With all due respect, it seems to me that whether or not you disagreed with the film’s adherence to the Prince Tudor theory or whether you thought the film came up short, I think that those like yourself that have a passion for the truth should thank Roland Emmerich and John Orloff for the courage they showed in putting their reputation and careers on the line to take on the mulit-billion dollar Shakespeare industry.
I know the kind of ignorance and malice that is out there, having spent most of the week responding to reviews, articles, and blogs, We are living in a time of great change and people are clinging desperately to what is safe and comfortable. It takes pioneers like yourself, Orloff and Emmerich to wake people up.
Howard: “Roland Emmerich and John Orloff for the courage they showed in putting their reputation and careers on the line to take on the mulit-billion dollar Shakespeare industry. . . .” By the Shakespeare industry do you mean the playing of the plays, making movies of the plays, printing the plays etc? Or are you saying that the tourism industry of Stratford brings in so much money they buy off English literature professors all over the world?
The first is what the director and writer are tapping into themselves, riding the waves of the name Shakespeare. The second is usually one of the reasons I turn away from Oxfordians, not proving their case but complaining others don’t do it for them.
Prove your case, get the hardcopy evidence that your guy wrote those plays and you get recognition, do not ignore evidence against your man, but make your own case stick.
I think a problem here in proving anyone’s case is that the author(s) of the works (I still subscribe to this idea I’m afraid) had no intention of being found out. He or they went to great lengths to be anonymous as it was most likely a life or death issue. Eliz I had a very strong team searching for potential threats to the throne…that’s the way it was in those days : “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” And a head that was often ill advised for personal motive, as we see in Othello and Lear.
I was quite sorry to discover that the film was bumped from our local theaters here in Greenville, SC. Hope it will make an appearance here or nearby.
Howard doth protest too much, methinks. Let me begin by noting that this movie manages to be entertaining and even educational to a certain extent; not that we go to the movies to learn history. It’s worth seeing simply to be transported to Renaissance England. And, beyond those stunning visuals, this is a well-crafted drama with some extremely credible scenes. The people I saw it with were frozen to their seats for the entire final 40 minutes. That’s filmmaking.
The movie is also accurate in identifying Oxford as Shakespeare as a certain Frontline episode (it generated more correspondence than any Frontline show before or since) and such books as Charles Beauclerk’s “Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom” and Dan Walker’s recent novel, “My Dark Lady: Shakespeare’s Lost Play” clearly demonstrate. Walker’s novel presents the Authorship controversy from the refreshing perspective of the Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
Where Roland skidded off the track for me was his emphasis on the minor 1601 Essex Rebellion – it was barely a skirmish. The Spanish Armada; now that’s a fight scene! He also spoils things by including the laughable “Prince Tudor” subplot (ever researched the B.O. for movies depicting incest, Roland?). Plus, it’s absolute nonsense. Queen Elizabeth chose a life of celibacy. The Virgin Queen avowed that she was wedded to England and she was, of course, the most closely watched person in England. The notion that she could have given birth to one child, never mind several, unnoticed is ridiculous.
What’s more, Thomas Seymour, her supposed impregnator and Oxford’s putative father was beheaded on 23 March 1549. This is more than a little inconvenient for a man who is being put forward as the father of a son who wasn’t born until 12 April 1550.
History aside, this is a wonderful film with performances to match the magnificent costumes and scenery (Oscar will take note). We can only hope that Roland’s efforts stimulate more interest in the things that will still be remembered long after this movie and we mere mortals are forgotten, these peerless plays.
I’m afraid the only people who will remember this movie will be the historians, who henceforth will think even more badly of the Oxfordian theory than they already do.
These imbeciles showed courage in opposing the Stratford Trust? Ah, that must be why Emmerich has twenty-seven body guards to protect him against all those now-frantic scholars of Elizabethan literature out there.
Hey, he thought he could make a buck with a movie that would get a lot of press by going against some Established Idea, that’s all.
politicworm 
Hah! Bless you!
With all due respect, it seems to me that whether or not you disagreed with the film’s adherence to the Prince Tudor theory or whether you thought the film came up short, I think that those like yourself that have a passion for the truth should thank Roland Emmerich and John Orloff for the courage they showed in putting their reputation and careers on the line to take on the mulit-billion dollar Shakespeare industry.
I know the kind of ignorance and malice that is out there, having spent most of the week responding to reviews, articles, and blogs, We are living in a time of great change and people are clinging desperately to what is safe and comfortable. It takes pioneers like yourself, Orloff and Emmerich to wake people up.
Howard: “Roland Emmerich and John Orloff for the courage they showed in putting their reputation and careers on the line to take on the mulit-billion dollar Shakespeare industry. . . .” By the Shakespeare industry do you mean the playing of the plays, making movies of the plays, printing the plays etc? Or are you saying that the tourism industry of Stratford brings in so much money they buy off English literature professors all over the world?
The first is what the director and writer are tapping into themselves, riding the waves of the name Shakespeare. The second is usually one of the reasons I turn away from Oxfordians, not proving their case but complaining others don’t do it for them.
Prove your case, get the hardcopy evidence that your guy wrote those plays and you get recognition, do not ignore evidence against your man, but make your own case stick.
I think a problem here in proving anyone’s case is that the author(s) of the works (I still subscribe to this idea I’m afraid) had no intention of being found out. He or they went to great lengths to be anonymous as it was most likely a life or death issue. Eliz I had a very strong team searching for potential threats to the throne…that’s the way it was in those days : “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” And a head that was often ill advised for personal motive, as we see in Othello and Lear.
I was quite sorry to discover that the film was bumped from our local theaters here in Greenville, SC. Hope it will make an appearance here or nearby.
Howard doth protest too much, methinks. Let me begin by noting that this movie manages to be entertaining and even educational to a certain extent; not that we go to the movies to learn history. It’s worth seeing simply to be transported to Renaissance England. And, beyond those stunning visuals, this is a well-crafted drama with some extremely credible scenes. The people I saw it with were frozen to their seats for the entire final 40 minutes. That’s filmmaking.
The movie is also accurate in identifying Oxford as Shakespeare as a certain Frontline episode (it generated more correspondence than any Frontline show before or since) and such books as Charles Beauclerk’s “Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom” and Dan Walker’s recent novel, “My Dark Lady: Shakespeare’s Lost Play” clearly demonstrate. Walker’s novel presents the Authorship controversy from the refreshing perspective of the Dark Lady of the Sonnets.
Where Roland skidded off the track for me was his emphasis on the minor 1601 Essex Rebellion – it was barely a skirmish. The Spanish Armada; now that’s a fight scene! He also spoils things by including the laughable “Prince Tudor” subplot (ever researched the B.O. for movies depicting incest, Roland?). Plus, it’s absolute nonsense. Queen Elizabeth chose a life of celibacy. The Virgin Queen avowed that she was wedded to England and she was, of course, the most closely watched person in England. The notion that she could have given birth to one child, never mind several, unnoticed is ridiculous.
What’s more, Thomas Seymour, her supposed impregnator and Oxford’s putative father was beheaded on 23 March 1549. This is more than a little inconvenient for a man who is being put forward as the father of a son who wasn’t born until 12 April 1550.
History aside, this is a wonderful film with performances to match the magnificent costumes and scenery (Oscar will take note). We can only hope that Roland’s efforts stimulate more interest in the things that will still be remembered long after this movie and we mere mortals are forgotten, these peerless plays.
I’m afraid the only people who will remember this movie will be the historians, who henceforth will think even more badly of the Oxfordian theory than they already do.
These imbeciles showed courage in opposing the Stratford Trust? Ah, that must be why Emmerich has twenty-seven body guards to protect him against all those now-frantic scholars of Elizabethan literature out there.
Hey, he thought he could make a buck with a movie that would get a lot of press by going against some Established Idea, that’s all.
Bob Grumman
Short & sassy. Nice surprise, Stephanie. Brava!
lol