Let's vote with our pocketbooks on the movie "Anonymous"

[PurityOfEssence]

I would like to appeal to all of you who agree that the bumpkin from Stratford really did write all of those plays to resist temptation and not contribute to the first week's box of this movie.

See it next week or later, and see it at the cheapest rate possible.

There is a tiresome academic and elitist contingent that continually fuels the theory that such a person simply couldn't have outdistanced those of more noble origin and educational attainment. Somewhere, Moliere is laughing.

So, let's not contribute to the first weekend's gross, and let's give it a fair watching and take it from there.

Let's not engage in any repartee until having seen it with as fair a mind as we can muster, but let's deny them the sanctification of the take.

Will would agree, since he made most of his money from the house...

Maybe not. Remember this: the heart and soul of the dismissal of his authorship is rooted in aristocratic, classist claims of superiority. Lefties should be a bit itchy in the face of this.

As a devout lover of fact and honesty, I want the movie to get a fair viewing, but, for the moment, I don't want to lend the credence of a box office take to be stacked against truth.

I will see it sometime after the first week, and will hold my voluble tongue on issues raised by the film itself until seeing it. During the interim, I'll only argue points not arising from this "local habitation and a name"

Should be interesting.

[MADem]

1. They're probably hoping to get Guy Fawkes Mask fans in there, who haven't read

the advance reviews or the plot premise.

I'll bet a lot of people will be annoyed.

I wait till it gets to REDBOX. I'm cheap.

[meegbear]

2. I don't think you have to worry ...

considering the subject matter and the crappy taste of the public at large, I'll be surprised if anybody sees it at all, even on DVD.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. Yeah, the premise of this one pissed me off, too.

Particularly when you consider that the Shakespeare plays were considered rather lowbrow when they were written. Now they're going to make claims that a noble wrote them? Sorry, but that's a load of crap until you produce some evidence.

[EC]

5. Not just now,

I can remember almost 40 years ago there were articles in Magazines etc. about it, only then they were saying it was Bacon that wrote them.

[arbusto_baboso]

6. And again I ask, where is the evidence?

Show me some evidence, then we can consider that possibility.

(I say this not to you, of course, but to the dipshits who keep positiing these theories.)

[abelenkpe]

4. No worries

the ads for that film are already nauseating.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

7. As a proud member of the underclass

i.e. someone who believes there is no shame in being poor, rather only shame in being rich, I will wait for Netflix, which is the only way I can afford to watch movies.

[highplainsdem]

8. K&R

[Recovered Repug]

9. To see or not to see, that is the question. nt.

[CanisCrocinus]

10. Not so

"Remember this: the heart and soul of the dismissal of his authorship is rooted in aristocratic, classist claims of superiority."

Not so. The heart and soul of the argument is the truly staggering congruences of the work (the plays, the sonnets) with the life of Edward DeVere, and the complete absence of congruence with the life of William Shakespeare of Stratford. Read Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare by Another Name," among many others on the DeVere theory. The argument isn't fueled by aristocratic angle; it's fueled by evidence. And to tag its adherents as "elitist" is unfair. That said, I make no claims for the movie. I've already heard of some concessions it makes to storytelling over accuracy. But I'll be there on opening night.

[Defectata]

11. I remember distinctly my junior year HS teacher

saying "some people may believe that one person wrote all of 'Shakespeare's' plays, but for the purposes of this class you will all assume they were written by more than one person.'

What a bitch she was.