Henry V : Shakespeare - historically flawed

Shakespeare - historically flawed

William Shakespeare was and always will remain one of the greatest writers of the English language and his plays are gripping, emotional, whitty and entertaining.

However, if one looks at his non-fictional "historical" plays, one can not ignore the fact that Shakespeare was an Englishman and just a human-being and therefore, not very subjective. He changes the events of history and makes people look more noble or more villianous than they really were.

To name one example: In Henry V, Shakespeare doesn't say one word about the massacre of the French prisoners, which is a historical fact but talks about a massacre of the English boys who tended the horses, which I believe never took place.
The Dauphin never was at Agincourt, nor did Katherine of France willingly learn English. She despised England and the language at the beginning and only softened up when she finally met King Harry.

Well, it's still a great play, just tainted by subjective opinion. I guess the reason for this, is that that way the play was more popular with the English people, and income that Shakespeare could not risk....

What do you think?


Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

I think absolutely nobody views these plays as history lessons, so I doubt anyone thinks very much about it.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Yeah, I if want to learn about the battle of Agincourt, I definately won't refer to Shakespeare. It doesn't really matter that much.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Shakespeare is indeed historically flawed, he knows it. At the beginning of King Henry V, he writes a prologue warning of the cramming of history in a few hours.

Shakespeare was an Englishman, before he was a playwright or an actor. His histories are geared towards the English audience, for the same reason's the English audience recieves them better. It's their history. Their history of the royal monarchy is the same type of intrigue as some have with the civil war, world wars or the revolutionary war - it's our history.

He adapts them to make them exciting. If he told of every mundane detail (or even interesting ones, such as you mentioned: French Massacure, Kathrine's situation etc) the play would take forever. Understandably, he wouldn't write about every event during the period of Henry V, or the other histories, only what he needed to make him heroic. He's writing for England, not against it.

In the same sense, the play would also be boring. He had to cram history into an afternoon, I think he does it quite brilliantly. Good topic though!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

i'm afraid you are overestimating the public

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed


In Henry V, Shakespeare doesn't say one word about the massacre of the French prisoners, which is a historical fact

He does in fact mention that; Henry orders the prisoners killed, after the massacre of the pages. The end of Act IV, scene vi.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Maybe Ken Brannagh just didn't include that part in the film?! I can't remember.

But I certainly wouldn't consider this play historically accurate. I don't think many people do. It was entertainment for the English, I doubt whether Shakespeare considered that 100s of years down the line people would still be reading his plays and might get the wrong impression about history...

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Oddly enough I recently discovered that it appears to have been Shakespeare who originated the myth that Joan of Arc persauded The Duke of Burgundy to abandon the alliance with England in Henry VI Part I, when in reality he did not adandon the alliance until 4 years after her death.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Shakespeare was writing for audiences and patrons from the Elizabethan (Tudor) court, so obviously he had to adhere to the court historian's view of things. His potrayal of English heroism in Henry V is the same reason for why in "Richard III" he portrays Richard as such a beastly villain - Elizabeth's ancestors were from the House of Lancaster while Richard (the last Plantagenet) was from the House of York. He had to subscribe to the official line or else he wouldn't have a friendly audience in the right circles.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Elizabeth's ancestors were both Lancastrian and Yorkist--her grandmother was Elizabeth of York. Richard III is portrayed as irredeemably evil not because he's a Yorkist but specifically because he was the one who fought with Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry Tudor. Notice that Edward IV wasn't portrayed badly--but if it had been he, instead of his brother, at Bosworth Field, likely he too would've been written as a bad character.

That said, there was a lot of material to use for Richard's portrayal--it was easy to turn him into an out and out villain because he had already smeared his brother and his mother, and was blamed for the presumed death of the princes in the Tower (which, yes, I believe he did. All other explanations are highly unlikely, in my opinion).

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

England and France were great rivals in Shakespeare's time, and to a certain extent still are. Of course he would never do anything that would cast France in a good light-that's not what his audience would want. Richard III wasn't half the villain Shakespeare made him out to be, but seeing as he was 'vanquished' by his patron's grandfather, he was always going to seem like a bit of a bad ass.

If you've ever seen King Lear, why did Cordelia lead the French army in the invasion of Britain? Because a 16th century English audience would never have warmed to this supposed liberation by a Frenchman, let alone the king!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

I don't think he depicted all the French in a negative light. Montjoy for instance is depicted as quite honourable, and the French King is portrayed in quite a sympathetic way.

I personally find it rather Ironic that Americans rarely raise any objection the Anti-English and Pro-French bias in movies. Yet when it is the other way around people often complain. Not a double standard at all?

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

You have to understand that the things that Shakespeare wrote about were very political. He wrote Henry V to possibly help one of the kings of England. He did not write to tell a history. A play must be interesting and whether it is historically accurate or not, Henry V is a damn good play. Shakespeare wrote to suck up to the kings and also to help them out politically. Who cares? It is such a great play that the historical inaccuracies should not matter.

Theatre is life, live life.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Henry IV is a historical play, (or should I say plays?) but almost more of a comedy blended with historical elements. Clearly a more profound play than Henry V, though everything (save 2 or 3 plays) Shakespeare wrote was nothing short of spectacular.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

if you wanted a good picture on the true nature of the battle of Agincourt, everyone should have watched the history channel's take on it. They mentioned that it was the weather that did the French in. The rain affected the mud and when the french soliders charged, they got stuck in the mud because their armor was to heavy and the British wore more light armor which gave king Henry a very good tactial advantage over the French, which army was bigger than Henry's was.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Quote: if you wanted a good picture on the true nature of the battle of Agincourt, everyone should have watched the history channel's take on it.

Or read the book by Juliet Barker - Agincourt, The king, the campaign the battle. Certainly don't use Shakespeares Henry V to teach you history, just enjoy it for a good play. And if you're a pedant like I am, sit and watch the film and say "that didn't happen", "that's not correct" and annoy the hell out of everyone you're watching it with.

I actually think the true story of Henry V and his French campaigns are far more interesting that the Shakespeare version.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

You're kind of missing the point. Of course Shakespeare is not historically accurate! His history plays are propaganda for the Tudor dynasty or, in the case of Henry V., anti-french propanga. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they are amazing.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Ack, Agincourt was still a tremendously and stupendously gallant victory for the English and total and utter humiliation for the French. Out-numbered basically 3 or 4 to 1, hungry, tired, pretty much sick and tired of the whole campaign and yet they prevail? And as for the prisoners, if you were King Henry V, you would order their execution if you thought all 2000 of them were gonna get lose and slam into the back of your already outnumbered army... WOULDN'T YOU? I certainly would if it meant defeat and death for my countrymen and me. The French knights, shamed by their defeat went round the back and killed all the baggish boys and squires etc, although it was probably in response to Henry's order of execution aswell.

Branagh made the film as realistic as he could given the circumstances of the Shakespeare context he was squeezed into.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Another thing to remember is that Shakespeare lived nearly 200 years after the events in this play. The only "history" he probably knew, or cared about, was popular history. The version of events that had become common knowledge. He neither had access to the original records which might have told him a different story, nor to any accounts of the other side -- the French. So how could he have know any differently?

Not that he might have even cared to "buck the system" and write a play that would upset the powers-that-be even if he had had some way of knowing any other version of events. Ultimately his goal was to write marketable, producible plays which would fill up his theatre (of which he was a joint owner) and keep him in business.

Think of it like this: a modern American writer who has never read any serious history writes a novel about the American Revolution. His aim is to write a cracking good adventure story and he does that. Never mind that he doesn't read any primary sources, or examine the events from the British or Loyalist points of view. He can still produce a good, exciting book for people to read and enjoy, can't he? And if he's a truly gifted writer -- and very lucky -- his book might conceivably be around in 400 years, like the plays of William Shakespeare.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Chello!

lynettecon wrote:
"Think of it like this: a modern American writer who has never read any serious history writes a novel about the American Revolution. His aim is to write a cracking good adventure story and he does that."

You mean, like Harry Turtledove? :D

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Tony

"Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

"He neither had access to the original records which might have told him a different story, nor to any accounts of the other side -- the French"

Excuse me? If Shakespeare didnt have access to original sources 200 years after the events then how come Historians writing 600 years after the events do?
Every commentary I have read on Shakespeare's History plays state that he did use contemporary records, and chronicles for some of his information.

He was literate I presume, and the sources were available so how could he not have had access to them?

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Again an interesting point, that Americans (i dont know if you are, but some on this board are) refer to the ant-French elements in this play as phropaghanda, yet would probably not refer to anti-english content that was false or distorted in a movie as propaghanda.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed


everyone should have watched the history channel's take on it. They mentioned that it was the weather that did the French in.


This is exactly the type of moronic lie the media tells continuously. People are so used to hearing them that they accept them as facts without bothering to do any critical analysis whatsoever. (Sometimes people even post these ridiculous notions on the internet.) The truth of the matter is much less convenient for those wanting to play nice with the French.

The reason the French lost that battle was because their commanders were complete idiots. The French knew it had rained. The French knew the ground was muddy. The French knew they were strapping on 80 lbs or iron to go fight in. The French knew the English were hungry and faced sickness. The French knew they had the English Army's back to a river. The French did not have to fight that day.

They chose to do the one thing that could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Just like the weather didn't do in 6th Army at Stalingrad. It was Hitler's idiocy. Rational military decisions may not have won Stalingrad, but they would have saved 6th Army for a time.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Well I'll be f ... e d ! And all along I'd used Shakespeare as my sole source for medieval history.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

But some people do think that Shakespeare is historically accurate. I know a couple of people who think that when Henry V was younger he really behaved like "good prince Hal" of Henry IV.

A lot of people don't take the time to read history, they pick up what they can from contemporary sources, anecdotes or stuff they have seen on TV. Not one person in my class at college had heard of the Battle of Agincourt - yet I'll bet they have all heard of Shakespeare.

And what about all the damage done to Richard III's reputation, some of which must be attributable to Shakespeare for repeating the Tudor propaganda (as Keleeboy pointed out).

It doesn't detract from the fact that it's a great play though.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

As shadow70 says, a lot of Americans have never heard of the Battle of Agincourt. I was on the edge of my seat the first time I saw the movie, having NO IDEA who was going to win the battle. It was a cliff-hanger as far as I was concerned!

Later on I was sort of embarrassed to find out it's common knowledge in some circles, ie the British and those with better educations than I have! But I was inspired to go read up on that era, curious about what was fact and fiction in the movie and in Shakespeare's play. So I learned something. Great movie!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

In some Jack the Ripper movie, (I think it was the one with Gabriel Anwar as Mary Kelly), the prime suspect makes mention to King Henry V and that he was a vicious fighter. He basically said the king "bit" some poor enemy's throat out during the Battle of Agincourt.

Anyone ever hear that?

"Now, Olivier is in that one right?"
- Tom Hanks, "Bachelor Party"

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Actually, most British school children probably dont know about the Battle of Agincourt either, because they are not taught about it. On the subject, quite a lot dont seem to know what Magna Carta is too.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Yup, like all the people I know who believe that everything they saw in Braveheart is true, and then have a hard time convincing them that most of it is rubbish.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

I'll leave it to historians better informed than I am to argue out the particulars here, but I don't look upon Shakespeare's Henry V as any sort of factual authority on this royal personage.

Personally, I feel that Shakespeare could sort of "make or break" an historical figure for posterity, in a sense. I suspect that he may have made Richard III more villainous than he actually was and likewise, Henry V more heroic. Shakespeare may perhaps have been influenced in his depictions by the political pressures of that era or may simply have wanted to make great drama.

And he certainly did make great drama! Henry V is a wonderful play and this movie a brillant adaptation of it. For much of the modern general populace, our impression of Henry V is indeed the one given to us by Shakespeare - Henry's St. Crispin's speech and so forth.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

One of the things that is so hard to comprehend now, is that Shakespeare was a guy writing to make a living. Fortunatley he turned out to be one of the greatest writers who ever lived. To make his living he had to tell a good story, and anyone who's ever told a story knows 'facts may be facts, but sometimes they need improving'
and after all you wouldn't watch Blackadder goes fourth to learn about the first world war.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed


GOWER. 'Tis certain there's not a boy left alive; and the
cowardly
rascals that ran from the battle ha' done this slaughter;
besides, they have burned and carried away all that was in
the
King's tent; wherefore the King most worthily hath caus'd
every
soldier to cut his prisoner's throat. O, 'tis a gallant King!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

To answer the original poster, I think Shakespeare's inaccuracies are trifles when compared with the historical films and novels of the present day. Writers and directors can get away with a lot more inaccuracies today than Shakespeare could because the sad admission is that Tudor and Stuart audiences knew more about their history than we modern audiences know about ours.
I think a Shakespearean audience would have been in an uproar at Mel Gibson's "cartoon" characterization of King Edward in Braveheart. They'd also be wondering why Gibson's Battle of Stirling Bridge had no bridge in it. With embarrassingly inaccurate films like "JFK", "Pearl Harbor", "Patriot", "Vercingetorix", "Alexander the Great", etc., I think Shakespeare is sitting pretty.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

"I think a Shakespearean audience would have been in an uproar at Mel Gibson's "cartoon" characterization of King Edward in Braveheart."

Hah! Depends on which side of the Cheviot Hills that 'Shakespearean audience' would have been sitting on!

I think the old-time Scots (especially the Jacobites) would have *loved* Gibson's portrayal of Longshanks as a hard-ass.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Perhaps on the north side they would have been unsophisticated enough to believe that Edward III was Wallace’s bastard child, or that Edward defenestrated for fun, or that Edward was not a Christian, but I daresay in the south even some of the Globe groundlings knew enough of their own history that they would say "oh, please...give me a break..." (or at least the 16th century equivalent)
I have no doubt the Scottish would have “loved” those inaccuracies, but loving/hating a portrayal is independent of it being true or false. My point was that it’s unfair to suggest that Shakespeare created unpardonable sins in his history plays, when our own 21st century house is so much more of an appalling mess on that score.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

"...loving/hating a portrayal is independent of it being true or false."

Yes, and Shakespeare knew that economic reality of drama very well, Mr. "Southron," which was why he loaded his "history" plays with pro-Tudor, historical-accuracy-defying propaganda. You don't have to "preach to the choir" here.

Old Will wanted to write hits and sell loads of tickets, so he had to toe the party line and tell an *English* and London-based audience in a theater on the banks of the Thames what it wanted to hear, usually centuries after the real events had occurred. And they wanted to see "their" kings (i.e., their Queen's Tudor ancestors) winning and kicking butt and gaining the upper hand, or at least staking the best claim to the moral "high ground." And he obliged them, and they loved it, and the Globe and Blackfriars venues raked in the pounds and shillings and pence. And of course we STILL love these writings as *pieces of art*, as *great works of literature*, even though they are not historically accurate.

But don't discount the fact that Old Shakes was clever enough to write subtle political and religious criticisms of the Tudor regime into the history plays. Tudor England was an authoritarian "police state," and I don't think he believed it was perfect. Unlike Mel Gibson, he could not criticize directly; he had to do it obliquely. Refer to his play "Henry VIII" if you don't believe me. The chilling example of what happened to a playwright who had the gall to kick the Establishment squarely in the teeth was demonstrated in the fate of Christopher Marlowe. Shakespeare had no intention of letting that happen to him.

"My point was that it’s unfair to suggest that Shakespeare created unpardonable sins in his history plays, when our own 21st century house is so much more of an appalling mess on that score."

Nobody is saying he "created unpardonable sins." But, like Mel Gibson, he DID take liberties with historical accuracy. He was hardly the first; writers have been doing so ever since the invention of the alphabet. Given Shakespeare's undisputed genius and his need to placate the political 'powers-that-were,' it is understandable. But you cannot divorce the literary *content* of his plays (including the inaccuracies) from the historical *context* in which THEY were written. To do so just perpetuates the brick wall of historical inaccuracy, and then you *never* get at the actual truth.

So don't assume that Mel Gibson did anything with "Braveheart" that Shakespeare wouldn't admire, or even envy. Like Gibson, entertainment value trumped factual accuracy in the interests of a good story (not to mention better box office). In fact, if Old Will were alive today the goal of his life might very well be to produce a multiple-Oscar-winning film (including Best Picture and Best Director) just like Mel Gibson did, and historical facts be damned. In fact, he would undoubtedly envy the right to open freedom of speech that belongs to Mel Gibson (and many of the rest of us) in the modern world, even if we sometimes stick *both* our feet in our mouths (as Mr. Gibson recently did).

Don't forget that Shakespeare himself never enjoyed freedom of speech as a birthright, whatever the hoopla in previous centuries about the "God-given rights of freeborn Englishmen." It IS a historical fact (indisputable this time, I'm sorry to say) that people were hung, drawn, and quartered for openly speaking their minds in previous centuries, and dissenting with whatever power occupied the throne at any given time.

In conclusion: In his "re-telling/massaging of the historical facts" of the William Wallace saga, Mel Gibson evidently pitched the political slant of his film to historical sympathies that resonate predominantly with audiences in countries that have a huge native or immigrant Celtic population base (i.e., America, Scotland [obviously], Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Don't fool yourself into thinking that Shakespeare would not recognize and admire this knack. He was doing the same thing himself, 400 years ago on the banks of the Thames, to an audience on the opposite side of the Anglo-Celtic divide.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Actually, I agree with many of your arguments, and well said. Your focus is on the four centuries separating the creators, when I suppose my point is more aimed at the four centuries separating the audience. I still believe Gibson and every other creative talent today is less hamstrung in concerning themselves with a present-day audience saying "give me a break, what an absurd lie!"

Shakespeare's English audience was born and bred in a time when the Renaissance was already a century underway, where even the illiterate were finally aware that there was a world beyond their hamlet.
Gibson's (et al.) American audience is entering a new "Dark Age". Just a quick look through Google will point you to the evidence that even American university "honor" students would not be able to pass a 1950 high school graduation exam in history. I'm no bargain on that score either. If Oliver Stone had decided to change his "Alexander" film so that Alexander the Great conquers Peru instead of Persia, a good chunk of the audience wouldn't blink. I fear that in less than a generation, Gibson could remake "The Patriot", portraying American independence from Bangladesh instead of Britain and who would care? The Oscars await...

You raised an interesting thought-experiment in how Shakespeare would revel in Gibson's freedom. He'd probably also be delighted that we'd codified modern English spelling, but I think he'd be appalled at the state of that language. Coincidentally, I've been dipping into Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein message board ('tis the season, after all) and making the point that Mary Shelley's poetry in all versions is deemed unfilmable. A 19th century teenage girl, more literate and dramatic than we are...
A Shakespeare transplanted to 2006 might delight in Gibson-level modern freedoms, but I think it would be an empty thrill once he realized he would be writing to a Dark Age audience.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

In fact, if Old Will were alive today the goal of his life might very well be to produce a multiple-Oscar-winning film (including Best Picture and Best Director) just like Mel Gibson did, and historical facts be damned

Oh I'd agree with that! Shakes, the literary impresario will always be on the cutting edge historical facts be damned, er....he wanted DRAMA and ambiguity I think. For him "facts" as such weren't important it was the relationship an individual had or did not have to them that were important which let him meanader all over the place and make us think about the particular individual or individuals. Is he a rat? Can he be saved? Is he really all that bad? Should he have done that? maybe this maybe that. That's why the guy's around today..some things just can't be figured out...I mean CLEARLY in some cases....;-)....

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

It hardly takes a genius to realise that Shakespeare was a far better Drama Writer then Mel Gibson will ever be. Shakespeare wrote amazing speeches for some of his characters that are the most memorable in the world, and phrases he invented are common in the Langauge today.

The Best Gibson could do in comparison was have a Blue-painted long-haired idiot with a fake accent make people snigger with a childish reference to a god breaking wind in the faces of thier opponents. Such talent!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

"Shakespeare's English audience was born and bred in a time when the Renaissance was already a century underway, where even the illiterate were finally aware that there was a world beyond their hamlet."

Sorry but this it Rubbish. All Medieval people were aware of the existence of the Wider world. Medieval noblemen and women, diplomats, and merchants routinely travelled to far flung regions. It is a known fact that Edward I sent an ambassador the Mongol Khan, and that Medieval European Traders went as far as Indonesia to find spices.

Even peasants often travelled outside thier villages to take thier goods to the nearest town to sell at markets. The stuff about Medieval people never travelling outside thier own village is quite simply nonsense.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

"ut I think it would be an empty thrill once he realized he would be writing to a Dark Age audience"

No doubt you use the Phrase Dark ages in a derogatory sense, to imply ignorance, and I do agree with your assertion that many people are so ignorant of History today that they do base thier knowledge on rubbush like Braveheart, and believe that it is true.

However, I object to youu use of this Phrase because of the impliaction that Dark Age people were so backwards and unsophisticated that they would never appreciate Drama. I woould like to mention that it was the same ignorant Dark Age 'savages' denigrated by so many people that wrote and were listening to works such as Beowulf, which is regarded by many as one of the greatest English epic poems ever written, and is still being published and translated today.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Pretty good answer dizzy-b. I find myself replying to people like this all the time at the risk of debasing myself. The urge to mock is nearly overwhelming.

Do you think the person you replied to has any idea of fact that the Dark Ages ended in 800 A.D.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages

Or this:

The University of Oxford has no known foundation date.[17] Teaching at Oxford existed in some form as early as 1096, but it is unclear when a university came into being.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford#Founding

Or the fact that the government of Great Britain has in it's possession written records of governance going back to the time of the Norman Invasion.

The guy is posting on the internet. He has the world at his fingertips and chooses to remain ignorant. You can cry, or you can...


Cheers, and 'ave a nice day.


I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

"It IS a historical fact (indisputable this time, I'm sorry to say) that people were hung, drawn, and quartered for openly speaking their minds in previous centuries, and dissenting with whatever power occupied the throne at any given time"

Which Mel Gibson movie did you get that from? People were hanged drawn and quartered for treason, and to claim that nobody was allowed to criticise the political authorities is Rubbish. Chroniclers and clergymen routinely criticised those in power, often very harshly. Noblemen thoughout the Middle Ages often forced the King to do as they wanted, or rebelled because he would not.

Henry V had enough problems getting money from Parliament. If they could refuse the King without being mowed down, i think that suggests people were free to criticise.


To say Mel Gibson 'massaged' and 'took liberties' with History is a Gross Understatement. I doubt he would know a fact if it came up and bit him on the nose.

Shakespeare's innacuracies were almost all chronological, or had some basis in contemporary rumour at least. It was rumoured for instance even during Richard III's own time that he had an affair with his niece, Shakespeare clearly knew about this. Many of the other things he said were based upon things that writers before him had claimed.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

It hardly takes a genius to realise that Shakespeare was a far better Drama Writer then Mel Gibson will ever be. Shakespeare wrote amazing speeches for some of his characters that are the most memorable in the world, and phrases he invented are common in the Langauge today.

The Best Gibson could do in comparison was have a Blue-painted long-haired idiot with a fake accent make people snigger with a childish reference to a god breaking wind in the faces of thier opponents. Such talent!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

And yet his skeletal remains prove he had a severe curvature of the spine, which must have been obvious to people around him.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

Most 16th Century people would have had some Knowledge of the Date of Edward III's birth, and would probably have been sensible enough to realise that a 5 year old girl getting pregant and having a Gestation of 8 years was quite unlikely!!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

It hardly takes a genius to realise that Shakespeare was a far better Drama Writer then Mel Gibson will ever be. Shakespeare wrote amazing speeches for some of his characters that are the most memorable in the world, and phrases he invented are common in the Langauge today.

The Best Gibson could do in comparison was have a Blue-painted long-haired idiot with a fake accent make people snigger with a childish reference to a god breaking wind in the faces of thier opponents. Such talent!

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

They would'nt have loved his depiction of Robert Bruce, unless perhaps they were from Clan MacNab or MacDougall.

Re: Shakespeare - historically flawed

It hardly takes a genius to realise that Shakespeare was a far better Drama Writer then Mel Gibson will ever be. Shakespeare wrote amazing speeches for some of his characters that are the most memorable in the world, and phrases he invented are common in the Langauge today.

The Best Gibson could do in comparison was have a Blue-painted long-haired idiot with a fake accent make people snigger with a childish reference to a god breaking wind in the faces of thier opponents. Such talent!
Top