UKC

Ok, time to be really really honest....
Do you genuinely like WH or are you just saying you love it because everyone else is??
I have tried to watch it twice now and it just seems dreadfully dull....just pairs of people talking in dimly lit rooms.

Am i missing something??

In reply to Kimono:

since you ask, yes.

In reply to Kimono:

I thought it was beautifully filmed and acted, but otherwise overhyped shite.

In reply to David Alcock:


Don't hold back David

In reply to David Alcock:

I just have a soft spot for candlelight.

In reply to Kimono:
Best thing on TVs in years. Perfect cast, superb acting, script writing top notch, lighting atmospheric, music sublime. Probably helps if you have read the books first ( it takes some doing to win two Booker prizes) and you know your way around English Tudor history. There were many insights into how power, politics, fate and luck work out ( even more than on Match of the Day).

In reply to David Alcock:

Sounds like two out of three to me.

In reply to Kimono:

Yes. Best historical drama I've seen in years. It wins through characterisation and subtlety, which unobservant viewers might see as "dullness". It held me enthralled and I found myself giving it my full attention, which is very rare for TV.

In reply to Kimono:

Let down by a glaring absence of wolves and a surplus of halls.

In reply to Kimono:
Thought it was brilliant, just what the BBC is so good at. My only quibble was that sometimes it was hard to know who some of the minor but crucial characters were - lady Rochester for example. I didn't realise at first that she was AB's sister-in-law, but having seen "the othe Boleyn girl" it all came together.

Rylance as Cromwell was fantastic. How accurate a depiction is another matter. I wonder if we will see his downfall in the future ?

In reply to Kimono:

It was all going along quite well until the last episode which was rushed.

In reply to Kimono:
It was brilliant! It was subtle and superbly acted.

I look forward to the American version involving a hero in a string vest covered in glass and blood with a backstory of how American spirt will always win through. It would also need an ecological slant.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Downfall?... He'll probably get a BAFTA?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Don't we have to wait for Hillary Mantell to write it first?

In reply to Kimono:

I though it was fantastic. The characters seemed really well written and acted and the production was beautiful.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I found myself looking up the minor characters on Wikipedia as it went along. It did feel like it needed footnotes at points!

In reply to youngtom:

You could always get a copy of Whos Who in Tudor England. It does exist, it was my crib for getting through Elton, Taylor and Starkey

In reply to Kimono:

Found it too complex, couldn't get my head round half of the characters, indoor shots too dark and couldn't read the sub titles.

In reply to Kimono:

I find it absolutely captivating and I couldn't really tell you why.
I can understand why people would call it dull, slow moving, just a series of conversations in dimly lit rooms etc, but there is something to it, some delightfully clever subtleties and filmmaking that make it absolutely fantastic.
It builds characters and atmospheres so well that a single raised eyebrow or brief comment can have me laughing out loud or gripping the edge of my seat.
I think it's superb.

In reply to Kimono:

I loved it but some of the subtleties were probably lost on many. It did rather assume a level of historical literacy that seems to be a thing of the past, hence the prevalence of "Wolf Hall - SPOILERS" on forums. I did enjoy Mark Smeaton being portrayed as a bragging upstart rather than hapless innocent although a lot of people are upset about the portrayal of More as a normal Tudor human being. I suppose that is what happens when canonization is used as a political tool.

In reply to Clarence:

Enjoyed it but the character motivations were a bit overstated, I guess for dramatic effect. Anne was especially OTT.

In reply to Clarence:
In what sense was More described as normal: he defied a king for his beliefs for quite a while ffs? Yet he was Lord Chancellor when people were burnt at the stake for differing beliefs and he imprisoned protestents at his home (he denied torture... a bit like the US government did). I struggle to believe he or anyone else with power was an innocent in the brutal church of the time. In that line, Woolsey and Cromwell got pretty kind treatment in the TV show.

In reply to Offwidth:


I was expecting More to be treated even less sympathetically but while he wasn't idolised as he was in, say, A Man for All Seasons, the facts didn't seem to have been messed about with too much and there was quite of lot of the dialogue that sounded very similar (based on my memory of last seeing it about 20 years ago).

It seems to me that the More/Cromwell relationship is all about how two men, both initially well-intentioned, sympathetic and highly intelligent, and with great respect for each other, gradually lose their way; one through pride and dogmatism, one through loyalty and pragmatism.

In reply to Offwidth:

I meant normal in the sense he wasn't portrayed as a sanitized, completely innocent paragon of virtue that he is so often seen as in the Catholic Church. I grew up seeing him as a hero of faith, nothing he did was ever unsavoury, motivated by ambition or greed, he was a Christ-like figure standing up against the anti-christ that was Henry VIII. Wolf Hall portrayed him as a stubborn, legalistic man, just like Cromwell.

In reply to Kimono:

I haven't watched it yet, but I'm one of the minority who read the book and found it rather dull. That's probably what has put me of watching the series so far!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Wolf Hall picks its side too rather than playing it straight and leaving motives more ambiguous. We have no idea if More and Cromwell were well intentioned or proud/pragmatic from the get go, or if respect was genuine or more likely pragmatic (you can't attack powerful rivals without consequence). I look at powerful men now and the nastier ones are very good at ensuring the rhetoric is right to try to retain an (unfair) good reputation. The monstrous behaviour of the catholic church in the face of the growth of protestant belief was evil in a theological context even if motivated by fear for the faith (history implicates power as at least an equal partner) and soon enough, the new protestant power bases were no different.

In reply to TobyA:


Yes, I'm afraid I found the book overrated. Didn't grip me very much at all, though well written. Found flashbacks tedious. I haven't got a telly, so haven't seen the series.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

If you have a laptop or similar then watching it on I-player is available. The only thing that comes close that I have seen is "I, Claudius"-have watched each episode at least twice and been quietly gripped every time-acting, costumes, direction, sound, lighting, music-just superb on every level.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

That's praise indeed. I Claudius was superb, agreed. Trouble is at the moment I am getting on with my writing so having very little time off apart from the cinema.

In reply to Kimono:
I think it's really good. Like Gordon we are so ueberbourgeois that we have no TV. But right now in our house we're watching two things on iplayer: Wolf Hall, and Broadchurch. Both absolutely absorbing; and both very sad, really.

Mind you, Cromwell has lost my sympathy now. He went after the Boleyn clan for purely personal reasons: because long before they dissed Wolsey. It was possible to see him as a good man doing his best to bend with the tempests of Henry; not now it isn't, now he's just a tyrant's executioner. But the downward path that he's traced to that status is a gradual one, and an interesting one.

Yes, it's a subtle, slow, understated narrative. That's kind of the point.

I love the way it makes Tudor politics almost recognisable as 20th C politics--only with much worse and much suddener forfeits, such as decapitation.

In reply to Sophie G.:


>Not sure I agree with you. Cromwell's motives are mixed. He clearly has some respect for Ann Boleyn and is forced into organising her execution. He goes out of his way to make her end as painless as possible. Remember the last shot of his eyes as Henry embraces him in congratulation for a job well done? The eyes of a trapped man. Best TV for ages.

In reply to Trangia:

I half agree about the lighting.
However, a film I've just seen called "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" is just as gloomily lit, on purpose, and managed to win Best Cinematography at Sundance.
And, to be honest, the really dark candle-light only scenes in Wolf Hall only made up a small fraction of the total.

In reply to Offwidth:

I thought it was excellent. I loved the way it was so understated, although i fear that won't attract American audiences.

Having said that i thought it was a whitewash of Cromwell who in reality was a much nastier piece of work.

And am I the only person who thought Ryland overplayed the blank give nothing away expression? Guinness did it better as Smiley

In reply to Postmanpat:

In my view its not a patch on I Claudius, nor Guinness as Smiley.... having re-watched both fairly recently. The acting is OK, the photography settings and costumes excellent, the historic detail plausible enough but its all a bit of a pull of 'A Man for All Seasons' (propaganda though that was... like a lot of Shakespeare' s excellent history plays) towards Downton Abbey. Its well worth watching compared to what's new on TV at the moment but IMHO its no classic.

In reply to Kimono:

It's an excellent production. Quality tv and not dumbed down. Aka Smiley's People

In reply to Postmanpat:


Mantel's Cromwell is much burlier. The kind of bloke who will knife you in the ribs as much as look at you. Ryland only got half of Cromwell - the urbane intellectual - whilst missing out on the street brawler Cromwell, which is a vital part of his character in the books. He's too slight! Look at Holbein's Cromwell, he could really throw a punch. So to me, that was a big problem with the TV series, which was othewise excellent and rivetting.

Toby, Gordon - surprised that you both found the book a dull read. I thought it was gripping, intelligent writing of the highest order. Certainly much better than the over-rated blokeysome trio of Amis, McEwan and Faulks. Be interesting to hear if you've read any of her other books.

In reply to seankenny:


He pulls a knife pretty smartly when someone comes up behind him in the scene where Mary Boleyn is suggesting they cop off to celebrate Anne and Henry's marriage...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Maybe, but I don't look at him and think "wouldn't want to meet you in a dark alley". Whereas with Holbein's and Mantel's Cromwell, I do.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'am I the only person who thought Ryland overplayed the blank give nothing away expression?'

Indeed not, something of a monotone performance I thought.

As for Damian Lewis, in Homeland I thought that his gormless expression was an ill-advised piece of acting. Having seen it reprised in the character of Henry VIII I am forced to revise my impression of the actor (if not of old Etonians).

In reply to John2:

Whatever we think about the lead actor's ability, can we just get his name right?

In reply to Postmanpat:


If ever a sentence endorsed a TV drama this is it.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I think that remark was addressed to PP, not to me.

In reply to John2:

Rylance

In reply to Postmanpat:


Whose reality ? We're talking 500 years ago, and a man who was vilified by the Catholic church. They also made Thomas more was a saint -which seems no more plausible


No, I thought Rylance played the poker face very well. Cromwell was the arch-pragmatist, but he was also a commoner in the company of the elite, it's believable he was very reserved and did not smirk or look pleased with himself

In reply to toad:


Apparently she working upon it, and rylance is keen to do it. I need to check my history as to when and how TC fell from grace, cos up to now he seems to have played his cards so well. Was it Anne of Cleeves ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Was only a couple of years after AB's execution, I think. Henry definitely had some HR issues, especially around staff exit strategies

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes, it was Anne of Cleveleys.

In reply to seankenny:

I grew up around elite Judo folk. I think Rylance has the bodily self confidence of the skilled fighter spot on.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Well by the vast majority of (mainly Protestant) historians. You don't have to believe he was just a simple thug to say that he was nastier than the TV drama implied. The character Rylance portrayed was of some sort of embryo liberal Protestant who loved his family and animals and was squeamish about torture but got sucked into the inescapable embrace of a volatile and cruel despot.

Actually he was a cynical and manipulative (and hugely talented) bureaucrat personally responsible for the execution or torture of hundreds of opponents (either of himself or the king), and the seizure or destruction of much of England's cultural heritage.

That doesn't make him uniquely bad. Really it just makes him a typical powerful man of his times. It is ironical that in a drama most noteworthy for its meticulous period detail and evocation of the Tudor Court, that the central character is mistakenly portrayed like a man from another era.

In reply to Kimono:

I enjoyed it but don't think it was as good as some made it out to be.

Mark Rylance's performance seemed a little too passive to be Hilary Mantell's Cromwell; yes the inner steel was there but he lacked the spark that comes across in the books.

I thought Claire Foy was brilliant in the final episode and Damien Lewis very good throughout.

Six episodes weren't really enough to fit both books into so it relied on you having read the books to understand what was happening.

A bit of nit picking criticism I have of this and other period dramas is the use of old houses and palaces instead of sets, at the time of the drama, the settings would have been brand spanking new rather than the decayed gloomy places they often are; still I suppose it's better than wobbly plywood.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ah yes, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the one bit of history I was taught at (Catholic) primary school and was told it was a BAD thing. But in those days no-one had any notion of cultural heritage - in the same way that the coliseum in Rome was treated like a quarry - and it was only fear of god that allowed the monasteries to prosper.


Call it revisionism if you will, but really it's just taking a fresh look at things. Same with Richard 3rd - the worst villain in English History, or a good king unfairly vilified by the apologists for a welsh usurper with an army of foreign mercenaries ? I'm not saying Mantel is right and that the traditional assessment of him is wrong - I'm not even sure if she makes that claim - but we have to accept that what we know of him could have come from some of the many enemies he made.


Maybe he was a man out of time - how rare was it for someone of his origins to rise so high - meritocracy in the hayday of the aristocracy. And willing to accuse the church of hypocrisy at a time when everyone else lived in fear - a common theme of the last 30 years, but before that ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

...and maybe Henry was a pious virgin.

In reply to Offwidth:

The history of kings is better recorded than that of butcher's son, so whilst we shouldn't view any 500 year old history as being 100% accurate, I think we can safely assume that Henry 8th consummated at least 4 of his marriages and had a number of misstresses

In reply to Chris the Tall:

...so you are free to fantasise about Cromwell's heroic motives and my sarcasm is flattened ?

I just can't see anyone surviving in power at that time with honourable motives nor without blood on their hands.

In reply to Offwidth:
Isn't the point that Cromwell was a Renaissance man? Plenty of bloody politics and power-grabbing - which Mantel makes clear is at least one motivation for disolving the monasteries - alongside a genuinely new vision for human potential and thought?

In reply to seankenny:

Yes but the context of that is everything: it must then have been ends justifying the means at best. Even now in very much safer times I'd suspect the motives of most in power.

In reply to Offwidth:

So that's your idea of sarcasm is it ?


Indeed, but that's not to say that he was as evil as his detractors would have us believe, or was evil throughout his time in power - the old adage about power corrupting may apply. And what was his motivation ?

But the point I'm trying to make is that Mantel's Cromwell is 90% fiction based around 10% fact, and we shouldn't expect any more than that when the character is 500 years old and the sources about him are few. Therefore it's not a question of whether it's accurate, nothing could be, but whether it's plausible.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The term "cultural heritage" would not have been understood but the idea that the art, literature, buildings and treasures of the Church were central to the spiritual and secular life of the vast mass of the English population for 700 years was well understood. That is why they had to be ruthlessly destroyed in order to establish the new regime. And that is why the evidence of corruption in the Church had to be cynically exaggerated and manipulated in order to justify the destruction.


Well actually, for obvious reasons, he was a bit of a national hero for several centuries after the reformation so what we are now seeing is a revision of the revision. Even Elton, who was the great revisionist, in that he cast Cromwell not merely as the King's cypher but a a visionary creator of a new constitution and administrative framework to empower that constitution, acknowledged that Cromwell was a ruthless operator.
I'm quite happy with the idea that Cromwell was not uniquely evil for his time,and less evil than many, and I am very comfortable with the idea that the evidence can be used in different ways, but the TV drama seemed to stretch the latter idea beyond its limits.


Actually, not that rare. Wolsey was the son of a butcher. Cranmer, Fisher and many of the bishops were of lower gentry or merchant or even yeoman stock. The Church was not an uncommon route for men of low birth to reach the higher ranks and in some ways was attractive to the King because, their preferment being totally dependent on him, they offered no threat. The law was another such route.

The clash of Church and State, and therefore of criticism of the Church, had been a staple of English politics since the year dot. Think Thomas a Becket. Cromwell was able to exploit the widespread frustration with Church corruption not because he was "a man out of his time" but because it suited the King.

In reply to Hat Dude:

I wonder about the old buildings. Is it a problem? There would have been old buildings and antiques in 1534 too. No mass production, so make do and mend, furniture would have lasted generations.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

Of course its not a problem. For starters, ever seen what what a few years of candlelight does in any building.

In reply to Chris the Tall

You hopeless romantic. I'm with Postmanpat (although I suspect the monastry corruption wasn't so overstated and I think the difficult daily life of the peasants with whatever form of religion wouldnt have changed a jot).

In reply to Kimono: Having read the book twice, I was totally underwhelmed by this. In opposition to the rest of humanity I find Rylance's performance dull and characterless. He seems to have forgotten his lines most of the time. He certainly has none of the fire of the man in the book; he is more of a librarian than the well travelled mercenary and master politician that he was. To suggest that he should get an MBE for this (as some have done) is as ridiculous as Mrs Weston from Pembroke getting one...oh, hang on - she did.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I guess we'll have to disagree, I thought the stillness suggested steel, that less was more.

Would you have preferred somebody a bit more obviously muscular? Bruce Willis perhaps?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

My only problem with Mark Rylance was that he reminded me of Dave Allen, the irish comedian who did a lot of religious sketches. So when he was walking with Wolsey or some other cardinal I was waiting for the gag.

In reply to Dave Garnett: I realise that I am out on a limb and that few are likely to agree. In the episodes I watched there was no fire, no menace in Rylance. Even when he did that pre-cordial strike on Henry it was all a bit wet. He was a shadow of Mantel's Cromwell.

Bruce and I were in the Churnet the day they tried to get him to do the role. He was trying to nail the sit start to The Shark's Head at Peakstone and there was no signal. Things could have been so very different.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I've not read the book and saw no menace at all. When he had Anne's "lovers" bumped off, supposedly partly in a (spiteful?) act of revenge for their opposition to Wolsey, it simply seemed out of character. Was the endlessly blank expression supposed to imply a seething mass of embittered passions hidden underneath?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Maybe if Rylance had done a couple scenes in vest?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


He did have some good one-liners. I liked 'There's a conversation I shouldn't have had'. It's the way he tells 'em.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The recurrent visualisations of the masked play and the identities of the characters as they took their masks off might have been a clue.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Sorry I think he is the spitting image of Kenneth Conner from the Carry on Films, to such an extent it became distracting.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I'm glad I'm not the only one....

I thoroughly enjoyed the book and the atmosphere it created as well as Cromwell's characterisation.

The TV programme is right up my street but seemed to lose the thing that made the book compelling. I have watched it all though and thought the last episode was better

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

The Tudor stuff would've been new; the Tudor dynasty very much coincided with the English Renaissance and England was starting to find it's feet in the world and particularly wanted to show itself as a force in Europe. The monarchy and nobility were starting to spend lavishly on new buildings and art; in with the new and out with the old.

As I mentioned it's nit picking really but using iconic Tudor buildings doesn't quite give the sense of authenticity that film makers are perhaps looking for.

On a different point, some posters are missing that "Wolf Hall" isn't meant to be a history; there's a touch of a "what if" novel about it. I think there seems a hint of mischief in Hilary Mantel, as shown in "The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher" short story, I'd say that she put some of this into the character of Cromwell and this is what Mark Rylance didn't quite hit in his portrayal.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Yes, the problem being that his expression was that of a slightly contrite spaniel.