Does wolf hall get better?

[Cantonet]

I've just watched the first episode of the first series in preparation for the new series.
I feel like I'm watching a deeply repressive, utterly grim play. Is this series a slow burner? Or shall I give up watching now?

S1 was outstanding

It just shows how subjective acting is!

I thought all of the above were amazing. Mark Rylance was miscast, but it wasn't a bad performance as such. He simply wasn't right for the role. I thought Claire Foy was incredible. Too pretty for Ann Boleyn, who was no looker, but otherwise perfect. But then she is always outstanding.

Have read the trilogy several times, utterly love them. But couldn't bear watching anymore than the first 15 minutes of the first episode.

Mark Rylance is not Cromwell. Mantel clearly describes him many times as being physically intimidating, a real bruiser of a man with the build of a blacksmith. His rough, muscular physicality is meant as a clever foil for his brilliant, erudite mind. It's why so many underestimate him.

Fucking Rylance with his fucking ringlets, dainty feet and prissy hands? Fuck off.

I didn't see your deleted comment but I assume it was something about the historical inaccuracy of colour blind casting.

I completely agree with you on that. I heard an interview with the director Peter Kosminsky who said that they had cast the best actors, irrespective of race and it didn't matter at all, I think that's disingenuous.

I think it does matter, why bother trying to get historical accuracy with scenery, costumes etc if what things look like is irrelevant. If certain historically important white people had actually been mixed race or black at that time, which they would not have been, they certainly would not be members of the aristocracy and their lives would have run a completely different course. It's ridiculous to pretend that no one sees the colour of an actor, of course they do!

If wolf hall was a modern production, done in modern dress, henry VIII acted by a woman and taking place in a 3 bed semi instead of palaces, then it would be fine to use actors of colour because historical accuracy would then be irrelevant. But it isn't, therefore black actors playing white people is inappropriate in this particular production, and draws them to your attention in an unnecessary way which jars.

I have loved all the series.

For me colour blind casting isn't an issue. I think its a great idea to open up historical roles to actors of all races.

I didn't like it either, i watched the first episode originally and tried again about a week ago but it has such a lot of good reviews so feel I should give it another go.

If we can look past Mark Rylance’s slightness making him ‘wrong’ for a part where we know the historical figure’s brute physicality was key to his reputation, and key to the fictional conception of him whose adaptation this series is, then surely we can also overlook race?

But it is fiction based on history. I don't think the conversations with ghost of Wolsey were historical truth, were they? Was that a disgraceful misrepresentation of history?

"It has been noted that Mantel herself, who died in 2022, argued in favour of diverse casting in a 2021 interview, saying: "It’s difficult for me, because to me they’re not characters, they’re people, and I have a very strong sense of them physically.

"But as soon as you move to stage or the screen, that must yield because you’re in the realm of representation. I think we have to take on board the new thinking." "

www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/wolf-hall-colour-blind-casting-newsupdate/

I agree, I rolled my eyes so much at this in the first episode of the second season - why bother trying to be accurate in terms of clothing, historical events etc. if you are just going to do something like that which is so inaccurate? Why not just have the characters on bloody mobile phones or something - so stupid.

It's quite frustrating when tv producers try and project modern ethics onto historical productions. Also, the show makes a lot of women's place in society and how it is controlled and shaped by men, but somehow the characters are seemingly colourblind? Hmm, yes, that makes sense!

And yes, it's technically a fictional piece, but it was based on real events and real people.

@ISeriouslyDoubtIt Exactly, had the drama been adapted to an East London council estate in the 21st century, it wouldn't have been out of place, but to deliberately misrepresent British history, in order fulfil various diversity quotas is ridiculous.

Exactly. But that's the ever so desperate to promote diversity BBC for you. Even if it's laughable and nonsensical. But those boxes simply must be ticked.

He reminds me of Ted from Ted and Ralph!

Absolutely this!

Should shakespeare never be performed in China with Asian actors? Never be performed in India by Indian actors? Not performed in Africa by African actors? Must we always staff our period dramas with nothing but white English people? How far back must their ancestry go for their portrayal to be correct?

Well said

I find that the Cromwell of the trilogy does go quite nicely with Rylance's portrayal; 'stiff and wooden' as IWantToRetire observes, '...like hugging a sea wall,' as Henry exclaims in one of the books. I get that solidity from Rylance, a kind of single-minded immovability of being, as opposed to mere brawn. MR isn't weedy in real life, and I don't actually read him as a waif on screen in S1 either. I wonder whether it's the costumes and the fact that much is made of Henry's massiveness that causes Rylance to shrink in comparison in the eyes of some people.

But this show is based around real people - unlike a Shakespeare play which are usually fictional characters. Not the same thing.

'Must we always staff our period dramas with nothing but white English people?' Like it or not, most of these dramas centre around the English aristocracy, which throughout history was mostly white people - I don't see what's wrong with acknowledging that. It's not meant to represent our modern world, it's a snapshot of the past.

And let's be honest, if it was the other way around (a white actor playing the part of a real life Asian/ African character) you could bet there would be uproar.

White actors have traditionally played Othello and every other non white character even in films and tv shows until very recently. This is a very contested space. Some people are not going to like it while others might love it. There is no right or wrong here. There are many audiences with different interests and approaches to even English history and its fictional representation.

I'm onto the second episode & still finding it annoying. I like the King Henry character played by Damian Lewis & the lighting of him. He's always bathed in a golden glow, as opposed to Cromwell who's always in the shadows. But the ridiculous exaggerated costuming of Henry with the kitchen Damian Lewis bounding around athletically in a Humpty Dumpty like costume is all shades of wrong. Yes, I think it's the theatricality of this drama that is so off-putting.
I've tried to read the book, but the beginning is so turgid I just can't get any further. I normally devour all historical fiction & dramas. I even read War & Peace at age 11 but this is such unappealing fiction obsessed with the minutiae of everything.

I am sitting through it because DH enjoys it but it is not engaging me at all. It is dreary and boring.

I think any and every race has a right to insist on exclusivity when it comes to sharing their culture or a right to gate keep their cultural works in terms of how they're represented. They shouldn't be be forced to open their cultural representations to include other races in order to be seen as inclusive.

It's absolutely ok for black people to gatekeep cultural works regarding black historical figures and black works of art and fashion. So I have no idea why it's seen as incumbent upon white people or any other race to have no barriers in terms of the way films or programs or theatre depicting their culture are represented. I really don't understand the resentment over a race saying 'we want our fictional works particularly in this historical context, to be represented by white people or black people or asian people etc etc'

I think it's cultural colonialism. Which admittedly white people have been guilty PLENTY times of perpetrating, but hopefully times are changing where that sort of thing is becoming less appropriate and is called out when it happens.

That said it's ultimately the director's choice and he chose to include a culturally diverse cast. I have no idea if that was due to having to meet externally imposed quotas, or only down to the the superior acting ability of the actors chosen over other actors auditioning for those roles.

I loved the books and the tv adaptation. The key difference is that Mantell captured Cromwell’s thoughts so well in the books, which obviously couldn’t be transferred to the screen. By doing this the reader gained far more insight into his thoughts and intentions and emotions. For me, for this reason, the books have the edge. Love DL as Henry, although for me he will always be Brodie in Homeland. Think any drama so hyped will always be criticised, but I would choose this one any time over the usual dross churned out!

Again, you're talking about a fictional character rather than real people - I'm not sure why you are not getting the difference.

I enjoyed the first episode but I don't love Rylance as Cromwell. I saw Ben Miles in the stage play and he was mesmerising. It was fabulous.