A very constructive, sensible and well-expressed comment CoastalCruiser.
Thank you for your valuable opinion.

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.

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

I just started watching Season 1 and have nothing to contribute to this thread, except this: just saw Jessica Raine in Fortitude. She was very beautiful.

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.

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.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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!"

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"

I agree. No one has been a better Anne Boleyn than Natalie Dormer. Not even Genevieve Bujold in
Anne of a Thousand Days.
"Take your hands off my lobby boy!"

Natalie Dormer, for me, will always be
THE
Anne Boleyn.
"You weren't born pretty and it isn't fair"

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.

I think that, for me, even Hilary Mantel's Cromwell is above all a
doer

• a workaholic, a man of all trades, driven. I find Rylance too reflective, too cerebral, too much at ease to embody that. And for all his intelligence and subtlety, there is a darkness in the character Mantell wrote: sudden savage reactions to perceived danger, and a past killing., and - despite the one scene where he pulls a knife on someone - I don't really think he gives an impression of that edginess. He's a bit too nice.
  The pace of the entire series reflects that relaxed approach too. I think it lacks drive for a lot of the time.
  Call me Ishmael

I'm loving watching Wolf Hall having read Hilary Mantel's novels, which enhances the experience of seeing this drama immeasurably. The visual aspects are luscious. But my reason for replying is Mark Rylance. In the novels the story is Cromwell's, and the characters in this version are as Cromwell experiences them. I think Hilary Mantel conceives Cromwell as a hero of sorts, who's pragmatic, intelligent, patient, fearless, supremely capable, and very very subtle. To my way of thinking, Mark Rylance hits all the right notes in his portrayal.

In addition, the physical appearance would be more appropriate. Anne Boleyn was by all accounts, dark-featured with a "sallow complexion" and dark eyes and also noted kindly as "not a beauty".
It was an interesting observation in the day, in that the king had such ardor for a woman who was considered very plain.

What we dont get are other aspects of Jane we get more of a scheming caricature than a human being. Theres not much dimension here, and certainly nothing award-worthy.
Well, firstly, I'm not sure it is an award-worthy performance either, but I do find it more successful
in its own terms
than the less fully realised, sketchy Anne Boleyn.
But I certainly don't agree about caricature. Or rather, the character
as written
, doesn't give the the opportunity for an actor to do much else but display her as vindictiveness personified, but the actress embodies this with such conviction - that she comes alive,
become present
in a very compelling way. I felt an electric quality that made me sit up and watch when she was on screen, whereas Anne Boleyn felt rather neutral, inert, didn't command attention. So my feeling is that, had Raines played Anne, she'd have given us a more focussed,
capable
character, more of a match for both Henry and Cromwell, as compared to Foy's snappy but clueless Anne. We might also have got more chemistry between Anne and Henry.
But this is really a subjective thing, of course, all supposition and moonshine.
Call me Ishmael

For my part, I got a sense of someone with a strong presence, and a powerful, ruthless will, having the intelligence to form a strategy, with a shrewd awareness of precisely when and how to plunge in the knife
which all add up to: her vindictiveness. Thats pretty much it. What we dont get are other aspects of Jane we get more of a scheming caricature than a human being. Theres not much dimension here, and certainly nothing award-worthy.

I'm curious what you got from her performance besides Jane's vindictiveness.
Well, I'll field that one.
For my part, I got a sense of someone with a strong presence, and a powerful, ruthless will, having the intelligence to form a strategy, with a shrewd awareness of precisely when and how to plunge in the knife, able to wield the power she possesses, entire aware her power - a political player. I'm not sure we saw many of these qualities in Anne Boleyn, but they are precisely what would have made her not only more historically accurate, but far more satisfying dramatically - a worthy match for Henry & Cromwell. I suspect (though it is entirely academic) that Jessica Raine would have given the role of Anne that added substance - and thereby significantly raise the dramatic tension between the three key characters.
I'm a curmudgeon, however, and for all that he's a fine actor, I'm not sure that Mark Rylance was ideally cast. I never got any real sense of danger from him - that he was a man who personally killed a man. I think that Rylance is too gentle, and for all that (as he himself said in a interview) he modelled his deadpan acting style on Robert Mitchum, he simply isn't butch enough to pull that off. Now Michael Kitchen (Detective Foyle) I could easily believe he was capable of any number of dark deeds. Fifteen years ago he'd have been perfect for the role.
Call me Ishmael

I'm curious what you got from her performance besides Jane's vindictiveness.

But I will say that Ms. Foy's performance during the execution scene was redemptive.
I agree that in the last few scenes her performance hit the right note. Perhaps the actress understood and felt more for the character at her lowest point than she had for Anne earlier at her apogee.
Call me Ishmael

I could not AGREE MORE. Ms. Raine was definitely the stand out. Her performance never seemed forced, never over the top. It was subtle, sublime and simmering. She was The Business.
Great thinking point about what her portrayal of Anne would have been like. I think she would have done a far better job.
I hate saying negative things in post, but to me, Claire Foy's performance was the weakest link in this amazing production. But I will say that Ms. Foy's performance during the execution scene was redemptive.

Never mind, I just found this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2287661/Jessica-Raine-new-partner-Tom-Goodman-Hill-Dont-midwifeshes-married-man.html
Too funny, where it says, "and Jessica was playing a wild young temptress, as she often does. She even got topless on stage, and waggled her hotpants close to Toms face."
So yeah, I guess she could bring something extra to the role of Anne!

Kudos to both of you. (Austen, I hadn't read your post because I've been watching on PBS and tried to avoid certain spoilers.) It hadn't occurred to me, but I absolutely see it. CF was ok, but JR could have been outstanding. She has a powerful presence, and could have pulled off the charm and coy seduction with more finesse.
BTW, isn't she the one who broke up Tom Goodman-Hill's marriage in real life? (He plays Mr. Grove on
Mr. Selfridge
.) Just curious.