Yesterday, I saw the movie Anonymous. It's a movie about how the plays of Shakespeare were written by Edward DeVere, the Earl of Oxford, and it just raises a lot of questions, like...
* If Edward DeVere can apparently write something of the magnitude of Midsummer Night's Dream as a mere child, as the film suggests, then why wouldn't he have burned the three-part Henry VI?
* What is the point of setting up that Shakespeare was apparently illiterate when we reveal in the film proper that he actually can read? Why undermine this point to make it perfectly plausible that Shakespeare could have made his own plays based on Commedia dell arte and Holinshead's histories? If he still can't write, is it so impossible for him to have hired someone he could dictate to?
* What's the point of getting the death of Marlowe so wrong? Couldn't it have been easy to make a dummy of Marlowe with a dagger through his eye in a tavern and not just have him lying in a gutter?
* Why does DeVere need even Ben Jonson as a proxy?
* If Jonson really is such a literary cipher, as DeVere claims, then why has his own play The Alchemist remained so popular when other non-Shakespearean authors have vanished into the Æther?
* Did DeVere have access to the future? If not, then how did he come to know about the 1609 shipwreck that inspired the Tempest if he died in 1604? And how would he have foreseen the need to flatter King James by writing a play about his ancestors, especially if he was banking on the possibility that he was going to rule after her, which leads to another point...
* Why does Edward DeVere think he actually has a claim to the throne? Even if he is the bastard son of Queen Elizabeth, illegitimate kids couldn't inherit property, much less royal titles, in Elizabethan England.
* If you're going to go so far to keep the atmosphere of Elizabethan England, then why fill the script with pseudohistorical bullshit?
* Why completely fuck up the dates of Shakespeare's history? Everything seems to start in 1598, and the Globe theatre burns in 1604.
* If you're going to advance a theory about a famous person that runs contrary to conventional wisdom, why not do your damn research so that someone who does some independent research can reach similar conclusions to you?
* How does an actor like Derek Jacobi get fooled by this? Has his partner's semen backed up into his brain like a joke from Reservoir Dogs brought to life?
* What's the point of bothering to claim that Shakespeare wasn't the writer of his own plays?
Well, it is by the director of 2012, so can we expect anything deep? At any rate, I've heard that his next project is going to be about Obama, and about how he was born in Kenya and how his parents managed to gain control of the media for a few days in 1962 to ensure that everyone thought he was born in America in preparation for a presidential election that wouldn't happen for 46 more years.
* If Edward DeVere can apparently write something of the magnitude of Midsummer Night's Dream as a mere child, as the film suggests, then why wouldn't he have burned the three-part Henry VI?
* What is the point of setting up that Shakespeare was apparently illiterate when we reveal in the film proper that he actually can read? Why undermine this point to make it perfectly plausible that Shakespeare could have made his own plays based on Commedia dell arte and Holinshead's histories? If he still can't write, is it so impossible for him to have hired someone he could dictate to?
* What's the point of getting the death of Marlowe so wrong? Couldn't it have been easy to make a dummy of Marlowe with a dagger through his eye in a tavern and not just have him lying in a gutter?
* Why does DeVere need even Ben Jonson as a proxy?
* If Jonson really is such a literary cipher, as DeVere claims, then why has his own play The Alchemist remained so popular when other non-Shakespearean authors have vanished into the Æther?
* Did DeVere have access to the future? If not, then how did he come to know about the 1609 shipwreck that inspired the Tempest if he died in 1604? And how would he have foreseen the need to flatter King James by writing a play about his ancestors, especially if he was banking on the possibility that he was going to rule after her, which leads to another point...
* Why does Edward DeVere think he actually has a claim to the throne? Even if he is the bastard son of Queen Elizabeth, illegitimate kids couldn't inherit property, much less royal titles, in Elizabethan England.
* If you're going to go so far to keep the atmosphere of Elizabethan England, then why fill the script with pseudohistorical bullshit?
* Why completely fuck up the dates of Shakespeare's history? Everything seems to start in 1598, and the Globe theatre burns in 1604.
* If you're going to advance a theory about a famous person that runs contrary to conventional wisdom, why not do your damn research so that someone who does some independent research can reach similar conclusions to you?
* How does an actor like Derek Jacobi get fooled by this? Has his partner's semen backed up into his brain like a joke from Reservoir Dogs brought to life?
* What's the point of bothering to claim that Shakespeare wasn't the writer of his own plays?
Well, it is by the director of 2012, so can we expect anything deep? At any rate, I've heard that his next project is going to be about Obama, and about how he was born in Kenya and how his parents managed to gain control of the media for a few days in 1962 to ensure that everyone thought he was born in America in preparation for a presidential election that wouldn't happen for 46 more years.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
