“It’s Giving Tuesday. Please Donate to Shakespeare Magazine…”

Dear Friends, I’m no Shakespeare, so I’ll keep this brief.

It’s Giving Tuesday, so if you want to donate to a good cause, please make it Shakespeare Magazine.

IMG_8286

Financially, it’s been another brutal year. I’m gutted that I’ve not been able to publish a new issue of the magazine.

However, I have been able to keep the website and social media platforms running. Twitter has been particularly successful. We’ve nearly at 18,000 followers, and in our most successful month alone our tweets reached a massive 1.9 million people!

Facebook has done well too. We’ve reached 11,000 followers, and had some hugely popular posts this year, sometimes reaching as many as a quarter of a million people.

I’ve also launched an Instagram account – a great fun way to celebrate Shakespeare imagery.

We’ve had some popular and controversial articles on the Shakespeare Magazine website, including ‘Shakespeare Derangement Syndrome’, ‘All Crowns are Hollow’, and my epic 2,300-word review of ‘The King’.

So here we are. I’m another year older, 25 pounds lighter, and I’ve shaved off the wispy little beard that was my constant companion in 2018.

For Shakespeare Magazine to keep going, it needs advertising revenue, donations and patronage. By modern media standards, it would take an absurdly small amount of dosh to finance 12 issues a year.

If you’re able to help, donate now! (And quick, or I’ll grow the beard back…)

All my best wishes, from the muddy banks of the River Avon,

Pat Reid – Founder and Editor

PS Adding this in a moment of madness… If I can get FIVE Shakespeare Magazine readers to donate $1,000 each, I hereby pledge to skinny-dip in the River Avon on Christmas Day!

Watch Hamlet (George MacKay) take on Claudius (Clive Owen) in this Exclusive Clip from director Claire McCarthy’s new Shakespeare-inspired film OPHELIA starring Daisy Ridley in the title role, with Naomi Watts as Gertrude and Tom Felton as Laertes

OPHELIA is screening in selected UK cinemas from Friday 22 November, and will then be available on demand from Wednesday 27 November on these platforms: iTunes, Amazon, Sky Store, Virgin, Rakuten, Chili.

A full Shakespeare Magazine review of OPHELIA will follow shortly.

OPHELIA-Poster

Timothée Chalamet in The King: England’s legendary warrior prince is reinvented as a petulant and introverted man-child in this ponderous revision of Shakespeare’s Henry IV and Henry V plays

p3d3c9u7f

Warning: This review contains spoilers.

There’s never any Shakespeare on Netflix, the online streaming channel which seems to specialise in teenage shows about Satanism and suicide. Still, we’ve held off cancelling our subscription in order to see The King.

The film is the brainchild of Joel Edgerton, who co-writes, produces and plays Falstaff. His fellow Australian David Michôd (who made the excellent Animal Kingdom) directs and co-writes. The project first came to our attention a couple of years ago when Edgerton made some comments about cutting the “long-winded” Shakespeare speeches and adding some Game of Thrones spirit to proceedings. I tweeted scathingly about this at the time, but to be fair to Edgerton, he has played Prince Hal and Henry V on the Australian stage, and he seems like a pretty open and honest (not to mention talented) bloke, so his vision for The King might just work…

The film has a pretty striking opening with young northern noble Hotspur (Tom Glynn-Carney) sending an unfortunate Scottish spear-carrier the way of all flesh. Then we see Hotspur in conference with King Henry IV (Ben Mendelsohn), where he refuses to hand over his prisoners, and spits out a selection of scathing and treasonous insults in his monarch’s direction.

We then relocate to the tavern where Henry’s elder son Prince Hal (Timothée Chalamet) is misbehaving. We quickly learn that Hal really hates his Dad. In fact, his bad-mouthing of the old man is almost as treasonous as Hotspur’s.

By now we’ve been introduced to Falstaff (Joel Edgerton). Now, Shakespeare’s Falstaff is infamous for being exceedingly old and humongously fat, but Joel Edgerton is neither. His Falstaff has a bluff rugby player physique and his character is full of bluff ‘wisdom’ to match. His accent sounds Yorkshire to me, but at different points in the film will veer from Mancunian to Scouse to Scots. Initially, he seems more Hal’s Kindly guardian than the gleeful corrupting influence of Shakespeare’s version.

The film does have some nicely framed interiors – there, put that on the DVD sleeve! But storytelling cliches abound – so of course we have to have the hero refusing his quest in the form of Hal refusing to go and see his dying dad (and later refusing to go to war with France) and so on.

Hal surprisingly bests the rebel Hotspur in a bout of single combat rather early in the film, which of course robs the confrontation of the revelatory power it has in Henry IV Part 1. At this point my impression of Hal is that he’s a somewhat sulky, slightly slimy, sexually ambiguous vampire who seems unable to make eye contact, treats people like dirt, and is no friend of the square meal. The traits of Shakespeare’s Hal, which have fascinated audiences and readers for 400 years are clumsily smelted into an uneasy mixture of narcissism and self-hatred. Well, I suppose that’s very 2019. The problem is that he seems too languid to ever have truly been a hell raiser. This Hal is less Bullingdon boy and more lonesome emo.

Anyway, the events of the Henry IV plays are raced through in 30 minutes as Henry senior dies and Hal becomes King Henry V. Then there’s an interesting scene where Henry receives congratulatory gifts from the rulers of places mentioned in other Shakespeare plays. This scene also reveals Henry’s court to be surprisingly small and rather parochial. From France, he receives the insulting gift of a ball (in the play, of course, it’s a box of tennis balls), which he bounces off a wall in a manner reminiscent of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

Stripped of Shakespeare’s poetry and wit, this script can feel ponderous and banal. Chalamet certainly isn’t helped by clunksome lines like “I appreciate your umbrage, William”, but compared to Saoirse Ronan in this year’s Mary Queen of Scots he’s almost likeable. And at least we haven’t had a gender studies lecture yet. Oh, hang on though – there’s still one hour and 40 minutes left to go.

As a new king, Henry’s approach is to pardon all his dead dad’s enemies. Although when his Chief Justice (Sean Harris) says “Great reforms are best enacted with regime change” it sounds like it’s come straight off the autocue at a White House press briefing.

I may have dreamed it, but I think there’s a bizarre moment where Henry’s kid sister (Thomasin McKenzie) strokes a camel. She’s the Princess of Denmark and wise beyond her years, so she gives him sage advice (presumably before boarding a private jet to go and combat climate change). Henry reiterates how “all the unrest in the kingdom” was his father’s fault. His anti-dad hatred really is deeply unappealing, especially since the old man seemed pretty cool, from what we saw of him. At this point, I feel my attention waning. The film seems headed for the valley of sanctimony.

And I feel bad for saying it, but the longer Timothée Chalamet is on screen, the more the film’s vitality seems to ebb away. At times I find myself wondering ‘why are we wasting time with this fella?’ as he just seems like a minor character. We want Henry the bloody Fifth, not some twitchy man-child.

“You wish to be a king for the people” says the Sean Harris advisor guy a bit later. Then he mentions “the mood of the people”. I get the impression he used to work for Tony Blair. After having played a severely constipated Macduff in Kurzel’s Macbeth, Harris’s approach here seems to be to recite every line as if he has a hedgehog in his throat.

After a French assassin is caught, Henry decides to send some tough words back to Charles of France. But will he ever stand up straight, that’s what I want to know? That stoop is really starting to grate. Also, there’s 86 minutes left, and I’m beginning to wonder if anything will ever happen. For a film that set out to cut all the “long-winded” Shakespeare, there is an awful lot of talk. Yes, Shakespeare can be slow-moving, but the pace of The King is positively glacial.

Some traitors are caught, but when Henry says “Tomorrow you will have your heads cut off”, the timing of the line is so odd that I burst out laughing. His next line, “I have chosen you as an advance party to Hell”, sounds like something out of The Expendables. We are nudging into ‘so bad it’s bad’ territory.

At this point I’m wondering how can Chalamet be such an uncompelling lead. He’s got good hair, great cheekbones, he’s quite beautiful in an early-’80s English pop star way, but where’s the vitality? It makes me appreciate how bone-crunchingly brilliant Tom Hiddleston was in this role. The Hollow Crown was historical pageant, bawdy comedy and medieval action movie, but still Shakespeare through and through. I can understand the need for a radically different approach (if, indeed, the makers of The King are even aware of The Hollow Crown), but why so dull?

The subsequent execution scene is well done, and properly horrible. My prayers have been answered and Henry is finally sitting up straight. An absurd twist promptly follows – Henry returns to the tavern to recruit Jack Falstaff because there’s no-one else he can trust.

This is the point at which Falstaff’s accent veers into Scottish, while Henry’s dialogue is now so cumbersome it’s like he’s gargling marbles.

By now I’ve pinpointed what bothers me about Chalamet’s performance: it’s like he’s heavily medicated. And the mumblecore performance simply doesn’t work in the medieval context. Okay, I can appreciate you don’t want to be bellowing like Olivier, but how’s this going to work in the upcoming battle scenes? Are you going to whisper to the troops? Use sign language?

And so it is that Falstaff – Shakespeare’s legendary coward, wastrel and bullshit artist – is here introduced to Henry’s captains as a heroic battle veteran who’s going to lead them. I don’t know what they were thinking, but this is surely the apotheosis of Hollywood/Globalist Entertainment Corp idiocy.

It’s like those Stallone films where Rocky and Rambo make a creaky comeback, except Joel Edgerton doesn’t really look old enough to be making a comeback. And how weird that Falstaff, who famously wasn’t in Henry V, now seems to have become the main character.

So we get to France, where there’s some good siege engine action, and Chalamet seems more charismatic when speaking French. It’s a fugly film, though – the English are just a succession of interchangeable dour men with pinched faces and slightly overcooked regional accents. Falstaff has now overtaken Henry as the most annoying character, but Henry seems to be in love with him. And then the Dauphin (Robert Pattinson) turns up to chat in the middle of the night.

This is an eccentric performance by Robert Pattinson. Well known for playing a vampire in The Twilight Saga, he threatens to drain Henry’s body of blood. He’s like a Monty Python character, but he does capture some of the prideful idiocy of Shakespeare’s Dauphin. However, R-Patz quickly reveals a predilection for decapitating little English boys, so it’s clear he needs a serious talking-to.

There is some semi-interesting stuff about methods of waging war, but Falstaff is becoming such a pompous bastard and it’s all terribly heavy handed. Maybe if the whole thing was in French it would fool me into thinking it was good.

The subsequent Henry-Falstaff face-off seems to imply sexual intimacy, as did the scene at the beginning where Hal performed impromptu surgery on Falstaff – yes, really.

There are so many lulls in the action that even the lulls have lulls. Which makes me ponder that whenever people set out to make Shakespeare “less long winded” they always follow the same approach: 1. They take out all the good stuff. 2. They replace it with a bunch of new stuff which paradoxically has the effect of slowing everything down and bumping up the run time, and 3. They just generally make it incomprehensible. Ergo: The King.

There is so much that could be cut here: a scene where a messenger is called for and issued instructions like it’s going to be significant but then nothing much happens as a result of it. And the other problem is that it’s so static. Too many scenes of people sitting and talking, or standing and talking, or walking slowly and talking. The very things that stage versions of Henry V try to avoid, this film can’t get enough of them.

Well, it’s the eve of the battle and surly Falstaff has revealed himself to be a master tactician and all-round dispenser of earthy wisdom. Henry, however, hopes to avoid battle, and challenges the Dauphin to single combat – well, it worked with Hotspur.

The Dauphin responds with gross sexual insults, so Henry finally gets really riled and gives a stirring speech to his troops. Okay, it’s not Shakespeare, but at least he puts some much-needed vim and vigour into it.

The battle (Agincourt) is well done, especially when Henry enters the fray and we follow him from one crashing life-or-death martial encounter to another. It’s literally hand-to-hand combat, often dispensing with weapons altogether. We don’t even see Henry wield a sword until a satisfying encounter with the Dauphin, which I won’t spoil. Suffice it to say, it’s a rare occasion where a major change to Shakespeare (and to actual historical events) works really well.

We bid adieu to Falstaff, but now Henry goes to meet the French king – another windbag – who proposes that Henry marry his daughter Catherine (Lily-Rose Depp), or Princess Stony McStoneface, to give her full title.

(Is it deliberate that Timothée Chalamet is so un-kingly in this? On the voyage back to England he looks like a little orphan boy in one of the Titanic’s lifeboats.)

A bit of romance would be nice at this point, but Princess Stony has other ideas. “I will not submit to you,” she announces in a drab monotone. “You must earn my respect”. A minor point, but Princess Stony has just told us that she doesn’t speak English, but then proceeds to inform Henry at great length what a worthless little toerag he is – in English. At any rate, it feels like the aforementioned gender studies lecture has arrived. Or maybe it’s a job interview. “Do you feel a sense of achievement?” she asks icily. I’m half expecting her to follow up with “Why do you want to work in Human Resources?”

Admittedly, the acting styles are fairly complementary here – in that he’s a blob of jelly and she’s a plank of wood. In Shakespeare, of course, this scene is played for bilingual laughs – although recent stage productions have done everything in their power to remedy that. And so she sneers while he squirms, but once again it’s a scene with two people talking while seated. It’s not exactly a rollercoaster thrill-ride.

“All monarchy is illegitimate,” Princess Stony opines. Which is great, as I was just thinking that what this film needs is an injection of Neo-Marxist theory.

“It would seem that you have no explanation for what you have done,” she continues, with all the moral authority you’d expect from someone whose brother liked to chop children’s heads off. Clearly rattled, Henry then turns detective to uncover the true motives of his shifty war enthusiast of a Chief Justice. So now we’ve had three awkward scenes of static conversation in a row. This time, however, Timothée Chalamet sits while Sean Harris is commanded to stand precariously on a stool. I can’t help thinking it must be a metaphor for something.

Finally the film ends. So what have we learned? I dunno, maybe ‘Don’t send a man-child to do a warrior king’s job’? We are a couple of hours older, not a lot wiser, and there’s still no Shakespeare on Netflix. Ah well, at least we can cancel our subscription now.

The King was released on Netflix on 1 November 2019.

Special Offer! Get 12 Issues of The Oldie for just £12 – And Help to Save Shakespeare Magazine!

Image-68.png
That’s right, we have a very special offer for you. Shakespeare Magazine readers can now get 12 issues of beloved British periodical The Oldie for just £12*. This is a saving of £45 on the cover price. And, even better, when you take out your subscription, The Oldie will give Shakespeare Magazine £15!

To order this subscription right now, you simply need to go HERE.

* For overseas subscribers (ie outside the UK), the offer is 12 issues of The Oldie for £24.

Image-69.png

[To clarify the offer. You will receive 12 issues for £12 (a saving of £45.00 on the shop price of £57.00). If you do not wish to continue receiving The Oldie after your 12 issues for £12, you can cancel your subscription and pay not a penny more. But if you want to continue to subscribe after your first 12 issues, you need do nothing and your subscription will automatically carry on at the low rate of £42.50 every 12 issues (saving 25%) until you decide otherwise. The 12 issues for £12 are yours to keep and Shakespeare Magazine will be given £15 by The Oldie, whatever you choose to do after receiving your first 12 issues.]

To get 12 issues of The Oldie for just £12* and help Shakespeare Magazine, just click HERE!

Image-70.png
ABOUT THE OLDIE MAGAZINE

The Oldie magazine was started 25 years ago by the great Richard Ingrams, the former Editor of Private Eye.

The Oldie has developed an extraordinary talent to amuse, with some of Britain’s greatest writers gracing its pages: Craig Brown, Gyles Brandreth and Virginia Ironside. You may well enjoy Lucinda Lambton’s regular Overlooked Britain feature.
“You won’t get retirement advice or tips on fighting old age,” says Editor Harry Mount. “Oldies aren’t grumpies, but we are liberated by age to say the unsayable. The Oldie has no political agenda. You will get buckets of laughs.”
*For readers outside the UK, the offer is 12 issues for £24.

All Crowns are Hollow: The scheming and backstabbing politicians of today would do well to ponder the fate of Shakespeare’s Kings

“…For within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a King
Keeps Death his court…”
Richard II – Act III, Scene 2
HxTJ4MaL
Shakespeare’s plays are full of lessons for contemporary politicians – especially, perhaps, the history plays like Richard II, the tragedies such as Macbeth, and the Roman plays including Julius Caesar.
There’s one lesson that pops up time and time again, and I’ll present it as a question: “Are you really sure you want to be King?”
Because kingship in Shakespeare’s plays is almost always presented as a poisoned chalice – quite literally so, at the end of Hamlet.
Very few of the kings in Shakespeare ever get to do any actual ‘kinging’. Instead they fight tooth and nail to get to the throne – often committing heinous crimes like murder in the process – and then they die.
lik7e60u
Looking back at these plays from a distance of 400 or so years, it seems clear that what Shakespeare is doing is helpfully pointing out that the English system of monarchy doesn’t work very well. In fact it’s susceptible to complete breakdown, and when that happens we get a civil war – which is bad news for absolutely everyone.
Don’t believe me? Well, Here’s how Shakespeare depicts the fate of all the English kings between a relatively short period of 1400-1485:
Richard II – allegedly murdered.
Henry IV – dies stricken by guilt and fear.
Henry V – dies young, bequeathing legacy of chaos.
Henry VI – allegedly murdered.
Edward IV – allegedly murdered.
Edward V and his brother (the Princes in the Tower) – allegedly murdered.
Richard III – killed in battle.
UuogTxsi
Not to mention all the other many and various Yorkists and Lancastrians with viable claims to the throne or legitimate places in the succession who are either murdered or meet their demise in battle.
One suggestion that emerges here is that maybe it’s better for a nation to be at peace and for society to tolerate a certain amount of hooliganism or anti-social behaviour (characterised by Prince Hal, Falstaff and their cronies in Henry IV Parts 1 and 2) than to embark on wars of conquest (Henry V) that deliver short term glory but ultimately bring disaster (Henry VI).
As suggested above, Shakespeare seems to truly hate and fear civil war. If you read the ten history plays as a sequence (starting with King John and ending with Henry VIII), the dominant emotion is often grief. Some of the most powerful speeches, whether by queens or commoners, are those which mourn the deaths of cruelly slaughtered loved ones. In Shakespeare there is rarely any upside to such butchery.
z56uRr7W
The challenge of kingship, Shakespeare suggests, is about the careful control of volatile factors in a world where an alpha tyrant (Richard III) is just as likely to fall as a watery weakling (Henry VI). Perhaps, ultimately, the definition of a successful king is one whose reign wasn’t interesting enough for Shakespeare to write a play about.
Of course, it’s always perilous to mix up Shakespeare’s heavily fictionalised history plays with the actual history of England, but while we often think of the Tudor period that followed 1485 as being less volatile, it seems that these dysfunctional patterns of monarchy continued right through the reigns of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.
There was war with France and Scotland in the reign of Henry VIII, the shattering effect of the Reformation – and notoriously he had two of his six queens executed. Edward and Mary both died young, having continued to stoke the fires of religious conflict. Elizabeth’s reign was blighted by the threat of Spanish invasion and numerous assassination plots, including one which led to her executing her rival, Mary Queen of Scots.
QtqKJEbp
(And in a plot twist that even Shakespeare might have considered a bit unlikely, James the VI of Scotland ended up succeeding to the throne of Elizabeth – the very same woman who’d had his mother executed.)
Shakespeare, remember was born in 1564. In a little over 17 years prior to his birth England had no less than four monarchs. Five, if you include the ill fated ‘nine days’ Queen’, Lady Jane Grey.
And a quarter of a century after Shakespeare’s death, there was of course another civil war. And this one ended with the beheading of a king, Charles I, in a scenario with grim echoes of Macbeth.
The odd thing is that Shakespeare worked for Charles’ father, James VI and I, for whom he wrote Macbeth. If the young Charles ever knew of Shakespeare and his works, it seems that – to his tragic cost – he ignored their lessons.
Images from The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses, courtesy of the BBC.

From director Josie Rourke, Tudor historical drama Mary Queen of Scots starring Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie is now available for home viewing

8317729-11 Mary Queen Of Scots UK DVD Retail O-Ring_2PA

Two powerful Queens battle for one throne in the riveting and extraordinary drama based on a true story, Mary Queen of Scots, available now on Digital and on Blu-ray, DVD and On Demand on 20 May 2019, from Universal Pictures Home Entertainment.

A chronicle of two strong woman pitted against each other in an age of male dominance, the 16th century tale showcases bold performances from former Academy Award nominees Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie in their roles as Mary I of Scotland and Elizabeth I of England.

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS
Filled with manipulation, betrayal and deceit from start to finish, Mary Queen of Scots also features an outstanding supporting cast including Guy Pearce, Jack Lowden, Joe Alwyn, Adrian Lester, Gemma Chan and David Tennant.

Mary Queen of Scots explores the turbulent life of the charismatic Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan). Queen of France at 16, widowed at 18, Mary defies pressure to remarry and instead returns to her native Scotland to reclaim her rightful throne. By birth, she also has a rival claim to the throne of Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), who rules as the Queen of England.

Mary Queen Of Scots
Determined to rule as much more than a figurehead, Mary asserts her claim to the English throne, threatening Elizabeth’s sovereignty. Rivals in power and love, the two Queens make very difficult choices about marriage and children. Betrayal, rebellion and conspiracies within each court imperil both Queens, driving them apart, as each women experiences the bitter cost of power.

Hailed by Stephanie Zacharek of Time as “cleverly entertaining”, Mary Queen of Scots on Blu-ray and DVD comes packed with bonus features including a commentary by actors and filmmakers as well as exclusive featurettes that will take viewers on a behind-the-scenes journey into the making of the film.

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS
BLU-RAY & DVD BONUS FEATURES:

  • An Epic Confrontation– A deeper look at the film’s most significant scene and how the two actresses prepared for their characters first encounters.
  • Something About Marys – A behind the scenes look at how the Marys’ on-set chemistry was formed and how it created a bond between the entire cast and crew.
  • Tudor Feminism – An exploration of how Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth ruled in a time when men called the shots.
  • Feature Commentary with Director Josie Rourke and Composer Max Richter.

Go here to explore the Mary Queen of Scots website.

An American magazine has published an article titled ‘Was Shakespeare a Woman?’ In response, we have written an article titled ‘SHAKESPEARE DERANGEMENT SYNDROME’

The Atlantic, a US magazine founded in 1857, has published an article by Elizabeth Winkler titled ‘Was Shakespeare a Woman?’. The answer of course is no, but while it’s deplorable that The Atlantic would do this, it’s not actually surprising. Elements of the US cultural elite, just like their counterparts here in the UK, have a long and inglorious history of Shakespeare denialism.

file-12
To cite just one example, no less an institution than the Smithsonian has had a particularly egregious advocacy of ‘Oxfordian theory’ on its website for as long as I can remember. So I’ve come to realise that rich, clever and sophisticated people are often complete and utter fruitcakes, and our American cousins are not exempt from this.

The Atlantic itself has published this type of thing before during its lengthy lifespan, and Winkler merely takes all the arguments routinely deployed by anti-Stratfordians over the past century and adds a feminist twist. Who knows, maybe she got the idea from the cinematic font of wisdom that was St Trinians 2.

However, I do think the Winkler article is also symptomatic of what’s happening in the culture at large. Because we should have evolved to the point where an article like this could no longer be published, except in the crankier recesses of internet obscurity. But we are living at a time when the media, the political class and the universities have veered so far off course that they are in danger of losing all credibility with much of the public. I think of it as The Great Derangement, and Shakespeare Derangement Sydrome is just one facet of the overall malaise.

file6-2
Apart from its modish feminist gloss, the Winkler article reads like every other anti-Stratfordian screed I’ve ever trawled through. It’s quite old-fashioned. I say this without malice, as I’m quite old-fashioned too, but apart from a sprinkling of contemporary references, it feels like it’s coming from the 1960s or ’70s. It’s ironic indeed that for a woman who claims Shakespeare was a woman, Winkler herself writes like an old bloke.

Anyway, Winkler’s candidate for the authorship is Emilia Bassano. She’s been known by a number of names and a variety of spellings, so for clarity I will stick to this version of her married name: Emilia Lanier.

Reading the Winkler article, which is pretty long, I groan inwardly when she goes to meet Emilia’s “most ardent champion”, a geezer named John Hudson, who published a headache-inducing book on the subject in 2014. Winkler says “His zeal can sometimes get the better of him”, and she is not wrong.

file3
In fact, Hudson is a textbook Shakespeare Conspiracy Theorist. The formula is always the same:

1. “There is a secret message in the works of Shakespeare revealing the true author!”

2. “I alone have cracked the code!” (“Because I am so much cleverer than everyone else…”)

3. “Here it is! Is it not amazing?”

4. “What? You don’t believe me? What manner of imbecile are you!”

The article continues with Hudson and Winkler parsing Shakespeare’s works for evidence of Emilia’s hand. The thing is, if you pick any person who was writing during Shakespeare’s lifetime (and quite a few who weren’t) you could similarly identify any number of references that made them the author. It’s an easy game to play once you get in the swing of it. Indeed, I’m surprised no one has thus far identified Pocahontas as the author of Shakespeare’s works. Watch this space.

file7-3
Emilia’s advocates also believe she was Jewish and dark-skinned, so Winkler invokes Maya Angelou, deliberately misunderstanding the late author’s famous line to the effect that “Shakespeare must be a black girl”. [Read an excellent article on Maya Angelou’s love of Shakespeare here]

Finally, Winkler gets round to discussing Emilia’s own poetry. “Her writing style bears no obvious resemblance to Shakespeare’s” she concludes. Well, no.

With grinding inevitability, Winkler proceeds to her final destination, Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London. I know it seems a bit like saying Buckingham Palace is a hotbed of anti-monarchism, but Shakespeare’s Globe has long been strangely ambivalent (at best) about the man from Stratford-upon-Avon whose name it trades under. In his 2007 book on Shakespeare, Bill Bryson describes the Globe under former Artistic Director Mark Rylance as “a kind of clearinghouse for anti-Stratford sentiment”.

file5
At the Globe, Winkler attends the annual meeting of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust, which I imagine as being like a scene from Eyes Wide Shut. With Rylance as its figurehead, the Trust has considered the merits of dozens of authorship candidates over the years, before settling on… all of them! No, wait. The last time I checked, they were fighting an “Anyone But Shakespeare” campaign. In recent months they seem to have opted for an “Authorship By Secret Committee” theory, and have even given our mate William a seat at the table. How kind.

The Globe’s latest Artistic Director is Michelle Terry, and one of the first things she did was to commission a new play, Emilia, which features Shakespeare plagiarising from the titular heroine. There is no historical evidence for this, naturally, but it also occurs in Sally O’Reilly’s 2014 novel Dark Aemilia. Contemporary writers seem to love the idea of Shakespeare being a fraud. Presumably it eases the pain of knowing that the only reason anyone will remember them is as a footnote to Shakespeare.

file2-8
Incidentally, I get the impression that these are troubled times for The Globe. It’s just announced a two-year delay to its ambitious ‘Project Prospero’ expansion scheme, and its current production of Henry IV Part 2 has reportedly been playing to half-empty houses.

Michelle Terry has previously stated that her tenure at the Globe has “a socialist agenda”. Hopefully she’s not using Venezuela as her model.

But back to Elizabeth Winkler and her article in The Atlantic. ‘Was Shakespeare a Woman?’ has already found an audience. The publication has quite a big following and dodgy Shakespeare clickbait has long been a reliable attention-grabber for a media that is running dangerously low on both ideas and integrity.

But at least some of The Atlantic’s readers will be thinking: “If they can be this wrong about Shakespeare, what else are they wrong about?” before arriving at the sobering conclusion: possibly everything.

file4-5
In the article itself, Winkler dreams of her revelations dealing “a blow to the cultural patriarchy” so that women could “at last claim their rightful authority as historical and intellectual forces…”

It’s heady stuff, and any push-back by rational people will no doubt be decried as abuse, harassment, bullying and, wait for it, hate speech.

Because, while the leading fruitcakes of the Great Derangement are constantly telling us we’re living in the 1930s, we’re really not. We’re actually living in 4BC, with dozens of fervid religious cults all vying for supremacy. What this is really about is not that Shakespeare was a woman – he wasn’t. But it is necessary for the purposes of the cult that its adherents accept and proclaim that Shakespeare was a woman. Cults always demand that their followers believe the unbelievable, it is a means of uniting them against the world they wish to ultimately conquer.

We live in an age of identity politics, and almost every identity group I can think of comes with its own pet Shakespeare authorship theory and preferred candidate. So it is highly likely that the hacks at The Atlantic will be walking this path again.

To quote from the man himself, “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

Shakespeare Magazine is an independent online publication for everyone who loves Shakespeare. Read our latest issue completely FREE here.

Buy Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro.

The Oxfraud website for in-depth debunking of anti-Stratfordian thought.

Book tickets for Henry IV Part 2 at Shakespeare’s Globe.

The curious case of the Henry V-quoting toddler who saved Shakespeare Magazine from certain and ignominious doom (as recounted by his proud and admiring father, the Editor)

TOM2
My abiding memory of the very first issue of Shakespeare Magazine, published five years ago this week, is that it very nearly didn’t happen at all. I remember rising at about 5am feeling frazzled, fearful and sleep-deprived, and tweeting something like “Right, let’s go to work” to convey a bravado I didn’t feel.

I’d taken redundancy only 19 days earlier, and although I’d been thinking non-stop about Shakespeare Magazine for over a year, this was surely one of the swiftest launches in media history, and I was overwhelmed. I had always intended to get the first issue out on 23 April 2014, which would have been Shakespeare’s 450th birthday. But there was just too much still to do, and my hopes were fading fast.

Originally I’d been working from the kitchen of my Bristol home. But I’d had to move into the spare bedroom because the WiFi signal was stronger. I’d fallen into a cycle of working late into the night and then crashing out on the bed right next to the desk where my ancient Russian computer hummed and spluttered. And on this particular day I had company. My young son was running a fever, so instead of taking him to nursery I’d installed him in the bed beside me. This way I could keep an eye on him while I worked.

By the early afternoon I was firmly ensconced in a slough of despond. The mag wasn’t going to come out today, it simply couldn’t be done. Maybe it would happen tomorrow, maybe it wouldn’t happen at all.

And then something remarkable occurred. My son woke up, having shrugged off his illness and now looking as fit as the proverbial butcher’s dog. He gave me a cheeky grin and said, in what I can only describe as a mischievous tone, these words:

“Once more [pause] unto the breach [pause], dear friends.” [pause, chuckle]

I was flabbergasted. Of course, my son was used to hearing me spouting plenty of Shakespeare lines (and trying to get him to repeat them), but these words, from one of Henry V’s most stirring speeches, just stopped me dead in my tracks. He’d even remembered to say ‘unto’ instead of ‘into’.

And yes, in my semi-delirious state, I did take it as a sign that today of all days I must persevere. A phone call from my freelance Art Editor did the rest: “Right, where’s these final pages, then? Get yer finger out and we can still do this”. Well, that’s not all he said, but the language was more Anglo-Saxon than Shakespearean, if you catch my drift.

And so it was that Issue One of Shakespeare Magazine was published at around nine o’ clock that evening. To be honest, it’s always been a struggle, but I’m currently working on Issue 16, and I still love it.

Oh, and when this happened my estimable offspring was a couple of weeks shy of his third birthday. So this is really a story about how a two-year-old saved Shakespeare Magazine. Thanks, son.

Shakespeare Magazine 15 is celebrating 50 years of Franco Zeffirelli’s unforgettable 1960s film production of Romeo and Juliet!

ei
Issue 15 of Shakespeare Magazine celebrates 50 years of Franco Zeffirelli’s classic film of Romeo and Juliet.

We have an exclusive interview with Juliet herself, Olivia Hussey, along with readers’ memories of R & J, and an account of growing up (and old) with the film by Editor Pat Reid.

Also this issue, we have an exclusive extract from Paterson Joseph’s memoir Julius Caesar and Me, and we also take a look at Ben Elton’s Upstart Crow, and chat to Australian Shakespeare star Kate Mulvany.

Plus loads more, including Shakespeare with Subtitles, Shakespeare in Schools, and the beautiful Shakespeare Doodles of Gary Andrews.

Here’s the full list of contents:

Three gorgeous covers celebrating 50 years of Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet.

An exclusive interview with Juliet herself, Olivia Hussey.

The Editor writes about growing up with Romeo and Juliet.

The Readers remember Romeo and Juliet.

And that’s just for starters! Also this issue…

Want to enjoy Shakespeare more? Try using Subtitles!

How Ben Elton’s Upstart Crow took flight.

The beautiful Shakespeare doodles of Gary Andrews.

Revisiting Ian McKellen’s thrilling Richard III film.

Scandal! Why is Shakespeare Uncovered not being shown in the UK?

Does Shakespeare belong in schools?

Antony Sher’s Year of the Mad King reviewed.

The treasures of the Victorian Illustrated Shakespeare Archive.

An exclusive extract from Paterson Joseph’s Julius Caesar and Me.

Why Australian Shakespeare star Kate Mulvany feels Richard III’s pain.

Oh, there’s also a really good Mercutio anecdote in the Editor’s intro.

And you’re going to love what’s coming up next issue

Wishing a Happy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2019 to all our readers!