Jump to content

Wolf Hall on PBS - North America starts watching (spoilers)


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Episode 1 of Wolf Hall started last night on PBS stations across the US, which means Canadians with cable got to see it as well.

I was a bit worried about Mark Rylance as Cromwell, but after last night's show I see he will be a splendid villain. Explanation - Catholics are not fond of Thomas Cromwell, it's a tribute to Mantel's writing that I enjoyed a book about that snake as much as I did.

He put me in mind of what Shakespeare had Ceasar say of Cassius:

Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.


Of course, I have read the books, which made the flashbacks very easy to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Mantel views him as a villain, and certainly the WOLF HALL production doesn't. A complicated man, yes. A vindictive man, yes. A man with an agenda, yes. A villain? No.



The real villain of the BBC production, anyways, is Henry VIII.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, he's definitely not a villain to either Mantel or the BBC. I don't think Mantel was the first person who tried to re-examine his role in history, but certainly she must be among the most effective. She certainly paints an extremely sympathetic portrait of the man, not one that has been historically fashionable. He has more or less been viewed as Henry's hatchet man, has he not, with more blood on his hands than Henry's.



But I also have the viewpoint of a Catholic - Thomas More is a saint, and Cromwell is definitely a villain.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a strange thing, the idea that all the blood falls on an underling, and not the king who explicitly or implicitly authorized it all. History is weird that way.



I think More comes out quite well in Mantel's depiction, as well. It's a very complicated thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very true, isn't it.



I have to add, the view I mention of More is the one we were taught in high school. Once a person studies history at the university level, things do get much more complicated, don't they?



So far I think the writers did a very succinct job of summing up the background story. Of course, there would be a higher than normal understanding of the background, I would think, for this series. I was quite surprised, though, to find out both books were being done in the 6 episodes, not just Wolf Hall. I have avoided reading the British version of this thread so that I can see how the plot unfolds. I'm sorry it isn't at least 10 episodes, like a GoT season.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a strange thing, the idea that all the blood falls on an underling, and not the king who explicitly or implicitly authorized it all. History is weird that way.

I think More comes out quite well in Mantel's depiction, as well. It's a very complicated thing.

Yah. It's good to be the king. Or prime minister. Or czar. Or emperor. Or potus. Or -- CEO. Or, whoever is the Power and the Face. Others do it and take the fall. That's why they both get big bux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did Cromwell's poor wife and daughters die from? That scene tore me up.

A nasty disease, the sweating sickness. You got the sweats in the morning, you were dead by night.

From Wikipedia:

Sweating sickness, also known as "English sweating sickness" or "English sweate" (Latin: sudor anglicus), was a mysterious and highly virulent disease that struck England, and later continental Europe, in a series of epidemics beginning in 1485. The last outbreak occurred in 1551, after which the disease apparently vanished. The onset of symptoms was dramatic and sudden, with death often occurring within hours. Though its cause remains unknown, it has been suggested that an as yet unknown species of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome was responsible for the outbreak.

It was around for less than a hundred years, then vanished. Probably mutated itself out of existence, or at least something less harmful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating_sickness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did Cromwell's poor wife and daughters die from? That scene tore me up.

FB's right - spoiler thread is spoilery!

I understand no one knows what "sweating sickness" was. It was an illness endemic to only.parts of Europe for only around 150 years, maybe less. People got sick and died within days, sweating profusely at the same time. It might have been related to hantavirus IIRC, and the modern disease called sweating sickness is unrelated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first episode was lovely.



Anne is not coming across as interesting or even likeable. So far it's puzzling as to why Henry wants her. Which interests me as a viewer wanting to learn what it is that makes Anne so compelling to a King, who, divorced can have a large choice of wives.



Though not, as it turned out in history, the more marriage partners he sought, the daughters or sisters of some of the very powerful -- and rich -- royals.



I hope saying this, speaking of history, isn't spoilery. I guess I'll put the above in tags, until its more clear what works for this subject and what doesn't in terms of spoilers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first episode was lovely.

Anne is not coming across as interesting or even likeable. So far it's puzzling as to why Henry wants her. Which interests me as a viewer wanting to learn what it is that makes Anne so compelling to a King, who, divorced can have a large choice of wives.

Though not, as it turned out in history, the more marriage partners he sought, the daughters or sisters of some of the very powerful -- and rich -- royals.

I hope saying this, speaking of history, isn't spoilery. I guess I'll put the above in tags, until its more clear what works for this subject and what doesn't in terms of spoilers.

She never does come across as remotely desirable in this series, IMO.

So that does not change. I think on the whole she is very unsympathetic as well, right until the last two episodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTOH, it comes to mind belatedly that Wolf Hall is Thomas Cromwell's story, what he thinks, how he feels about things, how he's affected, not Anne Boleyn's story.



For example, Wolsey's manner of treating him, makes it clear that Thomas is fond of the elderly cardinal. More's treatment, rather naturally leaves Thomas in a state of non-admiration of the chancellor who takes Wolsey's place. That's what matters to Thomas, so this is what we see. Anne didn't treat him well either, as we see from his perception. But -- he is a very smart man, when he says the error into which Wolsey fell was getting Anne to hate him before anyone dreamed she would catch the heart of his king.



The way Raylance plays Cromwell, he's so still, is admirable. I'm one of those who truly appreciates actors who can act without jumping all over the place. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The responses I'm seeing to Wolf Hall, now that the second episode has been aired, are enthusiastically positive, more so, it seems, than the BBC audience -- a lot more so. In the UK coverage of Wolf Hall I read constant complaints from both reviewers and audience about how slow and dark it was, and the miscasting of Henry and Cromwell, but the PBS audience feels quite differently, it seems.


My real life friends -- many of whom never watch anything on PBS -- are all expressing the same positive reactions too.


Is it because this isn't 'our' history in a sense, that the U.S. audience likes Wolf Hall so much?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion it is easily detectable how creators of the show each time have to come up with some justification for Cromwell and to the opposite - some evil glance or dubious motivation for More, when at the same time actions of the characters are screaming that it should be vice versa. Perhaps this is how the book was constructed in the first place (I didn't read it, but enjoying the show very much)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Alboin,



On 23 February 1530, a man called Thomas Hitton was burnt at the stake. He had been found in possession of letters from English Protestant exiles, and was therefore a dangerous heretic. He also believed in wicked ideas, such as baptisms being conducted in English. The good Sir Thomas Moore wrote of him: "The devil's stinking martyr...he hath taken his wretched soul with him straight from the short fire to the fire everlasting." More pursued and persecuted heretics with zeal, burnt books, approved of burning people.



Mantell's interpretation is certainly revisionist, but it's not without historical evidence.



Zorral - coverage in the Guardian was extremely favourable. Almost wall to wall positive coverage. I only spotted a few detractors. I think the reaction of the UK public wasn't all that uniform. I'm sure there were segments of the audience who thought it was boring and dark, but then, there always are as regards period dramas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that in Henry VIII's time, the state used some nasty methods to kill people. I'm not sure that being burnt at the stake was worse than, say, being partly hanged, and before you died, being disembowled. Having your head chopped off was the most merciful death and reserved for the nobility.

Burning at the stake was pretty common.

The thing about Hilary Mantel is that she is a former Catholic who now hates the church with a passion. Her depiction of Cromwell is far more sympathetic than anything written about him before. So far in the first two books she has concentrated on his relationship with Henry and glossed over, or, actually, not mentioned any of the brutal things he did. She does have characters in the books mention the fact they are terrified of him, but other than his destruction of the enemies of Wolsey, she does not address his ruthless acts.

Mantel in particular hates the RC church for the sins of abusive priests and the blind eye the church has had about abuse. This is not the thread to get into that discussion (I, for example, could point out priests abuse people at the same rate the general male population does, and could supply the names of dozens, if not hundreds, of organizations that have covered up abuse) but I point out her opinions to say the portrait of More has to be taken with a grain of salt. We could start a religious war here on the Board by opening a thread about the rights and wrongs done when Protestants broke away from Rome. I have certainly read horrific stories about what Protestants did to Catholics, for example. Politics and Religion are very touchy subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...