Rhys Ifans, Roland Emmerich & John Orloff Interview on Anonymous & Shakespeare Authorship Debate

Rhys Ifans, director Roland Emmerich and writer John Orloff delve into the controversial and thought-provoking film, "Anonymous." Set in the political turmoil of Elizabethan England, the film dares to question one of the most enduring mysteries in literary history: who truly wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare?
Join the discussion as these insightful artists explore the intriguing issue that has captivated academics and brilliant minds for centuries. With expert insights and fascinating perspectives, this interview is a must-watch for anyone interested in the intersection of history, art, and culture. Don't miss your chance to discover the truth behind the Shakespearean mythos with this incredible trio of creative geniuses.
#rhysifans #rolandemmerich #shakespeare

[@tomditto3972]

You might be surprised to learn that Rhys Ifans' natural Welsh accent is closer to 16th century upper class accents than what he articulated in the film. It wasn't used in the film, because today we expect a contemporary upper class accent. Similarly the film's Will Shakesper uses a modern lower class accent rather than what the real Shakesper would have picked up from his upbringing in Stratford-on-Avon. On the other hand, the recreation of London in this film is accurate and very entertaining to see.

[@johnsmith-eh3yc]

Thats anazing given that the Welsh accent formed out of the Welsh language, a completely different language to either early modern, or modern varieties of English

[@brown2889]

Anonymous is one of my favorite all time movies. The entire movie is gripping and so well done even the ending kept you there reading the credits. SO good!

[@barryispuzzled]

However, Queen Elizabeth had no children and that's well documented.

[@annford6640]

First... Rhys' versatility as an actor is fascinating. From the wandering lover and husband in Dancing at Lughnasa to Shipping News, and everything in between and since... Anonymous notwithstanding, this film stands on its own merit (*flipping the bird to awards/box office ratings*). To view is to know... I saw the film in real time in 2011. With the rejuvenated discussions owing to continued emerging findings and/or probes into Shakespeare's authorship (kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKXZfJavjJ6pmqMsi=6HWVsOjz6ymdS3dF), for example, I re-viewed the film again last evening... and I believe I'll be acquiring it permanently. I wouldn't be surprised if the film gains a new following. Thank you for this piece of work... "authorship" for all, fully noted~~

[@thomridgeway1438]

He's a full life character for sure

[@thoutube9522]

As for LETTERS. Check the Catalogue of English literary manuscripts (CELM) . Many celebrated writers of the time leave no letters behind. This is balls.

[@WightMoon61]

Lol i only just found this on amazon while searching for a different dvd, i had never heard of it before. One of the best films i,ve seen in years, I hope Rhys knows that Elizabeth was the grandaughter of the man who added the green and white background to todays welsh flag, and apparently Tudor was a descendant of owain glyndwir lol Perhaps he should play henry tudor sometime.

[@of1300]

interesting as well: using plays and drama to agitate and mobilize "a mob" as Rhys Ifans says is the same method and tactics used today - it is called the news, or hollywood blockbuster. so it is refreshing to see these hollywood men for once at least coming up with a rather enlighting movie. albeit not a perfect one.

[@of1300]

thomas j. looney - read it. enough said. if you know the plays and read looney, you know what there is to know.

[@johnsmith-eh3yc]

What that Shajespeare didnt write the Tempest. ? Mind you have to agree with Looney who wrote that finding the author through encription is , well lunacy

[@of1300]

@@johnsmith-eh3yc you cannot appreciate looneys work in one „lousy“ comments on KZbin. And the looney-luny joke is rather old and uninspired by now

[@of1300]

it is indeed. once you read de veres biography and you compare with certain elements of the play it is quite clear: de vere is definitely there in the plays. the plays are a very personal expression of his character and his times. it is highly fascinating. how ludicrous to still believe in the man of Stratford who never really existed.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

You've never read De Vere's actual biography. The De Vere you've read about is a fantasy.

[@of1300]

@@Jeffhowardmeade well, if i read the biography of the man from stratford, i am done in five minutes. Not much too read here. Still i am to believe he wrote the most elaborate dramatic literature of human history…. It feels ridiculous. We are far beyond the point of doubting im doubts. We just wonder: why is it so hard to let go of old believes? Cognitive dissonance can’t be always the excuse…

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@of1300 If you're done in five minutes, you didn't read anything. Shakespeare the poet was identified as the actor and gentleman from Stratford by -- count them -- 21 contemporaries. You read all of their testaments in five minutes? Shakespeare was a member of the company with the exclusive right to his plays, which were performed in his theaters. He included people, places, and events from his home town in his plays. Everything he wrote specifically for publication was published by a guy he grew up with. He is perhaps most famous for writing a play about Hamlet, and he had a SON named HAMLET (and yes, I want you to challenge that). His works demonstrate none of the erudition of a university graduate (which in De Vere's case really isn't an impediment as he wasn't nearly as educated as you claim). He gets nearly everything wrong about Italy and a bunch of other places outside of England. He didn't have an expert knowledge of most of the things you commonly claim. What he had was a professional knowledge of stagecraft, an intuitive understanding of people, an inventive flair for poetry, and (usually) good taste in the stories he borrowed to dramatize, which he continued to employ long after your profligate, pederast, piss poor poet went toes-up. Why would I give that up in favor of fantasies concocted by idiots? Because you can scramble letters around until you come up with a four letter name with two of the most common letter in English? Because if you add enough made-up context you can translate poetry to say what you want? Because you can notice when Shakespeare is occasionally mentioned on the 17th page/line/letter of something but don't all the other times when he isn't? Because you can't tell the difference between a master poet and an amateur hack? Maybe I should let go of all the actual evidence that Shakespeare was Shakespeare because you can mistranslate Latin. Or maybe because of pirates. Yeah, that's it. De Vere was captured by pirates, just like Hamlet, who... actually used pirates to help him escape. But still, pirates! Or maybe it's just because I don't like associating with crackpots.

[@johnsmith-eh3yc]

If shakespeare wasnt the author you left with a guy from Stratford who spent much of his time in London, an actor in Shakespeares plays, a sharer in theatres in London which perforned shakespeares plays. A guy who bequeathed and was bequethed to by actors in the Kings men who performed in shajespeares play, and whos brother Edmund was also an actor. If shakespeare of stdatford wasnt the author he would still have a massive bio on wikipedia. Devere would hardly make it onto wiki except for the conspiracy theory, and nothing he did in his documented life has any connection whatsoever to the theatre of shajespeare

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@of1300 If you're done in five minutes, you didn't read an actual biography. The documents alone take hours to read, without any context. The Folger has nearly all of them in high resolution scans. They identify Shakespeare the poet as the actor and gentleman from Stratford over and over again.

[@peterrichards931]

Nice movie, but unfortunately way too much in it is actually historically false. Even then, the idea that Queen Elizabeth birthed Edward DeVere and then had relations with him and birthed the Earl (can't recall his name) is just a bit crazy. The arguments against Shakespeare sound good at first glance, but they gradually fade away if you consider the entire picture. The problem is that learned-scholars today appreciate Shakespeare, and therefore anticipate Shakespeare that he must have been some profound literary genius like they are. Evidence is that Shakespeare was an extremely creative person who actually made many mistakes in the writing of the plays, very likely due to his lack of knowledge of geography and history. His latin is not top--notch stuff like DeVere would have learned and known well. As well, computer stylistic analysis of the works supports the author of the Shakespeare plays to be a different writer from that of DeVere's work and Marlowe's as well.

[@barryispuzzled]

Computer stylometry can say nothing about de Vere because there is not a large enough sample of his work. The evidence against Shakspere writing CofE and LLL is compelling because they came out of the Inns of Court, see Routledge's 'Francis Bacon's Contribution to Shakespeare'.