A Few Words About A few words about...™ Anonymous -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Roland Emmerich's Anonymous concerns a still unanswered question.


Who was the real William Shakespeare?


And by that I mean who really wrote what has come down through the centuries under his name?


Anonymous attempts to answer that question, or at least points us toward one of the prime candidates, and does it beautifully, with great style, and with more suspense and intrigue than one might presume would come from the tale.


Let's get the negative out of the way first.


I deplore forced trailers and ads. And Anonymous is filled to the brim with them.


It took me almost five minutes to finally get the main attraction on screen, after the various warnings, and (I lost count) five or six trailers. And no means of getting to a main menu.


That's the only negative.


Since beginning a discussion of security stickers vs. our environment, I'm pleased to report that Anonymous has none. That tells me that either Sony isn't as concerned about a copy being purloined as, for example, Lionsgate's Shakespeare in Love...


or alternatively, Sony has more concern for the planet, landfill, etc., which I believe to be the case.


We'll be keeping track of security stickers as time goes by, and possibly rating by the number attached to discs.


From a personal perspective, I loved Anonymous, for the story, background and generally the era. The Shakespeare controversy is a very real ongoing discussion. And having both had the opportunity to handle original Shakespeare folios, as well as to trod the earth where the stage had once been, at the time of the re-discovery of the theatre in 1989, I am generally a fan of anything to do with the subject.


As a Blu-ray, Anonymous has its own very specific look. From almost colorless at times, imagery represented in a slightly colored sepia, to other expressions of the DI colorist's and filmmaker's desires, the film never failed to please.


And neither does the Blu-ray.


The overall representation of the film on Blu-ray takes advantage of every one of Blu-rays technical attributes, both visual as well as aural, and the final expression, on screen, looks precisely as one would hope.


Like cinema, achieved via HDCAM. In this case, the Arri Alexa. Audio is (naturally) DTS-HD Master Audio.


Anonymous is a terrific piece of entertainment, brought to Blu-ray with perfection, which is as it should be.


Highly Recommended.


RAH

 

[Richard--W]

I think I'll pass on Anonymous. There is such a thing as being too skeptical. Conspiracy theorists and imposter theorists never run out of angles and dodges. Who wrote Shakespeare's plays? Shakespeare did. No doubt he probably did some editing and consulting for other writers, colleagues and contemporaries, as playwrights still do today. No doubt his plays impacted other playwrights, and no doubt other playwrights imitated him. After all, he worked in the theatrical profession among theatrical people. He did not live in an ivory tower or in a vacuum. But that does not mean he didn't write the plays or that he wrote other plays he wasn;t credited with.

 

[TomTom]

Like cinema, achieved via HDCAM.  In this case, the Arri Alexa.

Mr. Harris, It appears this film was actually recorded onto codex hard drives with minor compression and not sony media. Thank you for all your "A few words about" reviews!

 

[theonemacduff]

I think I'll pass on Anonymous. There is such a thing as being too skeptical. Conspiracy theorists and imposter theorists never run out of angles and dodges. Who wrote Shakespeare's plays? Shakespeare did. No doubt he probably did some editing and consulting for other writers, colleagues and contemporaries, as playwrights still do today. No doubt his plays impacted other playwrights, and no doubt other playwrights imitated him. After all, he worked in the theatrical profession among theatrical people. He did not live in an ivory tower or in a vacuum. But that does not mean he didn't write the plays or that he wrote other plays he wasn;t credited with.

Absolutely agree with this. If you look at what Shakespeare's contemporaries said about him, they were in no doubt whatever that he wrote the plays that bear his name. In fact, they thought so much of him that after he was dead, they collected all his old scripts and put out a collected edition. Today, that's normal for great writers. In 1623 it was almost unheard of, and shows that they thought his work was something special. At the beginning of that book (the so-called First Folio), his colleague Ben Johnson wrote a tribute to him that praises both the man and his art; "I confesse thy writings to be such/As neither Man nor Muse can praise too much," says Ben. "Soul of the Age!/The Applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage!" and he goes on to praise him specifically as a writer, worthy companion to Chaucer and Spenser, and one to challenge the greatest that the ancients had to offer. "Sweet Swan of Avon," he calls him, and says "He was not of an age, but for all time!" (those un-Jacobean exclamation points again!). Those interested in the real Earl of Oxford might want to try Alan H. Nelson's recent biography.

 

[marcco00]

i bought it solely for vanessa redgrave's performance as elizabeth 1, my favorite historical character. elizabeth's scenes and essex's revolt were the best things in the film, the rest not so much, IMHO. 'anonymous' is 'shakespeare in love''s dark evil twin!!

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by TomTom


Mr. Harris,
It appears this film was actually recorded onto codex hard drives with minor compression and not sony media.
Thank you for all your "A few words about" reviews!

However held, precisely where the data goes, how long it stays there, and how, when and where it is protected, is more of the more daunting things about data vs. film capture.


RAH

 

[Richard--W]

I think I'll pass on Anonymous. There is such a thing as being too skeptical. Conspiracy theorists and imposter theorists never run out of angles and dodges. Who wrote Shakespeare's plays? Shakespeare did. No doubt he probably did some editing and consulting for other writers, colleagues and contemporaries, as playwrights still do today. No doubt his plays impacted other playwrights, and no doubt other playwrights imitated him. After all, he worked in the theatrical profession among theatrical people. He did not live in an ivory tower or in a vacuum. But that does not mean he didn't write the plays or that he wrote other plays he wasn;t credited with.

Absolutely agree with this. If you look at what Shakespeare's contemporaries said about him, they were in no doubt whatever that he wrote the plays that bear his name. In fact, they thought so much of him that after he was dead, they collected all his old scripts and put out a collected edition. Today, that's normal for great writers. In 1623 it was almost unheard of, and shows that they thought his work was something special. At the beginning of that book (the so-called First Folio), his colleague Ben Johnson wrote a tribute to him that praises both the man and his art; "I confesse thy writings to be such/As neither Man nor Muse can praise too much," says Ben. "Soul of the Age!/The Applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage!" and he goes on to praise him specifically as a writer, worthy companion to Chaucer and Spenser, and one to challenge the greatest that the ancients had to offer. "Sweet Swan of Avon," he calls him, and says "He was not of an age, but for all time!" (those un-Jacobean exclamation points again!). Those interested in the real Earl of Oxford might want to try Alan H. Nelson's recent biography.

These conspiracy and imposter theorists have no experience in the theater. Actors and crew people write on their scripts. They make notes, draw diagrams, change dialogue slightly so that it can be spoken trippingly off the tongue, and generally scribble a lot on the page. Whether or not to use contractions in your speech can be a major decision, depending on the emotion you're dredging up. Scribble shows the actor and crew people are preparing and working. Some journalist finds that scribbled script 3-400 years later and decides it must be a hitherto unknown Original Draft / Revised Draft by some other playwright. You just can't reason with these people. They get a lot of attention and sell a lot of books and get paid to be talking heads on the so-called History Channel, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

 

[JParker]

These conspiracy and imposter theorists have no experience in the theater. Actors and crew people write on their scripts. They make notes, draw diagrams, change dialogue slightly so that it can be spoken trippingly off the tongue, and generally scribble a lot on the page. Whether or not to use contractions in your speech can be a major decision, depending on the emotion you're dredging up. Scribble shows the actor and crew people are preparing and working. Some journalist finds that scribbled script 3-400 years later and decides it must be a hitherto unknown Original Draft / Revised Draft by some other playwright. You just can't reason with these people. They get a lot of attention and sell a lot of books and get paid to be talking heads on the so-called History Channel, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

I really am not responding to the individuals who posted; however, if readers of Mr. Harris' review decide not to view the film based on the belief that there is a conspiracy, and not on the merits of the film itself, that would be a shame. First of all, a conspiracy involves crime. Ignorance is a shame and perhaps a sin, but not a crime. Many creative people, not the establishment 'scholars', have challenged the authorship of the man from Stratford. I do no know what the posters do for a living and throughout the Internet any challenges to orthodox ideas are classified as conspiracy. But the works of Shakespeare were written in an environment of intellectual liberty, which is sadly lacking in our time, except for the challenge of the Internet. More to the point, Sir. Derek Jacobi, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Freud all doubted the explanation of authorship and I am certain the posters do not have equivalent credentials. Furthermore, Shapiro, who represents the 'establishment' wrote a book that addresses these issues but we shall see that his response has in fact failed. There is a great deal of scholarship on the authorship; in fact do the readers of this post know this connection, one of several, in Hamlet, to De Vere, which is discussed in the book Shakespeare by Another Name by Anderson: Website: http://shakespearebyanothername.com/index.html http://shakespearebyanothername.blogspot.com/2011/05/hamlet-elsinore-and-exploded-world.html

In his capacity as ambassador, de Vere's brother-in-law met top Danish officials — including one courtier with the family name of Rosenkrantz and two surnamed Guldenstern. Bertie also visited the legendary astronomer Tycho Brahe at his observatory. Ten years before, Brahe had observed a supernova in the constellation Cassiopea — the same bright “star that’s westward from the pole” that Hamlet’s guards on the battlements of Elsinore notice. Brahe had also used his Danish observatory to make the most accurate observations ever of planetary conjunctions, oppositions, and retrograde motions. From this data, Brahe had concluded that the ancient geocentric theory of the universe was correct, that the Earth was indeed the celestial body around which everything else in the celestial spheres orbited. The Danish king touted his court astronomer’s achievements, a fact that escaped neither Lord Willoughby nor his brother-in-law. Hamlet's KING CLAUDIUS denies the PRINCE's request to return to school by noting that it would be "retrograde to our desire"; he says HAMLET’s excessive mourning is in "peevish opposition" to the facts of life and a "fault to heaven"; he says that his new wife GERTRUDE is "conjunctive" to his soul, and that he orbits her as a "star moves not but in his sphere." For providing such local color, de Vere ultimately gave his brother-in-law a tip of the pen. "Enter ... English Ambassador" the stage directions read as Hamlet draws to a close. With six dour lines to recite — one of which is "ROSENKRANTZ and GUILDENSTERN are dead" — Hamlet's ENGLISH AMBASSADOR to Elsinore is hardly an ample stand-in for the colorful Lord Willoughby. Still, to those in on the joke at court, no further explanation was necessary. PETRUCHIO had made his cameo.

There is no evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford even attended a grammar school. I will post a few links, again of excellent scholarship. A new book by Richard Malim is discussed here : http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/DVS-publications.html http://www.amazon.com/Earl-Oxford-Making-%2522Shakespeare%2522-Literary/dp/0786463139/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329593760&sr=1-1 http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/authorship.html See this site as well: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?page_id=90 Shapiro, who felt compelled to respond to challenges to his 'orthodox faith' is challenged here: http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/News&Events-20.html

Many actors, including Sir Derek Jacobi, Leslie Howard, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Michael York and John Gielgud have doubted the traditional biography of William Shakspere of Stratford. Many writers, including Mark Twain, Henry James and Daphne du Maurier have entertained similar doubts. Many other intellectuals including Sigmund Freud and JE Powell, and many politicians including Bismark, Disraeli, Palmerston and De Gaulle have found it impossible to accept the myth. After noting his genius, his unparalleled learning and his aristocratic outlook, they have decided that the Bard cannot have been William Shakspere of Stratford.

My point is that no one should not see the film due to any preconceptions and contrary to the posts here, there are many people who challenge the authorship. Even this economics site discusses the editing of Shakespeare: http://mises.org/daily/5803 Let Mr. Harris have the last words; I find him wise:

From a personal perspective, I loved Anonymous, for the story, background and generally the era. The Shakespeare controversy is a very real ongoing discussion. And having both had the opportunity to handle original Shakespeare folios, as well as to trod the earth where the stage had once been, at the time of the re-discovery of the theater in 1989, I am generally a fan of anything to do with the subject. The overall representation of the film on Blu-ray takes advantage of every one of Blu-rays technical attributes, both visual as well as aural, and the final expression, on screen, looks precisely as one would hope... Anonymous is a terrific piece of entertainment, brought to Blu-ray with perfection, which is as it should be. Highly Recommended.