Thursday, February 23, 2012

Anonymous

I saw the movie on Monday. It was... intense. That's what I say about movies that were well made, but not happy-go-lucky. In fact I'd say that all movies based on true events that occurred during the 1600-1800s in Europe are always intense and disturbing.

I'm glad I live in this era. Technology and advances made in the fields of science, medicine, psychology, and compassion have made the past look like a bleak road human history once wandered. Society during the Renaissance was tragic and confusing -and they considered it to be there "Golden Era"...

So after King Henry VIII dumped the Catholic church for not letting him divorce his wife so he could remarry Anne Boleyn- who he then cheated on and beheaded- his daughter Elizabeth I got the thrown. Also not being a big fan of the Catholic church she proclaimed the Angelican Church of England and Puritanism to be the main religion.

Why does this matter? Well according to Puritan religion at the time (and therefore law) it was a sin to write, act in, or watch plays. Today it would be like someone saying it is immoral and therefore illegal to direct, star in, or watch a movie. They claimed that plays were sins because it was "worshipping false idols".

False Idols? What the f... ????

I could see people arguing that point now by saying Actors are worshipped as "idols" by adoring fans more than they should be -but even that's a stretch. No one worships actors or movie directors in a religious or spiritual sense. They are admired and commended by people who appreciate their work, but they are not considered to be "sacred". No one worships Shakespeare like a god. The term "idol" has changed from its original connotation and today it simply mean to look up to and admire someone or something for its talents and virtues. It does not mean to devote worship to them like people use to do golden cows...

Because of the sin of writing plays was off the table, people who had a reputation to uphold -dukes, earls, and royalty- could not be associated with plays. Queen Elizabeth was known to "sin" occasionally and watch play presented to her, but no other wealthy landowner could afford to take that kind of risk. The only people ultimately allowed to write and see plays were commoners who nobody cared about -aka poor poets and those who had no name of value or lineage to honor.

Poets and writers of plays were therefore commonly illiterate to some extent because they were not presented with a formal education like those who could afford one would be. Their stories and plays were therefore common and lacked creativity and depth.

Then suddenly and mysteriously despite his lack of education and the fact he had only ever acted in plays -William Shakespeare's writings came out of nowhere to amaze growing audiences who would flock to watch his works. After a few short years of renowned play after play he then returned to his home village and spent the rest of his days as a businessman selling grains.

How is it someone who was undereducated who was not known for his writing suddenly became the best known playwright of all time?

The movie reveals that there was a well educated earl who loved to write and admire beauty and love -aka a Libra- who was forbidden from writing plays by other statesmen because it would bring disgrace to his name and his family. But much like Oscar Wilde, the soul driving force that was his nature prevented him from ignoring is talents.

Along with not being able to write his plays he was also prevented from marrying whoever he chose to love. He was forced into an arranged marriage with a young girl who had a crush on him. The earl then chose to rebel in his own way by having multiple affairs and ignoring his wife.

Finally the earl decided to have the name of a commoner take his works and see them turned into reality. Shakespeare took all the credit, but the earl had written everything.

Then because Queen Elizabeth I was a slut and slept around having tons of illegitimate children but no husband, King James of Scotland ended up inheriting the English throne. James reinstated Catholicism and picked on the Puritans. His reign is the reason the
Puritans left for America seeking religious freedom from persecution.


I don't know how people lived in those days. Arranged marriages between 13 year old girls and 50 year old men legally contracted to produce a male heir. Plague, famine, disease... Religious doctrine turned law. Social stratification based on wealth and hereditary descendants.

The higher your social rank the less freedom you have.

The lower your social rank the lower your quality of life.

Only the middle class- if there could be said to be one- found a decent way of life.

And to think they almost lost one of the greatest writers of their time and all time because of their backwards way of manipulating people into socially conforming to rules they invented to ensure the rich maintained their wealth and prestige. No wonder religion gets such a bad name.

6 comments:

  1. "No wonder religion gets such a bad name."

    Would you please stop bashing religion? Do you bash music just because there are idiot musicians? Do you bash Hollywood as a whole just because they are bad movies? So why do you constantly portray religion as evil when it is merely the people who are doing wrong?

    12

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow.Somebody took that statement personally. It was intended to be "sarcastic". I really wish they had a sarcastic font.

    I like how you think I bash religion. ME. Hello. The girl who has a compulsive interest in almost all religions and purposely went to a Jesuit college. ME. Hello. :)

    I dn't diss religion I diss people who abuse religion and I'm constantly amazed by how deep and profound reliogns can be and how terribly they are represented by the actions of men. Religions tend to be perfect and idealistic. Men are flawed and often abuse the written words of sacred documents to justify their wn wrong doings. It is interestingly confusing to me that people can take GOOD and use it as an excuse to justify EVIL. And therefore others see the GOOD (religion) associated with EVIL (people's wrongs they justify) and then associate relgion with wrong doings.

    No wonder religion get such a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No. The tone of this blog was they typical "ohhh whine whine look how religion once again messed up how good liberal arts could have been whine whine".

    I know you are trying your best to sound even-toned, achieving the mid-point between spirituality and religious, but you are still very anti-religious in your tone.

    There's no way we can view the past from our lenses. We can't. We don't live then we don't smell then we don't see then we don't hear then we don't breath then we don't eat then we don't sleep then we don't live then.

    So to judge the entire time as negative because of "religion" is limited.

    All bad things were due to bad people doing bad things, period.

    12

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh --- and like jokes, all sarcasm is only effective because there is a bit of truth within them. My skill is to cut right through stuff and get to the truth, and if the truth is a negative comment towards what I believe to be true, I comment accordingly.

    12

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "All bad things were due to bad people doing bad things, period."

    I'd say that society was what ruined everything -not religion which they used to do wrong because society itself was wrong. I don't like the way you assume I hate religion or am against it. I am against abuses of religion. I am against societies who make arbitrary laws limiting human potential.

    You seem to be taking things a little too personally these days. You are lashing out a little too much. My blogs are for me. If you do not like my blog, fine. If you want to debate on a topic, great. If you want to harass me because you don't like my views or opinions, go elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete