Come and anticipate Roland Emmerich's Shakespeare biopic ANONYMOUS

yeah make sense of that will you

Saw it tonight, I've seen worse.

Like Inception.

he's gay, right?

duh

Lots of lippy boys in this movie

that house looks amazing tbh, I straight-up like about half of it

has anyone ever seen joel schumacher and roland emmerich in the same room?

Shakespeare signs covered in protest of Anonymous film:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-15440882

Looks like a publicity stunt for the stupid film itself at first. I guess it's actually just the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust riding the coattails of the film to raise their own profile.

Saw it tonight, I've seen worse.

Like Inception.

― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:41 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

sounds amazing

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/06/garden/23922277.JPG

everyone else also grew up in houses in which this room was the toilet, right

Pope John

roland emmerich rules fuiud

MY POEMS ARE MY SOUL

audience was laughing at some of the dialogue, which is fairly unusual at an advance screening

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/wouldnt-it-be-cool-if-shakespeare-wasnt-shakespeare.html

People who don't think that Shakespeare wrote his plays are as bad as birthers.

other whacked-out theory that makes me smh: "abiotic oil". check it out.

I didn't know til a month or so ago that Derek Jacobi was on board with this

actors are mainly idiots [insert exceptions here] [won't take long] [<-- tracer hand, and er that's it maybe]

other whacked-out theory that makes me smh: "abiotic oil". check it out.

― goole, Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:21 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

haha I remember reading a theory that we shouldn't have to worry about peak oil because the oil fields are just gonna fill back up again in a few years or so, and that prediction was made by the same guy who correctly predicted that there would be dust on the moon

it's rhys ifans! what could possibly go wrong

I'm not convinced Ifans could write his own name.

true story: real name is Russell Evanston, stage name was just what the clerk thought he scrawled on his Equity form

(not a true story)

Ifans aint bad at all in this, considering

here's a nutty unsupported theory emmerich totally SHOULD do a movie about:

http://io9.com/5848192/giant-prehistoric-krakens-may-have-sculpted-self+portraits-using-ichthyosaur-bones

People who don't think that Shakespeare wrote his plays are as bad as birthers.

― bouquet beatdown (Nicole), Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:16 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

idk wouldnt it just mean another guy was shakespeare

idk wouldn't it just mean another birth certificate was obama's

think abt it

I don't give a flying fuck who wrote the plays, even if these de Vere ppl are fantasizing.

btw Timothy Spall's son is quite funny as Will, playing him as a lecherous vain drunk.

Has anyone seen Shakespeare's birth certificate? Didn't think so.

Actually, given the subject matter I'm surprised no one has questioned Emmerich's authorship of this film.

I interview the guy once, and he took offense at the idea that all he did was make disaster movies. "Godzilla" is not a disaster movie; it's a giant lizard. "Independence Day" is not a disaster movie; it's about an alien invasion. And so on. But the guy was clearly frustrated at his (lucrative) lot in life.

well, he didn't write the screenplay. The guy who did Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole did.

Much Ado About Ga'Hoole

well, he didn't write the screenplay. The guy who did Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole did.

Why didn't you say so! Consider my ticket bought. Is it in 3-D?

legends of anonymous: the bards of stra'tford

I'm pretty sure the Sunday NYT piece on Emmerich is the first time a subject's penis folk-sculpture collection has been mentioned in that gray paper.

Anyway, my 2c:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/anonymous/5872

Your "slant," if you will.

i kiss you for that review Morbz

thx doll! I actually think it's like a witless Sherman & Peabody cartoon, but figured the readers wdn't get the ref.

3-1/2 stars from reliable Ebert! (who adds that Shakespeare wrote the plays)

is it true the REAL shakespeare wrote the screenplay

lippy male ingenues

Thought this was amusing:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_spectator/2011/10/anonymous_a_witless_movie_from_the_stupid_shakespearean_birther_.html

David Thewlis is exquisitely terrible in this, but I assume the whistling sound he makes through his teeth is intentional.

You know, I'm sure this is a POS, but what does it say that Hollywood greenlit and actually made a big-budget movie about the contested authorship of Shakespeare's plays?

what DOES it say?

it's just riding dan brown's long coat tails, isn't it? "you know this thing you learnt in school that everyone knows? well, it's wrong" <-- passes for high concept in an age when the distrust for established cultural authority is at a high ebb

But at least Dan Brown had the religious aspect to it, which brings in the rubes. As far as conspiracy theories go, this one is sort of ... high brow. No?

shakespeare wrote plays for teh masses, maaaaaan

xp for a very weird value of highbrow!

surely it's a way of finding something you can say and think and declare about shakespeare that doesn't require you absorb all that so-called scholarly expertise (or indeed, actually read the plays and poems): it frees him from the clutches of [insert academic/fancypants bugbear here]

also there was that ep of doctor who

dan brown's "code" was also about "da vinci"

shakespeare was jesus, the REAL jesus

my line on chariots of the gods -- i saw the documentary when it came out in 68-ish, at towyn cinema in mid-wales -- was that people loved the look and the thought of all this ancient stuff, the aztec pictures, the egyptian gold, it was great to look at, and the "pictures of aliens" stuff was an easily grasped "theory" to give you an excuse for talking about it and enthusing and saying "hey folks! look at this stuff, it's AWESOME!"when obviously very few of us have the actual archeological-ethnological chops to know anything about the relics or what they actually meant

so i think these kinds of theories can be consciously (if not particularly helpfully) counter-highbrow: they function as a sort of "set the information free" for historical or literary material -- there was an element of that in dan brown, or more accurately "holy blood, holy grail", which is where his stuff all comes from: it was the first place i ever read anything about the merovingians, for example

(i argued on some other thread -- the one on the Supreme Court? -- that i suspect the fashion among writers like twain and whitman for bacon-wrote-shakespeare was a complicated mix of american counter-highbrow cheek and resistance to the vulgar populism of how shakespeare was actually played in 19th-century new york especially, which was VERY riotous and street)