, Dr. P.

Killgore Trout

This reminds me of the wave of stupidity surrounding The Da Vinci Code; people complaining about the film just supplies free advertisement.

Your friend's call for it "stopped by all means" is a call for censorship - more like ignorant fundamentalism than than support of arts and history.

Some people are always going to believe the rubbish they read or watch as fact.

im invisible

I heard that William Shakespeare never wrote all them plays and poems, it was a different guy with the same name...

Denerick

The person wanting to 'protest' against this is actually a retard. I mean, that person is genuinely retarded. An english student with a penchant for censorship... I really want to vomit.

Mardy Bum

The English student friend sounds like a naive undergrad. She will soon grow out of that stage.

Flashgordon197

Is there any basis to the film? Any serious scholarship? TBH I have had enough of Shakespeare. Have taught three of his plays-they are very well written but they rarely ignite the interest of a modern student, who is unlikely to develop an interest in drama after reading them. Though perhaps that could be argued for all forms of literature. Children these days are philistines to put it mildly.

Denerick

Flashgordon197 wrote: »

Is there any basis to the film? Any serious scholarship? TBH I have had enough of Shakespeare. Have taught three of his plays-they are very well written but they rarely ignite the interest of a modern student, who is unlikely to develop an interest in drama after reading them. Though perhaps that could be argued for all forms of literature. Children these days are philistines to put it mildly.

Children these days...

Now theres a sentance we've heard over and over again since Romulus & Remus suckled on a wolf. This idea of constant decline is a little overstated. What damages children more in my opinion is the walt disney versions of literature we foist on them, the silly Shakespearan plays set in modern day New York (Though some of those can be half decent)

Shakespearan drama must be one of the most profound advances in humankind! I 'did' King Lear in secondary school and I still find myself referencing it in casual conversation. I even summon the odd quote when I'm particularly drunk. To be fair I haven't read Shakespeare since then, but thats mostly because of a prejudice of mine with regards to 'reading' plays. (I think you need to either watch, take part in, or generally visualise to really get it)

Mardy Bum

Flashgordon197 wrote: »

Is there any basis to the film? Any serious scholarship? TBH I have had enough of Shakespeare. Have taught three of his plays-they are very well written but they rarely ignite the interest of a modern student, who is unlikely to develop an interest in drama after reading them. Though perhaps that could be argued for all forms of literature. Children these days are philistines to put it mildly.

What age are these children? Secondary or primary school? Pupils don't have an interest in it because they don't understand the language and most teachers don't have the first clue how to teach it. Obviously I am not talking about you personally but from my own personal experience. It has more to do with the culture of the day and it all comes down to instant gratification.

Back on topic, it is just a movie; the majority of films contain some sort of fiction even those perpetuating the truth i.e Michael Collins. I wouldn't worry about it this movie won't be remembered in ten years time while Shakespeare, the man, will remembered for much longer. There actually was a fictional book wrote on the subject called the Shakespeare secret by someone who done a PhD on the man himself. It was a Di Vinci Code mark 2 don't go near it.

senordingdong

A ridiculous Roland Emmerich film?

Get out.

Amirani

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There actually was a fictional book wrote on the subject called the Shakespeare secret by someone who done a PhD on the man himself. It was a Di Vinci Code mark 2 don't go near it.

Read it myself a few years ago. Hilarious.

Cavehill Red

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Had an English student friend post this on her facebook today claiming that the film was ridiculous and should be stopped by all means.



I'm just wondering whether you guys here in literature would agree? Personally I just see it as a film about a theory that has been around for centuries and really cannot see the problem but maybe others with more understanding could show me what I'm not seeing!

The theory hasn't been around for centuries. No one disputed Shakespeare's authorship of his works during his lifetime nor for some 230 years after it.
It was a late Victorian classist idea that no mere country lad with a grammar school education could have possibly written such wonderful poetry. It must have been a lordly person, someone with an Oxbridge education. However, despite some 77 different people being suggested as the 'real' Shakespeare, not one of the theories holds up to even the slightest scrutiny.
I wouldn't be giving this film the oxygen of publicity, but perhaps in Stratford they fear an economic drop off in tourism, so I'll let them be the judge of whether their protest is a good idea or not.
However, none of this impacts remotely on the fact that Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare (with some slight collaboration from the likes of Thomas Middleton on some later plays).

Mardy Bum

Cavehill Red wrote: »

However, none of this impacts remotely on the fact that Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare (with some slight collaboration from the likes of Thomas Middleton on some later plays).

There was a lot of collaboration in fairness. Nothing slight about it.

Cavehill Red

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There was a lot of collaboration in fairness. Nothing slight about it.

Actually, it was slight. I'm not going to concede that at all. Trace elements of his earliest plays bear the hand of Thomas Kyd, and some of the latest plays, when he was living in Stratford full-time once more, were likely Middleton creations sent to the master for a bit of polish.
Otherwise, Shakespeare's works are the works of Shakespeare, and that has been confirmed by textual analysis repeatedly.

Mardy Bum

I wasn't talking about his early plays I was talking his first folio in general. Over the course of his career there was collaboration. Pericles, for instance, was half written (first two acts) by George Wilkins and you can tell.

Cavehill Red

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I wasn't talking about his early plays I was talking his first folio in general. Over the course of his career there was collaboration. Pericles, for instance, was half written (first two acts) by George Wilkins and you can tell.

Pericles Prince of Tyre isn't in the first folio, likely because Heminge and Condell didn't consider it as Shakespeare's work. It's arguable in fact if any of it is Shakespeare's work (though it probably is Shakespeare's rewrite from Wilkin's original dramatisation of his own 'novel' or prose version), and it dates from a time late in Shakespeare's career when he was largely back living in Stratford, doing on the occasional tidy up and edit on other's plays.

Mardy Bum

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Pericles Prince of Tyre isn't in the first folio, likely because Heminge and Condell didn't consider it as Shakespeare's work. It's arguable in fact if any of it is Shakespeare's work (though it probably is Shakespeare's rewrite from Wilkin's original dramatisation of his own 'novel' or prose version), and it dates from a time late in Shakespeare's career when he was largely back living in Stratford, doing on the occasional tidy up and edit on other's plays.

Yes you are correct there, I used a bad choice of words I meant Shakespeare's catalogue really. Titus Andronicus, which is an early play, is included in the first folio and is generally considered to be jointly written now. Personally, I don't believe it to be but a lot of well known critics do.

I don't think this diminishes his plays in any way obviously, at various stages throughout his career, not just the end, he was going to bump into other writers and decide to produce something together.

Cavehill Red

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Yes you are correct there, I used a bad choice of words I meant Shakespeare's catalogue really. Titus Andronicus, which is an early play, is included in the first folio and is generally considered to be jointly written now. Personally, I don't believe it to be but a lot of well known critics do.

As I said, in his very early years, Shakespeare collaborated, as was very much the case for many Elizabethan dramatists. The same sense of authoriality didn't exist then as now. Titus would fall into that category (Peele definitely has a hand in it at least, I think), as would the first part of Henry VI. Timon of Athens, Henry VIII, Pericles and Two Noble Kinsmen all date from after his semi-retirement to Stratford, when it seems he would be occasionally consulted to touch up or finish the plays of others.
There have been suggestions that Middleton has a hand in some of Shakespeare's plays from the centre of his career, but it is as likely that this happened after the plays had already been performed.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I don't think this diminishes his plays in any way obviously, at various stages throughout his career, not just the end, he was going to bump into other writers and decide to produce something together.

No, it doesn't diminish his overall achievement at all that he collaborated on two or three plays at the outset of his career and then worked when in semi-retirement on the plays of others.
But it wasn't a case of him 'bumping into other writers' and collaborating. He was close friends with Ben Jonson, but never wrote with him at all. The plays from the main arc of his career are all indisputably his own, with the single caveat that in a couple of instances (Macbeth and Measure for Measure in particular), Middleton may have added some sections later.

Flashgordon197

I think Shakespeare was a huge advance in terms of literature and I suppose even if only the few decide to enter the wonderful world of drama/literature rather than say X factor ,then its worth it. But the majority won't and the standard of English has measurably declined. A teacher in our school showed me a LC paper from 1937, (no He had not sat it), and it was astounding what they expected from them then as to now. Mass education is part of the reason-we pretend we can have all children being academically literate but a good chunk are just about able to read or want to read the STAR. Blame the teachers-its easier!

Denerick

Flashgordon197 wrote: »

A teacher in our school showed me a LC paper from 1937, (no He had not sat it), and it was astounding what they expected from them then as to now. Mass education is part of the reason-we pretend we can have all children being academically literate but a good chunk are just about able to read or want to read the STAR. Blame the teachers-its easier!

There is a gaping hole in that argument; namely that for the majority of human history education was a luxury that applied to a very select few (usually the bourgeouis and the aristocratic) Since education resources were so closely concentrated in a much more elite group of students, and since so much more time and effort was concentrated on this, it is natural to conclude that the education of a century ago was superior to the education of today.

In short, at least the youngsters can read those trashy tabloids these days. Who knows, maybe they'll move on to something better eventually.

Cavehill Red

Denerick wrote: »

There is a gaping hole in that argument; namely that for the majority of human history education was a luxury that applied to a very select few (usually the bourgeouis and the aristocratic) Since education resources were so closely concentrated in a much more elite group of students, and since so much more time and effort was concentrated on this, it is natural to conclude that the education of a century ago was superior to the education of today.

Literacy rates were very high in the late Victorian era. Penny dreadfuls and other publications were hugely popular from the 1850s onwards among the lowest economic classes. In fact, such sensationalist serials were the equivalent of their television, being their main cultural pastime.

Denerick wrote: »

In short, at least the youngsters can read those trashy tabloids these days. Who knows, maybe they'll move on to something better eventually.

Similar youngsters would have been able to read a century ago too, and would have read a more complex language in their trashy literature too.
I think it is demonstrable that educational standards have changed. This is especially evident in the sciences where it is much easier to quantify the level of knowledge that would have been tested at different age categories.

Denerick

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Literacy rates were very high in the late Victorian era. Penny dreadfuls and other publications were hugely popular from the 1850s onwards among the lowest economic classes. In fact, such sensationalist serials were the equivalent of their television, being their main cultural pastime.

You're right. Maybe I was being a little hasty. Maybe 200 years then. Its easy to overlook the fact that the 19th century was the golden age of the newspaper (Here is an interesting graph I found on wiki:

Similar youngsters would have been able to read a century ago too, and would have read a more complex language in their trashy literature too.
I think it is demonstrable that educational standards have changed. This is especially evident in the sciences where it is much easier to quantify the level of knowledge that would have been tested at different age categories.

I think thats a matter for debate, but this whole 'narrative of decline' has been ever present in human history and I doubt that it will ever go away (Its too tempting to buy into the narrative and indulge in some old fashioned misanthropy)

I also highly doubt that the penny dreadfuls or the pulp fiction of later years really signify any level of superior intellect or ability. If television was around in those days people would have been watching that instead.

Take the Wire for example, or South Park. These are very well written shows, highly satirical in places, and by any measure can be described as 'literature'. They were both widely watched by people of all 'ability levels'. I don't see why reading something objectively crap, one dimensional and trashy could possibly be more exalted than watching something genuinelly intellectually stimulating.

Cavehill Red

Denerick wrote: »

You're right. Maybe I was being a little hasty. Maybe 200 years then. Its easy to overlook the fact that the 19th century was the golden age of the newspaper.

Although it was price rather than illiteracy that prevented the masses from reading newspapers. Stamp duty and sheer cost prohibited them. I'd say the golden age of the newspaper was likely in the 1950s, when the Daily Mirror was selling 7 million a day some days (under 2 now, Britain and Ireland.)
In the Nineteenth century, the masses were reading ballads, chapbooks, reports of criminals dying on the gibbet, penny dreadfuls and other serials, but let's not forget that included the likes of Dickens too.

Denerick wrote: »

I think thats a matter for debate, but this whole 'narrative of decline' has been ever present in human history and I doubt that it will ever go away (Its too tempting to buy into the narrative and indulge in some old fashioned misanthropy)

Yes, there is such a narrative, but in some senses justified. I think grades inflation is demonstrable for example. It would concern me more than the more subjective idea that changing syllabi mean worse syllabi.

Denerick wrote: »

I also highly doubt that the penny dreadfuls or the pulp fiction of later years really signify any level of superior intellect or ability. If television was around in those days people would have been watching that instead.
Take the Wire for example, or South Park. These are very well written shows, highly satirical in places, and by any measure can be described as 'literature'. They were both widely watched by people of all 'ability levels'. I don't see why reading something objectively crap, one dimensional and trashy could possibly be more exalted than watching something genuinelly intellectually stimulating.

Good point. Though the trash literature of the nineteenth century is now becoming the focus of its own study in English Lit (hence the whole gothic studies thing). I wonder if the scholars of 150 years hence will pore over Hello! magazine and the Sunday Sport in the same way?

Flashgordon197

Denerick wrote: »

There is a gaping hole in that argument; namely that for the majority of human history education was a luxury that applied to a very select few (usually the bourgeouis and the aristocratic) Since education resources were so closely concentrated in a much more elite group of students, and since so much more time and effort was concentrated on this, it is natural to conclude that the education of a century ago was superior to the education of today.

In short, at least the youngsters can read those trashy tabloids these days. Who knows, maybe they'll move on to something better eventually.

I accept your point over all but I think when mass education took root in most developed societies the initial standards were quite high or they became high. Talk to anybody from a working class background who left school in the 1970s. People valued the opportunity and ran with it. I still see it in foreign students who come from societies where access is not a given. I still stand over my point that we still pretend that the average student can be highly literate. They can't or they are just not bothered but yet the pretence goes on and on.

Mardy Bum

Flashgordon197 wrote: »

I accept your point over all but I think when mass education took root in most developed societies the initial standards were quite high. Well they became high. Talk too anybody from a working class background who left school in the 1970s. People valued the opportunity and ran with it. I still see it in foreign students who come from societies where access is not a given. I still stand over my point that we still pretend that the average student can be highly literate. They can't or they are just not bothered but yet the pretence goes on and on.

One does not have to be highly literate to understand Shakespeare at a basic level. Shakespeare was enjoyed by all levels of society when it was first produced; it was entertainment. All it takes is a bit of will and determination for a student to grasp Shakespeare's language. This will needs to be nurtured in class through whatever means. Outside influences obviously affect the teachers propensity to succeed i.e twitter, facebook etc. which are inhibiting attention spans at an alarming rate.

W.B Yeats, despite all his reading, had the spelling ability of a 12 year old but that did not stop him. I am not comparing modern day students to Yeats at any stretch here I am just highlighting technical literacy is not the be all and end all.

Cavehill Red

I agree with Mardy and would add that it's important to remember Shakespeare wrote for the stage. One can actively harness that natural format and lockstep it with the current generation's telly-watching habits and have them engage with Shakespeare performatively. In my (limited) experience, kids generally get Shakespeare if they see it. Not every word, every line, every reference, but holistically they understand what's going on.
The problem is perhaps cultural - Shakespeare is 'old-fashioned', canonical. He's not 'street'. Hence kids see it as uncool, as 'ghey' to put the effort in to understand his work.

Flashgordon197

Mardy Bum wrote: »

One does not have to be highly literate to understand Shakespeare at a basic level. Shakespeare was enjoyed by all levels of society when it was first produced; it was entertainment. All it takes is a bit of will and determination for a student to grasp Shakespeare's language. This will needs to be nurtured in class through whatever means. Outside influences obviously affect the teachers propensity to succeed i.e twitter, facebook etc. which are inhibiting attention spans at an alarming rate.

W.B Yeats, despite all his reading, had the spelling ability of a 12 year old but that did not stop him. I am not comparing modern day students to Yeats at any stretch here I am just highlighting technical literacy is not the be all and end all.

Never said 'technical 'literacy' of any text (or in general) is the be all and end all but we are deluding ourselves if we dont think the average kids vocabulary is declining. sometimes the historical narrative of decline is right. Like predicting rain everyday-some days it does rain.:P A reduced vocabulary is not just a technical thing it makes for a much narrower world view. It makes for Fianna Fail. I think few would argue they are not handing out honours in English like smarties to students who could not express a complex idea to save their lives . Anyway, perhaps my own attention span has declined too . Good evening all. Have a good week

mikeyboy

Maybe things have changed since my day (I did the LC in 1999) but back then we were taught Shakespeare and indeed everything else simply as a means to achieve the all important points. There was no question of trying to inculcate a love of the language, drama or poetry inherent in the works, we spent so much of our time on analysis, deconstructing and contextualising the plays so that by the time we got to see them performed we were so heartily sick of them that they meant nothing to us and it was only later when I started to go to the theatre myself (mainly because I couldn't afford to heat the hovel that passed as an apartment ) that I began to gain an appreciation of the work as itself.