Give that woman an Emmy! (Not Claire Foy)
-
the sphynx — 9 years ago(October 25, 2016 09:56 PM)
Oh, I don't know. That interrogation scene in the last episode, where he threatens to push his own fingers into the lordly prisoner's eyeballs, was quite effective. When he's interviewing Smeaton and has put him at his ease, even though you have to know what's coming, there's a jolt when he suddenly turns from genial to steely after having elicited the desired self-incrimination.
Mostly Rylance's Cromwell wends his way through the court like an iceberg with nine-tenths of his power hidden, content to be underestimated until he really needs to show strength. I think his performance is masterful. -
eyeguy72 — 10 years ago(June 17, 2015 07:37 AM)
Natalie's performance and beauty and crooked smile enraptured me the very first moment I saw her as Anne. I had never seen her before. I had no prior interest in British History. Now I'm hooked and it's all her fault!
Genevieve is undeniably gorgeous and she played the part well. And so did Claire Foy. I feel many people here have overlooked her performance as Anne. The subtle things she did with her expressions, especially her eyes. My hope is that people give this series a second viewing and change their minds.
That would make me happy.
"Here's to the losers" -
erudite925 — 10 years ago(June 17, 2015 08:08 AM)
Binge watched all 6 episodes of Wolf Hall last night. I have to say that Clare Foy's performance was subtle and intelligent. The play of emotions and the courage that shown through Foy's Anne Boleyn's execution scene was brilliantly heartbreaking. Anne Boleyn has been misrepresented in many British dramas. Historically, Boleyn it could be argued was as influential to the English Reformation as Martin Luther was to the German/European Reformation. I'm not saying she was entirely responsible, but I believe that the English reformation could have floundered without Boleyn's influence upon Henry VIII and her daughter Elizabeth. I'm not a historian but I am fascinated by Plantagenet and Tudor dynasties.
"Take your hands off my lobby boy!" -
KatharineFanatic — 10 years ago(May 21, 2015 08:06 PM)
If you like Jessica Raine, watch "Call the Midwife." She's in the first three seasons.
I'm less of a fan, and unsure that she could pull off Anne Boleyn, but then, it would be difficult to top Natalie Dormer, even if "The Tudors" was rubbish. -
sirjeremy — 10 years ago(May 23, 2015 01:54 PM)
I couldn't take my eyes off her and I agree she was outstanding in this - hard to do in that cast. Right from when I saw her on stage seven years ago I knew she'd go far.
I felt Claire Foy was excellent but can see Emmy voters being more swayed by her in the obviously more well-known part, than by Jessica, as stunning as J.R was. -
bobcanduit — 10 years ago(May 23, 2015 07:08 PM)
I too think Jessica is an outstanding actor. Does anyone happen to know how or why she left Midwives? Talk about an incredible production. I won't miss an episode, and find myself in tears at one point or another every single episode.
-
LeofricsBeloved — 10 years ago(March 14, 2016 03:17 PM)
Agreed.
I was skeptical of Jessica Raine's acting ability when I saw her in Call the Midwife. I thought that although her character was sweet and kind, her character had little charisma.
I really misjudged Ms. Raine's acting skills after seeing her in Wolf Hall. Outstanding performance. Cruel and vindictive.
transcendcinema.blogspot.com "Mind over matter; if you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Room -
CoastalCruiser — 9 years ago(May 12, 2016 11:28 PM)
This is one of the most thoughtful IMDB discussions threads I've ever read. Really. Intelligent people respectfully airing their well thought out views of this series. No attacks. No flaming. You could hold this thread up as a template for how to beneficially share points about a movie.
I don't thinks it's been more than two months since I first went through the series, but just recently finished my fourth viewing. Nearly every comment made in this thread has some validity in other words I see your point of view but at the same time I found this production of the Henry VIII story to be flawless, in its own way. The principal criteria I refer to is "the ability to suspend one's disbelief". I was able to fully suspend my disbelief throughout the series. It had that kind of quality running through the dialog, the sets, the lighting, the actors the overall ambiance. I felt I was in the 1520s.
Take Claire Foy's Anne Boleyn. I did not read the book (my loss). Nor, in spite of viewing perhaps nine other Henry VII productions, I can't say I have much of a notion of what the real Anne was like (ignorance is of course bliss). All I can say is that Claire was
in-the-role
. She made it real, and I believed every word that came out of her mouth. She was dazzling.
In fact, I find this rendering of the Henry story the most riveting of all I've viewed (haven't seen Anne of a Thousand Days yet. Just moved it the top of my netflix queue). My other favorites are "A Man For All Seasons" and the 1970 BBC series "The Six wives of Henry VIII", cardboard sets and all.
Regarding Mark Rylance's Thomas Cromwell, again, fully believable. I found it quite plausible that this version of Cromwell could have been a soldier. When did you ever see fear on the (admittedly deadpan) face of this Cromwell? And did you not see him unflinchingly stay true to his code (such as loyalty), regardless of the potential consequences. That takes courage.
But of particular interest to me was the juxtaposition of Wolf Hall's
Tomas Cromwell
to A Man For All Season's
Thomas More
. In Wolf Hall it is Cromwell who is the "man for all seasons", eh? The underscoring point being, not only were we not there to see the all sides of these two men, we are reminded that neither of them were two-dimensional beings (Season's More was probably not that saintly, and Hall's Cromwell was likely not that convicted in his purpose) and that they each likely indulged in [what a modern person would think of as] reprehensible behavior.
In fact, if you were to travel back in time and sit down with a few of the actual people who lived it, and asked for their take on events, what would you get? You'd likely get a
few
different points of view. lol. On one level there is no "what actually happened". This is what Kurosawa suggests in Rashoman.
My point is I've come to take these reenactments for their face value. And using that perspective as a metric, this is an unparalleled production.
Just another perspective. You guys rock.