# Wolf hall?



## mrs quoad (Mar 5, 2010)

Werf it?

Seems to be getting surprisingly good reviews...?

NB: also, I searched, and couldn't find a thread  Apols if this is a repost


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 5, 2010)

Worth reading but the narrative arc is fundamentally unsatisfying. Not sure how many spoilers are appropriate, if you're planning to read it.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 13, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Worth reading but the narrative arc is fundamentally unsatisfying. Not sure how many spoilers are appropriate, if you're planning to read it.



OK! ty 

I see it's come out as an iPod app too


----------



## vauxhallmum (Mar 13, 2010)

Yes, I'm looking forward to reading this, it sounds 

Did you hear the adaptation of her Beyond Black on radio 4? It was pretty good.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 13, 2010)

I saw an advert for it today in the newspaper:

"Now you have heard all about it, why not read it?"

Or something like that.

Now I almost definitely wont.


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> I saw an advert for it today in the newspaper:
> 
> "Now you have heard all about it, why not read it?"
> 
> ...



Take that, The Man.


----------



## selamlar (Mar 13, 2010)

Actually quite impressed with this one. That is all.


----------



## Tyr (Mar 13, 2010)

It completely misses the mindset of the times. 21st century characters in a 16th century setting, just the way The Tudors was on the box. She is, unlike Dorothy Dunnett, readable, but that's scarcely the point when she's primarily meant to be an historian writing a novel.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Mar 13, 2010)

Tyr said:


> It completely misses the mindset of the times. 21st century characters in a 16th century setting, just the way The Tudors was on the box. She is, unlike Dorothy Dunnett, readable, but that's scarcely the point when she's primarily meant to be an historian writing a novel.




Really enjoyed the book. 

Probably the best read last year.

I think the characters are meant to come across as basically the same as you or I as a kind of people are people approach to story telling. I thought it was far more human compared to some other historical fiction.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 13, 2010)

I started it but life intervened. I've got it saved for the Easter holidays.

I'm not approaching it as anything other than a novel. If people ask me to name a historian the name Hilary Mantel does not spring to my lips, whereas it would if asked to name an novelist.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 13, 2010)

Santino said:


> Take that, The Man.



yeh


----------



## Cloo (Mar 14, 2010)

I thought it was excellent... really involving and conjured up such a living picture of an era. But then I do love Mantel's stuff generally. If you read it and enjoy it, A Place of Greater Safety, her narrative of the French Revolution through its leading figures, is similarly ace.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 14, 2010)

vauxhallmum said:


> Did you hear the adaptation of her Beyond Black on radio 4? It was pretty good.



I enjoyed that!

ty, all, on the list of 'considerations'


----------



## innit (Mar 15, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Worth reading but the narrative arc is fundamentally unsatisfying.



Yes, I'd agree with this.


----------



## Random (Mar 16, 2010)

have just started it.  Seems quite good.  'You leek eating cunt'?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 11, 2015)

just started reading it. Is very good - mantel is an excellent writer. 

BBC are doing an adaptation starting in a week or two.


----------



## ringo (Jan 12, 2015)

Great book, it was discussed here briefly in the Hilary Mantel thread. I gave my dad a copy for his birthday on Saturday.

I've bought nearly everything she's written and added it to my 'to read' pile. Might try and find that broadcast of Beyond Black, brilliant but disturbing. I'm so pleased that one of the greatest writers of our time writes such dark material.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/anybody-read-any-hilary-mantel.300749/


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2015)

The book is brilliant, best book of the decade IMO. Not sure about the TV adaptation, I love the book so much that I don't see how it can live up to the book.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2015)

It's good, but not that good.  Excessively generous to Cromwell


----------



## JimW (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It's good, but not that good.  Excessively generous to Cromwell


This is based on your personal experience of the man?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2015)

err no.  Just like you can only come to a judgement of someone like Hitler if actually went out drinking with him (did he drink?)


----------



## JimW (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> err no.  Just like you can only come to a judgement of someone like Hitler if actually went out drinking with him (did he drink?)


Just seemed a bit of an odd criticism to lay at a fictionalisation that's not strayed particularly far from the known facts.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> Just seemed a bit of an odd criticism to lay at a fictionalisation that's not strayed particularly far from the known facts.


it doesn't really investigate the wider context - of schism and the consequences.  It has a barely concealed sympathy for Cromwell which means someone like Thomas More comes off a lot worse in Wolf Hall than he does in  A Man for all Seasons for example.


----------



## JimW (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> it doesn't really investigate the wider context - of schism and the consequences.  It has a barely concealed sympathy for Cromwell which means someone like Thomas More comes off a lot worse in Wolf Hall than he does in  A Man for all Seasons for example.


See, I thought the portrayal of More was fine despite also liking A Man for All Seasons and Ackroyd's sympathetic bio; thought Mantel's version was well realised and plausible too. She clearly does like the Cromwell she portrays but no harm in that.

edited as mixed up More and Cromwell in the last sentence duh


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> err no.  Just like you can only come to a judgement of someone like Hitler if actually went out drinking with him (did he drink?)


if he'd been offered a night on the piss with you, grofaz would have turned teetotal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> it doesn't really investigate the wider context - of schism and the consequences.  It has a barely concealed sympathy for Cromwell which means someone like Thomas More comes off a lot worse in Wolf Hall than he does in  A Man for all Seasons for example.


tell you what, why don't you put hand to keyboard and type a well-constructed novel investigating the wider context of schism etc. then we can watch you pitch it to a range of publishers and see whether anyone bothers buying it if you get a deal.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, why don't you put hand to keyboard and type a well-constructed novel investigating the wider context of schism etc. then we can watch you pitch it to a range of publishers and see whether anyone bothers buying it if you get a deal.


May do one day. It will be worth the wait


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> May do one day. It will be worth the wait


for me the wait will be the best part


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2015)

articul8 said:


> it doesn't really investigate the wider context - of schism and the consequences.  It has a barely concealed sympathy for Cromwell which means someone like Thomas More comes off a lot worse in Wolf Hall than he does in  A Man for all Seasons for example.


A Man for All Seasons is a great film, but a load of catholic horseshit. More was a turd.

WH is a great book as it shows how schisms were caused by the rise of capitalism, rather than just bding the great men school of history.


----------



## JimW (Jan 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> ... More was a turd...


Sanctioned a good half dozen  burnings at the stake of reformers for one thing.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> More was a turd.



No, not by the standards of his own day.  He never burnt heretics for their first offence, only for knowingly persisting in spreading heresy.  And at the time leading people from the true path of faith was equated with persuading them to let their souls burn in hell for all eternity.  So the burning of persistent heretics needs to be understood as a heuristic device in this context (no matter how repugnant to modern sensibilities).   Compared to the (later) death of Edmund Campion who was dragged through the streets, before being dismbowelled alive, and his still living body spliced and diced, it wasn't uniquely horrific.  Or Margaret Clitheroe who was flattened by heavy stones for persisting in the faith.

More was a great humanist and champion of learning - friend of Erasmus.  And wouldn't tell that fat fucker what he wanted to hear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> More was a great humanist and champion of learning - friend of Erasmus.  And wouldn't tell that fat fucker what he wanted to hear.


not much of a friend then


----------



## articul8 (Jan 13, 2015)

Anne Boleyn was a proper bitch


----------



## Santino (Jan 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> He never burnt heretics for their first offence, only for knowingly persisting in spreading heresy.


Such mercy. The man was practically a saint.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 13, 2015)

Santino said:


> Such mercy. The man was practically a saint.


No he is a saint


----------



## Santino (Jan 13, 2015)

sigh


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2015)

articul8 said:


> No, not by the standards of his own day.  He never burnt heretics for their first offence, only for knowingly persisting in spreading heresy.  And at the time leading people from the true path of faith was equated with persuading them to let their souls burn in hell for all eternity.  So the burning of persistent heretics needs to be understood as a heuristic device in this context (no matter how repugnant to modern sensibilities).   Compared to the (later) death of Edmund Campion who was dragged through the streets, before being dismbowelled alive, and his still living body spliced and diced, it wasn't uniquely horrific.  Or Margaret Clitheroe who was flattened by heavy stones for persisting in the faith.
> 
> More was a great humanist and champion of learning - friend of Erasmus.  And wouldn't tell that fat fucker what he wanted to hear.


A backwards fool protecting the catholic church. and nought else.  A martyr to idiocy


----------



## articul8 (Jan 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> A backwards fool protecting the catholic church. and nought else.  A martyr to idiocy


there was nothing "backwards" about it - he was part of a great surge of classical humanist learning, and sought to reform the catholic church accordingly.  Luther was a kind of Blair figure - coming in and saying that stuff you;ve believed for ages is just a load of old shite, ditch it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2015)

I beg to differ


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 14, 2015)

Whilst those promoting the reformation may have been a been a decidedly mixed bunch - anyone on the side of the catholic church was -  by definition -  a cunt. 
The catholic church was a ruthless, authoritarian, all controlling, utterly corrupt, self serving pile of shit that sought to crush any threat to its power and - crucially - its monopoly on how the bible should be interpreted. 
That's why the idea of a vernacular bible freely available to all was utterly revolutionary.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Whilst those promoting the reformation may have been a been a decidedly mixed bunch - anyone on the side of the catholic church was -  by definition -  a cunt.
> The catholic church was a ruthless, authoritarian, all controlling, utterly corrupt, self serving pile of shit that sought to crush any threat to its power and - crucially - its monopoly on how the bible should be interpreted.
> That's why the idea of a vernacular bible freely available to all was utterly revolutionary.



What a load of apologetics that is.  I suggest you read Eamonn Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" - which shows that the popular commitment to the old faith was thriving during this period - and Protestantism was initially very much received as a state attack on the spiritual integrity of ordinary communities, with their specific places of local veneration, cross-generational continuity and specific forms of popular piety.  People were gutted by the prohibition on the traditional mass, the denial of transubstantiation, the right to pray for the dead etc.  

The fact some upwardly mobile entrepreneurial bourgeois tradespeople started getting ideas about how salvation was all about a personal, individual relationship with God (ie. the privatisation of the faith) started wanting the Bible in the vernacular was in no way seen as an unambiguously liberating thing.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> What a load of apologetics that is.  I suggest you read Eamonn Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" - which shows that the popular commitment to the old faith was thriving during this period - and Protestantism was initially very much received as a state attack on the spiritual integrity of ordinary communities, with their specific places of local veneration, cross-generational continuity and specific forms of popular piety.  People were gutted by the prohibition on the traditional mass, the denial of transubstantiation, the right to pray for the dead etc.
> 
> The fact some upwardly mobile entrepreneurial bourgeois tradespeople started getting ideas about how salvation was all about a personal, individual relationship with God (ie. the privatisation of the faith) started wanting the Bible in the vernacular was in no way seen as an unambiguously liberating thing.



What your talking about is religious freedom and tolerance. Of course many of the protestant sects committed their own acts of oppression and authoritarianism - but they weren't a hongenous, overarching power bloc in the way that the catholic church was. But  to be on the side of the primacy of rome at this time is the equivalent of being on the side of the bourbons or romanovs because at the time of the french or russian revolutions. 

The reformation and the vernacular bible made possible all the later radical ideas - the enlightenment, scientific enquiry and method through to socialism and feminism (all vehemently opposed by the Catholic church) 
As well as encouraging much wider literacy within the common people (actively suppressed by the catholic church) it introduced the idea of challenging the accepted order, of people coming up with their own interpretation of the world rather than accepting what the priest told you. 

The vernacular bible was a revolutionary tool - not just for the well educated emerging bourgeoisie - but also for ordinary people - look at its impact on the soldiers of the new model army.  

Protestantism and the reformation was responsible for many many acts of barbarity and gave birth to many ugly and bigotted theologys (i.e the dutch reform church in aparthied south africa) - but it also made change and radicalism possible.The Catholic church was pure dogma and reaction through and though - how could it be anything other when it was so rigidly hierarchical in its organisation and its notion of papal infallibility?  It  vehemently opposed new ideas of science and reason from Galileo to Darwin. It has ever been on the side of fascists and tyrants ever since - from the Ancien regime to Franco's Spain to the Military Juntas of south america.


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> What a load of apologetics that is.





articul8 said:


> So the burning of persistent heretics needs to be understood as a heuristic device...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2015)

> hongenous, overarching power bloc in the way that the catholic church was



it has never, throughout its history, been homegeneous (is that what you meant to say) power bloc - it has always had all number of different competing interests and interpretations competing for influence within it, even whilst preserving an overall unity in the way schismatics and heretical sects of one kind or another immediately denounced and clashed with each other.  The idea that only protestantism could bring about change in religious understanding and institutional practice is demonstrably false - see Pierre Janelle's "The Catholic Reformation" about how the whole period which saw the Council of Trent established the immediate aftermath saw a significant body of reform.  

Did you really just argue that the vernacular bible made scientific inquiry possible!  Aristotle and the early islamic scholars might have had a thing or two to say about that - and both had an influence/dialogue with the emergence of Thomistic philosophy.   The scholarly vision of an Erasmus is hardly the work of someone averse to learning and inquiry.  

Like the emergence of industrial capitalism a little later, the emergence of the state-driven attack on the catholic faith was felt by huge numbers of lay communities as a profoundly traumatic experience, and broke up traditional patterns of alms-giving and charitable provision on which vulnerable people in poverty relied.

"Papal infalibility" is much misunderstood - and only ever meant of items of church dogma (the basic sine qua non of what it means to be in communion with the church) - not everything under the sun.	

Fascist and tyrants may have found supporters and defenders within the Church - but then so have the struggles of the poor and oppressed (in Latin America in particular).   

The little Englander mentality and suspicion of foreigners (eg UKIP!) is also part and parcel of the fallout of the Schism in the Church!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2015)

Maybe continue the quote Santino, and it's clear I'm contextualising not apologising for anything



> And at the time leading people from the true path of faith was equated with persuading them to let their souls burn in hell for all eternity. So the burning of persistent heretics needs to be understood as a heuristic device in this context (no matter how repugnant to modern sensibilities).


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> He never burnt heretics for their first offence, only for knowingly persisting in spreading heresy.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I suggest you read Eamonn Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars".


lol, Professor of Catholocism in 'Catholicism is better' shocker!

The fact that the reformation wasn't popular is made quite clear in most books concerning the period, including, double shocker, Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies.  So what? Without the  rise of protestantism, there'd have been no diggers, no levellers, just the ongoing tyranny of the catholic church.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2015)

Counterfacutals of that sort are notoriously impossible to dis/prove.   You might as well say if the Armada had won (for eg.) you wouldn't have had the slaughter of the Irish catholics under Cromwell.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 15, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Did you really just argue that the vernacular bible made scientific inquiry possible!  Aristotle and the early islamic scholars might have had a thing or two to say about that - and both had an influence/dialogue with the emergence of Thomistic philosophy.   The scholarly vision of an Erasmus is hardly the work of someone averse to learning and inquiry.



The reformation and the vernacular bible broke the near monopoly of the catholic church on knowledge, encouraging wider literacy and secularising scientific inquiry - freeing it from the theological strictures of rome. Its noteworthy that the development of science and ideas was concentrated in the protestant countries - Britiain, Sweden, The German States, the netherlands. look what happened to Galileo when he tried to do science in catholic italy. So yes - the devleopment of modern scientific method   - was very much dependant on their not being an overwheening church banning the results and putting its practicioners under the inquisition.



articul8 said:


> Like the emergence of industrial capitalism a little later, the emergence of the state-driven attack on the catholic faith was felt by huge numbers of lay communities as a profoundly traumatic experience, and broke up traditional patterns of alms-giving and charitable provision on which vulnerable people in poverty relied.



well yeah. But what the reformation attacked was the corruption of the church and its monopoly on knowledge. How that conflict played out does not justify the tyranny of the RC church - anymore than Stalin's forced collectivisation or the trauma unleashed by the french revolution justify absolute monarchy. 





articul8 said:


> Fascist and tyrants may have found supporters and defenders within the Church - but then so have the struggles of the poor and oppressed (in Latin America in particular).



The Vatican sided with the absolute monarchys and the fascists on every occasion (as did its sister orthodox church in the east). And that includes south america - demonstrated by the fact that they excommunicated the liberation theologists.  

And I cant believe that anyone can argue that banning vernacular bibles in order to keep the knowledge and intepreation of scripture in the hands of the priesthood is anything other than an obscenity. 

Are you a catholic? Is this some tribal defence?


----------



## pennimania (Jan 15, 2015)

When is it on -Wolf Hall I mean?

utopia is quite a weird read wherever you stand on More, I found it very surreal.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2015)

pennimania said:


> When is it on -Wolf Hall I mean?


starts next wednesday


----------



## pennimania (Jan 15, 2015)

Thanks


----------



## Santino (Jan 16, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Counterfacutals of that sort are notoriously impossible to dis/prove.   You might as well say if the Armada had won (for eg.) you wouldn't have had the slaughter of the Irish catholics under Cromwell.


You have to understand Cromwell's slaughter of the Irish Catholics as a heuristic device.


----------



## ringo (Jan 21, 2015)

Tonight - BBC2 9pm


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Anne Boleyn was a proper bitch


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Counterfacutals of that sort are notoriously impossible to dis/prove.   You might as well say if the Armada had won (for eg.) you wouldn't have had the slaughter of the Irish catholics under Cromwell.



There would have been slaughter - maybe not in 1649, and not in Drogheda - anyway. An English realm under Spanish hegemony would have had major security issues, and those would have included persistent problems in the "other island", problems so knotty they would have elicited a gordian solution.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Luther was a kind of Blair figure - coming in and saying that stuff you;ve believed for ages is just a load of old shite, ditch it.



But is was a load of shite then and it still is a load of shite.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Counterfacutals of that sort are notoriously impossible to dis/prove.   You might as well say if the Armada had won (for eg.) you wouldn't have had the slaughter of the Irish catholics under Cromwell.



You might have had protestants slaughtered instead.

It's doubtful anything particularly 'christian' would have happened at any rate.


----------



## ringo (Jan 22, 2015)

It didn't set Urban alight then?

I enjoyed it, looking forward to the rest. Mrs R got a bit bored - not much going on at times and loads of characters and threads and a lot of jumping about in time and place.

One of the things I found impressive in the books is the pace. It's incredibly well controlled so that the same steady pace is kept up incessantly and gives you a good understanding of the passage of time in the narrative. As more and more happens and increasing numbers of characters are introduced you have to work quite hard to keep up and understand the nuances of the slights, influence and impact of events to each religion and aristocratic line. Not sure that was really conveyed in the TV show, could have done with a bit of narration or some other ploy to keep viewers who don't know the events up to speed. There's not always much action but there is always a lot going on, and that builds and builds as it goes forward. Reckon many viewers won't have the patience to wait around for it though.

Mark Rylance is great as Cromwell, liked pretty much all the casting. The death of his family was really well done, would have liked more on his youth, but I guess they'll weave that in.


----------



## JimW (Jan 22, 2015)

Thought it was excellent,superbly adapted and cast.
Thing it brought back to me about the books is how well Mantel realised even quite incidental characters,real sense of full human beings with their own lives and motivations for the most fleeting of appearances in the story.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2015)

I liked it. It was much, much better than the book.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 22, 2015)

I would quite like oli cromwells hat he wore in this


----------



## ringo (Jan 22, 2015)

Thomas Cromwell, Oliver wasn't born for another 60 odd years.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 22, 2015)

Oliver Cromwell's hat he wore in Parliament in 1653.






Thomas Cromwell's hat


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

I loved it but I'm not sure I'd have been able to follow it if I hadn't read the book.
And I should have been asked to play Henry, not that Eton posh boy.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Because the Tudor monarchs weren't posh


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Manter said:


> Because the Tudor monarchs weren't posh


It's called _acting, _dear boy*

*Olivier quote. I know you're not a boy.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's called _acting, _dear boy*
> 
> *Olivier quote. I know you're not a boy.


Are you an act-oor?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Manter said:


> Are you an act-oor?


All the world's a stage.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> All the world's a stage.


You do have a nicely turned calf. Can quite see you in a Tudor get-up...


----------



## youngian (Jan 22, 2015)

So is Cromwell in this portrayal a self-serving hack whose main purpose is preservation or does he have deeper political and religious commitments? Also Rylance seems to be showing a crafty courtier who can play Machiavellian games but not someone who is relishing it, just doing it to survive changing fortunes. Speaking of which I hope we don't see too much of Mark Gatiss hamming it up with cunning evil plans.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Manter said:


> You do have a nicely turned calf. Can quite see you in a Tudor get-up...


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Bugger, no codpiece....


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

I even did it for real once:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I even did it for real once:
> View attachment 66728


sadly someone seems to have slammed a bar of gold into the side of your head


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

The things other people keep in their wardrobes....


----------



## Cloo (Jan 22, 2015)

I think it was excellent... it's hard to adapt Mantell's stuff in some way as her genius (and I do think it's genius) is totally immerse you in another time and really make you invest in her characters. But they did a great job of focusing on characters, the small details of their interactions and the toughness of their dilemmas.


----------



## magneze (Jan 22, 2015)

I thought it was dull and entirely unengaging. Disappointing. Maybe it'll get better. The book was ok.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Cloo said:


> I think it was excellent... it's hard to adapt Mantell's stuff in some way as her genius (and I do think it's genius) is totally immerse you in another time and really make you invest in her characters. But they did a great job of focusing on characters, the small details of their interactions and the toughness of their dilemmas.


wrong Mantel/l.  Mantell found dinosaurs, Mantel wrote books


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2015)

Great start, I thought. Occasionally a bit heavy on the exposition, but that will likely stop after the first episode and we know who everyone is. If I had one criticism, its that everything looked a bit too clean.  One of the strengths of the book was that it showed how literally grubby much of even royal life was - tricky to keep the rain and mud of clothes and hallways in the sixteenth century. A minor detail tho


----------



## Chz (Jan 23, 2015)

I wanted to like it, but I went to sleep halfway through. It all looks impeccably well done and acted, but my lord was it boring. Which is a real surprise, given how much they have to cram in. Maybe it's the speed that things go by at that makes it fail to grab me.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2015)

belboid said:


> Great start, I thought. Occasionally a bit heavy on the exposition, but that will likely stop after the first episode and we know who everyone is. If I had one criticism, its that everything looked a bit too clean.  One of the strengths of the book was that it showed how literally grubby much of even royal life was - tricky to keep the rain and mud of clothes and hallways in the sixteenth century. A minor detail tho



I liked the (literal) darkness of the intro scene and sort of hoped they'd continue the realism in a sort of Barry Lyndon way, but yeah - minor. I also enjoyed it, not read the book though. Perhaps I liked the dullness, it felt like observing the characters going about their business rather than the kind of ultra-dramatised versions of stuff that we get these days. My cousin's in it, I think as one of the nobels who go on to be framed when Henry wants to axe Boleyn.

Also Orang Utan has 'forgotten' to credit me as the creator of King Utan VIII, the swine.


----------



## magneze (Jan 23, 2015)

belboid said:


> Great start, I thought. Occasionally a bit heavy on the exposition, but that will likely stop after the first episode and we know who everyone is. If I had one criticism, its that everything looked a bit too clean.  One of the strengths of the book was that it showed how literally grubby much of even royal life was - tricky to keep the rain and mud of clothes and hallways in the sixteenth century. A minor detail tho


Yeah, this is something that Game of Thrones does much much better and Wolf Hall suffers in comparison. IMO comparing the two in terms of 'look', Game of Thrones looks more genuine.


----------



## ringo (Jan 23, 2015)

magneze said:


> Yeah, this is something that Game of Thrones does much much better and Wolf Hall suffers in comparison. IMO comparing the two in terms of 'look', Game of Thrones looks more genuine.



Right, 'cos giants, frozen monsters, dragons and talking crows are much more genuine than actual humans that existed


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2015)

Cid said:


> I liked the (literal) darkness of the intro scene and sort of hoped they'd continue the realism in a sort of Barry Lyndon way, but yeah - minor. I also enjoyed it, not read the book though. Perhaps I liked the dullness, it felt like observing the characters going about their business rather than the kind of ultra-dramatised versions of stuff that we get these days. My cousin's in it, I think as one of the nobels who go on to be framed when Henry wants to axe Boleyn.
> 
> Also Orang Utan has 'forgotten' to credit me as the creator of King Utan VIII, the swine.


I'm sorry. I'd forgotten it was you. I thought it might have been a colleague!


----------



## ringo (Jan 23, 2015)

btw I'm being a bit facetious. In reality most of the characters in the first episode of WH were royalty, nobility or at least courtiers and most of it was in great houses or palaces. Appearance would have been everything to them to uphold their social standing. It was how they showed the masses how far above them they were and their clothes were made from material it would have take the general populace years to afford.

Python nailed it 40 years ago:

"Who's that?"
"Must be a king"
"How do you know that?"
"He hasn't got shit all over him."


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2015)

Chz said:


> I wanted to like it, but I went to sleep halfway through. It all looks impeccably well done and acted, but my lord was it boring. Which is a real surprise, given how much they have to cram in. Maybe it's the speed that things go by at that makes it fail to grab me.



Yeah - im watching it cos im reading the book - but I think they've stayed too faithful to the novel - its TV drama - so it needs to be a bit simpler in its story telling and have a bit more action, more visual drama and less people in funny hats frowning at each other.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2015)

magneze said:


> Yeah, this is something that Game of Thrones does much much better and Wolf Hall suffers in comparison. IMO comparing the two in terms of 'look', Game of Thrones looks more genuine.


LOL. What a ridiculous statement.


----------



## ringo (Jan 23, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yeah - im watching it cos im reading the book - but I think they've stayed too faithful to the novel - its TV drama - so it needs to be a bit simpler in its story telling and have a bit more action, more visual drama and less people in funny hats frowning at each other.



You wanted it dumbed down? They already did that in other series like The Tudors.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 23, 2015)

ringo said:


> You wanted it dumbed down? They already did that in other series like The Tudors.



Its not about "dumbing down" - its about doing it in a way that's appropriate to the medium. I enjoyed it - but i imagine people who hadn't read the book may well have been confused and bored.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its not about "dumbing down" - its about doing it in a way that's appropriate to the medium. I enjoyed it - but i imagine people who hadn't read the book may well have been confused and bored.



'Appropriate to the medium' of TV? I think there are a fairly wide number of potential interpretations of that... As I said I enjoyed it and haven't read it. I liked that it was people in funny hats frowning, rather than people in funny hats shagging/murdering/warring. Different pace, more room for strong acting to come through.


----------



## JimW (Jan 23, 2015)

On the look thing, did think one of.the downsides of the authentic locations was the aged dark timbers when suppose they'd still be looking fresh at the time.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 23, 2015)

JimW said:


> On the look thing, did think one of.the downsides of the authentic locations was the aged dark timbers when suppose they'd still be looking fresh at the time.


And bricks. 

I enjoyed it and I haven't read the books either. I loved the way you didn't get to see Henry until the very end. I thought it was very funny in places and that the pace was just right


----------



## Ms T (Jan 23, 2015)

Mark Rylance is such a brilliant actor. He lives round the corner from me (or used to - he may have moved).


----------



## magneze (Jan 23, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> LOL. What a ridiculous statement.


Not really. Wolf Hall is far too clean. It's like a hospital. In Tudor times. That's ridiculous. Where's the mud?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2015)

well, they right sexed that episode up


----------



## susie12 (Jan 30, 2015)

I couldn't get on with the book at all as I am really crap at history but I am finding this gripping mainly because of Mark Rylance who I think is a really wonderful actor.  One of those who does very little but does everything.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2015)

I see articul8 had an article in the Grauniad

Rather pooorly written, as the book doesn't portray More as a humourless or charmless at all, and covers a period of his life much later than that the author is discussing.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 30, 2015)

belboid said:


> I see articul8 had an article in the Grauniad
> 
> Rather pooorly written, as the book doesn't portray More as a humourless or charmless at all, and covers a period of his life much later than that the author is discussing.


I can't claim the credit, but it's a good piece.  WH certainly isn't a charitable portrait of More, whereas it's quite soft on Cromwell (ie. the claims that the monastries were all corrupt and enjoying wealth whilst the poor suffered - on the contrary, the monastries were the main distributors of alms in a context where protestant disdain for good works was downgrading it)


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I can't claim the credit, but it's a good piece.  WH certainly isn't a charitable portrait of More, whereas it's quite soft on Cromwell (ie. the claims that the monastries were all corrupt and enjoying wealth whilst the poor suffered - on the contrary, the monastries were the main distributors of alms in a context where protestant disdain for good works was downgrading it)


Jesus christ!  Of course WH is harder on More than Cromwell, its a book written from (essentially) Cromwell's perspective - counterbalancing all the pro-More drivel (like that article) that just repeats the catholic churches line.

As for the monsteries not being corrupt...well, maybe not compared to the modern Labour Party, but....


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 30, 2015)

For me a key attraction of the book is how humanising it is.  They are not 'baddies' or 'goodies' conniving to kill for kicks, but people acting in the context of their time and place. 

I don't remember it being unsympathetic to More just, as belboid says, from Cromwell's pov.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 30, 2015)

> people acting in the context of their time and place.



That lets Cromwell off the hook far too easily - he was a shape-shifting Peter Mandelson (or perhaps better Alistair Campbell) of his day, oiling up to the rich and powerful and being generally ruinous to the general commonweal, and was hated by large parts of the population [especially in the North].


----------



## innit (Jan 30, 2015)

Ms T said:


> Mark Rylance is such a brilliant actor. He lives round the corner from me (or used to - he may have moved).


I think he's still in the area - Mr innit sees him in the gym sometimes. He's affectionately known in our house as 'the finest actor of his generation', as in 'I saw the finest actor of his generation on the cross trainer earlier'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

JimW said:


> On the look thing, did think one of.the downsides of the authentic locations was the aged dark timbers when suppose they'd still be looking fresh at the time.


And the bare stone walls would have been plastered and painted garishly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2015)

Anyway, I'm enjoying the TV version. I hated the book. I had to give up pretty quickly. I found it dense, turgid, too many ill defined characters too quickly introduced, and too many people doing too many things I wasn't interested in. 

I wanted to like it, as I've always liked Bolt's A Man For All Seasons and wanted to see the story told from Cromwell's perspective.  The TV version is doing that where the book failed.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 30, 2015)

I gave up after about ten minutes of the first episode. The acting/script seemed far too modern, like it was just a bunch of guys in costumes prancing about pretending to be Tudors.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 30, 2015)

I love the lighting, or rather the lack of it. When it's night, there's the moon and candles. When it's day, there's daylight. And that's it. No dramatic backlighting or side fills, just natural lights. They must be using one hell of a camera.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 30, 2015)

The camera angles are really clever too. You don't get up close and personal to Henry until Cromwell does. And there was a shot in this week's episode where the top of his head was cropped and he was shot from the side ie exactly the way that Cromwell was looking at him


----------



## Crispy (Jan 30, 2015)

I haven't read the books, but I'm just about managing to keep tabs on everyone. Sparrow has read them, so she's a useful reference when I get unstuck


----------



## articul8 (Jan 30, 2015)

I did think the book was badly in need of a more interventionist editor.  Could;ve cut a fair bit of slack out.


----------



## Epona (Jan 30, 2015)

I wasn't honestly expecting to enjoy this because it is one of my least favourite periods of history (tbh I tend to find it all a bit uninteresting :| - just for clarity I am an archaeologist and historian but this is just not my period) but I have now seen the first part and did think it was very well done and it kept my interest, I also thought Mark Rylance was utterly fucking superb.

I haven't read the book- because this isn't an era that I would typically be interested in.  I will certainly give it a go at some point though.


----------



## braindancer (Jan 30, 2015)

I fell asleep 20 minutes in during the first episode.  When my partner announced that she was going to watch episode 2 last night I persuaded her to let me catch up with what I slept through in episode 1 first.  I had 40 minutes to go but I fell asleep again after 20 .  I think I might leave her to it....  I enjoyed the book a lot but this hasn't grabbed me at all.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2015)

I'm really enjoying it. I keep wondering how much is based on real incidents. Did Henry really call Cromwell to his bedchamber to relate the nightmare of his dead brother coming back to chastise him, thus giving Cromwell the chance to turn that idea around and help set up the dissolution of the monasteries? Probably not, but it's an interesting idea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2015)

enjoyed this so far. caught up with it last night, some bits were a little too dark because I was watching on an old imac rather than a hd tv set


----------



## LeMoose (Jan 31, 2015)

This is not easy to follow if you're not aware of Tudor history.


----------



## Santino (Jan 31, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I did think the book was badly in need of a more interventionist editor.  Could;ve cut a fair bit of slack out.


You just think it's insufficiently Catholic.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jan 31, 2015)

I watched both episodes the other day and I thought it was excellent. Intelligent and brilliantly acted. I may even read the books now.
I have read around the subject for years - although I'm far from an expert - and so I cannot comment on whether it's easy to follow if you don't know about the history. But the characters seemed entirely believable to me. The king looks magnificent and is utterly wrapped up in his position with scant awareness of others or indeed the real world.  I love the interactions he has with Cromwell. I love the way Mark Rylance sort of stands and looks away in their interactions. Not meeting the kings eye unless the king sanctions it. I find that very believable given one could lose ones head so easily in those days. I find I can feel his fear and trepidation and also his ambition in those scenes. What a fantastic actor he is.


----------



## JimW (Jan 31, 2015)

Re-reading the book and don't recognise the criticisms of it as over-wordy or turgid. She's an excellent writer for my money and all the detail serves a purpose in creating a sense of those particular times and mores which are now quite remote or of Cromwell's character as she envisages him.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 31, 2015)

Mrs Miggins said:


> I watched both episodes the other day and I thought it was excellent. Intelligent and brilliantly acted. I may even read the books now.
> I have read around the subject for years - although I'm far from an expert - and so I cannot comment on whether it's easy to follow if you don't know about the history. But the characters seemed entirely believable to me. The king looks magnificent and is utterly wrapped up in his position with scant awareness of others or indeed the real world.  I love the interactions he has with Cromwell. I love the way Mark Rylance sort of stands and looks away in their interactions. Not meeting the kings eye unless the king sanctions it. I find that very believable given one could lose ones head to easily in those days. I find I can feel his fear and trepidation and also his ambition in those scenes. What a fantastic actor he is.





yeah it is a bit of an acting/production/dialogue masterclass. All the characters are really vivid - and not just the principals,  but also small parts like Thomas Moore's wife who gets about two lines but is instantly unforgettable "everything down there in good working order cromwell?!".

Liking it more now its got into its stride. Its connoisseurs telly - shades of i claudius in how it lets the script and actors do the work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 31, 2015)

How many episodes are there? For some reason I thought it was four, but surely it will have to be more?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jan 31, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> shades of i claudius in how it lets the script and actors do the work.



I Clavdivs! you're showing your age there mate! That's even a little bit before my time 

I'm going to sound like a knob here but I go to the theatre a lot and I think I can recognise good acting when I see it. Rylance being able to portray all the things I've described in my previous post by the arch of an eyebrow or the turn of his face. He even walks in the right way for the part somehow. He's awesome. And Damien Lewis is no slouch either. Or indeed anyone else in the piece although Mark Gatiss (who I adore!) is hamming it up a bit as someone has said earlier on this thread.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 31, 2015)

Last time I saw Mark Rylance, he was a white-faced lady down at the Globe with Stephen Fry running around in yellow garters.


----------



## Santino (Jan 31, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How many episodes are there? For some reason I thought it was four, but surely it will have to be more?


Six


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jan 31, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Last time I saw Mark Rylance, he was a white-faced lady down at the Globe with Stephen Fry running around in yellow garters.


Sounds like fun!


----------



## Manter (Jan 31, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> I'm really enjoying it. I keep wondering how much is based on real incidents. Did Henry really call Cromwell to his bedchamber to relate the nightmare of his dead brother coming back to chastise him, thus giving Cromwell the chance to turn that idea around and help set up the dissolution of the monasteries? Probably not, but it's an interesting idea.


If you read the book there is a bit at the end where she says what she has based on evidence and what isn't.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 31, 2015)

Ms T said:


> Mark Rylance is such a brilliant actor. He lives round the corner from me (or used to - he may have moved).


I saw him at the Globe in Richard III (playing the lead) a few years ago. Quite a few people fainted that day (due to the heat).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 31, 2015)

Actual LOL


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 1, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I saw him at the Globe in Richard III (playing the lead) a few years ago. Quite a few people fainted that day (due to the heat).


Would  "swooned" have been a better word to use in that sentence?


----------



## youngian (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> That lets Cromwell off the hook far too easily - he was a shape-shifting Peter Mandelson (or perhaps better Alistair Campbell) of his day, oiling up to the rich and powerful and being generally ruinous to the general commonweal, and was hated by large parts of the population [especially in the North].


Rylance is not cackling in the shadows like Olivier's Richard III or Francis Urquart with a copy of the Prince in his hand but is his performance showing that he is that much more than a self-promoting hack? Possibly, he maybe passionate about reformation or just loves the game but its a great tribute to Rylance that he keeps the viewer guessing.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

youngian said:


> Rylance is not cackling in the shadows like Olivier's Richard III or Francis Urquart with a copy of the Prince in his hand but is his performance showing that he is that much more than a self-promoting hack? Possibly, he maybe passionate about reformation or just loves the game but its a great tribute to Rylance that he keeps the viewer guessing.


Would we be saying  the same of a sympathetic portrait of Mandelson (does he just love the game?  Is he passionate about neoliberalism?...)?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Would we be saying  the same of a sympathetic portrait of Mandelson (does he just love the game?  Is he passionate about neoliberalism?...)?


If you honestly believe that to be a serious comparison, then there is no hope for you.  You have no understanding of history, politics or human beings.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> If you honestly believe that to be a serious comparison, then there is no hope for you.  You have no understanding of history, politics or human beings.


As Hegel said "all comparisons are odious" - but I think there are parallels - both are/were shills for a powerful current seeking to reform society to advance their own material interests....


----------



## youngian (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Would we be saying  the same of a sympathetic portrait of Mandelson (does he just love the game?  Is he passionate about neoliberalism?...)?


Is Rylance's portrayal sympathetic or nuanced and multifaceted? 

And no I wouldn't like to see Mandelson served up as a pantomime villain. There maybe much that is admirable in someone who's prepared to get their hands dirty for the team by being a ruthless operator instead of worrying about their own reputation and popularity.

Having said that I've been watching Harry Shearer in Nixon's the One in which the dialogue is his own taped transcripts. He's an even more loathsome character than any liberal Democrat dramatist could ever dream up.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm not blaming Rylance - he's playing Mantel's character very well.  But I blame the book's failure to properly interrogate the whig history that portrays the development of the British state as a seemlessly gradual path out of superstition and backwardness towards reason and progress and the triumph of the individual.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm not blaming Rylance - he's playing Mantel's character very well.  But I blame the book's failure to properly interrogate the whig history that portrays the development of the British state as a seemlessly gradual path out of superstition and backwardness towards reason and progress and the triumph of the individual.


good thing that isn't what the book does in the slightest.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> good thing that isn't what the book does in the slightest.


not as such, but it's an implicit assumption in the background colouring the treatment of eg. the dissolution of the monasteries


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 4, 2015)

Maybe someone should write a book about this period from the point of view of the monasteries and/or the Catholic church.  Of course then it wouldn't be a book about Thomas Cromwell from his viewpoint.

This is Thomas Cromwell's story. It's not trying to be all encompassing.  It's not its job to say what you want said.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> not as such, but it's an implicit assumption in the background colouring the treatment of eg. the dissolution of the monasteries


utter, utter rubbish.  have you actually read the book, or just the review in The Tablet?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

Of course I've read the book, and Bring up the Bodies, and the stage play.  It's funny you should mention The Tablet, though, as Eamonn Duffy has an excellent article about Thomas More in this week's


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

quimcunx said:


> Maybe someone should write a book about this period from the point of view of the monasteries and/or the Catholic church.  Of course then it wouldn't be a book about Thomas Cromwell from his viewpoint.
> 
> This is Thomas Cromwell's story. It's not trying to be all encompassing.  It's not its job to say what you want said.



*Why* tell this story sympathetically through Cromwell's eyes though?  Like if you were writing a play about New Labour, would it be best told sympathetically from the point of view of Mandelson or Campbell?


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 4, 2015)

Why not?  The story of this part of Tudor history has been told loads of times. Maybe she fancied a change of viewpoint.  Maybe she told it from his point of view because he intrigued her.  Maybe she just didn't care what articul8 thinks she *should* do, preferring to do what she wants to do.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

Well, you might also enjoy an imaginatively sympathetic portrayal of Mandelson then, as this period;s been depicted a fair bit and maybe an author would be intrigued by him.  Fair enough.  It would make me want to put my foot through the screen though.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> *Why* tell this story sympathetically through Cromwell's eyes though?  Like if you were writing a play about New Labour, would it be best told sympathetically from the point of view of Mandelson or Campbell?


Thomas More isn't 'Old Labour' tho.  He's another elitist liberal wanker. 

You do realise you're actually defending feudalist patronage here, dont you?


----------



## Santino (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Well, you might also enjoy an imaginatively sympathetic portrayal of Mandelson then, as this period;s been depicted a fair bit and maybe an author would be intrigued by him.  Fair enough.  It would make me want to put my foot through the screen though.


Stop using this comparison, it's pathetic.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> Thomas More isn't 'Old Labour' tho.  He's another elitist liberal wanker.
> You do realise you're actually defending feudalist patronage here, dont you?



I'm defending popular resistance to the capitalist/protestant privatisation of religion and destruction of community.  No one is advocating a return to feudalism, but there is a buried progressive element in those resisting the bourgeoisification of society and the state.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

Santino said:


> Stop using this comparison, it's pathetic.


how so - they aren't identical but there's a parallel.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm defending popular resistance to the capitalist/protestant privatisation of religion and destruction of community.


fuck me, you've bought the catholic view hook line and sinker!  

Sorry, but it's rubbish. Ahistorical nonsense.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> how so - they aren't identical but there's a parallel.


If you really believe so, please start a new thread in history.  this is television.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> fuck me, you've bought the catholic view hook line and sinker!
> 
> Sorry, but it's rubbish. Ahistorical nonsense.


On the contrary it has been the view taken by a whole wave of recent historical scholarship - by the likes of Scarisbrick, Haigh and Duffy.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> On the contrary it has been the view taken by a whole wave of recent historical scholarship - by the likes of Scarisbrick, Haigh and Duffy.


Have you read these? In your hole.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Well, you might also enjoy an imaginatively sympathetic portrayal of Mandelson then, as this period;s been depicted a fair bit and maybe an author would be intrigued by him.  Fair enough.  It would make me want to put my foot through the screen though.



Might I suggest you don't read it then.   Maybe there is a fawning novel from the catholic pov you could read instead, extolling their oh so many historic virtues. 

You just seem to be in the huff that catholicism isn't the star victim of the piece.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

Scarisbrook who went to the _John Fisher_ school??  He'll be unbiased then.  Not unlike the Professor of Catholicism, Duffy.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read these? In your hole.


Yes! The Stripping of the Altars is a particularly fine scholarly work, about how the impact of Cromwell's policies and their aftermath were traumatic interruptions for most ordinary folk.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> Scarisbrook who went to the _John Fisher_ school??  He'll be unbiased then.  Not unlike the Professor of Catholicism, Duffy.


The old canard of "bias" - it's precisely their perspective that has encouraged them to shed fresh light on the history


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The old canard of "bias" - it's precisely their perspective that has encouraged them to shed fresh light on the history










I look forward to your posts showing how David Irving was the best person to write about Dresden.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The old canard of "bias" - it's precisely their perspective that has encouraged them to shed fresh light on the history


And shed their bias? It's precisely their bias that has led to them being free of bias?

Your quest to be an oppressed catholic now you have given up on all other pretence of being w/c is laughable. Esp so when it involves secretly supporting a hierarchical murdering monster. Take that celtic top off btw it fucking reeks.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> secretly supporting a hierarchical murdering monster.


 Who did More murder?  Another tell-tale slip.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Who did More murder?  Another tell-tale slip.


The catholic church is the hierarchical murdering monster you prat. Seriously, go dye your hair ginger.


----------



## Santino (Feb 4, 2015)

We've already established that those murders were merely heuristic devices, do try to keep up.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The catholic church is the hierarchical murdering monster you prat. Seriously, go dye your hair ginger.


why do you assume I am equating catholicism with Celtic identity?  If anything the indigenous catholicism of Lancastrians long pre-dated Irish immigration, although - together with the proximity to ports esp Liverpool, this might be one reason why so many Irish settled up there (however there was plenty of friction between "respectable" English catholics and the poor Irish). 

I am not trying to whitewash the history of the church - which has a hell of a lot to answer for -  but to problematise received narratives about the relationship between the British state and protestantism being enlightening and progressive.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

And to show that you're one of oppressed. Of course, you _just happen_ to be wearing a celtic top. Play us a song on your tin-whistle wee man would ye?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm defending popular resistance to the capitalist/protestant privatisation of religion and destruction of community.  No one is advocating a return to feudalism, but there is a buried progressive element in those resisting the bourgeoisification of society and the state.



But you are also defending  by extension  the persecution and murder of people for the 'sin' of rejecting the catholic church's monopoly on knowledge.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> And to show that you're one of oppressed. Of course, you _just happen_ to be wearing a celtic top. Play us a song on your tin-whistle wee man would ye?


My interest as far as this period goes is more to do with the local history of Lancashire


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> My interest as far as this period goes is more to do with the local history of Lancashire


Is it bollocks - it's directly related to post-war irish immigration into the UK and racist experiences and wanting to set yourself on the side of/among  the oppressed.That's why you have the celtic top on rather then PNE.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> No, not by the standards of his own day.  He never burnt heretics for their first offence, only for knowingly persisting in spreading heresy.  And at the time leading people from the true path of faith was equated with persuading them to let their souls burn in hell for all eternity.  So the burning of persistent heretics needs to be understood as a heuristic device in this context (no matter how repugnant to modern sensibilities).   Compared to the (later) death of Edmund Campion who was dragged through the streets, before being dismbowelled alive, and his still living body spliced and diced, it wasn't uniquely horrific.  Or Margaret Clitheroe who was flattened by heavy stones for persisting in the faith.
> 
> More was a great humanist and champion of learning - friend of Erasmus.  And wouldn't tell that fat fucker what he wanted to hear.


A bit like ISIS. And al-baghdadi.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Is it bollocks - it's directly related to post-war irish immigration into the UK and racist experiences and wanting to set yourself on the side of/among  the oppressed.That's why you have the celtic top on rather then PNE.


I do support PNE - I've had a PNE season ticket.  Most of my PNE supporting mates also support Celtic too (although one, and a roughly equal part of the fanbase) also supports Rangers.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> A bit like ISIS. And al-baghdadi.


I think you'll find More put a lot more store by reading and learning than Boko Haram.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I think you'll find More put a lot more store by reading and learning than Boko Haram.


Well done 1) on confusing an african  islamist group for ISIS 2) ignoring the point 3) saying something irrelevant.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Well done 1) on confusing an african  islamist group for ISIS 2) ignoring the point 3) saying something irrelevant.


I wasn't confusing them - I chose them as my example owing to the name.  2) what point? 3) see 2


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I wasn't confusing them - I chose them as my example owing to the name.  2) what point? 3) see 2


1) Yes you were 2) that your logic is that of ISIS and  al-baghdadi 3) Why? Telling me that More read books is irrelevant.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 4, 2015)

I can't wait till 10pm when we can start talking about the TV again


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> 1) Yes you were 2) that your logic is that of ISIS and  al-baghdadi 3) Why? Telling me that More read books is irrelevant.


1) No I wasn't - I'm fully aware that Boko Haram are predominantly based in Nigeria, and ISIS aren't 2) no it isn't 3) I'm not defending More's ideas as the basis for a contemporary stance, I'm talking about understanding it in context.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Who did More murder?



Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury, James Bainham, Thomas Hitton and Thomas Bilney.

Just off the top of my head.  Do you want more?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Do you want more?


too late: henry viii already got him.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> 1) No I wasn't - I'm fully aware that Boko Haram are predominantly based in Nigeria, and ISIS aren't 2) no it isn't 3) I'm not defending More's ideas as the basis for a contemporary stance, I'm talking about understanding it in context.


There is no context in which the following is not laughable:



> And at the time leading people from the true path of faith was equated with persuading them to let their souls burn in hell for all eternity. So the burning of persistent heretics needs to be understood as a heuristic device in this context (no matter how repugnant to modern sensibilities).


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm not saying it is a legitimate heuristic device, that's just an explanation that there was a logic behind it.  A twisted, barbarous logic no doubt but a logic all the same - and not any more scandalous than that meted out to "traitors".


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying it is a legitimate heuristic device, that's just an explanation that there was a logic behind it.  A twisted, barbarous logic no doubt but a logic all the same.


 how do you think you're ever going to have any influence in the working class (or any other class for that matter) when at the drop of a hat you fall into some sort of cant?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2015)

The thread upon which you want to discuss this subject, is here, articul8


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 4, 2015)

Tudor raves look well boring.

And what was with the Obi Wan Kenobi nod? It didn't have to be THAT modern.


----------



## ringo (Feb 4, 2015)

Best one yet. 

I liked the dance, highlighted the difference between the starchy formality of observed behaviour and the shouting and shagging going on behind closed doors. 

Is a nod particularly modern?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 4, 2015)

referring to star wars is very modern!


----------



## JimW (Feb 4, 2015)

The "notorious virgin" line was well delivered but (must be because I'm re-reading it now) thought nearly all the rest worked much better in the book. Thought the heretic burning at the end looked a bit too Python as well. But still enjoying it.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 4, 2015)

Claire Foy is brilliant.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 4, 2015)

I really fancy the lass who plays Mary. not her name though.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 5, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Claire Foy is brilliant.


Isn't she? Ambition just seethes off her.
This is turning into one of those shows that I don't want to end as I'm watching.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 5, 2015)

Loved the massive row about Percy and Anne and then Cromwell's subsequent "little chat" with Percy


----------



## ringo (Feb 5, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> referring to star wars is very modern!



There is no way that was a reference to Star Wars.

Mary (Charity Wakefield) stole the show last night.


----------



## youngian (Feb 5, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Claire Foy is brilliant.


Is there much historical comment on what sort of person she was? Looking at Ann Boleyn's background her father was a diplomat and she was well versed and educated in that world. Someone who perhaps would have been a bit more subtle and refined in expressing her ambition.


----------



## Santino (Feb 5, 2015)

youngian said:


> Is there much historical comment on what sort of person she was? Looking at Ann Boleyn's background her father was a diplomat and she was well versed and educated in that world. Someone who perhaps would have been a bit more subtle and refined in expressing her ambition.


 There's nowt so queer as folk.


----------



## youngian (Feb 5, 2015)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Loved the massive row about Percy and Anne and then Cromwell's subsequent "little chat" with Percy


There was a bit of class war going on there with Cromwell trying to explain to the overextended aristocrat that money talks now and people like him pull strings.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 5, 2015)

youngian said:


> There was a bit of class war going on there with Cromwell trying to explain to the overextended aristocrat that money talks now and people like him pull strings.


Ah I see! Yes. It very effective and very well done.


----------



## ringo (Feb 5, 2015)

youngian said:


> There was a bit of class war going on there with Cromwell trying to explain to the overextended aristocrat that money talks now and people like him pull strings.



And revenge against each of the four who played devils in the play, torturing his beloved Wolsey.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 5, 2015)

ringo said:


> There is no way that was a reference to Star Wars.


He was wearing a cloak and said 'more powerful than you could possibly imagine'. Good enough for me.


----------



## ringo (Feb 5, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He was wearing a cloak and said 'more powerful than you could possibly imagine'. Good enough for me.



Oh dear.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> too late: henry viii already got him.



Jesus fucking Christ. Spoiler alert or what?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 6, 2015)

More denied being involved in the torture of any detainees.  Let alone racking them himself.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 6, 2015)

I like how cromwell - having won our sympathy with his brains and nerve - is getting more sinister - you can almost see the wheels turning in his mind as we try and work out what his game actually is - is he dedicated to the cause of creating a protestant england? - or just the cause of mr thomas cromwell?
he is very much representing the emerging bourgeois - rational, humanist and ruthless - a very modern sensibility, pitted against the dogmatism and romanticism of feudal Catholicism. Fascinating stuff - so much going on below the surface.
Clare foy is brilliant - and i also particularly enjoyed bernard hill having the time of his life with lines like  " by the thrice beshitten shroud of Lazarus!"


----------



## JimW (Feb 6, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> ... and i also particularly enjoyed bernard hill having the time of his life with lines like  " by the thrice beshitten shroud of Lazarus!"


Or trying to assault the holy Maid of Kent


----------



## Santino (Feb 7, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He was wearing a cloak and said 'more powerful than you could possibly imagine'. Good enough for me.


I thought he said "suffer more than you could possibly imagine".


----------



## Santino (Feb 7, 2015)

Thomas More Powerful Than You Could Possibly Imagine.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 7, 2015)

articul8 said:


> More denied being involved in the torture of any detainees.  Let alone racking them himself.



he just fanatically persecuted heretics and then had them burnt. The man was all heart.


----------



## Santino (Feb 7, 2015)




----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2015)

That possibly is a nod to Obi Wan


----------



## Santino (Feb 7, 2015)

The addition of the word 'possibly' to the screenplay (ad libbed?) does seem a little suspect.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 7, 2015)

Maybe Rylance slipped it in for a laugh. 
Anyway there is an Ewok appearance credited in episode 5 on IMDb.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2015)

so did they burn the prophetic nun, but they beheaded wolsey.

not really fair is it


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> so did they burn the prophetic nun, but they beheaded wolsey.
> 
> not really fair is it


it's not gory enough - disappointing on that front.


----------



## JimW (Feb 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> so did they burn the prophetic nun, but they beheaded wolsey.
> 
> not really fair is it


IIRC she just got sent of a stand-in-the-stocks repentance tour of the country but didn't get burned, but might have that wrong.

ETA She's doing a London gig of that when Cromwell meets More and the latter says she enjoys the attention.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Clare foy is brilliant - and i also particularly enjoyed bernard hill having the time of his life with lines like  " by the thrice beshitten shroud of Lazarus!"


Sparrow and I find ourselves rubbing our hands at any scene with Norfolk in it cos we just know Bernard Hill's going to chew the scenery to shreds


----------



## JimW (Feb 12, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Sparrow and I find ourselves rubbing our hands at any scene with Norfolk in it cos we just know Bernard Hill's going to chew the scenery to shreds


I am enjoying him but onto second book in my re-read i see mantel mentions he's a scrawny character several times, including displaying a shrunken shank for comment, which Hill is a bit too robust for.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> IIRC she just got sent of a stand-in-the-stocks repentance tour of the country but didn't get burned, but might have that wrong.
> 
> ETA She's doing a London gig of that when Cromwell meets More and the latter says she enjoys the attention.


ah right I assumed woman tied to wooden stake and in white robe= burning


----------



## Crispy (Feb 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> I am enjoying him but onto second book in my re-read i see mantel mentions he's a scrawny character several times, including displaying a shrunken shank for comment, which Hill is a bit too robust for.


*shrug* not a big deal really.
After all, Cromwell looks quite plump in the Holbein portrait we saw him sitting for, but Rylance is trim. Contemporous portraits of Henry8 are also quite a bit fatter than Damian Lewis.


----------



## Ms T (Feb 12, 2015)

Bernard Hill is having an ace time, isn't he?


----------



## Ms T (Feb 12, 2015)

Crispy said:


> *shrug* not a big deal really.
> After all, Cromwell looks quite plump in the Holbein portrait we saw him sitting for, but Rylance is trim. Contemporous portraits of Henry8 are also quite a bit fatter than Damian Lewis.


I thought Henry got fat in later life.

Loved the bit with Holbein. So clever.


----------



## JimW (Feb 12, 2015)

Crispy said:


> *shrug* not a big deal really.
> After all, Cromwell looks quite plump in the Holbein portrait we saw him sitting for, but Rylance is trim. Contemporous portraits of Henry8 are also quite a bit fatter than Damian Lewis.


I largely agree but just saying he's going to look odd waving a well-muscled calf around as evidence of wasting away.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 12, 2015)

Ms T said:


> I thought Henry got fat in later life.
> 
> Loved the bit with Holbein. So clever.



Well, More was executed in 1535, and this portrait is from '36



Although I think they're taking some license with the dates, because the portrait of Cromwell was painted in 32-33

(thanks wikipedia!)


----------



## hash tag (Feb 15, 2015)

In case lovers of WH missed it, the superb Mark Rylands eas on desert island discs this morning. A big, wide taste in music. Nice guy.


----------



## Manter (Feb 16, 2015)

I'm only just starting to watch it. Mark Rylance is just fantastic. Amazing actor, so still. Like Fiona Shaw, you just can't take your eyes off him.


----------



## ringo (Feb 20, 2015)

It's rattling along now, seems a bit of a rush doing both books in 6 episodes. Still loving it though. Rylance was fantastic when fearing Henry's wroth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2015)

I've been enjoying how the actor portrays Henry's ability to switch into psychotic rage in the space of a breath


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2015)

Rylance is amazing.  I hadn't seen him in anything before.  I hope to see him much more in future.


----------



## Bungle73 (Feb 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been enjoying how the actor portrays Henry's ability to switch into psychotic rage in the space of a breath


If you notice, he changed after his accident. That's the theory: that he was a reasonable sort of fellow to start with, then had the accident jousting, and suffered brain damage as a result, which changed his personality.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 20, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> If you notice, he changed after his accident. That's the theory: that he was a reasonable sort of fellow to start with, then had the accident jousting, and suffered brain damage as a result, which changed his personality.



Thats not in the books. Its more that he becomes increasingly capricious and having got rid of one wife, he thinks he can do it again by just getting his consigliere to sort things out but "hey - dont bother me with the details". Cromwell clearly unhappy about being handed that particular poisoned chalice/shit sandwich. 

And a rare airing someone saying "cunt" on bbc drama ftw! (is is a first?).


----------



## Santino (Feb 20, 2015)

I loved the shifting power dynamic between them. When Henry was trying to sort-of-apologise to Cromwell. It's the closest he can come to actually begging for his help.


----------



## Bungle73 (Feb 20, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Thats not in the books. Its more that he becomes increasingly capricious and having got rid of one wife, he thinks he can do it again by just getting his consigliere to sort things out but "hey - dont bother me with the details". Cromwell clearly unhappy about being handed that particular poisoned chalice/shit sandwich.
> 
> And a rare airing someone saying "cunt" on bbc drama ftw! (is is a first?).


It may not be in the  books (I haven't read them), but that's the theory doing the rounds, and that's clearly how they've chosen to play it in this drama: there was a clear personality change after the accident, where he became more aggressive and volatile.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-turned-henry-viii-into-a-tyrant-1670421.html


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Feb 20, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Thats not in the books. Its more that he becomes increasingly capricious and having got rid of one wife, he thinks he can do it again by just getting his consigliere to sort things out but "hey - dont bother me with the details". Cromwell clearly unhappy about being handed that particular poisoned chalice/shit sandwich.
> 
> And a rare airing someone saying "cunt" on bbc drama ftw! (is is a first?).


The first time I remember the C word being used on tv, was a dramatisation of Oswald Mosley, which was years ago.
A prison guard called him this. Don't remember if it was BBC or not.


----------



## Santino (Feb 20, 2015)

mystic pyjamas said:


> The first time I remember the C word being used on tv, was a dramatisation of Oswald Mosley, which was years ago.
> A prison guard called him this. Don't remember if it was BBC or not.


It was Channel 4.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 20, 2015)

The first scripted cunt was on ITV!


----------



## Opera Buffa (Feb 20, 2015)

er...


----------



## Opera Buffa (Feb 20, 2015)

scripted 'cunt', hopefully


----------



## Opera Buffa (Feb 20, 2015)

What was it in though?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 20, 2015)

Opera Buffa said:


> What was it in though?


Some kitchen sink drama. I cannot recall. It was in the 70s and I only remember from my tv days. Never saw it. I think the first actual cunt was as early as the 50s.

ETA: I was wrong - Felix Dennis said it on The Frost Report in 1970.
And the name of the ITV programme was No Mama No, in 1979


----------



## Santino (Feb 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Some kitchen sink drama. I cannot recall. It was in the 70s and I only remember from my tv days. Never saw it. I think the first actual cunt was as early as the 50s.


There were loads of cunts on TV in the 1970s.


----------



## Manter (Feb 20, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Thats not in the books. Its more that he becomes increasingly capricious and having got rid of one wife, he thinks he can do it again by just getting his consigliere to sort things out but "hey - dont bother me with the details". Cromwell clearly unhappy about being handed that particular poisoned chalice/shit sandwich.
> 
> And a rare airing someone saying "cunt" on bbc drama ftw! (is is a first?).


It is an increasingly common historical theory I believe. I read this a few years ago now http://www.amazon.co.uk/1536-Year-That-Changed-Henry/dp/0745953328 and it does seem that's how they are playing it. And the transition is in the book, I think- just more subtly played as they are longer.


----------



## Santino (Feb 20, 2015)

Manter said:


> It is an increasingly common historical theory I believe. I read this a few years ago now http://www.amazon.co.uk/1536-Year-That-Changed-Henry/dp/0745953328 and it does seem that's how they are playing it. And the transition is in the book, I think- just more subtly played as they are longer.


Author: "Convenor for History at New College of the Humanities"


----------



## Manter (Feb 20, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Rylance is amazing.  I hadn't seen him in anything before.  I hope to see him much more in future.


I've seen him on the stage before, and he is incredible.


----------



## Manter (Feb 20, 2015)

Santino said:


> Author: "Convenor for History at New College of the Humanities"


Yeah, she wasn't when she wrote that though, she was still at oxford iirc


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 20, 2015)

Manter said:


> It is an increasingly common historical theory I believe. I read this a few years ago now http://www.amazon.co.uk/1536-Year-That-Changed-Henry/dp/0745953328 and it does seem that's how they are playing it. And the transition is in the book, I think- just more subtly played as they are longer.



Seems to be over complicating henrys motives and behavior. He'd already showed himself to be capricious, egotistical and ruthless - as well as being  obsessed with his inability to produce a male heir - and blaming it on his marriages being cursed. His behaviour is consistent and i dont see any major  change that needs to be explained by some personality changing bang on the noggin.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 20, 2015)

back to wolf hall - I like how they have deliberately sought to avoid the seductions of staging historical drama (esp wrt to the tudors) - that of focusing on the  glamour  of the court, the costumes and the opulence of the settings.
Instead - by concentrating on the cromwell - the shadow hugging outsider -  they evoke a world of menace, paranoia  and deadly power struggles where people are constantly watching each other as they orbit the king - with the threat of denunciation and a potentially fatal fall from grace hovering over them all.


----------



## belboid (Feb 24, 2015)

Just caught up, superb episode. Jessica Raine is brilliant. And the scene where some of the Boleyn's are complaining that Cromwell's spy is about, and then shows Ralph & co practically whistling nonchalantly five yards away...


On the 'knock on the head' thing - it does come over as a far more marked change in this. It's not particularly noted in the book, for sure, but it still happened like that. Kosminsky said that he had to do things a bit differently to the book and the plays (which concentrated far more on the revenge aspect). It's not a wholly different Henry, just an even more impetuous one.

There's a good interview with Rylance & Kosminsky on tonights Newsnight, well worth a watch. [Spoiler alert:  it does give away what happens to both Anne and Tommy!]


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Feb 25, 2015)

There's a good interview with Rylance & Kosminsky on tonights Newsnight, well worth a watch. [Spoiler alert:  it does give away what happens to both Anne and Tommy!][/QUOTE]
Don't give the game away.
I hate spoilers.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 25, 2015)

mystic pyjamas said:


> There's a good interview with Rylance & Kosminsky on tonights Newsnight, well worth a watch. [Spoiler alert:  it does give away what happens to both Anne and Tommy!]


Don't give the game away.
I hate spoilers.[/QUOTE]
The Queen dies.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2015)

mystic pyjamas said:


> belboid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was a bit annoying, tho luckily, as it's set in the 1500's, I'd already guessed Crom dies in the end


----------



## binka (Feb 25, 2015)

fucking hell that was a bit grim at the end there!


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 25, 2015)

I wanted to see the head coming off


----------



## ringo (Feb 26, 2015)

binka said:


> fucking hell that was a bit grim at the end there!



It could have been more blood thirsty, the five men convicted of treason for sleeping with Ann Boleyn were beheaded with an axe two days before she was. It was more dramatic to linger on her death than include theirs. The horror of the ladies picking up her head and body, then holding their bloody hands before them was more affecting than geysers of blood and gore.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 26, 2015)

If I'm ever to be beheaded I want that French fella doing it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2015)

binka said:


> fucking hell that was a bit grim at the end there!


what, did you think beheading was a bit like getting a cut while shaving?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I wanted to see the head coming off


fortunately for you there are videos available depicting exactly that


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 26, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> fortunately for you there are videos available depicting exactly that


I don't have the stomach for those, but I do like a bit of pretend gore.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> If I'm ever to be beheaded I want that French fella doing it


I must be remembering the wrong queen, but I was expecting it to take a few goes.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 26, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I must be remembering the wrong queen, but I was expecting it to take a few goes.



Usually it did with an ax, that's why they brought in the specialist swordsman from France.


----------



## ringo (Feb 26, 2015)

Doesn't the first of the five men - the most senior, Boleyn I think, need a couple of goes in the book and others make sure they don't fidget after that.

I liked Cromwell muttering "put your arm down" as Ann nearly got it in the way of the sword.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 26, 2015)

From what I've read most beheadings involved hacking the head off with a number of blows rather than one clean swipe. That's why the Guillotine was a humanitarian invention.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 26, 2015)

How are modern beheadings performed? I think I've managed to blank out the one I saw online.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 26, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How are modern beheadings performed? I think I've managed to blank out the one I saw online.



I haven't watched any of the ones on the net but going by the size of the knives the beheaders brandish in the photos I've seen I'm guessing it's a long and bloody process.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I haven't watched any of the ones on the net but going by the size of the knives the beheaders brandish in the photos I've seen I'm guessing it's a long and bloody process.


I imagine the poor victims lose consciousness very quickly though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 26, 2015)

The saudis have a trained swordsman\executioner and I'm told normally manage it in one blow- the right sort of sword, position etc.

Jihadi John and his fellow wrong uns are hacking off with a paring knife so you get to be alive as your head is sawed off slowly.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 26, 2015)

A great TV series - a masterclass in acting, script and staging. Clare Foy managing to be manipulative, spiteful and ruthlessly ambitious yet still engaging our sympathy for her heartbreakingly bleak demise.  Cromwell the brilliant bastard of real-politic expertly applying his interventions through words and finely  judged doses of violence, menace and brutality -  always in control of his actions.  Will never be a ratings buster but destined for long lived cult status.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 26, 2015)

Did Cromwell get revenge on the guy that threatened him in the church? I think it was the same guy who arrested Wolseley? 

Was he one of the accused? 

(I thought the serial was excellent, but I sometimes had difficulty keeping track of the characters - something I had far more trouble with in the book).

Cromwell was mesmerising. And Anne was utterly compelling as she walked to her death.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Did Cromwell get revenge on the guy that threatened him in the church? I think it was the same guy who arrested Wolseley?
> 
> Was he one of the accused?
> 
> ...








wolseley






wolsey


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 26, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I must be remembering the wrong queen, but I was expecting it to take a few goes.



I think that was Mary Queen of Scots.


----------



## binka (Feb 26, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what, did you think beheading was a bit like getting a cut while shaving?


lol yes that's right!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2015)

binka said:


> lol yes that's right!


you could have been a contender.


----------



## binka (Feb 26, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you could have been a contender.


what for? dickhead of the year? i think you have that in the bag!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2015)

binka said:


> what for? dickhead of the year? i think you have that in the bag!


ho ho ho


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 26, 2015)

'life pays you out, don't you find?'

both true in abstract and utterly cold bastard in context


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 27, 2015)

It was Henry at the end that really did it for me. How totally and utterly terrifying was he in that last scene?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 27, 2015)

h





danny la rouge said:


> Did Cromwell get revenge on the guy that threatened him in the church? I think it was the same guy who arrested Wolseley?
> 
> Was he one of the accused?


Yes- he was one of the accused but I think it was Lord Percy who actually arrested Wolsey and he got it in the neack earlier in the series.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2015)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Yes- he was one of the accused but I think it was Lord Percy who actually arrested Wolseley and he got it in the neack earlier int he series.


Ah, OK.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Feb 27, 2015)

Precisely who that chap was, I cannot say. I too have had trouble keeping up with all the names but I am, good at remembering faces!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2015)

Mrs Miggins said:


> It was Henry at the end that really did it for me. How totally and utterly terrifying was he in that last scene?


works both ways for me with that- in a normal person you'd absent yourself from something so dangerous as that psycho. But Cromwell doesn't, he plays the games. Two eps back henry nailed him completely. A snake.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 28, 2015)

I wonder what effect this might have on Rylance's career. Is he going to pop up in the final Game of Thrones series? Or maybe he'd make a good Bond villain...


----------



## ringo (Feb 28, 2015)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I wonder what effect this might have on Rylance's career. Is he going to pop up in the final Game of Thrones series? Or maybe he'd make a good Bond villain...


Cameo in House of Fools. Twat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2015)

Quick query on something bugging me.

Boleyn pronounces cromwell with a norman french inflection- is this because she can't help it or a subtle status dig at him


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 1, 2015)

It sounds like a dig. Giving him exaggerated status to mock his lowly origins?  Just to annoy him?either that or the actress is forgetting to have a French accent the rest of the time.

Did their paths ever cross abroad? Maybe to remind him that she remembers when he was Cremuel?


----------



## JimW (Mar 1, 2015)

It's commented on in the book as something she affects to emphasise her growing up at the French court IIRC - a dig in that he is too beneath her in status to get his name right but not so much personal about him as about her vanity.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 1, 2015)

I was thinking that I'd read something in the book but couldn't remember what. Cheers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2015)

cheers both, its the way the actress bore down on the name with a contemptuos edge a couple of times that made me think it was a slight.

must seek out ebook


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Mar 1, 2015)

Didn't she tell him that she would call him "Cremuel" and why in one of the earlier episodes? I forget her reasons but the explanations above seem to hit it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 2, 2015)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Precisely who that chap was, I cannot say. I too have had trouble keeping up with all the names but I am, good at remembering faces!


They all looked the same to me in those costumes. 

(Yes, I'm racist towards Elizabethans).


----------



## Santino (Oct 2, 2015)

Free event at which you could ask the Director about Anne Boleyn's accent:

The Making of Wolf Hall


----------



## Cid (Oct 3, 2015)

Santino said:


> Free event at which you could ask the Director about Anne Boleyn's accent:
> 
> The Making of Wolf Hall



At senate house as well, booked. Although I may not go.


----------



## Santino (Oct 3, 2015)

Cid said:


> At senate house as well, booked. Although I may not go.


 Not fair if it means someone else can't get a ticket.


----------



## Cid (Oct 4, 2015)

Santino said:


> Not fair if it means someone else can't get a ticket.



I will certainly try to got and will certainly give it to someone/cancel early if I can't.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Oct 4, 2015)

Santino said:


> Free event at which you could ask the Director about Anne Boleyn's accent:
> 
> The Making of Wolf Hall


Probably a nod to her spending some years at thr French court


----------

