Like I said, I work for this smaller technology firm in the
UK and they treat us really nicely. On the opening weekend of
The Dark Knight Rises, the
engineering part of the company rented out a theatre for all the engineers.
Then because we didn’t fill it out we were able to bring a guest. We were each
given a bottle of water and popcorn and I thoroughly enjoyed myself, having
waited for this movie for over a year. I want to say that it is good. It has a
lot of cool effects and action but a lot of drama. It’s slower than the 2
nd
movie, The Dark Knight, because the action doesn’t really start until maybe
2/3rds of the way into the film, but it’s quite good. I think I liked it
because I like drama and there is a lot of drama, relational struggles, and
personal searches.
I will not say that it is better than Batman 2: The Dark
Knight. How do you beat that movie where the action starts from the beginning,
where it ends and continues at least 3 times, and where Heath Ledger played his
role to perfection? It’s hard. The Dark Knight Rises was still a good movie,
and I loved the psychological parts the best. My two favourite thinking moments
which I’m still trying to apply to my life were about hope and fear. One of the
characters in the movie said “Without hope there is no despair.” . . . . Just
sit and let that counterintuitive statement hit you. I LOVE IT! And I find it
to be true. The second one was not completely worded as it was lived out—fear
makes a man stronger (or more able). . . . how does that one hit you? I also
find this to be true. I think Christopher Nolan not only did a great job directing,
he did an excellent job co-writing it. I encourage you to go see if it you
liked the first two.
But what really has me thinking is the movie
Anonymous which
advances one of a number of theories about the “true” identity of the writer,
William Shakespeare. This is an old academic (some say nonsensical) debate that
has gone on for decades, with the specific conspiracy theory in Anonymous first
appearing around 90 years ago, advanced by a man named Thomas Looney.
First, to make sure you understand what I’m writing, I will
call the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon who moved to London and became famous
for many plays, eventually opening up and co-owning the Globe Theatre William
of Stratford. I will call the actual writer (which could be the same person)
William Shakespeare. Secondly, I’m always bothered by current media that
presents two sides without giving me the proper context of what percentage of
experts fall on each side or the fact that there are many more opinions other
than the two extremes presented. So let me say that the vast majority of
academic Shakespeare experts believe that William of Stratford is William
Shakespeare. Thirdly, remember that even though a vast majority of people
believe William of Stratford was Shakespeare, there are still academics who
doubt it, even if in the minority. So it is not only conspiracy theorists or
people who are not Shakespeare experts. Lastly, let me give you a few of the
problems the people (in the minority) have preventing them from believing
William of Stratford wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
William of Stratford had little or no education – Some believe
that the level of knowledge and sophistication in Shakespeare’s poetry and
writings required that he be an aristocrat or at least well-educated. However,
the problem with this view is that Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlow (also in
the movie) had similar backgrounds. Ben was the son of a bricklayer, I believe,
while Marlow was the son of a shoemaker. Ben also had a grammar school
education, and many people consider Jonson’s plays and Marlow’s plays even more
educated or erudite. The point here is that it is hard to understand, but it is
impossible? No one disputes Jonson’s authorship nor Marlow’s authorship. I
will, however, say that there is a reason that Shakespeare is considered the
greatest of all time.
William of Stratford’s children were illiterate – I think the
belief is that someone that well-written and educated (whether self-educated or
otherwise) would have educated his children or had his children educated. This
however deals with probabilities as opposed to proof.
William of Stratford never left any writing in his own handwriting
other than 6 signatures (which differ in spelling) - This one actually
bothers me. Of course, I say this from 21st century experience in
which I know if I died, people would find many things both typed by me and
written by hand by me. I still find it odd that there is no writing in his
handwriting. The first folio (first publication) of his work was completed in
1623 by two actors in his company after his death. It sits here in the UK at
Oxford University. Again, this is not proof, but raises doubts.
William of Stratford spent a lot of time engaging in law suits - This one makes me laugh. The problem here
is one of time. If you look at any of Shakespeare’s 37 plays, they seem to have
taken a long time to write. Where did William of Stratford get the time to
write such plays when he had a wife and children and was spending time and
effort engaging in law suits? Again it makes me laugh, and seems like a logical
question. Interestingly enough, you can see legal experience in Shakespeare’s
plays like the Merchant of Venice.
William of Stratford couldn’t read French, Spanish, or Italian
– Shakespeare’s plays show a knowledge of these languages (including
references) or at least access to translated versions. But there seems to be no
evidence that William of Stratford could read any of the languages or had
access to translations. The problem here, again, is that though it’s hard to
believe, we just don’t know if he actually did have access to a privately
circulating translation or if there was a translation that is no longer with us
today (this has happened with other texts that we know about).
William of Stratford never traveled outside of London (after
moving there) – We have no record of him traveling outside of London but he
could have done so unknown to us today.
William of Stratford left no books, letters, or correspondences in hi
will and did not get even one eulogy at his death – This is another of
those strange things. If I were William, again from my limited 21st
century perspective, I would have books and letters and correspondences that I owned.
I would at the least have books that I owned if I loved to write so (and
possibly read and borrow and create history plays). And many find it strange
that he died somewhat unnoticed. To be honest, I don’t really get it myself.
I read one analysis that said to name one, just one other
writer who was illiterate, brought up illiterate children, financed his work
from the pockets of common people, has a name that is a pun, has a name that
states a sentence in English, died unnoticed, and never commented on the events of
his day. The last point is another reason people think someone else
(the Earl of Oxford) was the writer because they felt the Earl of Oxford had a
reason, being aristocracy, not to directly comment on other aristocracy and the
events of his day.
However as much sense as it seems to make that William of
Stratford and Shakespeare were two different people, it’s hard to find proof of
it. In support of William of Stratford, I find it strange that I have read
nothing from the time of the Shakespeare including immediately after his death
that proposes hypotheses of alternative writers. This is all more recent
history. Some believe this is because it was a great cover-up or conspiracy to
hide it. If so, it was very well done. If you want to convince the academic
establishment (including people who have spent their lives studying this) you
have to find some actual direct proof to link Shakespeare’s plays to someone
else instead of starting with the holes or problems with the authorship
belonging to William of Stratford. Still it’s a tantalizing mystery. In
reality, though, it doesn’t really matter who wrote it. I’m just thankful we
have the plays and can enjoy them for what they are worth (or not worth if you
don’t like Shakespeare).
I went to the
Tate Modern museum recently
and saw
an
exhibition by Sung Hwan Kim in
the
Tanks section of the Tate. I went there with James, a college friend and DC
male a capella group-member. We were going to support the work since another
college associate did the music for Sung’s exhibition. I must tell you that I
was so disturbed by that exhibition. It literally unsettled me like watching a
suspense or horror film. I kept thinking why. Sung is an interdisciplinary
artist, so he uses narration, video, images, music, sound, sculpture, and more.
And I thought to myself, that sound and music was a huge reason why it reached
me more than it would have without it. That seems obvious, but I wonder if all
art is not equal to me.
It seems much harder for a visual art piece to reach out and
grab me the way a piece of music has the potential to do with no visual aid.
Yet, if the art piece is combined with music it regains that potential. I’m not
sure if I’m imagining this but it seems that way. I can look at art pieces (I
spent a lot of time in Italy in museums) and be moved but it seems much rarer
that a piece really moves me or shakes me than a piece of music moves or shakes
or shapes me. I wonder if I am more susceptible to mood creation through my
auditory cortex rather than my visual cortex. I don’t know. Does anyone else
experience this? Let me know. Until next time, ciao.
The art in Italy is another level. Even in one city like
Florence, the heart of the Renaissance, it is like taking multiple world-class
art galleries like the British Museum or the New York Metropolitan Museum and
putting them in one city. Granted, some of these museums are smaller than the
giant London museums, but it’s staggering to see the level of curating and the
worth of the pieces, and in so many museums! In Italy, the museums themselves are
art pieces. Ornate art pieces hang in ornately designed buildings that are
architecturally beautiful and fading with artistically pleasing interiors. It is
common to find artwork on the ceilings or upper rims of the wall of museums so
that some museums (like the Uffizi in Florence) give you plagues to describe
all that you might miss above you.
The art pieces in Italy are a bit like that. There is the
piece, but then there is the history behind the piece, the work and sweat that
comes through the piece, and the beauty embedded deep within the piece.
Sometimes you can visit a piece, like the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, and you say
to yourself “Is that it? Is this what all the hype is about?” It’s small and
not particularly conspicuous. I think it may be more famous because of the
question over the identity of the model. However, there are critics
who say it has to do with the ambiguity of the expression, the forms, its
monumentality, and the atmospheric illusionism. However when you are in
Florence and go to see Michaelangelo’s
David, it’s staggering, I mean really. Yes, anatomically, it’s pretty good
(though Michaelangelo is criticized for being over-muscly at times, it’s common
for artists to sacrifice anatomy and nature for art), but the sheer size of it
is overwhelming. You can see intricacies like veins. I can talk about the
fusion of Greek art with Renaissance sensibilities but I won’t; it’s just nice
to admire. As an engineer, what touched me the most was that the University of
Bologna’s Civil and Environmental Engineering department had a machine set up
and connected to the base of the statue from the back. They were studying and
monitoring crack propagation through the statue. I thought that that was an
amazing project for the engineers to involve themselves. I always remember
people who studied crack propagation in my department. I never thought that
some people would have the chance to apply it to the statue of David.
Most stunningly is that the city of Rome is a piece of art.
Both Rome and Florence are set in the basin of seven hills. And as you walk the
streets of Rome, all the buildings have the style of structure you associate
with Spain like the Spanish tile roofs. You leisurely stroll on cobblestone
paths through narrow passageways lit by a single lamp between burnt-Sienna
brick walls with the smell of pesto and tomato sauce wafting in the air. You see a small restaurant with 3 tables in the street
and people taking in the lovely
night air as they smile at you and stare. An accordion is playing in the
street, and as you pass by you hear the accordionist say “Buona Sera” to which
you say “Buona Sera.” As you walk past, the accordion music fades into the
background as the rush of water grows in intensity and the narrow passageway
opens into a beautiful piazza (think plaza or square) with a fountain in the
middle in which water is gushing out of a beautiful statue of Triton and his
mermaids. People mill about it making wishes, taking pictures, eating food. All
around the square and fountain are open-air restaurants, music playing, and
people watching
The other reason I like her is that she teaches and does workshops. I think this is the greatest thing an artist can do. It’s that connective link that’s so important. There’s more. When she’s passing on what she does or trying to give a workshop, it’s very important to her that it’s more than just the music, more than just working on or learning about rhythm, phrasing, interpretation, and improvisation. She wants to drink tea, talk about who you are and why you’re doing what you’re doing. She wants to know where you are going. She wants to also work or tap into the emotional and spiritual side of music and release its potential to transform both the artist and those that are listening.
