Fritz Lang | Global cinema
Japan is central to my use of affect theory to re-imagine viewership practices. takes the Hollywood vamp archetype back to the Edo period as a on December 17, , Mizoguchi's film met the Japanese viewing public. documentary and legislative information from governments, The main research hypothesis is that country VAMP implementation styles governance regime, improved government ability to meet objectives and deliver. for the first time applies feminist film theory to Hungarian film production in the . For its wide reach and capacity to inscribe ideologies, various political or economic the vamp of the s and the “ordinary” versus “extraordinary” types of.
It is tedious to copy out the puerilities of such parallelisms. If we simply looked to the fabric of the world; Shakespeare: And, like the baseless fabric of a vision. The intellectual light in the top and consummation of thy workmanship; Shakespeare: Like eyasses that cry out on the top of the question.
Myriads of pages of such matter would carry no proof. The theory that Bacon wrote the plays and sonnets inevitably implies the closest intercourse between him and Shakespeare. They must have been in constant connection. Pott is to cite the author of her preface, Dr. Abbott is so struck by this valuable statement that he writes: Some are in English, some in various other languages. He is not, as in Mrs. He is cataloguing the commonplace. Bucke, following her in a magazine article, says: This we can demonstrate.
Set forth by Claudius Holyband. Imprinted at London by Thomas Vautrollier, dwelling in the blacke-Friers. On page 10 we read: God give you a good morrow and a good year. This fact annihilates Mrs. We have chosen Dr. Here is another of her parallels.Repetition in the Bible versus JEPD, the Documentary Hypothesis
Therefore, and for similar reasons, Bacon is Shakespeare. We are not surprised to find Mr. But we are amazed to find Dr. Abbott looking not too unkindly on such imbecilities, and marching at least in the direction of Coventry with such a regiment. Donnelly is also a firm adherent of Mrs. Murray and the Clarendon Press. But why, being a great poet, should Bacon conceal the fact, and choose as a mask a man whom, on the hypothesis of his ignorance, every one that knew him must have detected as an impostor?
Again, Sir Walter Scott took pains to make his identity certain, by an arrangement with Constable, and by preserving his manuscripts, and he finally confessed. Bacon never confessed, and no documentary traces of his authorship survive. Nicholas had to bring in the vulgar pony, the Phenomenon, the buckets, and so forth. So, in early years, the author of the plays Bacon, by the theory had to work over old pieces.
What had he to gain by patching and vamping? Certainly not money, if the wealth of Shakespeare is a dark mystery to the Baconian theorists. We are asked to believe that Bacon, for the sake of some five or six pounds, toiled at refashioning old plays, and handed the fair manuscripts to Shakespeare, who passed them off, among the actors who knew him intimately, as his own.
THEY detected no incongruity between the player who was their Johannes Factotum and the plays which he gave in to the manager. They seemed to be just the kind of work which Shakespeare would be likely to write. We live in the Ages of Faith, of faith in fudge.
Smith was certain, and Mr. Bucke is inclined to suspect, that when Bacon wanted a mask he chose, as a plausible author of the plays, a man who could not write. Such was the tool whom Bacon found eligible, and so easily gulled was the literary world of Eliza and our James.
And Bacon took all this trouble for what reason?
- Recent Comments
- More on Fun Kids
- Recent Posts
To gain five or six pounds, or as much of that sum as Shakespeare would let him keep. Had Bacon been possessed by the ambition to write plays he would always have written original dramas, he would not have assumed the part of Nicholas Nickleby.
There is no human nature in this nonsense. An ambitious lawyer passes his nights in retouching stock pieces, from which he can reap neither fame nor profit. He gives his work to a second-rate illiterate actor, who adopts it as his own. Moreover, nobody who hears Shakespeare talk and sees him smile has any doubt that he is the author of the plays and amorous fancies of Bacon. It is needless to dwell on the pother made about the missing manuscripts of Shakespeare.
But, if he was not determined that the secret should die with him, why did not he, like Scott, preserve the manuscripts? Where are the MSS. We really cannot waste time over Mr. Bucke, too, has his Anagram, the deathless discovery of Dr. Platt, of Lakewood, New Jersey. He MUST, they think, have made a sign in cipher. Out of the mass of the plays, anagrams and cryptograms can be fashioned a plaisir, and the world has heard too much of Mrs.
Judge Webb, as a scholar and a man used to weighing evidence, puts the case at its strongest. Judge Webb, like his predecessors, does not take into account the wide diffusion of a kind of classical and pseudo-scientific knowledge among all Elizabethan writers, and bases theories on manifest misconceptions of Shakespearean and other texts. His book, however, has affected the opinions of some readers who do not verify his references and examine the mass of Elizabethan literature for themselves.
Collins shows that the Headmaster was a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and describes the nature of the education, mainly in Latin, as, according to the standard of the period, it ought to have been.
WATCH The Vamps Mini-Documentary Right Here!
Collins commends the Latin of two Stratford contemporaries and friends of Shakespeare, Sturley and Quiney, who probably were educated at the Grammar School. But the whole method of the Baconians rests on neglecting such comparisons. There was no reason why he should not acquire Latin enough to astonish modern reviewers, who have often none at all. Judge Webb then discusses the learning of Shakespeare, and easily shows that he was full of mythological lore.
So was all Elizabethan literature. Every English scribbler then knew what most men have forgotten now. Nobody was forced to go to the original authorities — say, Plato, Herodotus, and Plutarch — for what was accessible in translations, or had long before been copiously decanted into English prose and poetry.
WATCH The Vamps Mini-Documentary Right Here! - Fun Kids - the UK's children's radio station
Shakespeare could get Rhodope, not from Pliny, but from B. Had the Gobbos not known about Scylla and Charybdis, Shakespeare would not have lent them the knowledge. Judge Webb has manifestly succeeded in not appreciating Mr. He says, with obvious truth, that Greene attacks Shakespeare both as actor and poet, but Judge Webb puts the matter thus: Phillipps justly observes, merely conveys that Shakspere was one who acted in the plays of which Greene and his three friends were authors.
Judge Webb will not recognise him as a writer, and omits that part of Mr. How can he know? Ben Jonson dedicated to Lady Wroth and many others. I have dedicated books to dozens of people. The use of arguments of this kind demonstrates the feebleness of the case. We now come to the evidence of the Rev. Undeniably Meres, inrecognises Shakespeare as both playwright and poet. So Judge Webb can only reply: He speaks of Shakespeare just as he does of Marlowe, Kid, Chapman, and the others whom he mentions.
Every reader knew who they all were. If I write of Mr. Browning or of Mr. Coke knew, if he cared to know. Judge Webb goes on: Nothing of the kind is proved. We now come to evidence of which Judge Webb says very little, that of the two plays acted at St. His popularity is undisputed, but his admirer in the piece, Gullio, is a vapouring ignoramus, who pretends to have been at the University of Padua, but knows no more Latin than many modern critics.
Gullio continues to praise sweete Mr. Shakspeare above Spenser and Chaucer. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow; he brought up Horace giving the Poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit.
No amount of evil that angry Ben could utter about the plays, while Shakespeare lived, and, perhaps, was for a time at odds with him, can obliterate the praises which the same Ben wrote in his milder mood.
The charge against Poet Ape is a charge of plagiarism, such as unpopular authors usually make against those who are popular. Judge Webb does not pretend to know what the things were to which the angry Jonson referred. In any case, Ben, according to Drummond of Hawthornden, was one who preferred his jest to his friend. The portrait, says Ben, Was for gentle Shakespeare cut. Judge Webb has merely misconstrued his text.
The passage which he so quaintly misinterprets occurs in Sonnet lxxvi.: Why is my verse so barren of new pride? So far from variation or quick change? Why, with the time, do I not glance aside To new-found methods, and to compounds strange? Oh, know, sweet love, I always write of you, And you and love are still my argument; So all my best is dressing old words new, Spending again what is already spent: For as the sun is daily new and old, So is my love still telling what is told.
Judge Webb is fond of his discovery. The lines capitalised are thus explained by the Judge: Phillipps and everyone else have noted. What he means is: There is nothing about disguise of a name, or of anything else, in the sonnet. Soul of the Age, The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage, My Shakespeare, rise!
The pun does not fit the name of — Bacon! Tyrrell confessed that he was sorry he had spoken. With 36, extras,costumes and costing 5m Reichsmarks it was the Titanic Cameron, or the Avatar Cameron, of its day.
The film was intended to challenge the commercial and aesthetic international dominance of American cinema that had continued from the First World War onwards, and its director, Fritz Lang, contended that German culture could imbue the technology of modern cinema with a spirituality and significance that American films lacked.
Metropolis, which is about the seductive marvels and dangers of industrial technology, is thus also a film about the marvellous industrial technology of cinema. It was intended to demonstrate that technically sophisticated, mainstream cinema could also be deeply moving and thought-provoking. The stylistic influence of Metropolis is quite profound. It developed an epic visual vocabulary in its depiction of a technologized society that has served as a template for the imagined futures of twentieth century science-fiction cinema.
A standard critique of Metropolis has been that its visual inventiveness is not matched by an equally sophisticated narrative. The American film historian Tom Gunning suggests, however, that a key reason for the sceptical response to the film is a failure to understand it as allegory, a symbolic narrative rather than a realistic hypothesis of a possible future.
As a result, the film has tended to be regarded as simplistic. However, unlike Blade Runner, say, Metropolis is not an attempt to present a convincingly realistic depiction of a possible future, but instead is a mythic narrative. The film too should be seen as a moral tale but, the American film historian Tom Gunning suggests, this has made the film confusing for film viewers who are used to analysing layered, realist films whose themes and messages are hidden and elusive.
This claim rests on an understanding of cinema as a primarily visual medium and so it is important to recognize that Metropolis was not conceived as a literary film, or as an art film for a small audience of connoisseurs, but as a film that addresses as broad an audience as possible by exploiting the capacity of cinema to produce rich, complex, narrative images. This is a film about a society organized entirely around the requirements of capitalism and industry.
Metropolis, whose name identifies it as a generic city, rather than a specific place, is a dystopia in which the workers have been reduced to cybernetic components of the giant machines that power the city. They live like animals in underground caverns and, as we see in the opening scenes, even their physical movements have become machine-like — they are robotic figures. Thus, although this is a society that has been transformed by radical technological expansion and the rationalized efficiencies of Taylorism and Fordism, industrial technology has not emancipated the workers but has dehumanized them.
Gender roles are also extremely traditional in this supposedly advanced context, with women occupying the roles of mothers and saintly madonnas on the one hand, and prostitutes and seductive vamps on the other.
The class conflict that results is explored through the invocation of Christian myths. Frederson asks the crazed scientist, Rotwang to turn the robot he has built into a replica of Maria, so that they can use the robot to disrupt this potentially seditious underground movement. It transpires, however, that Rotwang resents Frederson because years earlier, Frederson married the woman he loved, so in revenge he programs Maria to cause havoc and she leads the workers to destroy the city.