So Cromwell Loves…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Wolf Hall
thespinballwhizzer — 11 years ago(February 05, 2015 03:52 AM)
I'm confused, who is Cromwell meant to have feelings for? The word love can be replaced with lust here, as it often does during this period
Is it the mistress, her name escapes me, who shares his bed but is already married.
Or is it Mary Boleyn, who he seems to have quite a flirty relationship with, even if the infatuation seems to be more on her part than his.
Or is it Jane Seymour, whom he always seems so overly concerned with, even going so far as to send her gifts and enquire after her marriage prospects. He definitely seems to carry a torch for her.
Or is it Anne Boleyn, whom i thought he disliked at first but then he started fantasising about touching her in the last episode.
Or is he just a horny old man who likes them all
-
naletof — 11 years ago(February 10, 2015 02:21 AM)
Funny, even if it's not true
http://snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp
"Do you like me more than you don't like me or do you not like me more than you do?" -
Marmadukebagelhole — 11 years ago(February 05, 2015 08:01 AM)
It's all symbolic of the inotxication Cromwell might feel at being needed by those born higher than you. Being a power of sorts behind the throne. All must seem in reach. The temptation to reach out and touch it or fantasise about it before things change and you fall out of favour must have been heady.
Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
Italics
= irony. Infer the opposite please. -
catpetal-1 — 11 years ago(February 07, 2015 12:08 AM)
Mantels book is historic fiction. It is a fictional novel that simply uses characters from history.
It's not as clear-cut as that:
One response to this would be to point out that Mantel has a passion for the truthI make things up most reluctantly, she says, I am not cavalierand that, in writing Wolf Hall, she was actually driven by a desire to set the record straight, to correct public misconceptions of Thomas Cromwell as a pantomime villain, and to show that Thomas More was more flawed and less saintly than Robert Bolts A Man for all Seasons had led us to believe. Another is to ask whether any writer, by switching off the imagination and sticking to the facts, can ever hope to arrive at absolute historical truth. Paul Lay, whose own youthful passion for real history was fed by the novels of Robert Graves and Mary Renault, doubts it: History, by its nature, he says, is a very uncertain practice.
For some historians, Wolf Hall has provided not just entertainment but intellectual impetus. Writing recently in History Today, Diarmaid MacCulloch, author of biographies of Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer, and most recently of a monumental history of Christianity, revealed that Mantels startlingly accurate recreation of Henry VIIIs England had spurred him on to embark on a full-scale biography of Thomas Cromwell. He had, he admitted, gasped at the detail which Mantel knew and had woven into her story, without any feeling of ostentation; and he is impatient for the sequel. He is not alone.
The line between fact and fiction in history is extremely fluid, and is more about theory and the old clich, the power of the victor. Much of what happened in the past is inaccessible to us, yet historians claim their books are factual. Interesting -
samantha3 — 11 years ago(February 07, 2015 09:49 AM)
I agree with what CatPetal says, and with her quotes. I'm in the middle of Tracy Borman's 2014 biography of Cromwell, and I can see where her work (most deliberately, I'm sure) reflects, explores, and in some cases develops strands and ideas brought out by Mantel's earlier work. In some cases, such as Cromwell's relationship with Wolsey, Borman shows that things might have been more complicated than Mantel says, but then, Mantel is writing fiction from the point of view of one of the characters, and her depiction is based on what he thinks. Borman is attempting to write from a general point of view, using only historical records, and that produces a different kind of book than Mantel's. It doean't mean either is better, just that the two are exccellent complimentary works. So far I haven't seen anything in Borman that would indicate the Mantel distorted historial fact to construct her characters and their world, and that is the test of fine historical fiction, IMO. It takes you there in a way biography does not quite do. There is a place for both.
Whatever changes may have been made in the story in translating it to a different medium and those doing such work will tell you that such changes are always necessary I am sure it won't be the travesty so many historical films and videos are. I remember being so disgusted with the productions of both ELIZABETH films that I could hardly appreciate Cate Blanchette's excellent acting. One example among far too many. -
marudd50 — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 02:03 AM)
I don't know much about Cromwell (yet), but I read that in real life he had an affair with his landlady, a widow, somewhere in Belgium, and he was conflicted because he thought he should marry her but didn't want to. Instead he went back to London and married Liz. He was a vagabond and a soldier, so I think we can assume he got around a little. Anyone know any more about this?
Beauty is truth, truth beauty. -
Sook-Yongsheng — 10 years ago(April 21, 2015 08:57 AM)
I read that in real life he had an affair with his landlady, a widow, somewhere in Belgium
Right, her name was Anselma (at least in the novel). She's the one Cromwell talks about when the king asks him if he recognizes the woman in the tapestry. He obsesses on that from time to time.
I'm not quite sure why he didn't marry her in real life, but apparently he thought he could do better socially. He might also have wanted to go back to England and marry an Englishwoman of good family not a foreign widow "tainted" by having an affair with her lodger.
In the novel at least, it was a hot-and-heavy affair between him and Anselma. She was a very beautiful blonde, and sex/lust was perhaps the major aspect of the relationship.
It Follows: 8.5
Whiplash: 9
'71: 8.5
Two Days, One Night: 9 -
SedateProf — 10 years ago(April 24, 2015 12:14 AM)
This discussion of whether a particular person from history should be cast heroically or deeply flawed brings to mind something a faculty colleague told me many years ago which I've seen confirmed by various screenwriters and historian-consultants to movies: the REAL people of REAL history were usually heroes only in comparison to their contexts and time in history.and if historians kept movie scripts totally faithful to the facts, general audiences would be horrified and leave the movie theatre thinking that ALL of the characters were terrible villains. So, to make the characters "relatable" and eligible for hero status by audiences in our time, they have to be "sanitized" and made to seem much more heroic than they actually were.
I remember seeing that same point made about a movie concerning one of the Crusades from just a few years ago. Despite what general audiences think they know about the Crusades, virtually all of the actual historical characters on BOTH sides of the conflicts, were brutal, cruel, heartless, and despicable by modern day standards. So screenwriters usually choose events where the intended protagonist seems like a hero and then "cleans them up" even moreeven if they have to fudge considerably to spin them into the story's "good guy."
I used to hate any movie or TV program that altered anything but minor historical facts. I still have my frustrations with any film depiction which fudges the factsbut having discussed it with colleagues who've been involved in film projects as advisors, I've come to see their point. We can't expect modern day audiences to take a few relevant history and civilization courses before watching a movie so that they can more accurately assess the virtues and flaws of the various characters (i.e., those based on historical persons.)
Therefore, consider this: few audiences complain when a movie depicts Julius Caesar speaking English, even though everybody knows that the language wouldn't exist until many centuries many later. Most critics don't even complain all that much if Caesar has a British accent while Brutus has a more neutral American accent. In fact, a director may chooses a very proper, educated-sounding Oxford accent for the great orator Cato while the lowly centurions speak in a very colloquial Cockney accent, critics may even praise the film for helping the audience remain continually mindful of the various social classes and tiers of Roman society. So liberties are taken in order to help the audience understand the underlying social dynamics.
To my historian colleagues, the ethics, character flaws, and relative virtues of the characters must be similarly conceptualized to our time so that the audience can better understand who was heroic and who was fiendish in the historical context of their own society. So rather than remind the audience that the ancient protagonist could be almost as heartless and vicious as the antagonists in similar contexts, even more liberties are often taken to "translate" heroes and villains into our concepts of heroism and fiendishness.
So whatever one's position on historical accuracy, hearing a film's historical advisor perspective on why he/she took liberties has given me a greater respectand even a greater tolerancefor the difficulties and compromises a screen-writer faces. -
akameridians — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 09:52 AM)
Historically, Cromwell brokered a marriage between Seymour and Henry. Now in the series this angling started well before the beheading of Anne. I think that's why they showed her being studied by him so much.
-
akameridians — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 09:59 AM)
Historically, Cromwell brokered a marriage between Seymour and Henry. Now in the series this angling started well before the beheading of Anne. I think that's why they showed her being studied by him so much.
-
MissBono — 11 years ago(February 07, 2015 07:32 AM)
I think his love/lust lies with his sister-in-law, the mistress you mention.
The playful flirtation with Mary Boleyn was entirely initiated by her. Being a (whatever age) man, it's hard to imagine he'd be above flirting back, especially considering she is a young and attractive girl from a powerful family. The fact that she provides him with lots of information is another reason for him to play along
The inquiries about Jane Seymour I believe is him thinking ahead. I think he understands the nature of the King and that if Anne doesn't give him a son, she won't last long in the throne. Keeping in mind that the "ideal queenship" of that time was a Katherine of Aragon and not an Anne Boleyn, I think it's plausible Cromwell was already starting to think of an alternative to present to the King (a meek and more submissive woman), in case things go south with AB.
As for Anne, it was very weird for me too so I'll assume it's the power going over his head and being a horny old man.
You know me, I'm impulsive. -
KatharineFanatic — 11 years ago(February 08, 2015 05:51 PM)
I assumed this about Jane as well I think Cromwell is a long-term schemer, so him looking for an alternative in case Anne goes south isn't out of the question.
Someone on tumblr posted a section out of the book in which Cromwell fantasizes about touching Anne, as he does in the series so at least it's cannon, although it's still odd. Maybe to show how desirable a woman she was, despite her overall abrasive personality? -
sluggr-2 — 11 years ago(February 10, 2015 08:58 PM)
It is a well established fact that the hot ones are also crazy and Anne IS their queen.
That being said, as the Nncle was raging about Percival at about the 22 min mark of ep 3, did it look like Cromwell broke the 4th wall. I've been watching a lot of "House of Lies" where that is a staple so it almost seemed funny that it might have happened in this tome as well.
I think my percentage of Chimp DNA is higher than others. Cleaver Greene -
CatchyUserID — 10 years ago(April 21, 2015 05:25 PM)
It is a well established fact that the hot ones are also crazy
It's a much better established fact that the kinds of boys and men who say that are the ones who are incapable of getting and keeping a "hot one" - especially a nice, well-adapted hot one.
In my personal experience, men tend to simply be attracted to beautiful women. Of those women, a certain percentage are wild and untamable - they keep a man struggling. Some men prefer the crazy/bad girl, just as some women prefer the bad boys. Dysfunction comes in either sex.
All that said, yes - I think Cromwell has become a bit of a horndog. That, and some artistic license to keep us on our toes with a hint of sexuality.