Comments on: Review: Roland Emmerich’s ‘Anonymous’ Still Manages To Destroy Something — Its Own Authenticity

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

It is historically accurate, and Emmerich discusses all that went into the film in various videos that can be found all over the internet, especially youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WRTs_WmYUI&feature=related

By: Rod Brownlie

Rod Brownlie — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

Emmerich is a truly talentless individual indulging in the pastimes of the imbecilic

By: Kirsten I.

Kirsten I. — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

This is a good review–it focuses on the movie rather than the message. If you doubt my assessment, reread the first two sentences of the last paragraph. I was relieved to see that Todd Gilchrist discusses the faults of the movie, not of the theory it\’s based on.

Nevertheless, I wouldn\’t see the movie whether it was good or bad, because I don\’t subscribe to the theory it\’s based on.

By: William Ray

William Ray — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

I carry no brief for the screenplay, but then I never made a film. I can testify to the essential accuracy of the narrative that the Shakespeare canon is the accumulated plays and poems of a genius rebel ranked highest in Elizabeth I\’s royal court. As that gifted aristocrat, Edward de Vere lurked his whole career behind pseudonyms and proxies, the last of which was the pseudonym Shakespeare/Shake-speare and later used as a fiction tied to a totally real Stratford money-lender and theater investor. Oxford gave up his literary immortality under his own name, an anonymity extorted from him by Robert Cecil, the tyrannical royal Secretary of the time. His work could then only be issued under the pseudonym intentionally confusing the name and the illiterate Shakspere of Stratford. If the reviewer were better informed historically he may not have been so harsh in his criticisms. The movie should be recognized as taking on one of Western literature\’s falsifications and trying to tell the truth. If there was too much to tell, they tried. This is more than Western literary criticism has had the guts to do.

By: maureen

maureen — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

Poor old Oxfraudians! The reviews are in and no one is buying into their conspiracy theory! Pathetic!

By: Merilee Karr

Merilee Karr — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

Methinks the reviewer doth protest too much. This movie is hot AND interesting -kind of a blockbuster for the brainy.

By: Roger Stritmatter

Roger Stritmatter — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

One hesitates to wade into these waters but it may be worth noting that the idea that Mr. Streitz insists on as \”sound history\” is in Emmerich\’s film one promoted by Robert Cecil. Whether you examine it from a literary or a historical point of view, this hardly a ringing endorsement. It would be nice if people on both sides of this debate refrained from ideological oversimplification.

Those interested in websites that explore the film\’s fundamental premises about Shakespeare\’s identity without overleaping tall buildings in a single bound or ignoring the fundamental problem Mr. Streitz doesn\’t seem to understand of *who* is making a particular claim, may prefer these websites:

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org
http://www.shakespeare-Oxfordsociety.com
http://www.shake-speares-bible.com
http://www.facebook.com/groups/shakesvere/
http://www.facebook.com/TrueShakespeare

By: sp

sp — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

Wow! I heard this movie was pretty good.

By: Anka Z

Anka Z — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

With all due respect, Mr Streitz, the movie\’s history is not sound. Roland Emmerich, himself, admits that he took liberties with historical accuracy in order to enhance the film\’s \”thrill factor.\” If we are to hold our own against the assaults of the Stratfordians who look to demolish both the movie and its director, we as Oxfordians must acknowledge this historical non-compliance. Having seen \”Anonymous\” last week, I believe that audiences will be confronted with more than enough Truth.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

A flashback within a flashback within a flashback.

Flashback-ception!

By: PStreitz

PStreitz — Fri, 13 May 2016 13:37:46 +0000

Emmerich\’s film is on the money. His history is sound.

Oxford was Shakespeare, Oxford was the son of the Queen, Oxford and the Queen had incestuous relationship, producing the Earl of Southampton.

It is more than a movie about who was Shakespeare.

Paul Streitz
Author: Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I
http://www.shakespeareidentified.com