Tea at Trianon Forum
Always be polite. Courtesy is required of you.
Tea with the Queen
Latest topics
» Third War of Independence
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:21 pm by princess garnet

» House of Bernadotte Queens
Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:08 am by princess garnet

» Seek advice
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:45 am by Elena

» Mary Cassatt
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:18 am by otto

» Do you want a cup of Afternoon tea?
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:33 pm by otto

» Tea bag vs Loose leaf tea?
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:27 pm by otto

» Greet teaVS Black tea
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:22 pm by otto

» Tsar Nicholas I
Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:02 pm by princess garnet

» Emperor Rudolph II
Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:03 pm by princess garnet

Who is online?
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest


[ View the whole list ]

Most users ever online was 70 on Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:35 pm
Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of Tea at Trianon Forum on your social bookmarking website

Banner art courtesy of The Graphics Fairy.

"Anonymous" film

Go down

"Anonymous" film

Post  Elena on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:05 am

http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2011/11/truth-vs-fiction-in-film.html To quote from the Wall Street Journal:
And, as I said, the film is not really about the Essex Rebellion. It is about showing that ideas are stronger than brute force. So how to make that point without wasting 20 minutes of the audience's time? Well, Sir Robert Cecil—our villain—was in real life a hunchback. And so is King Richard III in Shakespeare's play of the same name. By switching the play that precedes the Essex Rebellion from "Richard II" to "Richard III," I was able to let the movie's audience immediately see the political implications of the performance. I didn't have to explain any complicated political metaphors: They only needed to see Richard III's hunched back to understand instantly a point that would have been obvious to London bricklayers and cobblers of the era.

In the end, the Essex Rebellion failed. In "Anonymous," it fails because Robert Cecil uses cannons—brute force—to destroy it. But, ultimately, Cecil couldn't silence the plays—or the ideas that they contain. The next king, James Stuart, was an immense fan of the theater, and he, too, understood what "Richard II" and "Richard III" were trying to say.

Is "Anonymous" an exact account of the history that it covers? No. But the liberties that it takes are necessary for capturing a deeper truth. In this, I can point to noble literary antecedents. Just consider the fictionalized characters and imagined events of the "history" plays of Shakespeare himself.

Je pardonne à tous mes ennemis le mal qu’ils m’ont fait.

Posts : 1165
Join date : 2011-10-18
Location : East of the Sun, West of the Moon

View user profile http://www.emvidal.com/

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum