Anonymous

[Mr Sloane]

A film to make The Da Vinci Code look like a documentary.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13675875

[CaptainWaggett]

I saw this tonight. It's no Shakespeare in Love, that's for certain. Apart from being almost entirely lacking in humour (Rafe Spall does his best, bless, but he's really not given much to work with), and being completely bonkers (there's some odd snippets of fact tucked away in a confusing jumble of flashbacks which tested my A-level history to its limits, but you will not believe how very much not a Virgin the Queen is ), it tries to give itself a spurious authenticity by having an introduction from Sir Derek 'you'd really think I'd know better' Jacobi. But Elizabethan London does look brilliant and there's some OK perfomances even from Rhys Ifans

[dpgmel]

Must admit the film sounds intriguing but from what you say the premise is still somewhat flimsy ?

[CaptainWaggett]

Must admit the film sounds intriguing but from what you say the premise is still somewhat flimsy ?

Well, I don't mind the Oxonoan theory being bonkers and it could be a fun piece but I think it's a bit mad to have an introduction giving gullible people the impression that they're seeing Proper History. Some changes are clearly because they don't expect much of their audience - for example the Essex rebellion was partly inspired by a paid-for production of Richard II at the Globe but clearly Richard III is thought to be more famous . But I just got confused - the timeframe jumps about a lot and there's a lot of beardy Blackadder types to sort out (complicated by the fact that several major characters are played by two different actors). I didn't not like it though and and Vanessa is absolutely marvellous

[dremble wedge]

Bonkers is good, so is Vanessa, I'm sure I'll enjoy it

[Fellwanderer]

Well, I don't mind the Oxonoan theory being bonkers and it could be a fun piece but I think it's a bit mad to have an introduction giving gullible people the impression that they're seeing Proper History.

As a history graduate, that concerns me, too. Of course, one should always seek confirmation from other sources but I wonder how many will delve further.

I expect I'll watch it when it finally makes it to our television screens and then try tO follow up with the academic works to see how much credence they may be given.

Personally, I'm happy enough to accept Will as the author - after all, why shouldn't he have been? I wouldn't say our ruling classes have provided such a huge number of great writers and poets that we should have to reject such a lowly knave as our greatest writer.