The Life of Henry the Fifth from Anonymous (2011)

The Life of Henry the Fifth from the 2011 movie by Roland Emmerich Anonymous. Present here only to promote the Columbia Pictures film.

[@Blackwoodrulez]

Such a gem in the film industry. One of my all time favorites

[@thesardonicpig3835]

We few. We happy few. We obscure band of brothers who actually appreciate Anonymous.

[@matteotorre2711]

We few

[@kourtourafi]

Magnificent scene! Chills run down my spine, honestly!!!

[@fen1x0r]

This movie is such a gem.

[@matthewstoneback9]

Damn, the critics. This was Roland Emmerich's finest film!

[@kathrynbencriscutto507]

Dont chicken out. This is the finest of any many films. This is my all time favorote on many many levels

[@harriffanconshertini8804]

Also the fact that it's promoting Anti-Stratfordianism... (Not a good thing, by the way)

[@varkony60]

@@harriffanconshertini8804 It's showing the turth. Not a bad thing, by the way.

[@thesardonicpig3835]

Very late with my comment, but still. This film is a work of genius. And something tells me it might be "rediscovered" sometime in the future when Oxfordian research becomes more widely known and less of an academic pariah. Regarding the critics: no one was THIS outraged at Shakespeare in Love's historical inaccuracies (also a fantastic film). It went without saying that it was a movie and made for entertainment. However, when an Oxfordian-based film dares to be historically inaccurate (Richard II, not Richard III was connected to the Essex rebellion) or has fun dramatising unproved theories (Prince Tudor), it's apparently the most revolting bit of historical revisionism ever put to film? The Roger Ebert review was the only actually fair review I read - saying that even if you think the Oxfordian theory is nonsense, that doesn't detract from the fact that this is a brilliant film.

[@bomagosh]

@@varkony60 The truth it's showing is that the Oxfordian theory makes no sense. This confusing mess of a plot couldn't be depicted on the screen, let alone have happened in reality.

[@sonofculloden2]

I’m can only imagine the mind and thought process of Edward de Vere. To sit with him. To speak with him. To know him. Unfathomable. Thank you sir.

[@Shady36]

The original fourth wall break.

[@throwoutable]

Narrator: possibly

[@ConcreteSurfer420]

1:17 = notice his fingers which are covered in ink are moving as if hes writing...its like hes watching his writing come to life

[@franklesher4459]

Like a director who sees the work of a lifetime written by his own perspective.

[@imerosimeros1683]

my favorite scene

[@ft6zzz]

I agree.

[@anonnymetoto8343]

me to

[@philipzamora4259]

0:36-2:18 The BFG himself, Mr. Mark Rylance, everybody.

[@LuisRivera-vf9pk]

They got the groundlings engaged very well.

[@wanderingkernel5002]

Back when theatre was actually good.

[@laurissimalondon6255]

Every time I watch it I cry like a child.

[@The19101900]

My favorite scene..

[@throwoutable]

2:42 was always a cool line

[@tarekbenhamed7439]

That's Mark Rylance ..I believe he knows Shakespeare poetry by heart! First time I saw that scene I knew this guy has Shakespearean flair!

[@Skyebright1]

He’s great in Wolf Hall ;)

[@gaggle57]

Just wow.

[@wheretheeaglefly4451]

O ne of my most beloved movie scene ever!!!

[@hongyiwu8751]

Anybody knows where I can find theater productions like this? Anywhere on this earth. Those so called "immersive theaters" just don't satisfy me

[@bomagosh]

Yes. Shakespeare's Globe in London. The "shared light" performances in the afternoon when the players and the audience are all in the sunlight are pretty great.

[@ft6zzz]

This scene was shot in the new Globe Theater in London. They preform plays there all the time.

[@erickmarquez506]

The golden Age's Stage was the GOT of that age... what is the battle of the bastards compare to this small scene.

[@censorduck]

They probably hold their manhoods cheap.

[@the-engneer]

Are you seriously comparing Game of Thrones to Shakespeare?

[@joellazos5695]

Es una de las mejores películas sobre teatro que vi en mi vida, una pena que haya tenido más éxito Shakespeare in love que esta excelente película tesis, sobre la teoría oxfordiana de Shakespeare

[@22espec]

I bet that nobody wanted to be a soldier french in the next play

[@bomagosh]

When I saw this scene the first time, I thought the actor playing Chorus was intentionally underplaying the role -- as if the original cast were bad actors. Maybe that was the goal, to contrast the players with Oxford. In reality, Chorus was almost certainly played by William Shakespeare himself, describing how, as the playwright, he would have needed a muse of fire to properly depict the battle of Agincourt. There is no historical record of Oxford even attending one of Shakespeare's plays, let alone having written any of them.

[@floatingholmes]

There is, in fact, historical record that Oxford wrote a song found in Romeo & Juliet. That is not all we know he wrote, for he is also applauded for writing plays which (in description) match Shakespeare’s histories and comedies- but the titles are not given). On the other hand, no one has ever been able to prove Shaksper of Stratford ever wrote anything more than his name on legal documents. So, on the documentary record, Oxford’s single song in Romeo & Juliet outweighs all the evidence for Stratford- while presenting the additional challenge to explain how Oxford’s song would have ended up in Shaxper’s alleged writing anyway?

[@bomagosh]

@@floatingholmes "he is also applauded for writing plays which (in description) match Shakespeare’s histories and comedies- but the titles are not given)." That's false. The only reference to his having written drama was in Puttenham where he was credited, along with "Maister Edwardes" of being "best for comedy and enterlude." No identification of the subject of the works Puttenham credits him with writing; and no evidence that Puttenham had ever seen a play attributed to Oxford, let alone have personal knowledge of his writing a play. As you may know, Oxford has hired John Lyly as the master of his children's playing company. Lyly was an accomplished playwright best known for his comedies. In fact, in Meres' book that mentions Oxford as best for Comedy (Meres clearly copied from Puttenham, so his book doesn't count as firsthand evidence) he lists Lyly as well as Shakespeare as others who were accomplished writers of comedies.

[@bomagosh]

@@floatingholmes What's the evidence? Please cite it.

[@floatingholmes]

"Enterlude" is a play, but I am not referencing Puttenham. The histories I'm referring to includes his troupe of actors mounting the anonymous "History of Agamemnon and Ulysses" for the court as well as "Famous Victories of Henry V" which a reference by Thomas Nashe puts at no later than 1587 and is filled with parallels from Oxford's juvenilia. These are not the only Shakespearean echoes that we can connect to Oxford, but these two alone are infinitely more than we can connect to Stratford. Your contempt for Meres shows an extraordinary over-reach in your case-- to say Meres "clearly" copied Puttenham is to misrepresent the case grossly. And all of this is to avoid admitting there isn't the slightest evidence for your baseless and deceptive claim that "In reality, Chorus was almost certainly played by William Shakespeare himself" -- something stated with confidence that has not even the shadow of a rumor of evidence to back it up. Good work! @@bomagosh

[@bomagosh]

@@floatingholmes Actually I was looking for your citation for a song Oxford wrote that was in Romeo and Juliet. "The histories I'm referring to includes his troupe of actors mounting the anonymous "History of Agamemnon and Ulysses" for the court as well as "Famous Victories of Henry V" which a reference by Thomas Nashe puts at no later than 1587 and is filled with parallels from Oxford's juvenilia." You think that's evidence for Oxford having written those works? You know that Oxford's playing company was managed by John Lyly, a prominent playwright? It's pretty weak as evidence for Oxford having written the two anonymous plays; it's meaningless in attributing the plays written by Shakespeare. As far as evidence, William Shakespeare's name on the title pages of quartos and the First Folio is far more significant. Harold Love's book Attributing Authorship is a standard guide to the process; I'd recommend it to you. What "contempt" have I shown for Meres? It's perfectly fine for him to have incorporated authors Puttenham named in his book in Palladis Tamia. Meres repeats the authors Puttenham names and credits them as among the best in the categories Puttenham identifies for each. The coincidence is remarkable, unless we recognize that Puttenham wrote his work ten years before. But taking what another author wrote and repeating it is hearsay, and doesn't count as primary, eyewitness evidence. The evidence for Shakespeare's authorship is substantial and nothing that the Shakespeare authorship doubters have come up with in 150 years has raised any significant questions about it.