Last Will & Testament

Over 70% gave this a 10...

All the reviews were raving..

I do not trust either....

This is clearly a film that has so far only been known by believers in the conspiracy of DeVere as author.. Nothing to link that man to plays or the company that performed them. Nothing in his writing indicates that he wrote like the author of the Shakespeare canon (and no that is not due to lack of comparison material, it is because of the abundance of comparison materials) DeVere's enemies never mentioned him writing these plays, even though they accused him of all kinds of misdeeds..

And what was so dangerous about the plays that DeVere had to hide his authorship?? When there is NO indication that anybody was ever accused of writing these (apparently not so) dangerous plays... Not like the Isle of Dogs....

This seems a remake of the Anonymous film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/ Which was very liberal with history...

Is there any new evidence?? Does this film ignore the same facts as other Oxfordian ideas?? Does this film invent historical facts?? Probably..

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." - Søren Kierkegaard

Directed by Lisa Wilson and Laura Wilson Matthias with Roland Emmerich as the Executive Producer, the 84-minute film Last Will and Testament documents the life of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, making a compelling case for his authorship of the works of William Shakespeare. Shot in 32 locations in both the U.S., and the U.K., the film was five years in the making with 253,000 words of interviews being recorded before editing. It was conceived as a factual complement to the fiction film Anonymous and as an antidote to those who claim that the Emmerich film is a "far-fetched fantasy."

Using clips from Anonymous to enhance the film's dramatic aspects, the documentary includes interviews with Oxfordians and Stratfordian spokespersons and discussion of key issues and events pertinent to the authorship debate. The first part of the film discusses the orthodox candidate, William "Shaksper" of Stratford, and the reasons that argue against his authorship of the canon.

The second section is devoted to the life of Edward de Vere, the main alternative candidate, describing his roots, his education, his life as a courtier, and the circumstances that led to his use of a pseudonym in his literary output. Author Charles Beauclerk said that Oxford was a more credible poet and playwright than William of Stratford. Even though he preferred anonymity to fame, he could not resist leaving clues as to his true identity in his work.

Beauclerk also made the comment that it was Oxford who instigated the English Renaissance and that "if we get Shakespeare wrong, we get the entire Renaissance period wrong as well." The third part of the film describes and dramatizes the totalitarian nature of the Elizabethan monarchy, the issue of succession that sparked the Essex Rebellion, the biographical connection of Edward de Vere to the plays and poems of William Shakespeare, and the roles of Queen Elizabeth I and Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton.

Anti-Stratfordian contributors include a wide cross-section of the community:

Actors: Mark Rylance, Derek Jacobi, and Vanessa Redgrave

Authors: Charles Beauclerk (Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom), Diana Price (Shakespeare's Unauthorized Biography), G. J. Meyer, (The Tudors), and Hank Whittemore (The Monument)

Professors: Roger Stritmatter PhD,Coppin College, Dr. William Leahy, Brunel University, Associate Prof. Michael Delahoyde, Washington State University, and Prof. Daniel Wright, Director, Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre, Concordia University Other spokespersons include Jon Culverhouse, Curator of Collections & Conservation at Burghley House, Michael Cecil, 8th Marquess of Exeter (descendant of Elizabethan statesman William Cecil,Lord Burghley), and William Boyle, Librarian at New England Shakespeare Oxford Library.

Two of the highest-profile Stratfordians, Stanley Wells, Honorary Chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and Jonathan Bate, Oxford University were given film time to state their views. Others, such as James Shapiro, were approached but declined to be interviewed.

Last Will and Testament is a very informative, entertaining, and thought-provoking film, no matter which side of the debate you are on. Directors Wilson and Matthias were motivated by their concern for the truth, whether it turned out to be reassuring or upsetting to some. To paraphrase Belgian playwright, poet and essayist Maurice Maeterlinck, a truth that may be uncomfortable to some ultimately has more value than the most consoling falsehood.

While the Oxfordian case is clearly and convincingly made in the film, the authorship issue remains a towering literary mystery. Only the closed-minded have certainty. Ultimately the film requires us to assess the information to form our own opinion, to call upon our knowledge, intuition, logic, and common sense to make our own decision. When one can be comfortable with the mystery of not knowing, truth inexorably and inscrutably will reveal itself into the light. In that respect, Last Will and Testament challenges us more profoundly than ever.

I have been interested in this topic on-and-off for 25 years. This documentary is a FABULOUS introduction to the topic. It has a great cast of thespians (all of whom are interested in the topic), great scholars (on both sides of the issue) and some of the best production values I have ever seen in a small independent film...A++

One note: This is meant to be an educational film which introduces the topic to the general public. As such, even at 126 minutes, it only scratches the surface of this fascinating area of research. I consider this film to be sort of a world-class appetizer prepared by a Top Chef....and, as such, it will likely serve to stimulate one's appetite for even more "brain food".

Warning: Prepare for an intellectual feast...but one which just MAY prove very addicting.

I knew a good deal about this subject-matter before I saw the film, but I have never seen so compelling, complete, and aesthetically powerful a depiction of the history and facts. In addition to use of the 'Anonymous' commercial film scenes for atmosphere, 'Last Will and Testament' produces actual documents to illustrate its arguments. The interviews are convincing. One can literally go back in history and vicariously trace the events surrounding the concealment of the Shakespeare canon's shadowy author. That Shakspere of Stratford was not the author seems plain on its face. He became "famous" only after the fact, which indicates the invention of a contrived figure to replace the original writer. He had no recorded talent, background, interest, motivation, time, or capacity for the phenomenal achievements he was asserted to have accomplished. As to who did have all of these and who devoted his life to creating and financing the English Renaissance, that is a spectacular and tragic tale that has never been told. It is limned out in the documentary: a creative and athletic prodigy, perhaps the most learned person in the Elizabethan age, but a nobleman so mysteriously close to the monarchy and so freely critical of the English government that he constituted a threat to the legitimacy of the young English nation-state. This may be the background for necessarily arranging to re-attribute the Shakespeare canon authorship.

The film does not conclude matters for the viewer but presents the information to be considered. I was enthralled and wished it had been longer, --as well it might be with more sponsorship. It ought to be honored with an Academy Award for Best Documentary. An artistic and honorable contribution toward understanding the primary literary fraud at the center of Western culture. It will provide grounds to re-order our traditional concept of Elizabeth I and "Shakespeare", as well as the era in which they lived.

I found Last Will interesting and informative, but it didn't convince me that Shakespeare was a false front for any of the candidates discussed, such as the Earl of Oxford. While this documentary does lean heavily toward the Oxford view, it also presents counter-arguments -- e.g., the Oxfordians go out of their way to create Oxfordian interpretations of the works, then use those interpretations as "proof" that Oxford must be the author.

The manner in which "evidence" can be made to mean whatever you're predisposed to have it mean is summed up in an entertaining minute or two excerpted from a mock trial presided over by three US Supreme Court justices in the 1980s. To make the point that Oxford wasn't trying to maintain a respectable image and thus didn't need to invent, or use, "Shakespeare" as his shield, the anti-Oxford attorney lists all the debauchery openly engaged in by Oxford. Then, one of the Justices smilingly retorts, "He sounds like a playwright!"