"a masterful entertainer," (Winnipeg Free Press) "a marvel to watch," (Toronto Sun) "formidably delightful," (Off-Off Broadway Review, New York) "blisteringly funny," (Hour, Montreal) "a real theatrical gift," (Ottawa Citizen) "a phenomenal performer," (winnipegonstage.com) "supremely witty," (Edmonton Journal) "a penetrating presence," (Backstage, New York) "consistently intelligent," (CBC, Edmonton) "one of solo theatre's superstars." (Montreal Gazette)
Keir is the playwright/performer of eight solo theatre plays. The multiple-award-winning, "Teaching Shakespeare: A Parody" (French translation, "Fou de Shakespeare"), "Teaching Detroit," a monologue adaptation of "Mark Twain's Is Shakespeare Dead?," "Teaching Witchcraft," "Lunatic Van Beethoven," "Teaching As You Like It," "Teaching the Fringe," and "Rant Demon." Keir has performed his monologues across Canada, in New York City and other American cities. Four of his solo shows are on video and have been broadcasted on television by BRAVO!/CANADA.
He has a Ph.D. in theatre from Wayne State University in Detroit, a playwriting diploma from the National Theatre School of Canada and has a B.A from McGill University. Keir is a signatory of the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare."
One of the most revealing actions of the die hard Stratfordians is how these learned academics turn into name calling schoolyard bullies when confronted with inconvenient facts. Not very elevated behavior for " elites". I'm 90% convinced that Oxford wrote " Shakespeare", but I'll entertain and give audience to any theory from Jonson to Elizabeth or the Stratford man himself. So far, ( in my admittedly amateurish research) DeVere checks more boxes than the next nearest candidate but I'll always be open to thoughtful investigation ( without resorting to mudslinging).
I'm sure DeVere had collaborators and the writings have been edited to some degree by others but his soul and genius comes through in nearly every page.
The Stratfordian dogma is big business from books, " biographies " inns, restaurants, museums, posters, key chains and tea cups. They'll never let facts get in the way of a buck.
Why do Shakespeare historians spit and foam at the mouth at the idea the Stratford man wasn't the author? The frightening prospect your life's work is based on nothing. For them it would be as earth shattering as if an aging devoted Catholic priest were presented with evidence Jesus never existed. An alternate theory will never be considered regardless of the evidence. The consequences to their livelihood and very psyche is simly too great.
There is a similar mystery about how Carlos Gardel who had no musical education could have composed the masterful songs of the thirties whose music is credited to him, yet they sound like a violinist's songs.
Oh this little tease does evil in my fragile soul. For just as i am enamored by some brilliant, inspired action before me... It all ends. I really dig what i've seen of your fringe performances. You are the beginning of my falling in love with Shakespeare and the intriguing question of who is this maestro of language, really. I hope to see more of your work. Very entertaining and provocative! Thank you, sir.
Wow, thanks! Have you watched "Teaching the Fringe"? It isn't high quality video, but it was a terrific audience and a very interesting show. Just a suggestion. It is one of my videos.
@@keircutler i have indeed watched "Teaching the Fringe." I really love the idea of the piece. You are 3 layers in... Reading a letter that addresses a play wherein you are performing the role of yourself acting as a fragile and imperfect teacher whose curriculum exposes us to some very inconvenient truths. Not to mention the stark brilliant contrast of acute neurosis bordering on pathology. Your willingness to share the experience in a way that leaves your psyche naked for all to witness develops a trust and empathy with the audience. Great job! 👍🏾❤️
This is the biggest slam dunk “conspiracy theory” out there. I’ve been onboard for about a decade and it’s only gained evidentiary traction over that time. I don’t get into heated debates, but I am a vocal advocate. I personally like Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, as the likely suspect, but that is up for debate. What I think is clear as that the man from Stratford did not write the folio attributed to him.
Methinks that, in the Turin Shroud, there be lines of investigation that, for their own foul reasons, some do not wish to pursue. The Catholic Church allowed a scientific investigation, but when there were indications that the process followed may have been fundamentally flawed, science closed ranks and would not admit an investigation of their investigation. Denial of the Shroud, as shown in this video, has becone an article of faith. "It can't be, therefore it isn't."
Says it all really that those who say william shakespeare wrote the plays tell people to look at the sòurces. Those who say it was the farting tin speculator say 'read my book'
Fatuous. The reason it's not a respectable academic subject is that there's no evidence to talk about - at least not enough to dislodge what was written at the time as true.
While most experts believe that the traditional story of Shakespeare's authorship is true, it is important to remember that these events took place over 400 years ago, making definitive statements about what happened sketchy at best. Traditionally, the view has been that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him alone. However, recent scholarship suggests that he may have collaborated with half a dozen or more writers. This complicates our understanding of his role, as it becomes impossible to determine the extent of Shakespeare's actual participation. It is even conceivable that he may have been more of a play broker, facilitating the production of plays rather than writing them himself. Clearly, those that refuse to consider alternatives are raising Shakespeare to the level of religious dogma.
@@keircutlerIrrelevant. The collaboration theory rests on there being a distinct Shakespeare voice. The question is whose that voice is. Sure, the orthodoxy is held to with more passion than the evidence warrants, but doubters tend to think that lack of evidence is evidence. Not so.
@@RexCorpuscle It's more what one would expect to find. The level of erudition is off the charts but there is no evidence Shakespeare ever wrote a letter to anyone. It is just as likely that Shakespeare was a front for something or someone. He was the play broker and he put his name on scripts he didn't write. We will never know, but academics pretending that we know what happened is speculation parading as knowledge.
Hyperbole aside (e.g. off the charts: it isn’t, it’s broad but shallow), whoever wrote it was a brilliant wordsmith and word-magpie, and you can be as brilliant at those in Stratford as anywhere else. Plus the missing decade is plenty of time to learn. Broker? Front? If you want, but is there any evidence of those roles existing? And still: whose voice is it?
Let me get my head round this: there's no real proof that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him so ... but hang on! There are no other plausible candidates. The "anti-Stratfordian" movement continues to struggle.
There are several plausible candidates, certainly Sir Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, Christopher Marlowe are more than plausible. This was over 400 years ago, and the First Folio tells us one man wrote the works, yet today we are told it was a collaboration with six or seven others. Clearly, no ones knows exactly how the works were created!
@@keircutler I'll rephrase that: the basic anti-Stratfordian argument is that everyone and anyone alive at the time, including any of the nation's swineherds, could have written the works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon, except the named author.
According to recent Scholars, the confusion as to the identity of the authorship has arisen since considerable proof was attained that William Shakespeare was a devout Roman Catholic. It was perhaps at that juncture, that disappointed "scholars" started hoping that the plays had been written by someone else. A despicable Catholic Informant such as Marlowe perhaps? When Shakespeare married it was in Temple Grafton, a Church 20 miles outside of Stratford on Avon - a known Parish of a Recusant RC Priest. His confusing epitaph which stressed that nobody should "dig the dust" ie examine his tomb. that they should LEAVE the "stones" alone and pronouncing a stern CURSE upon any who wanted to "move my bones" from their interment place. Having watched the recent Documentary where the grave of Shakespeare was examined by spy cameras, the team discovered that oddly enough, the grave was full of "stones" and "dust" - a shock that suggested that Shakespeare wasn't interred at that gravesite at all. Wherever he is buried - Temple Grafton ? He doesn't want his bones to be moved. It takes a Catholic to recognise the clear Catholicism within the writings of Shakespeare. The BELOVED is CHRIST. The guilty, forbidden love spoken of in other Sonnets is His REAL Christ - the one present in the Eucharist within the prohibited Catholic Mass.. The beautiful boy he cherishes is no doubt his SON Hamnet who died and who's death no doubt impacted him greatly. For instance Sonnet 23... "As an unperfect actor on the stage, Who with his fear is put besides his part, Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage, Whose strength’s abundance weakens his own heart" -------He is acting, pretending to be a supporter of the Protestant Monarch. & he has a great deal of anger in his heart. His Sisters were Catholic Nuns. Not only has his Father been fined as a recusant for refusing to attend the Protestant Service, but his own cousin St Robert Southwell (a Jesuit Priest) has been tortured by Elizabeth I and martyred. Elsewhere other friends are being rounded up and hung. Thomas Lucy of Charlecote is known to have been a bad man - an Informer and hunter down of Catholics. "So I, for fear of trust, forget to say The perfect ceremony of love’s right," For "rIght" read "RITE" - "The perfect Ceremony of Love's Rite" is a coded name for the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" aka The Mass.. Where the Bridegroom (Christ) feeds His Bride ((The Church) His Real Presence in the Eucharist. The confusion here is that Shakespeare states that he "forgets to recite" the Mass. Now, it is known that during the Lost years, through evidence found in the English College of Priests in Rome, that Shakespeare could have spent some time there. Did he originally train during that period to be a Priest. (It would take about 7 years) There is a rule that every Priest must recite the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every single day. It may be his neglect of fulfilling this Daily Obligation that concerns him if he HAD become a Priest. Attending Mass or being a Roman Catholic is a Criminal Act in Shakespearian England. "And in mine own Love’s strength seem to decay, O’ercharged with burden of mine own love’s might." --------Feeling "my love's strength decay" is suggestive that the influence of Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist as a strengthening agent is missed resulting in weakness, cowardice and a lack of spiritual strength. Christ's Influence in the Host is so powerful-------- "O, let my books be then the eloquence And dumb presagers of my speaking breast; Shakespeare's cousin, St Robert Southwell,( the Martyred RC Jesuit Priest) pleaded with "my dear cousin Master W.S" in the Dedication upon the title page of an early edition of his Book of Poems to use His art to serve the Church.... theshakespeareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/southwell-DSC04028.jpg "Who plead for love, and look for recompense, More than that tongue that MORE hath more express’d." "More than MORE had more expressed" Capitalize the second More. Shakespeare is stating that he has not got the bravery of St Thomas More to publicly stand up for His Faith & face martyrdom.. By "recompense" he refers to the Crown of Martyrdom. He clearly is concerned that he is not as likely as St Thomas More to obtain the eternal Paradise from shedding his blood for the Church as More did. "O, learn to READ what SILENT LOVE hath writ: To HEAR with EYES belongs to love’s fine wit." He is saying that he's going to be silent of his allegiance to the RC Faith - but he's penning a lot of clues within his writings so that everybody HEARS his views as they watch/study/read his plays. On his mind at this juncture is perhaps the remembered request of his cousin St Robert Southwell asking him directly to use his words to support the Church. Read with Catholic eyes - the authorship of such writing is most definitely Roman Catholic. As an unperfect actor on the stage, Who with his fear is put besides his part, Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage, Whose strength’s abundance weakens his own heart; So I, for fear of trust, forget to say The perfect ceremony of love’s right, (Rite) And in mine own Love’s strength seem to decay, (Christ) O’ercharged with burden of mine own Love’s MIGHT O, let my books be then the eloquence And dumb presagers of my speaking breast; Who plead for love, and look for recompense, More than that tongue that (Thomas) MORE hath more express’d. O, learn to READ what SILENT LOVE hath writ: To HEAR with EYES belongs to love’s fine wit. Read "Quest for Shakespeare" by Joseph Pearce. Some of this was covered in Michael Wood's Documentary "In Search of Shakespeare" PS It is known that at the time that Shakespeare lived, if you were a RC you could not go to University. It is known he was gifted as a student, yet he had to forgo a University Education due to his clear refusal to declare a public allegiance to the state led Church.
It's not known he was a gifted student at all. We have no record of his education, but we know he never went to university. You appear to be making an argument from silence.
Just amazing! I have graduated scenic design, and we had to learn Shakespeare's plays almost by heart. I have always had the feeling that there is something hidden, unseen and this video sheds some light on the questions. Thank you for sharing!
Brilliant KC thank you! I also thank Charlton Ogburn who first enlightened me! And added to the list to whom I am grateful is ‘Anonymous’ a superb film that further explodes the mythology! As for the trogs, Shapiro most culpable with his unending prevarications and rationalisations! Once more KC Thank you! Clyde Gatell.
People who question Shakespeare's authorship often point to Ben Jonson's statement that Shakespeare was "the soul of the age" as evidence of sarcasm. Scholars have debated the sincerity of Jonson's remarks.
This matters for far more serious reasons than satisfying the idle curiosity of a few wannabe intellectuals. It shows that great lies and deceptions can and have been carried out by the very top of society and been perpetuated for many hundreds of years. WE WERE LIED TO and we still are being lied to. This was a systematically organised conspiracy to deceive. This involved not only top members of the English aristocracy but Elizabeth and James 1st. The consequences and motivations may have been reasonably benign but what this reveals should make us wonder how many other matters that have formed the foundations of our historical record are also fraudulent? We already know of some of them, but how many more exist that we have have not yet discovered? The truth is that we live in a world of lies and deceptions some of which are far older then this one. In my opinion virtually everything that we believe is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not. This applies to virtually all subject matters, to a great or greater degree. Knowledge is power. This is why our Owners retain so much of the latter and we remain with so little of the former. It is perhaps ironic that the greatest proponent of the Enlightenment namely Sir Francis Bacon was one of the Worlds greatest liars and deceivers as well as one of the smartest and most influential persons ever to have lived. Bacon and his co-conspirators may have had the best intentions in mind when embarking on this great project to deceive the masses, but the motivation is relatively unimportant with regards to its clear implications. This also amply demonstrates that it is far easier to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled.
Surely(so to speak!) the most open-minded and logical conclusion - until proven otherwise - is that a male and female group or 'Shakespeare Salon' of playwrights wrote but NOT co-wrote the plays, then submitted them to the group for read-throughs, finessing, minor or not-so-minor changes and suggestions - just as movie screen-writers do. And as always noone points out that (would-be) female playwrights had one other major reason to hide behind a male pseudonym in Elizabethan England because women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed under their own names or using any female name for that matter! So I'll continue to broad-mindedly believe - until proven otherwise - that the likes of Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano, Marlowe and Edward de Vere all contributed their own individual but "willfully"(!!) very 'Shakespearean' plays to a Shakespeare Salon or collective - and a Mr. Will 'Spellcheck' Shak'spear from Stratford, real actors, closet actresses and others in the theatre business would also frequently attend the Shakespeare Salon's meet-ups. And much (very productive) fun would have been had by all. I can't wait for a now long-overdue movie sequel to "Anonymous" that reflects and both entertainingly and intelligently dramatises all of the above and much much more besides.. Paul G
Very good monologue on Shakespeare. I watched an earlier one of yours, on this same topic, when you were dressed as a Lawyer and were handling the Shakespeare bust. Impressive grasp of your subject and immensely entertaining too.
One key but too-rarely mentioned reason to believe a woman or women wrote some/all of the plays is that women had to hide behind a (male) pseudonym given that women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed except as "closet" playwrights. The only truly balanced non-chauvinist conclusion is that a male and female "Shakespeare Salon" including de Vere, Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano had some great fun covertly writing but probably not co-writing all of the plays. Actors, theatre owners and play commissioners would have attended those semi-clandestine Shakespeare salon sessions for initial read-throughs and as with movie screenplays minor or major changes would inevitably have been proposed by all involved. Paul G
Also, if everyone knew this Stratford chap was actually Shakespeare, how could he write for example Richard II, where the King literally gives away his crown and not get arrested? It's honestly laughable.
That's what happened in England's ACTUAL HISTORY. It's included in Holingshed. Anyway, that scene was left out of early printings, but was included by request when Essex's man asked for Richard II on the eve of the failed rebellion.
@@joecurran2811 OH, she was! She condemned several knights and two earls to death. What did she do to the guy you think wrote this supposedly treasonous play? She put him on the jury that did the condemning. That is a smoking CANNON that proves De Vere had nothing whatsoever to do with the works of Shakespeare. Only an imbecile wouldn't see it.
@@joecurran2811 And she was. She condemned two earls and several knights and executed most of them. Yet the guy you think penned this seditious play was put on the jury that did the condemning. What evidence do you need beyond that?
Didn't the pen name Shakespeare first turn up 13 days after the death of Marlowe? And now there is some documentary evidence that Marlowe died in Padua in 1627? This was a very funny , enjoyable performance. Thank you.
Also, ciphers used on the First Folio seem to imply Francis Bacon collaborated with Henry Neville on the plays, and other decrypted texts say Marlowe just allowed Bacon to use his name for the earlier plays..+ the manuscripts might be on Oak Island preserved in Mercury?..Obviously it's better than they're going up in flames in London or wherever , but hopefully they'll turn up in a more convenient place in England.
Let's cut to the chase here cos life is too short - 1. John Heminges,Henry condell and William Shakespeare are all mentioned in the same list as 'players' who receive red cloth for James 1st coronation. 2. These three guys are again linked in shakespeare's will where he bequeaths money to them 'and to my fellows John Heminge, Richard Burbage, and Henry Condell 26s 8d a piece'. 3. And guess what - they are once again all linked up in the Shakespeare first folio - they name him in the dedication as the writer of these plays "onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our Shakespeare, by humble offer of his playes." Thus we conclude - the Stratford man IS William Shakespeare the playwright. Link to the 'red cloth' shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/account-master-great-wardrobe-recording-issue-red-cloth-shakespeare-and-his Link to the 'will' shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/william-shakespeares-last-will-and-testament-original-copy-including-three Link to the 'dedication in the first folio' firstfolio.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/book.html (image 8)
In the months following Francis Bacon’s death his trusted Rosicrucian Brother Dr William Rawley gathered together and quietly issued a commemorative work in his honour entitled Memoriae honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis de Verulamio, vice-comitis Sancti Albani sacrum. This rare and still virtually unknown work contains thirty-two Latin verses in praise of Bacon, which his orthodox editors and biographers have simply glossed over, ignored, or suppressed, that portray Bacon as a secret supreme poet and dramatist, the writer of comedies and tragedies, under the pseudonym of Shakespeare.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n3UL4MfyAZc.html
Odd isn't it that the fact that women had one major additional reason to hide their identities often strangely goes unmentioned: women were still not permitted to write plays in ostensibly enlightened and liberal Elizabethan England. By contrast the fact that women were not permitted to *act* in plays in English theatres is widely known and freely discussed. Paul G
John Hudson has been making his exhaustively researched and highly persuasive case(link) for many years that the "Dark Lady" Amelia Bassano was the author of some or all of the plays attributed to the playwright or group of playwrights who wrote under the Shakespeare pseudonym. Who can possibly dare argue against Hudson's massive mountain of evidence and his forensically joined-up contextual historical knowledge and expertise: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tyn-3GNOd7w.htmlsi=2IRSAv_IQhaRRY0V PS. the fact that women had one major additional reason to hide their identities often strangely goes unmentioned: women were still not permitted to write plays in ostensibly enlightened and liberal Elizabethan England. Paul G
I'm also impressed by his bigger-picture mockery of the media's and so-called experts' conforming insistence on labelling and smearing even highly-informed dissenters on any issue as "conspiracy theorists".
As long as it's made clear to the world that "anonymous" could mean a man or a woman or a collaboration between several very talented male/female playwrights. The authorship movie "Anonymous" with Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Mark Rylance(et al) unfortunately does not even hint at the possibilty that a woman may have written or co-written some or all of the Bard's plays. Paul G
