The beginning of the film is an old trick from the Shakespeare era: let a "poster" tell you that this is a play. This pardons all dog-blood arrangements. Looking back at the great god Shakespeare himself, how did he make up back then? Conspiracy, love, evil, coincidence, wrong comedy, desperate tragedy, nothing more than this. The advantage of modern society is that it can make up an aerial shot for the funeral of Elizabeth I. At that time, no one could see this except God.
Regarding the author of Shakespeare's play, academic circles have always had minor disagreements. The first reason is that Shakespeare’s rural elementary school education can write scripts that often quote classics and themes involve a lot of classical studies; second, not only these plays are not handed down in manuscripts, even the personal letters written by Shakespeare are not seen in history. , It is inevitable to make people doubt the reason. However, it is no easier to prove that the script was not written by him than to prove that it was written by him (please don't think of a lawsuit). This film only has a more weird imagination, throwing out the extreme "illiteracy". The orthodox Shakespeare critics immediately became angry. Gorgeous anecdotes such as Oedipus are second.
In fact, the story of the Earl of Oxford is not so much blackening Shakespeare, as it is killing young literary people all over the world-yes, everyone knows that they are a group of unique creatures, for their creation, you can eat I don’t care about bankruptcy. The opposition of my parents will always be invalid. The threat of insulting the family is not worth mentioning. All the advice of official career and economics is gone, and the complaints of my wife are deaf. In order to write a "Hamlet", what are the unspoken rules of being nurtured? Even though he was unknown when he was alive, didn't the first edition of "Red and Black" only printed 500 copies? And now the film tells everyone: even if you endure all of this and wrote "Hamlet", it is still possible that the last name in history is not you, but an illiterate.
This is the ultimate disillusionment than incest. Even if you don’t count the more tragic plots-this is not a ghostwriter made for the sake of life, and on the contrary, you have to spend your own money to ask the illiterate to do the "endorsement"-still no one can be sure whether there is such a thing. "Anonymous", perhaps not yet an earl, left nothing but these great plays. The cheers, applause of the audience, and the praise of later generations have nothing to do with him. Although his experience may not have such ups and downs, it is just a more mediocre comedy. But surrendering the title of the author of "Hamlet" to others, isn't it the cruelest ending for a true genius? Obviously, the screenwriter believes that literature is a curse. To write that kind of legendary work, you have to pay the greatest price: not only you have to pass by the fame and fortune of this world, or even the throne, but you also have to sacrifice all the hopes behind you. This idea is more cold than absurd. So in order not to lose faith in fate, people would rather believe that there is no such tragedy in the world. Like Will, it is the rule of the world to turn the son of a glovemaker into a great playwright who has both fame and fortune.
I would also like to believe in this law. It's a pity that when this law reaches other people, it changes its face: which version of Christopher Marlowe's death is this? In "Shakespeare in Love", he confusedly became Will's substitute for death, and this time he was killed suspiciously by Will. In order to make this kind of killing righteous, he also made an article about his status as a "secret agent". The only reason why Ben Jones was selected as the positive male second in this film is the preface he wrote for the folio collection. Maybe he is really kind, but to replace Marlowe's achievements with his "good guys" is more "anti-literary" than the "purely fictional" plot itself. In fact, it is more reliable to compile it into Marlowe's body like this kind of imitation of wild history. With his 29-year-old death from an unknown life, he is most suitable to be the protagonist of a thrilling conspiracy story. Regrettably, there will be no such "topical effect" of Shakespeare's essay, which makes it difficult for the producers to be tempted.
Lord Southampton's beautiful long hair is correct, but it is destined to be another cannon fodder for those famous sonnets. It seems that the interpretation of the relationship between father and son is more decent than homosexuality? However, among all the "fabrics", the most surprising thing is this trinity of alcoholic, perverted, and illiterate Will. When he was a screenwriter himself, he once wrote Joan of Arc as a slut and a witch, just to satisfy the patriotism requirements of British audiences; then he would not care if his younger generations made himself into an illiterate in order to attract audiences. When it comes to copyright, he has already written: Even if the rose is not called a rose, it is still sweet and fragrant. In the same way, neither the Earl of Oxford nor Shakespeare is worthy of these words, only they have the power of immortality.
View more about Anonymous reviews
