10 reasons

Off topic discourse and banter encouraged.
User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Slings and arrows of time

Post by neufer » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:38 pm

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=345693 wrote:
Many scholars write off controversial Shakespeare film
The Associated Press 11/14/2011

NEW YORK - <<O, for a juicy literary dispute that would pit scholars against Hollywood, with charges of snobbery, materialism, elitism and opportunism flying around like so many slings and arrows - not to mention the specter of young minds poisoned by the character assassination of a hero.

Heard about the new movie "Anonymous"? The film by Roland Emmerich, a director better known for apocalyptic blockbusters than period dramas, opened Friday. But already, its contention that Shakespeare was a simpleton, a fraud and perhaps a murderer who never wrote a word of those great plays has set off some epic sniping of which the Bard himself might be proud. "A new low for Hollywood," said Columbia University professor James Shapiro. "Completely grotesque," said Stanley Wells, of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Britain. Emmerich said he's been called names, and screenwriter John Orloff said one critic even suggested he be taken "to the tower" - the Tower of London, that is. Orloff dismisses Shapiro's complaints as "frothing at the mouth."

Not that the authorship dispute is new, of course. It has been around since at least the mid-19th century (even that time is in dispute). Nor is the film's main contention new, that the actual author was the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere: There's a whole "Oxfordian" school of thought, along with a "Baconian" school (Francis Bacon). Some think it was playwright Christopher Marlowe, or even Queen Elizabeth I herself. But Emmerich's film goes further, pitting the story of Shakespeare in a political context involving a fight for succession using the plays as propaganda. As for Elizabeth: the Virgin Queen? Not so much. (The film suggests she had several children secretly, and one of them was born of incest.)

Also, some scholars are disturbed by the film's dismissal of complaints of factual errors with an "it's only a movie" explanation. "It's the best of both worlds for Emmerich," wrote Stephen Marche, a former Shakespeare professor, in The New York Times magazine. "He gets to question hundreds of years of legitimate scholarship ... because, after all, it's just a movie."

And then there's the educational push into schools. Sony, in concert with an educational company, has prepared study guides for educators on the authorship question, as with some previous films. "I don't have a problem with Roland Emmerich drinking the Kool-Aid," said Columbia's Shapiro. "But when he serves it to kids in paper cups, I do." The acrimony is mystifying to some of the actors.

Rhys Ifans plays de Vere, and he feels like the authorship debate isn't even the central point of the film. "It's a political thriller," Ifans said. "It's a historical piece, a visual banquet. And it shows the potency of the theater as a vital form of change." Ifans enjoyed shooting the scenes where, as de Vere, he sits in a recreated Globe theater and mouths his own words as the crowd becomes entranced. He is, of course, the author, but must keep that secret. "I was really moved by the words," Ifans said. "We owe it to whoever wrote these plays - him, her or a group of people - to ask these questions."

The actor mimes pulling a text down from a shelf, and blowing off the dust.

"That's what Roland is doing," he said with a smile. "He's cleansing the plays, elevating them. It's really refreshing."

Joely Richardson plays the younger Elizabeth, and her mother, Vanessa Redgrave, plays the older queen. Richardson says the cast would sit and discuss the authorship debate during filming. Many were swayed, she said, by various points of Emmerich's argument: that Shakespeare was a country bumpkin with only a grammar-school education; that there's no physical evidence of his writing (even a letter); that his daughters were illiterate; that his will didn't refer to any plays or books. "All of us started to get pretty convinced," she said, including her mother, "not necessarily that it was Oxford, but that it's definitely up for debate. There are just so many missing links."

Stratfordians argue the Oxfordian theory is impossible - de Vere died in 1604, before a number of Shakespeare's most famous plays were written. Others say not so fast: Do we know when the plays were written, or are we guessing? About the will, Shapiro argues that like other wills of the time, it had a separate inventory that hasn't been found.

One of the more eloquent cases against the Stratfordian view comes from the Shakespearean actor Mark Rylance, who was artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London for 10 years. He plays an actor in the film. "This anger about the film is bizarre, because Shakespeare has always been a mystery," he said. "It's not like Emmerich is the first person to question this. But once you really look at the man from Stratford, the mystery gets larger. Because, what we know of him just doesn't correspond to a writer's life." Rylance is one of more than 2,000 people who've signed a 2007 "The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt." about the authorship. Among his co-signers: fellow actors Derek Jacobi (also in the film) and Jeremy Irons, and two U.S. Supreme Court justices. Most important for Rylance, who believes the plays could have been a collaboration, is the idea that the inquiry is based on a deeply felt appreciation for the work.

As for Emmerich himself, he doesn't share the long history with the material that his actors do, nor did he study much Shakespeare in school in Germany. But, he said, "I was always the kid who asked, 'Why?' " So when screenwriter Orloff pitched him a script he'd written, Emmerich became fascinated with the issue; he became convinced that the man from Stratford didn't write the plays. The rest of the film, he added, is presenting hypotheses of how things might have happened - including two fringe theories about Elizabeth and her supposed out-of-wedlock children.

"I really don't know what they're afraid about," said Emmerich of his critics, especially those worried about young people. "We have the greatest actors in this film, and they're doing Shakespeare's greatest hits. We're making Shakespeare cool!" He jokes that no one is happy with him - not the Stratfordians, and not the Oxfordians. On that, he is correct. "We're a bit ambivalent about it," said Richard Malim, general secretary of the De Vere Society in Britain. "It will make a lot of people sit up, but the trouble is there's so much manifest rubbish in it that we're in fear and trembling. It's completely unnecessary."

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is not ambivalent - it is furious. The charity, which promotes the playwright and his work, is running an online campaign to rebut the film's claims. It has also published an e-book, "Shakespeare Bites Back." And recently it blacked out Shakespeare's name on road and pub signs in his home county of Warwickshire to highlight its campaign against the movie.

All of which puzzles the actors who are realizing Emmerich's vision. "I don't see why people are threatened," Richardson said. "At the end of the day, it's all celebrating Shakespeare.">>
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/12/3258769/umkc-professor-applauds-shakespeare.html wrote:
UMKC professor applauds Shakespeare film ‘Anonymous’
Historian agrees with movie’s contention that plays were written by Earl of Oxford
By ROBERT TRUSSELL, The Kansas City Star

<<Felicia Hardison Londre, a respected theater historian on the faculty of the UMKC theater department, was eager to see director Roland Emmerich’s new film, “Anonymous,” and not just because it delves into the world of Elizabethan actors and playwrights. She was excited to see the movie because Emmerich and screenwriter John Orloff embrace a theory about the authorship of William Shakespeare’s plays and poetry that has been subject to disdain and outright mockery by traditionalists for decades: that the true writer was Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. That’s what Londre, a proud Oxfordian, thinks.

The idea articulated by the film is that Oxford wrote the tragedies, comedies, history plays, sonnets and narrative poems attributed to Shakespeare but, because of his social station, could not attach his name to his literary works. The film depicts Oxford hiring playwright Ben Jonson to be his front but eventually agreeing to pay Will Shakespeare, a semi-literate actor, a handsome sum for the use of his name. The film also supposes that Oxford in his youth was one of Queen Elizabeth’s lovers and that she bore him a son who became the Earl of Southampton.

Londre, who likes the film, said its impending release had been eagerly anticipated by Oxfordians, but with some trepidation. “Oxfordians were very nervous about it, mainly because they knew that it was going to use the so-called Prince Tudor theory — the idea that Southampton was Queen Elizabeth’s and de Vere’s son,” Londre said. “That is pretty much a split among Oxfordians. It hasn’t been nasty, but it is a split.”

The film also proposes that Oxford himself was Elizabeth’s offspring, making him a half-brother to his own son. In the view of some Oxfordians, Londre said, that theory pushes the limits of acceptability. “I think that’s a big risk for Oxfordians to push it that far,” she said. “So we were very, very nervous about it, but when the movie came out it actually worked because the people who make that claim in the movie are characters you’re not supposed to trust anyway. And so given that, dramatically it’s brilliant. You can have it both ways. It’s a wonderful ambiguity.”

The Stratfordians — those who think there really was a playwright and poet named William Shakespeare whose literary legacy is one of the pillars of Western civilization — give no credence to the Oxfordian argument. They contend that Shakespeare was one of those rare geniuses whose extraordinary understanding of human nature allowed him to write the plays and poems. The Oxfordians counter that Shakespeare — or, as they contend, Will Shaks-per — was a Stratford businessman who lacked the education or familiarity with the royal court to write with authority about the royal court or works based on Greek and Latin sources. The Oxfordians are accustomed to hearing their beliefs assaulted. Film critic A.O. Scott, in his review of “Anonymous” for The New York Times, put it this way: “This notion, sometimes granted the unwarranted dignity of being called a theory, is hardly new. It represents a hoary form of literary birtherism that has persisted for a century or so, in happy defiance of reason and evidence.”

Londre is, indeed, happy to discuss the Oxfordian point of view. She thinks that much of the content of Shakespeare’s poetry makes no sense unless you think Oxford was the true author. She contends that the Oxfordian argument can be supported by facts and that Stratfordians make unsupported leaps of faith, which is precisely what the Stratfordians say about the Oxfordians.

All of this raises a philosophical question: Does it matter who wrote the plays and poems? After all, there is no agreement on who Homer may have been or whether “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey” could have been written by different people. Even so, those epic poems are the foundation of Western literature.

Londre was simply aghast at the question. “Of course it matters!” she said. “For many reasons. One is history itself. Why do we study history, after all? We have to learn from it. It’s been said … (that) if you get the Shakespeare authorship wrong, you get the whole Elizabethan age wrong. It tells you how they lived, how people knew each other, what books were available. A million things rest on it. Don’t we want to give credit where it’s due? We revere our artists of the past. We revere Sophocles and Michelangelo and Mozart. Doesn’t it matter that we know Mozart wrote what he did? Of course it matters.”>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:43 am

Image
My Prince, before you die, there is something I should tell you... your father's name isn't mentioned in this play because he wasn't the man you thought he was...





Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:02 am

http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/Archive/55comm.htm wrote:
    • SONNET 55
    Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
    Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;

    But you shall shine more bright in these contents
    Than unswept stone, besmear'd with sluttish time.
    When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
    And broils root out the work of masonry,
    Nor Mars his sword, nor war's quick fire shall burn
    The living record of your memory.
    'Gainst death, and all oblivious enmity
    Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
    Even in the eyes of all posterity
    That wear this world out to the ending doom.
    So, till the judgment that yourself arise,
    You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes
------------------------------------------------

_____ Hamlet Act V, scene II

PRINCE FORTINBRAS: Let four captains :arrow:
. Bear Hamlet, like a soldier, to the stage;
. For he was likely, had he been put on,
. To have proved most royally: and, for his passage,
. The soldiers' music and the rites of war
. Speak loudly for him.

------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: 10 reasons

Post by orin stepanek » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:48 pm

The one thing I remember from Macbeth was the line "fair is foul and foul is fair; hover through the fog and filthy air! I think it was because part of our grade depended on it and I hated English Lit! :roll:
Orin

Smile today; tomorrow's another day!

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:10 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
orin stepanek wrote:
The one thing I remember from Macbeth was the line "fair is foul and foul is fair; hover through the fog and filthy air! I think it was because part of our grade depended on it and I hated English Lit! :roll:
  • But do you like mysteries :?:
The two giants of (c. 1600) literature
William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes
both died on April 23, 1616 : St. George's Day.

Legend has it that William Shakespeare
was also born on St. George's Day
while Miguel de Cervantes was born
on the feast day of yet another dragon slayer: St. Michael
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28archangel%29 wrote:
In the Book of Revelation "...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the Devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
  • Advance our standards, set upon our foes Our ancient world of courage fair
    St. George Inspire us with the spleen of fiery dragons.....
    - Richard III. act v, sc.3.

    Come not between the Dragon and his wrath..... - King Lear. Act I, Sc 2
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:50 pm

It's really amazing how the Boring things, like Shakespeare, just seem to Drag-on, whilst the interesting and Fun things, seem to be fleet of foot in their departure.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:41 pm

https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/133c3b22728bae3e wrote:
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 21, 2011 - <<Amidst all the controversy surrounding Sony Pictures’ recently-released feature film Anonymous, actor and author Michael York, O.B.E., launched a powerful, multi-pronged counter-offensive against the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT) in Stratford-upon-Avon, and its “60 Minutes with Shakespeare” authorship campaign, initiated in response to the film.

York also announced a monumental breakthrough in the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy — detailed evidence that William Shakespeare traveled all over Italy. The problem for orthodox Shakespeare scholars is that the Stratford man never left England.

During a briefing at the LA Press Club’s Steve Allen Theater in Hollywood, Michael York, Hilary Roe Metternich, daughter of the man who discovered the new evidence, and John M. Shahan, Chairman & CEO of the California-based Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC), lambasted the SBT for its Orwellian attacks against doubters and for the inferior scholarship in its “60 Minutes with Shakespeare” website, which features 60 prominent SBT supporters, each giving a 60-second audio-recorded response to one of 60 questions posed by the SBT.

Michael York, in language echoing that which brought down Senator Joseph McCarthy, castigated Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the SBT, and Paul Edmondson, Head of Learning and Research at the SBT, for suggesting that the authorship controversy is merely another “conspiracy theory,” and for labeling all doubters as “anti-Shakespeareans.”

“Have you no sense of decency sirs, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”* York asked.

“Or, as Shakespeare put it in Hamlet, 'O shame! where is thy blush?’” he added.

“Doubters are not 'anti-Shakespeare,’” York insisted, “but your behaviour is most un-Shakespearean.”

SAC Chairman John Shahan announced that a coalition of a dozen authorship organizations, based in the U.S., U.K. and Germany, has rebutted each point in the SBT “60 Minutes.” The rebuttal document, titled Exposing An Industry in Denial: Authorship Doubters Respond To “60 Minutes with Shakespeare.”

“The SBT made a mistake in coming down from their ivory tower to attack us,” Shahan said. “This rebuttal document makes it clear that the best of our scholars are far superior to theirs.”

Shahan issued a challenge to the SBT to write a single definitive declaration of the reasons why they claim there is “no room for doubt” about the identity of William Shakespeare and post it along with the names of those who have endorsed it. He noted that the SAC wrote and posted a definitive statement of its position, the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare, in 2007; and it has now been signed by over 2,200 people — over 800 with advanced deg rees, and nearly 400 current or former college faculty members.

Hilary Roe Metternich announced the discovery of strong new evidence in the controversy, contained in the just-released book, The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracting the Bard’s Unknown Travels, by Richard Paul Roe (HarperPerennial). Ms. Metternich, daughter of the author, a prominent Pasadena attorney who died late last year, said that her father had spent over 20 years searching in Italy, his only guide being the texts of Shakespeare’s 10 “Italian plays” — those set roughly in his own time (not counting the three plays set in ancient Rome).

“The clues were right there in the plays,” Metternich said. “My father found the locations of nearly every scene in all 10 plays, locations missed by orthodox scholars for over 400 years. His great chronicle of travel, analysis and discovery paints with amazing clarity a picture of what the author 'Shakespeare,' whoever he was, witnessed before writing his Italian Plays.”>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:13 pm

So when I was cycling home, I passed a car whose number plate read: OXF 565.

Well, OFX must mean Oxford, of course, or more precisely, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

But what does 565 mean? It hasn't been 565 years since the 17th Earl of Oxford was born or died. Perhaps it refers to his name. There are 6 letters in "Edward", and the name starts with the 5th letter in the alphabet. Beats me what the second "5" means, though.

No, I think "565" is short for "Shakespeare". The 5th letter of the alphabet is in the 6th position in his name... naaah, doesn't work... Wait, 5+6+5 = 17... naaah, doesn't work... Stratford is 565 miles from Oxford? 565 furlongs from Oxford? The First Folio had 565 pages? 565 means Shakespeare in base 8?

I've got it! "5" really means "S". The shapes of the letter S and the figure 5 are similar. "565" therefore means a name that contains the letter "S" twice... check! Oh, but the "6". Well, it's in the middle, and the second "S" of "Shakespeare" is also in the middle, and that must mean something. Something is in the middle, and "6" is in the middle, and in Swedish "6" is pronounced as "sex", so maybe "sex" is in the middle in Shakespeare's plays, like the hot scene in Romeo and Juliet?
Image
hakespeare :?:

Image
xford :?:
Image
Oh, they are about to have :arrow:






Image
...Shakespeare-6 of the heavens! 5 + 5 times!

Oh, and... there are 5 letters in "Romeo" and 6 letters in "Juliet"... that must mean something, too...

Ann
Last edited by Ann on Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:03 pm

Ann wrote:
So when I was cycling home, I passed a car whose number plate read: OXF 565.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Image
  • "Where [in the works] are the moving descriptions if rural life in Stratford, the trenchant portrayals of characters living there? Where do we find the theme of a young man trapped into marrying an older woman he has impregnated? What play gives us the emotions of a man impelled to abandon his wife and children? Where are the Dickensian adventures of a rustic young man newly come to make his living among the stews, thugs, and rascals of London? " - _The Players_ by Bertram Fields
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:10 pm

Geeze Ann, that's a LOT of figureing for a 6-digit registration plate. You've used those 6-digits many different ways and have come up with Zilch, nada, nuthin, Kaputski, and Zero results. And why is it that with all the mathamaticals you've employed, you only have 4-pictures in your post :?: OH, WAIT :!: I've got it. 6-digit plate + 4-pictures = 10 reasons, the title of this thread about the enigma of Shakespeare. You've cleverly added to the discussion, that no matter where one looks, the solution to the riddle will not be solved. I agree. That's the way that the Alien planned it.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

READ IF THOV CANST

Post by neufer » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:30 pm

  • -----------------------------------------------------------
    1435 JAN Van Eyck vs. 1623 Geerhart JANssen
    :arrow:
    ....................................................
1) The two tone Red & Blue/Green tasselled lap cushion
. (reversed for Shakespere) for holding "the word".

2) The Black Corinthian columns supporting an arch.

3) Shakespere's nose, mouth, eyes, curly hair,
. thick neck & sour apple expression as an
. amalgam of that of Rolin & the christ child
. (and possibly the madonna as well).

4) The breast shaped disks over Shakespere's head representing
the breast shaped disks in the windows that frame the painting.

5) Shakspere's right middle & forefinger extended in writing
as Jesus's right middle & forefinger extended in blessing.

6) And the two guys peeing off a bridge :!:
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:54 pm

Now c'mon neuf, #6-two guys peeing off a bridge, i thinkest thou hast added extra of thine own imagination. The bridge is too far away to even tell if there is anyone on it, much less what they are doing.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

two guys peeing off a bridge

Post by neufer » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:31 am

Beyond wrote:
Now c'mon neuf, #6-two guys peeing off a bridge, i thinkest thou hast added extra of thine own imagination. The bridge is too far away to even tell if there is anyone on it, much less what they are doing.
That's why you have to tap on the picture twice.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: two guys peeing off a bridge

Post by Beyond » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:57 am

neufer wrote:
Beyond wrote:
Now c'mon neuf, #6-two guys peeing off a bridge, i thinkest thou hast added extra of thine own imagination. The bridge is too far away to even tell if there is anyone on it, much less what they are doing.
That's why you have to tap on the picture twice.
I tapped 3-times and the 3rd time wasn't a charm. It only slightly magnified the picture more than the second tap, so one still cannot tell if anyone is even on the bridge. Did you combine owlice and geckzilla to get Ocular Digitator Owl vision :?: :?:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8999
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: 10 reasons

Post by geckzilla » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:39 pm

Two guys peeing or not, some religious paintings are more ludicrous than others. This one definitely qualifies as goofy.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: two guys peeing off a bridge

Post by neufer » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:48 pm

Beyond wrote:
neufer wrote:
Beyond wrote:
Now c'mon neuf, #6-two guys peeing off a bridge, i thinkest thou hast added extra of thine own imagination. The bridge is too far away to even tell if there is anyone on it, much less what they are doing.
That's why you have to tap on the picture twice.
I tapped 3-times and the 3rd time wasn't a charm. It only slightly magnified the picture more than the second tap, so one still cannot tell if anyone is even on the bridge. Did you combine owlice and geckzilla to get Ocular Digitator Owl vision :?: :?:
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 2c#p163080
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:32 pm

Art, I have to thank you for posting that utterly fascinating and creepy Jan Van Eyck'sThe Madonna of Chancellor Rolin from 1435.
Image
Jan van Eyck was a superior artist, and his best-known painting is, of course, The Arnolfini Marriage. Here is a smaller version of it (do follow the link to look at the larger version, though).

Both the man and the woman have kind expressions on their faces, so the painting is "friendly". And look at the fantastic details. Look at the little dog, which is even "smiling", and which symbolized fidelity. Look at the oranges, which show that Arnolfini is a rich man living in a city where trading ships bring fantastic products from faraway countries. Look at the exotic carpet, which was probably brought from one of those fairy tale-like countries. Look at the fantastic woodwork with scary and half-demonic figurines, the opulent bedding, and the incredible mirror which reflects, possibly, the artist himself. And look at the man's hat! And his clogs on the floor! And the woman's dress! And her headdress! And her hairstyle! And her pregnant belly - well, it sure looks like it! It is an amazing image, truly wonderful.
Image
But that Madonna and Chancellor Rolin painting is as fantastic as it is horrible! Just look at Chancellor Rolin himself! I guess he has cut his hair in some sort of "holy hairstyle". But please note that the Chanceller is certainly old enough to have some grey hairs, but his hair is jet black, as if he had dyed it! How creepy-kinky is that? :shock:

And everybody in the picture is looking more or less sour, which is somehow hysterically funny. The only one who looks happy is the chubby auntie-like middle-aged angel who places an outsize crown on Mary's head! No wonder the Madonna is looking sour, when she is expected to wear a monstrosity like that on her head!
Image
Image
But the details of the painting are absolutely fantastic, and the medieval cityscape is spectacular. But I agree with you, Art, that the two boys in the background may just possibly be about to relieve themselves high above the people on the boats and ships below, somehow reminding me of the famous statue, Manneken Pis...

And now all we have to figure out is how Shakespeare and the 17th Earl of Oxford got into all these paintings by Jan van Eyck.

Ann
Last edited by Ann on Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:18 pm

Image
Ann wrote:
I agree with you, Art, that the two boys in the background may just possibly be about to relieve themselves high above the people on the streets below, somehow reminding me of the famous statue, Manneken Pis...
The water in the background, the baptism motif :arrow:
, the phallic symbols of the tower bridge & the cane, etc., etc....
Ann wrote:
And now all we have to figure out is how Shakespeare and the 17th Earl of Oxford got into all these paintings by Jan van Eyck.
It's a joke, Ann...
  • 1) The 17th Earl of Oxford died on the Feastday of John the Baptist. :arrow:

    2) Shakespeare's Comedies had them Rolin in the Isles.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:40 am

The baptism motif! I didn't think of that!

And Shakespeare's comedies had them Rolin in the Isles, indeed. I'm still rolling in some sort of aisle at the Chancellor's kinky hair.

That painting you showed us, of baby Jesus and baby John the Baptist, and the Virgin Mary and, I assume, baby John's mother Elizabeth - isn't that one of the paintings that Dan Brown describes in the Da Vinci Code? It's sure fun to look at the sign language used by Jesus, Mary and Elizabeth in this painting and trying to figure out what they are saying to each other.
But I have to return to Jan van Eyck. Goodness, what a painter he was! The details of the general setting that he paints are just fantastic, but the people are sometimes - I don't know, either creepy or something else.


Take a look at his painting "Annunciation" here, and take a good look at Virgin Mary. What is Galadriel, the Elf Queen, doing here posing as Virgin Mary? She can't hide her pointy ears! Maybe that's why she is so surprised at the visit of the (possibly slightly kinky) angel? What, you want me to leave Lothlórien and have a baby even though I'm a virgin? But don't you know I'm married?

Ann
Last edited by Ann on Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Color Commentator

TNT
Science Officer
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:57 am
Location: Heart of America

Re: two guys peeing off a bridge

Post by TNT » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:02 am

There isn't even an opening in the bridge for the guy on the right to relieve himself! Unless they were taking turns, that is...creepy! :shock:
The following statement is true.
The above statement is false.

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: two guys peeing off a bridge

Post by Beyond » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:48 am

TNT wrote:There isn't even an opening in the bridge for the guy on the right to relieve himself! Unless they were taking turns, that is...creepy! :shock:
If you're referring to the two dudes, one of which has red headgear and a walking stick, they are not on a bridge. Look a little over their heads and a w-a-y-s out. That's the bridge. The two dudes are on a porch of some kind.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:54 am

Ann wrote:
The baptism motif! I didn't think of that!

And Shakespeare's comedies had them Rolin in the Isles, indeed.

I'm still rolling in some sort of aisle at the Chancellor's kinky hair.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Beyond » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:14 am

Hey neufer, first you're going to have to go home and dry and oil your chain-mail so it dosen't rust away from all that salty ocean spray. Or are you just a little moist from praying so hard? :mrgreen:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 16435
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: 10 reasons

Post by neufer » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:36 am

Beyond wrote:
Hey neufer, first you're going to have to go home and dry and oil your chain-mail so it dosen't rust away from all that salty ocean spray. Or are you just a little moist from praying so hard? :mrgreen:
"Later, I determined that the people who were really, really cruellike the Usenet weenies
really are a statistically insignificant number of people."
:wink:
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 9905
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 10 reasons

Post by Ann » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:59 am

neufer wrote:
Ann wrote:
The baptism motif! I didn't think of that!

And Shakespeare's comedies had them Rolin in the Isles, indeed.

I'm still rolling in some sort of aisle at the Chancellor's kinky hair.
Thanks for posting a picture of Max von Sydow as the knight from Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, Art! :D You always know how to flatter my Swedish side! :mrgreen:

The thing about the anti-Stratfordian side, as you put it, is that I really enjoy talking about old masters, and discussing old plays and old literature, and looking at fantastic old painting and comment on them. This means that I certainly enjoy talking about various aspects of Shakespeare, and I thank you, Art, for making me think about the 17th Earl of Oxford! You have taught me many things I didn't know before, and I so much want you to keep talking about the things that you know and have thought about! You tease me and challenge me, and I love it! :D

But, as for the anti-Stratfordian side - yes, the 17th Earl of Oxford may have written the works of Shakespeare. I'm not convinced, however, because I think that there are very real arguments against him, such as his death in 1604. And the idea of such a complete cover-up that remained hidden for two hundred years or more is a lot more than a mouthful for me to swallow. On the other hand, I can certainly see that there are arguments against Will Shaksper of Stratford as the author of these immortal works.
Image
So my conclusion, Art, is that we don't know who wrote the works of Shakespeare, and we will probably never know. Like I said, that's what I think. But hey, who knows, some day the anti-Stratfordians may blow the world over with the most amazing proof of their point! It could happen, but I don't think it has happened yet.
Image
So don't give up! Keep on fighting! Hit me!
















OOOOUUCH!!!!

Ann
Color Commentator