History News of the Day
Not the Bard!
Art historians announced today that this is NOT a portrait of William Shakespeare. Although the picture does date to 1588 and Shakespeare would have been 24 at the time, this ain't him!
Too bad. I always thought this picture was much sexier than the later portrait of a balding man in a ruffled collar. So did the creators of Shakespeare in Love. They based their Shakespeare character on this portrait.
I love this history trivia kind of thing! It brings the past back to life.
posted by tshsmom @ 3:55 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
I think the actor Ralph Finnes that played Shakespere in that movie was excellent, don't you? I think he even wore an outfit similar to the one in that portrait. Too bad that's not him.
'scuse me...Joesph Finnes.
How do they know? I never thought about it before. Why did they think it was Shakespear? Why do they think it isn't? You could have a work of art handed down through history with each new owner being given information about it, but that could be either true or false. Did someone really need money and make-up the story to get a higher price?
Sadie, what's funny is that I rented that movie because my daughter said she hated it. She has very bizarre tastes in movies. I thought it was great.
Sage, that's what I've been trying to find out. I heard about this on the radio today and researched it when I got home. So far all they'll say is that Shakespeare was too poor to afford the clothing in the portrait. They have to be basing it on more than that. An artist can paint any clothing he wants on a subject, or he could have borrowed the clothes.
Who is the picture of? I love history tidbits like this - very interesting. I loved the movie "Shakespeare in Love". :-)
There's so many unanswered questions, Notta. I agree, this is fascinating!
Hated that bloody movie. I called it "Shakespeare in Bed". When I saw Gwyneth Paltrow taking the Oscar, I swore never to watch the Academy Awards again.
Any news on the Canadian portrait of Shakespeare?
Really, SME? I think I read that somewhere. hehe
OK, I'll bite. WHAT Canadian portrait?
Yes, I'd also like to know who this portrait is actually of. Mind you, they all kinda look the same, these portraits from that era.
Never saw the movie, as am not a huge fan of Paltrow.
SME--why did you hate it? I love hearing opposing reviews.
I'm a stickler for historical accuracy in historical films, and I'm quite certain Shakespeare didn't get the title of "Romeo and Juliet" from Marlowe in a bar. R & J was actually a much older story from Italy. That's just one of the many goofy little gags the filmmakers threw in for no apparent reason. On top of that, I didn't find the love story convincing nor romantic. It was just a couple of people shaggin'. And I find Gwyneth Paltrow about as interesting as a stalk of celery. (The other actors were great, but that script didn't deserve great acting.)Also I'm bitter that Emily Watson didn't get Best Actress for "Hilary and Jackie" that year.
An Ottowa family owns a portrait similar to the Grafton portrait and labeled "Shakespere", painted in 1603 by John Sanders (supposedly an actor in Shakespeare's company). It was kept in a cupboard in Lloyd Sanders' home until 2001.
sme -- I feel validated! I hated "Shakespeare in Love" too. Totally trivialised the subject matter and the acting was HORRIBLE. (Oscars for that divel? Bah!) I'd seen "Elizabeth" either right before or right after and I thought it was much, much better.
Don't ENCOURAGE her, ~r! She's rabid and hasn't had her shots. ;)
I do agree that Elizabeth was a much better historical film. The War of the Roses through the Stuarts is my favorite period of English history.
Shakespeare in Love was just for fun.
FINALLY someone else who didn't love "I Shagged Shakespeare" (which was my other name for the movie). Bless you, ~r. Bless you.
SME: You must have hated Braveheart, then. I came out of that so annoyed because of the historical innacuracies!
What? You didn't believe that Wallace was shagging the Queen?
I agree. Mel Gibson took a few liberties with history. I forgave him because he's just so damned cute.
tshsmom: in reality, he was actually dead before she even came to England to marry the king!
I love history. This is the kind of stuff I get into.
By the way, did you ever see the movie Young Guns II? Turns out that was a true story, but the guy who claimed to be Billy the Kid couldn't have been him because the real Billy the Kid was bilingual and literate, which that desert drifter was neither. Good movie though.
I've never seen Shakespeare in Love but maybe one of these days I should rent it.
ZS, my husband has a theory that several men were impersonating Billy the Kid, which could account for the wildly varied stories about him.
I like Billy Joel's mixed-up version in the Ballad of Billy the Kid. It's wrong, but it's a fun story, and a good song.
I haven't heard that one Sage. I'll have to see if I can find the lyrics somewhere.
I like the multiple Billy the Kid theory. Never heard that one.
Despise Braveheart. Not too fond of The Passion for some of the same reasons.
Post a Comment
<< Home