sugar and spice and everything nice
"Анонима" показали на кинофестивале в Торонто, и на показ занесло парочку выносливых шекспироведов. Сижу вот читаю блогоотчеты и думаю - я хочу это смотреть, или мне уже и так хорошо?
Переводить отзывы мне лень. Определяющая цитата - "Ну, это менее ужасно, чем "Атлант расправил плечи". И еще - они, кажется, заюзали теорию "принца Тюдора", так что у них там Оксфорд сын Елизаветы. Что не мешает ему спать с ней.
UPD: а, нет, унесу себе цитатку на память: Now, Emmerich’s historiography — or really screenwriter John Orloff’s, since Emmerich’s “research” by his own admission seems to have been restricted to Google searches and a few DVDs — could be cast as radically skeptical: since Elizabethan England was a proto-Stalinist state (as Emmerich informed us during a debate at the English Speaking Union in June), no documents whatsoever, nothing in print or in manuscript, can be trusted; no-one, after all, could safely speak or write truthfully about anything in this environment, least of all about playwrights. Once you accept that premise, of course, absolutely any narrative can make sense, since all stories about early modern England then have equal validity (or lack all validity equally). Emmerich and Orloff certainly take the licence their philosophy of history gives them to impressive extremes, ignoring, basically, the entire archive of documented evidence for just about anything that happened in the sixteenth century.
Переводить отзывы мне лень. Определяющая цитата - "Ну, это менее ужасно, чем "Атлант расправил плечи". И еще - они, кажется, заюзали теорию "принца Тюдора", так что у них там Оксфорд сын Елизаветы. Что не мешает ему спать с ней.
UPD: а, нет, унесу себе цитатку на память: Now, Emmerich’s historiography — or really screenwriter John Orloff’s, since Emmerich’s “research” by his own admission seems to have been restricted to Google searches and a few DVDs — could be cast as radically skeptical: since Elizabethan England was a proto-Stalinist state (as Emmerich informed us during a debate at the English Speaking Union in June), no documents whatsoever, nothing in print or in manuscript, can be trusted; no-one, after all, could safely speak or write truthfully about anything in this environment, least of all about playwrights. Once you accept that premise, of course, absolutely any narrative can make sense, since all stories about early modern England then have equal validity (or lack all validity equally). Emmerich and Orloff certainly take the licence their philosophy of history gives them to impressive extremes, ignoring, basically, the entire archive of documented evidence for just about anything that happened in the sixteenth century.