I think I'd prefer a Marlovian film.

[swan_tower]

It had to happen eventually, I suppose.

SCENE: The inside of swan_tower's head

SWAN: Let's go look at movie trailers. Anonymous -- what, like the group?

PAGE: <loads>

SWAN: No, it's something set in Elizabethan England! With Derek Jacobi and other cool people! <reads further in synopsis> . . . oh, shit. It's a "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays" story.

TRAILER: <plays>

SWAN: Old London Bridge! <swoons in a fit of historical geekery>

DIRECTOR: <is Roland Emmerich>

SWAN: grk.

IMDb: This movie's theory is apparently Oxfordian, since Rhys Ifans has top billing, and he's playing Edward de Vere.

SWAN: <sigh> But . . . London Bridge . . . Elizabethan geekery . . . but Roland Emmerich. And Oxfordianism. <more sigh> Well, at least it seems I'm over my knee-jerk "please god no more" reaction to the sixteenth century. And that's something. Whether or not I can bring myself to watch this movie . . . we'll have to see.

Comments

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I think what bugs me about the movie is that it isn't intended to be counterfactual, you know? If it was openly saying, "btw, this is total bollocks, but" and then going on with its crazy story, I wouldn't mind at all.

I mean, really. I'm the woman who's written four books about how half of English history was the fault of faeries. I'm clearly fine with making shit up. I just want it advertised as fiction, rather than suckering in people who don't know any better.

[skirmish-of-wit.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's presenting conspiracy theory as plausible/factual.

On the other hand, given the popularity of, say, Fox News, this is probably a shrewd moneymaking scheme.