whitewash Cromwell, blackwash More?
-
-
hilaryjrp — 10 years ago(May 10, 2015 04:41 PM)
With all due respect I attended 10:30 Mass this morning and will attend on Thursday for Ascension What in God's name are you talking about? The title of this thread, sir or madame, indicates that the original poster thinks "Wolf Hall" did a disservice to More.
How on earth is that something for a Catholic to take exception to? -
RoseVioletDaisy — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 01:24 AM)
Many Protestant churches are rigid and dogmatic and leave no room for any "individual's own perspective", especially the Evangelicals and Baptists in the US. There are also many Catholic parishes, especially in the US, that are far more liberal than their Protestant counterparts. That doesn't make them less Catholic or non-Catholic, just less rigid and dogmatic. Tradition and dogma aren't the same thing.
-
sokeyt — 10 years ago(May 10, 2015 02:07 PM)
Henry VIII could not have subjected England to a reign of terror without the very willing help of many men who, like at Thermidor in Paris, all ended up devoured too.
Two words: land grab. The wealth of the church offered rich pickings for those who lined up behind Henry. The shrine of St Thomas in Canterbury alone, was fabulous. And that was only one of many sites to be plundered.
It's still going on, although now they call it "privatization".
Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown. -
hilaryjrp — 10 years ago(May 10, 2015 04:32 PM)
Two words: land grab.
Oh, absolutely. One thing "Wolf Hall" has done better than
any
Henry VIII "romance" is show how venal and gross men like Norfolk and the Boleyns were (although we haven't seen a great deal of Thomas Boleyn). Have we seen Suffolk at all? -
angelosdaughter — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 05:56 PM)
I am over halfway through the book 'Wolf Hall' and am enjoying it as what it is: fiction. I like reading about the Tudors in fact and fiction. Mantel writes well, but to take these novels as fact would be a mistake. Her portrayals of More, Cromwell, and even Anne Boleyn do not square with historical facts.
I have enjoyed the series on TV even though it, too is more fiction than fact regarding the main characters. It has the atmospheric feel and lighting of its historic time. I still think it is better than the Tudors, which played to the fascination with soap opera and attractive actors who bore not the slightest resemblance to their historical counterparts.
I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon. -
CCCampedel — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 03:49 AM)
I'm currently reading a biography of Thomas Cromwell, written by Tracy Borman, in which she notes the differences between Cromwell and Thomas More. More didn't take care of his appearance and would dress sloppily. It simply didn't matter to him. He wasn't a man who cared what he ate and preferred water to wine. Wealth didn't matter to him. Maybe the characterization of Thomas More in 'Wolf Hall' is closer to the real man than anything we've seen before.
-
Sook-Yongsheng — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 04:29 AM)
More didn't take care of his appearance and would dress sloppily. It simply didn't matter to him.
Well it's definitely not your Paul Scofield's More (A Man for All Seasons).
Not saying you're wrong just an observation. I wasn't aware of how the historical More dressed.
It Follows: 8.5
Whiplash: 9
'71: 8.5
Two Days, One Night: 9 -
LeofricsBeloved — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 03:13 PM)
After seeing Paul Scofield's eloquent portrayal of More in A Man for All Seasons, it is hard to watch any other interpretation of More. Scofield's portrayal of More is one of the greatest performances of all time.
Wolf Hall showed More to be an unkempt hypocrite. His distinction as a great man of letters wasn't shown very much. Cromwell's starry-eyed admiration of his More's scholarly abilities was acknowledged in just a few lines but not much development of More was explored at all.
I think what you said was interesting - Cromwell also had to be seen as sympathetic to engage audience interest. I don't think engaging an audience's sympathy is necessary - just interest in a character's fate is enough. After all, the gangster genre wouldn't be successful if sympathy is necessary.
transcendcinema.blogspot.com "Mind over matter; if you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Room -
best_of — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 10:29 PM)
Wolf Hall is a compelling historical drama. If More comes off badly, so what? For the last hundreds of years More has gotten a pass, seen as some kind of a martyr of the Tudor era. Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons with the performance (an Oscar winner) by Paul Scofield sealed the deal, ensuring his reputation. Wolf Hall takes another point of view and reveals a lot of the unsavory, less heroic things about More. Mark Rylance's Cromwell, is one of the most nuanced performances that has been on television in a very long time. Historically, the truth about Cromwell and More is probably somewhere between the two poles of A Man for All Seasons and Wolf Hall. However much is fact or fancy, this series, Wolf Hall, is an outstanding addition to what we think we know about the Tudor period. It is a great job by Hilary Mantel.
-
KatharineFanatic — 9 years ago(September 02, 2016 07:04 PM)
Thomas More IS done an injustice in this series and so is Anne. She's a bitchy trollop in this, when in real life she was a reformist who wound up married to her stalker who then murdered her via execution. So romantic.
Cromwell I have mixed feelings about. He's extremely likable here; he was considerably more ruthless in history.
I don't actually hold much of anything against these people; it was a much different time and acts of kindness more extraordinary than acts of cruelty.
I just don't understand why drama has to force us to choose sides why not have a fair representation of Cromwell AND More? Make it that much more difficult for the audience to know what is the 'right' thing to do or which side to take.