So, I've been on a history kick recently, I'm sure some of you have noticed. And I became interested, in a morbid sort of way, in this movie Anonymous(2011), which deals with similar stuff to my historical novel, including my main protagonist as a villain. But it has quite nice and relatively accurate costumes for a Hollywood drama, and at least it's trying to be clever. Albeit that the "cleverness" derives from the relatively notion suggestion that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare, but instead was a patsy for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford to write plays without being recorded as such. Join me on a magical journey of strangely watchable shittiness.
So first of all, why the hell isn't Shakespeare, Shakespeare? Well the film starts with modern, real-life Derek Jacobi(and he actually believes some of this stuff IRL!!) presenting the premise to a modern day theatre audience. Shakespeare is really well-known and performed, but we don't know that much about William Shakespeare the person other than drab records of formalities. And he didn't mention any manuscripts in his will!!!(Nevermind that the Playing Company probably owned most of them and that not willing them to your relatives directly was normal). Also his daughters were "irrefutably illiterate" (lol, no they weren't). So some wacky special effects are visually shown making the scenery of a historical scene and suddenly we're in the early 1600s. It's all rather clever if it weren't so wrong. He's tryin' good old Emmerich, he's tryin' god bless him. If only he weren't shit at actually being artistic.
Ben Johnson(other writer) is running from soldiers holding a bundle of stuff. He hides it underneath the stage floorboards of the Globe, and we see that it's a folio(I wonder who wrote it??). The soldiers burn down the Globe to "smoke him out", nevermind that didn't happen to till after this film in an accident. He's captured and brought to an interrogation room in the Tower of London. Sir Robert Cecil, in the spooky shadows, is in charge of the interrogation and wants to know about the plays. It was plays in the folio. It's obviously supposed to be the First Folio, which is apparently written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Johnson refuses to give him the location. Then through a slap montage we transition into "five years earlier", be ready, from here on out we're going to transition back and forth with wild abandon and questionable sense of plotting.
Oxford and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton are going to the theatre. The touch of the planks in the street as a little walkway is quite nice, referencing the dirtiness of the London streets. Henry's outfit is S O S P A R K LY, I like it. One of Ben Johnson's plays, Every Man Out of His Humour, is being played, but when the play upsets a nobleman who resembles one of the characters, some soldiers arrest the actors and the outraged Johnson. Johnson being arrested for a seditious play places this as 1597 probably, but the play in that incident was Isle of Dogs with Thomas Nashe, so this doesn't make any sense other than that we have more actual text from Every Man and apparently they really wanted direct quotes. The denouncement is attributed to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, which seems iffy given that a public declaration should probably mention the Queen but whatever. Also Christopher Marlowe, Nashe and some other playwrights that were historically Shakespeare's friend circle are here watching.
Oxford and Southampton go to Essex House, local residence of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. He and Southampton play tennis and Oxford acts as judge of the match. He proposes to Essex that theatre has political power using the example of the controversy of the play he just watched. Essex likes swords though(this is very accurate to his character) and remains unconvinced. He and Southampton then have a secret(!) conversation where he says that Burghley is promising James VI of Scotland the crown as Elizabeth's heir, but he should totes be king. It's not that secret given a servant and Oxford are both outside, and Oxford listens in a sort of alarmed way. He talks to Southampton, who reveals that Essex's claim derives from being Elizabeth's rumoured bastard(???) but Oxford says that Essex is too bravado and they should be more careful. Apparently he thinks putting a bastard as an heir is a-okay and even implies that he is the "rightful" king. I'd like to note that Burghley never actually wrote to James, who's mother Mary, Queen of Scots he was instrumental in executing. Essex actually wrote first and it was Robert Cecil who then continued on. But here, I suppose to simplify things and because this film is obsessed with bastardy, he's essentially the "Cecil candidate" and totally-a-bastard Essex is the counter claimant. This is bullshit.
Southampton is at court next and Robert Cecil, now actually illuminated properly, talks to him briefly. Essex is with the Queen privately because Burghley, Robert's father, is busy with work. Essex and the Queen then come in and Southampton offers her a gift from a mysterious someone. Some crazy fairy-dressed dwarves tell her they have a play written by "Anonymous", which IRL some of Shakespeare's plays were signed as. Robert Cecil doesn't like plays because he's an inaccurate caricature a Puritan, but Essex supports the offer. It's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Oxford is watching too, which he will do a lot in this film lurking in top levels of theatres and random hidey-holes because he's a creeper.
F L A S H B A C K even earlier, near the start of Elizabeth's reign, and boy Oxford is playing Puck in a Midsummer Night's Dream which he apparently wrote while that young. An awkward backstage conversations ensues where Elizabeth declares her love of plays but his father and Burghley clearly him want to Do Important Stuff You Little Git. Oxford clearly knows he's expected to do that, but he can't suppress his Maverick Creative Needs (nevermind this is a time where artistic stuff is trendy at court, the film wants you to think art is edgy).
Oh god are you tired yet? Cause I sure have a burning desire to both kill myself and keep watching.
Anyway, back to Johnson in 97ish, who is being released from the Tower(?) on a favour. It's from Oxford, who he brings him to his house and tells him he wants Johnson to take credit for his plays because "one does not write plays in my world"(nevermind that one of the things used by Oxfordians(people who believe some of this shit) as evidence for his authorship is comparison with poems he wrote and the fact he was known to have written some kind of plays). And of course his servant threatens Johnson if he tells anyone the truth because He Can't Be Seen to Write Dammit.
Now we meet Burghley who is being told of the Midsummer Night's Dream performance by Robert. He is unsurprised that Essex wanted to spite them, but is interested in the contents. He immediately recognises it because it's the same as in the flashback. He's worried that Oxford wants to choose the heir, even though they are arranging for James of Scotland, again, despite the historical fact that the actual Burghley never wrote to James. Burghley realises Essex is the opposition candidate, and proposes sending Essex to fight in Ireland where Southampton will follow. Robert actually gets a relatively sympathetic moment as we flashback to his childhood.
Oxford, his father now dead and a bit older than the boy Oxford, is coming to past Burghley as a ward. Robert is a solitary little deformed boy in the corner, which seems more accurate than the rest of his portrayal. Oxford proves he is Super Sophisticated when Burghley mentions tuition, and then we see him fencing with the fencing tutor. He accidentally hurls his knocked sword at Robert who is playing chess in the background. Then he's a smug dick about it instead of apologising. I'm not sure if we're supposed to agree with this behaviour but I certainly don't. Fuck this version of Oxford. Burghley sends a servant to remove Oxford's poems he's been writing against his instructions, because of course the Cecils have to act like Oliver Cromwell on steroids. Oxford notices the servant and impulsively stabs him through a curtain.
Back in 97ish, Ben Johnson is talking with William Shakespeare, one of the actors from the Every Man performance, about Oxford's offer although he refuses to give away too much who. Shakespeare suggest he can take the credit because Johnson doesn't trust in Oxford's skills.
Burghley talks to the Queen about his get-Essex-killed-in-Ireland plan. The Queen seems weirdly ignorant of the obvious fact that Phillip of Spain likes Catholics revolting against her, despite the fact he's supported it before. But it hard to know what she's thinking, because she just says "Ireland?" like she didn't expect it. Anyway she agrees to send Essex and Burghley gets Robert Cecil on the Privy Council now he's away(even though that was in 1591 and had nothing to do with Essex). Given she's agreeing to the Ireland plan it must have reached 1599 now. Not that they tell you that. And she recalls the Midsummer Night's Dream performance from earlier as "last weekend" which makes it seem like 1597 or at least 1598. IDK about this shit.
Anyway when Elizabeth mentions Oxford's marriage to Burghley's daughter, we transition back to the wardship setting, and Burghley is outraged at Oxford killing the servant. That's justifiable; Oxford killed him just for snooping, and Oxford looked regretful when he did it. But now he's all "oh but he was stealing my poems, how dare you interfere with my life." Are we supposed to agree with him? Burghley proposes they say it was self-defence, but only if Oxford agrees to marry his daughter who has developed feelings for him. Oxford thinks he just wants an opportunity to claim rights to his estates but can't refuse under the circumstances. So he marries her of course.
They stage Henry VI in the later timeline, again without really telling you but at least it becomes obvious with the characteristic writer's group characters of this timeline. The play is anonymous, but Marlowe knows Johnson is involved. Mary Rylance, oh god why so many good actors in this monstrosity, does the intro narration while Essex is shown leaving for Ireland. Honestly the first time I watched this segment I thought the people on horseback were supposed to be part of the play, but I suppose the juxtaposition with a war play makes sense so whatever. The play goes well, but Oxford won't endorse Southampton leaving with Essex, although Southampton goes anyway. Shakespeare takes credit for the play and Oxford is upset.
Let's leave it here for now so this is more readable and I'll do the rest in reply once someone's actually read it, assuming you do.
So, I've heard this notion quite a few times in politics in this era of anti-immigration populism. So I'd like to delve into exactly what it means. What is meant by multiculturalism anyway? The basic definition of multiculturalism is rather simple. Google defines it as: "the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society." Dictionary. com defines it as: "the view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest". The federal social services department of Australia defines it as "cultural and ethnic diversity". So other than some minor elements of encouragement policies it's mostly just literally have different ethnic groups and their cultures. Taken very literally and without charity, opposing multiculturalism would essentially imply genocide. I don't suppose that's exactly what we're talking about here. So what exactly is the often rather vague notion referring to?
It seems to be used to refer to three things. The first is permissive immigration. Since it is most commonly occurring as a phrase in relation to Muslim immigration and the fear of terrorism, it's only natural that one of the primary things this phrase is used to mean is that right-wing supposed flaws of such policies are causing significant damages. So in this sense "multiculturalism has failed" means "Muslim immigrants are causing significant damages". Which as we can see by comparison isn't particularly good use of the definition. This is a specific and very policy-related notion that refers to specifics religious groups among an also select group.
The second meaning that seems to be inferred is to do with diversity encouraging policies like quotas. Now again, this isn't really the failing of multiculturalism. It's the failing of specific policies. While some definitions do include a meaning that is specific to encouragement policies; it's not always clear that people are actually against all of what would be "multiculturalism" instead of merely elements of a specific multiculturalism. Indeed in some cases it's readily apparent they aren't really opposing all.
And thirdly is the notion identified that people shouldn't have "distinct separated cultures" within the same country. This seems like a thin line of thinking. Either you are saying something blindingly obvious and portraying it as something more left-leaning people don't understand; that obvious being that people should accept some of the basic rights and principles of a liberal democracy when they exist in it. Or, you're saying what is at best too close to white nationalism; if you take it to mean broader and less pivotal cultural ideas as well. In either case, there is no way you can even get close to screening for such ideas in people's heads as refugees or enforcing people's thoughts once they're here. And I thought trying to control people's thinking was what right-wing people hated about leftwing social justice supposedly. Neither is it sensible to talk about more action-based crackdowns on those issues; because such activities already happen. At worst; you're talking about somewhat lacking solutions. Nobody does not accept the notion of rejecting known terrorists or stopping their terrorist actions. There's no general philosophical notion of "multiculturalism" where people oppose such obvious enforcement of moral and legal standards we already posses. At worse you've got a hodgepodge of idiotic left-wing extremists who are permissive but when they do gain undue influence over leftwing governments the symptom if we want to complain about Europe is incompetence. Sweden's main problem with refugees is that the government has done a comparatively terrible job managing and integrating the refugees but all of the most ideological stuff has nothing to do with an ideological goal of" multiculturalism" it's about fear of being called racists and perception of racism in others. No left-wingers believes Muslims should be allowed to rape women. They are simply afraid that people saying there's a Muslim rape epidemic are racist, and some people clearly are. Simply naming multiculturalism when discussing these issues does a great disservice to their complexity and does a great disservice to a much more general word.
In conclusion, why exactly is this phrase so popular when it connects with such a general and very basic concept? Why would Angela Merkel, who has notably positioned themselves as moderates in comparison with the nationalist populist movement, use a term in a way that makes her sound like white nationalist? When did a word that in my upbringing in Australia has always been a symbol of our modern identity and not being racist become a hated buzzword? And why is it being used in ways that make it sound like a much more extreme concept than it is?
We got anyone here who can provide some insight? Some sort of argument from that position?
So with all the anti-PC movement stuff I thought it would be good to ground what gay people's problems actually are anymore. Trans is kinda obvious since it's this newer weirder thing and raises all kinds of medical rights debates. But what do the LGB bit still have going? Why with gay marriage is anyone still complaining except about people who want to reverse?
Well obviously that is a problem in of itself and the statistics on bullying, homelessness, suicide and murder are still troubling because of homophobic people's effects. But is there really any problem with the existing rights? Yes, there is. And more than people talk about.
So to start adoption is banned or limited for same sex couples in a number of states (a pattern here that emerges is state independence acts much as it did during segregation). Access to conjungal visits (visists from a partner to the prisoner) are severely limited with only four states recognising same sex partners. Hate crimes are also recognised unequally meaning in 18 states the federal law is the only recognition of orientation based crime. Access to guaranteed hospital visits is only protected via Obamacare rules which limits it to Medicare and Medicaid and this protection is threatened by repealing Obamacare on the Republican agenda.
State employees are protected from being fired for their orientation in only about half the states. All employment about a quarter. About half the states have no laws that affect employment around sexual orientation. These include Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, both Dakotas, Florida and Wyoming. Considering Texas, Georgia and Florida are in the top ten populated states that's scary. Less than half have any state housing protections. Luckily Obama had federal employees and federal housing ban discriminatory practises on this subject.
In some states the age of consenst for "sodomy", has an unequal age of consent. This is because sodomy laws banning homosexual sex where repealed with unequal age and the law has yet to be changed since then. Blood and tissue donations from MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) have to wait one year deferral or even be permanently refused on the basis of stereotypes about STDs, despite the fact they test for that and sexual practices are the defining factor not orientation, the correlation exists because of practices which would surely be the more useful factor.
Other issues include unequal Romeo and Juliet laws (laws lenient to teenage sex e.g. in Aus 16 and 17 are allowed a self-contained bubble of consent) and also deportations to countries with a sodomy death penalty e.g. Iran.
Source for further detail; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#
Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so I really think this whole SJW thing needs to be addressed. Both in the sense of further discouraging them and blocking them, and in the sense of it being a problematic talking point. The problem with this talking point is that inevitablely becomes associated with the whole group,because people talk about it too much. For the same reason the stereotypes of flaming Christian homophobe or racist redneck Trump voter should be dealt with equally carefully to avoid that same problem. If there's one thing pissing me off recently it's people who seem unwilling to respectfully and rationally discuss a nuance view of politics. It's far too often like a war, and you just hate on whatever is other. And like a war you are taught to see the worst in the enemy. It's not about authoritarian SjWs or angry unyielding bigots, these are just versions of extremity. Have you ever noticed that the most authoritarian political situations ended up more comparable than their more fair counterparts? Because you start taking on qualities of extremity; drawing on over-tribalism and sheer irrationality. Let's try to avoid this more shall we? I think recent political ideas and events show that this kind of thinking is becoming invasive. We have to dismantle the character assassination and address specific points and people as their own and with respect for the complicated and ultimately somewhat subjective nature of the discussion. Because remember: there is no right answer in politics. Not entirely. Only in lucky examples.
Peace! Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so an interesting thing for me is to question things. It's an important value. "Question everything" as they say. Now, I've been looking at this site recently one or two times, because I like to look at the other side of things. Now, this site is on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group list. And it's not hard to see why since there's so confident and relentless. (Though I notice most of the articles are written by the leader, I suspect there's not that many members in this group, especially given all the competing groups) Something interesting they bring up however, that I've seen before and always wondered about, is the explicitness involved in some pride events. You get images like this;
Displaying nudity and language. Now, language isn't too bad, but considering some people wear revealing costumes or do what's depicted above, isn't there a legal concern about public indecency laws? And how often does this stuff show up? Since I haven't been to one myself because I am kind of shy about it, (weirdly) I'd love to hear from people who have to better understand these events.
(P.S if you've had bad experiences with these kinds of people, don't read their site. It might really hurt your feelings because they are quite disdainful. I am mostly just amused but I'm not you, I'm very comfortable and happy and a bit innocent)
Thank you for your time! Hope you have a good day!
Separate names with a comma.