Speaking as an Oxfordian, I wish that ANONYMOUS hadn't included so many unhistorical elements. Over and above the Prince Tudor theory being the primary subplot -- which many Oxfordians vehemently reject -- the film portrays Anne de Vere (nee Cecil) being married to Edward through to the end of his life, when the truth is that he outlived her and remarried, to Elizabeth Trussell. To have RICHARD III being the play staged in anticipation of the Essex rebellion, rather than RICHARD II ... why? Why change this historical detail, which only gives ammunition to the Anti-Oxfordians who can point to it and imply that the entire Oxfordian case is equally dubious? I wish the first pro-Oxfordian film had been the true story about how John Looney tracked down Edward de Vere through sherlockian detectivery. Alternating black-and-white (perhaps for the "present" story) with color (i.e. the visualization of the Elizabethan milieu), almost like a Wizard of Oz-type shift, or like how Oliver Stone used B&W flashbacks when Garrison (et al.) speculate on Oswald's doings in "JFK", could have made for an exciting quest-story. A much better movie would have resulted, all without messing up the historical details. It is uncomfortable being an Oxfordian who has to advise newcomers to the idea of Anti-Stratfordianism to not take ANONYMOUS seriously as a work of historical revisionism. The film does not represent the serious research of Oxfordian scholars -- and, I think, it SHOULD have. Alas, it doesn't. It's a pretty looking picture, though. Emmerich knows how to do special effects. It's nice to see Elizabethan England 'come alive', at least audio-visually. And the acting was fine. But to take liberties with history the way they did, it just gives Stratfordians ammunition to slag Oxfordians who don't agree with the film's ahistorical details, to tar them with the same brush.
Hi Patrick, I bet that Cheryl Egan Donovan's forthcoming "Nothing Truer than the Truth" will be more to your liking. Here's the trailer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NUrrE3yd4n8.html
@@pbredderD'oh! You're right, my bad. There's a 'Trussell' involved in the Edward de Vere case somewhere, if I'm not totally imagining having seen the name in my Oxfordian readings, but yeah, the 2nd wife was a Trentham, not a Trussell.
Riveting interview! Wonderful to see the behind the scenes workings of this Award Winning Documentary "Last Will and Testament." And Twins, no less! Fascinating!
Pertaining to 19:13 as to Folger personae asserting "there was no authorship question": the correct response would have been to say that hey, great, WE AGREE there's no question! Edward de Vere was the author - it's settled. There ISN'T any authorship question.
" What's exciting is that we're talking to the generation that could solve this question.... this is an open question and it's gonna be your generation that's gonna do it, both cases are circumstantial... the smoking gun is there to be found and you might get a generation or someone in the next 8 audiances might be that audiance so good luck now" I wish more Lib Arts Professor were in this mindset (versus pretending to be) when reading great books.
Lisa and Laura and Aaron: for 8:55-9:20 could you describe here in the Comments what the audience's reaction was? Had most heard, or not heard, about the Shakespeare Authorship Revelation? And were most aware, or not aware, of this being "controversial"? In watching the video at 8:55-9:20 we cannot tell how many in the audience were raising, or not raising, their hands.
I would really like to watch the documentary *_Last Will. & Testament._* I thought it was better than the film, evenb though the fdilm was also excellent and beautifully shot, produced and acted.. Having read a number of books on the subject Diana Price's "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography" - Ogburn's: "The Mysterious Mr Shakespeare" - Chiljan's "Shakespeare Suppressed", Anderson's "Shakespeare By Another Name" -"Ackroyd's: "Shakespeare",, and one or two others, conventional biographies, (perhaps Bloom's... I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has looked at the details of the case with any care,, would not, at the very least, concede there is a strong likelihood that Oxford was Shakespeare. I've heard it argued that this is impossible for the simple reason that numerous of Shakespeare's works were printed posthumously and contain contemporaneous references from that period, (though Ive yet to hear what any of them actually are, -if anyone knows?) when has deceased.
were shakespeare's plays soooo daring and dangerous that the real author had to hide behind another.....why did none of the other writers of the time do this???
On the contrary, Shakespeare's plays were the tamest of the lot. His first theatrical patron, the Baron Hunsdon, was the Queen's cousin and her Lord Chamberlain. He was also the person to whom the Master of Revels answered. After Elizabeth died, Shakespeare's new patron was King James himself. Hard to imagine a guy in that position writing subversive plays. And Shakespeare didn't. He took his histories from Hall and Hollingshed, which were the official versions of English history. So long as he stuck to those sources (and he did), he couldn't be accused of subversion.
Actually, according to those who have studied this period, c. 1550-1650 in Europe was the "golden age of pseudonyms." Contrary to your uninformed belief, many writers of the day, especially aristocrats, used pseudonyms. Anyone who has examined the primary evidence understands this.
@@Jeffhowardmeade I'm not your research assistant, Mr. Coriolanus. If you don't know how common concealed authorship was in the Elizabethan period, then you don't know much about the period. Diana Price's book is not a bad place to start, with the allusions to Batillus.
Roland sure took it to a worldwide audience, didn't he? If not for the handful of Shakespeare deniers who each saw it twice, it would have played to crickets everywhere it was shown. It's not very often a theater pulls a film halfway through the week, but my local arthouse theater canned Anonymous after only two days. If you want an open debate about the Shakespeare Authorship Question, here's what you do: you don't drop millions of dollars on an absurd Prince Tudor movie, and you don't tell lies and half-truths hoping your viewers won't check your facts. What you do is you go looking for EVIDENCE. We may laugh at this idiot or that who is always trying to dig up some poor (or rich) bastard's grave to find the proof supposedly buried there, but at least they're looking. The rest of you just spend your time trying to see how you can spin or contextualize the evidence so that it points to your chosen Bard, or at least not so firmly at the real one.
