Where There's a Will, There's an Ed

"Anonymous" (2011) tells the story of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, whom most people consider the likeliest author of the plays of William Shakespeare.  Well, unless you're one of those benighted people who actually believes William Shakespeare wrote the plays.

As you probably know, the "true identity" of William Shakespeare--or "William Shakespeare"--has occupied a certain subset of scholars for at least the last 700 years.  Which is surprising, as Shakespeare's plays were only written some 400 years ago.  The "mystery" for those who question the plays' authorship revolves around the question of how an actor with little formal education--"small Latin and less Greek," in Ben Jonson's memorable phrase--could possibly have composed the plays, sonnets, and other writings universally acclaimed as the greatest body of work in English literature.  In addition to de Vere, other possible Shakespeares have included Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe (who at least was a playwright, which qualification I think allowed him to be played by Rupert Everett in an earlier movie, which, I suppose, is something), Sir Francis Drake, Queen Elizabeth, Cervantes (I am not making this up), and others.

For what it's worth, I think (A) William Shakespeare wrote the plays of William Shakespeare, and (B) it ultimately doesn't matter. The important fact is that the plays exist, regardless of who actually wrote them: It's not like anyone's around to collect royalties.  But as I watched this movie, I found myself getting more and more annoyed.  And I'm not sure my annoyance was simply a response to a mediocre film.

And it is mediocre.  And quite pedantic.  Not surprising, really, considering it was directed by Roland Emmerich: The man made an alien invasion pedantic!  (Come to think of it, Bill Pullman's speech in "Independence Day" (1996) was reminiscent of "St. Crispin Day" in Henry V.  Maybe Shakespeare's plays were actually written by Roland Emmerich!  Or Bill Pullman?  Anywho. . . .)

The movie portrays Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans) as a true Renaissance man--and not just because he was a man in the, um, Renaissance.  According to the film, de Vere was a statesman, a royal confidante (more on this later), and an adventurer who spoke every language in the world and dashed off the Shakespearean canon in his spare time.  Indeed, the Earl of Oxford had barely reached puberty by the time he had completed A Midsummer Night's Dream, which he presented in a private performance for the queen (in which he, of course, played Puck).  Furthermore--again, according to the film--Edward was also the secret lover and illegitimate son (eww) of Queen Elizabeth I.  It's OK, though, 'cause neither of them knew about their mother-son relationship when they hooked up.

Yeah, OK, it's still "eww."

Meanwhile, the actual William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is not only NOT a gifted playwright; he's an illiterate, boorish blackmailer, who was also behind the murder of Christopher Marlowe.

Not that de Vere is perfect.  For one thing, he insists on writing poetry!  Which is just not done!  At least, not in the Puritan home in which he is brought up.  Poetry and plays, you see, are the works of Satan, and no good will come of them.  As if we needed any further proof of drama's satanic nature, the rebellious de Vere, in a fit of passion, actually stabs someone who was spying on him while he was writing.  Stabs him through a curtain!  So. . . that's where that came from.

The film makes a point of showing us how incidents in Edward's life inspired famous moments in Shakespeare's plays: Richard III is conceived as a hunchback as a slap at Edward's tormentor William Cecil; Romeo and Juliet's meeting at a masquerade echoes the evening of Edward's first dalliance with the Virgin (as if) Queen.  You get the point, though: Edward had to have written Shakespeare's plays, 'cause the plays correspond to events in Edward's life.  This, by the way, is the "evidence" offered by those who support de Vere's Shakespearean credentials: "How," they ask, "could William Shakespeare have written so accurately about life at Court, for example, without having been a nobleman himself?"

It's a fair question.  Writers tend to write about what they know; and, similarly, they cannot write about something they know nothing of.  Thus, since Shakespeare was presumably not a regular attendee of Court functions, there is no possible way he could have written accurately about such functions!  Well, unless of course he asked somebody.  Had research and/or the personal interview not been invented in the 16th century?

Anyway, back to the movie.  One of the big problems with the film is that, ultimately, we are left with no plausible reason why Edward de Vere would not claim authorship of the plays.  Yes, while growing up, de Vere was, as mentioned above, in a Puritan household that frowned on poetry.  But that wasn't enough to keep him from writing, which suggests he had no particular belief in the whole poetry-is-satanic-and-will-lead-to-my-eternal-damnation argument.  And even if we assume the theater is disreputable--as, indeed, we can hardly argue with--this wouldn't seem to be enough to keep Oxford from revealing his authorship.  How disreputable could theater have been if the Queen herself was an ardent enthusiast?

None of this, though, explains my ultimate annoyance with the film.  Here's what did:

In addition to the secret authorship story, the film also delves into Elizabethan politics, specifically the question of who would succeed to the throne upon the death of the childless (unless we count the illegitimate son born from the incestuous liaison with Oxford--have I mentioned, eww---but since no one can know of this bastard, it's a moot point--never mind).  Elizabeth plans to hand the throne to King James of Scotland.  This does not sit well with Edward de Vere, who wants to see the crown passed to the Earl of Essex--keeping England English, if you will.  Of course, he fails, and James--who is portrayed as an effeminate fop--becomes king.

So, let me see if I can articulate this properly: This film serves as a mouthpiece for those who would challenge the legitimate claims to authority of a great and gifted man.  Why?  Because, to the defenders of the status quo, his claims to fame, to prestige, to esteem simply can not be true.  How could this lowly son of a glover possess the intellect, the skill, the unearthly gifts that would allow him to scale the highest of heights?  It's not possible!  That would be like the mixed-race son of a Kenyan economist and a Kansas farmgirl becoming President of the United States!  Someone must be lying about something!

Reading too much into things?  Maybe, but throw in the political plot--the idea that a vote "against" de Vere is effectively a vote against England--and the movie really starts to look like a piece of Birther propaganda.  If we don't defend our true cultural patrimony, the barbarians--the effete, lisping barbarians--will seize the Capitol before we know it.

Born in the USA! (Part II)

People can believe whatever they want. Some still believe that if one sails too far in one direction, one will fall over the edge and become dragon-fodder. Some believe that man never landed on the moon. The Solipsist believes that North Dakota does not exist, and you will never convince him otherwise. And, of course, some believe that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii (or, presumably, any other state) and was thus ineligible to be elected President.

One should not devote too much time to refuting these assertions, especially since we did so yesterday. We thus continue our discussion of this non-issue with Point Two of our extensive two-point discussion:

It really doesn't matter anyway

That's right: Even if it somehow turned out that Obama was not born in the USA, he is still the President. He won the 2008 election by a sizable margin over Senator John McCain, despite any concerns raised about his natural-born citizenship. Meaning that a significant percentage of the American electorate either felt that Obama was enough of an American for them, or at least he was the better-qualified candidate whatever his planet of origin.

But Solipsist, it's in the Consti-TOO-tion!!!

Well, OK. The Constitution also says that Black people are only equivalent to 60% of a human being.

(DIGRESSION: Would this mean that Obama technically only needs a 60% verifiable birth certificate? 'Cause if so, we think the "Certificate of Live Birth" he's offered should count.

((ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: A friend chastised us for "not doing our homework" because, if we had, we would see that Obama's sister, who was born in Indonesia, also has a "COLB" from Hawaii. The point supposedly being that these documents are unreliable. If this is true, we would accept the fact that Obama's sister's certificate is a less-than-absolute guarantee of HER place of nativity, but we would hasten to point out that this proves nothing about Obama's birthplace. EOAD))

(BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DIGRESSION: Of course, President Obama is only half-Black, so maybe that makes him 80% human--which still puts him ahead of Biden. EOD)

OK, anyway, back to the original point: It is in the Constitution that one must be a "Natural-Born Citizen." Congress and the judiciary have expanded and expounded upon this clause over the years. Thus, for example, a child of two American citizens born outside the country will be granted natural citizenship. Also, those born to American parents on overseas US territories like military bases will also receive automatic US citizenship. Presumably this explains the relative lack of foofaraw over the fact that John McCain was most emphatically and unambiguously NOT born in the USA (he was born in the Panama Canal Zone). Unfortunately, Obama doesn't qualify for this sort of consideration: His father, of course, was a Kenyan citizen who traveled to the United States for the sole purpose of furthering his studies and impregnating our women.

Which brings us to the thorny question of racism: Is the continued focus on Obama's place of origin simply a manifestation of inherently racist attitudes? Well, yes and no. We were actually surprised to see how many challenges to presidential aspirants' "Native-Born" qualifications there have been. While it did not receive much attention, John McCain's eligibility was challenged. The citizenship of Al Gore, that most blandly American of candidates, was challenged on the grounds that he was born in Washington, D.C. (i.e., not a state). So it is quite likely that Obama's standing would have been challenged regardless of his color. Nevertheless, if Obama's father's name had been, say, Barry Owens, and he was from, say, Canada instead of Kenya, we consider it unlikely that this controversy would still be raging.

The most infuriating thing about this whole controversy, for us, is the hypocrisy. Let's face it, those behind the Birther movement could care less about the constitutional questions. You think we're wrong? We'll take it back--IF you can show us any leader of the movement who was equally concerned about the blatant unconstitutionality of the 2000 election of George W. Bush.

Of course, the reason people are screaming about Obama's supposed alienness is that they hate Obama. Fair enough. We hated George W. Bush. But we hated him in policy grounds: pointless wars, environmental degradation, economic cataclysm. And there are similarly "valid" reasons to dislike Obama. The Solipsist, a lifelong Democrat, has plenty of gripes with President Obama, from his too-timid healthcare plan to his apparent unwillingness to stand up to Republicans and big-business interests.

Why won't Birthers simply let the citizenship non-question go and focus on these more-substantive issues? Is it because the people behind the Birther movement have no better ideas for solving the nation's real problems? Indeed, is it because they themselves profit from these problems and don't want anyone to focus too closely on them? Now there's a conspiracy theory worth investigating!

Solipsistography
"Donald Trump Strikes Back"

Born in the USA! (Part I)

Sometimes, just for kicks, we ask our students what qualifications a person MUST possess to be elected President of the United States. Many of them correctly guess there is an age requirement, although most don't know what it is. Some guess a President must have a college degree. (No. In fact, Harry S. Truman, as well as some of our earlier Presidents did not graduate from college.) Others guess that only men can be President. (No. It only seems that way.)

Students are often surprised to learn that the only technical requirements for becoming President are that one be at least 35 years old, that one has resided in the United States for at least fourteen years, and that one was born in the United States of America.

As George W. Bush demonstrated, you don't even technically need to receive the most votes in an election.

Simple enough, really, and yet that last clause--the whole "Natural Born Citizen" thing, has caused all manner of controversy lately, as a small but vocal minority of Americans continues to insist that President Barack Obama has somehow managed to scam his way into the office of the presidency despite having been born in Hawaii. (That's not a state, right? The people are all different colors and stuff.)

No, no. These people are well aware that Hawaii is a state. They just don't think Obama was born there. They think he was born in Kenya or Indonesia or spawned in a tube or hatched from a pod or something. . . . The mind cringes.

Anyway, much to our chagrin, we have found ourselves drawn into the whole Obama birth-certificate (non-)controversy. Here, we present Part One of our final word on the situation:

Point 1. Barack Obama was born in the United States

Anyone who still insists that President Obama was not born in Hawaii is grasping at straws. No less a conservative icon than Bill O'Reilly seems to have thrown in the towel by acknowledging that President Obama produced his birth certificate (or, at any rate, his "Certificate of Live Birth") showing that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. Much of the continued uproar, as far as we can tell, centers on the "birther" claim that President Obama needs to produce a "different" birth certificate or a "better" birth certificate or a birth certificate that sings and dances and poops strawberry ice cream.

And that's the point isn't it? First Obama's political opponents made a (reasonable) request that he prove he was born in the United States. At the time, the Obama campaign complied with this request, posting a copy of his birth certificate on its website. This "Certificate of Live Birth," by the way, was the same document that Barack Obama presented when he applied for a United States passport. It stirred no controversy then, and was considered sufficient proof that he was a natural-born United States citizen. Nevertheless, this did not satisfy a certain faction.

So what do we learn from this? Most emphatically NOT that Obama is some sort of crypto-Muslim-UnAmerican Manchurian (Mohammedan?) Candidate sent by . . . . well by "whom" is never made clear. . . .to corrupt and destroy America. Rather, what we learn is that a certain faction will NEVER accept that Obama was born in the USA, regardless of HOW much proof he offers.

You disagree? A thought experiment: President Obama calls the governor of Hawaii today and orders him to release absolutely every official document pertaining to his birth. The governor complies. Absolutely every document confirms what the vast majority of this country already knows: Obama was born in Hawaii.

What do you suppose would happen? Would the Birthers shake their heads and humbly and sincerely apologize for all their nonsense over the last three years or so? Or would they, rather, insist that THESE documents are insufficient or forgeries? Be honest now.

Frankly, at this point, the burden of proof falls on the Birthers. Obama has shown you some evidence that he was born in Hawaii. It now falls to you to show us some equaly compelling documentary evidence that he was born elsewhere.

Tomorrow:
Point 2: It doesn't matter anyway

Image from DailyKos

Maybe If We Had Video of the Birth with Volcanos in the Background. . . .

Hawaii's governor, Neil Abercrombie, is trying to debunk, once and for all, arguments of the "birthers"--conspiracy theorists unworthy of capitalization who insist that President Obama was not born in the United States and is thus ineligible to be president.

(DIGRESSION: We can almost sympathize with the "birthers"; we had doubts as to George W. Bush's presidential legitimacy based on a similarly tenuous premise: that he had received fewer VOTES than his opponent from those born in the United States. Oh, wait: That was actually true. EOD)

Barack Obama, of course, has provided a copy of his birth certificate--an official copy--which presumably was considered sufficient proof of his citizenship to allow him to get a passport or a social security card or, y'know, a JOB at various points in his life. Still "birthers" want to see the official "long form" of the birth certificate, which is not considered a public document in Hawaii. Governor Abercrombie has taken it upon himself to initiate discussions with the appropriate agencies in Hawaii to have them release this document, thus refuting, once and for all, this most specious of arguments.

Governor, we feel your pain, and, for what it's worth, we applaud your passion on this issue. But, seriously, why bother? Do you think for a second that, if and when you are able to publish this information, the "birthers" will back down? Do you really envision any scenario in which these folks acknowledge their mistake much less apologize? When you release the birth certificate, they will no doubt simply claim that this is a manufactured document--that you yourself are in cahoots--CAHOOTS!--with this illegitimate administration.

That's the beauty of a conspiracy theory: Any proof offered against it is just greater proof that the conspiracy exists.