Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 209 comments are related to the topic:
WOLF HALL - BBC 2 - 9PM
WOLF HALL - BBC 2 - 9PM
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 209
|
By:
I think you are right
But in fiction we do like our heroes to be attractive, poetic license At least it showed people that Henry VIII was not always that bloated old man, which people often see him as You win anyway guinness  |
|
By:
one of the worst books I've ever read - the author couldnt be bothered explaining who was saying what to who - at times it made absolutely no sense
|
|
By:
 that does not auger well for this series |
|
By:
Well it's going to be a roughish ride. I enjoyed the books, but can see the marmite situation.
They just couldn't (immho) have gotten the casting more correct. |
|
By:
I have not read the book
So I don't know if it just surrounds Thomas Cromwell Thomas Cromwell was a man of both brilliance and ruthlessness Some historians have argued the most important man in Henry VIII's reign He drove Protestantism But I have problems with his ruthlessness....the destruction of the monasteries and his part in the downfall of Ann Boleyn who was herself protestant I will wait and see how this series handles this |
|
By:
Quality posts from ebulGerry, btw.
This drama is hard to fault. You only heard the name of the most "important man" last night -- it was TYNEDALE. The "Three Card Trick" motif was a great idea, as people got stitched up and just didn't see it coming. This is going to be better than "A Man for All Seasons," and is going to make the Keith Michel version (and The Tudors) look like an utter joke. The costumes, the acting, the script, the lighting, the sets, the architecture...can't imagine there will be a better film or tv drama made this year. Gonna watch this again tonight. |
|
By:
There's a good article on The Guardian website about the casting - high born characters v low born, Eton v RADA.
|
|
By:
The Tudors was a load of tosh.
I think this is quite promising, bearing in mind that last night was really only setting the scene for what is to come. |
|
By:
I liked it. Mark Ryland was very good.
|
|
By:
Henry VIII was, by just about every account we have, a handsome beast of a young man.
Got a bit fat though. |
|
By:
Had a high-pitched voice, I guess like Keith Michell played him, supposedly.
I enjoyed it, nice pace and Bernard Hill and Jonathon Pryce were very good. |
|
By:
Since the Hilary Mantel books are such a great source material, and since the RSC theatre version has been acclaimed too...and since the BBC has such great resources, it's hard to see how they could have failed here ; all the BBC really had to do was a work of translation, but they HAVE done a great job.
|
|
By:
ta Velasquez..you seem to be a thinking man yourself
It seems nobody likes 'The Tudors' except me, bar the torture bits I shall watch the whole of this like everyone else |
|
By:
and since the BBC has such great resources, it's hard to see how they could have failed here
True, it's not like they could have made the mistake of having the entire cast go about on mopeds, like with Erizabeth L, Dlake and the Spanish Almalda. |
|
By:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
The picture of Henry in 1531 still has him as a fine looking man at 40..I thought? I think it was after his jousting accident in 1536 his decline set in Thomas More's 'A Man for all Seasons' has taken a bit of a battering, he had his own torture chamber in his basement and burnt men not bibles...cruel. Still he did stick to his Catholic faith and never acknowledged Henry as head of the church, for which he had to go, too important to be left alive I have given the plot away again, oh well |
|
By:
In those days it seemed it was very dangerous to be too near power
better off in the background If you got the chop it mean that literally. The fate Wolsey suffered(or would have), he failed Henry, did nothing wrong. |
|
By:
I thought Thomas More was stupid to take the job as head of the church, he should have sensed a Protestant wind blowing in
and it was far from wise to cross Henry, look what Henry did to his wives, most men settle for divorce not execution barring Oscar Pistorius of course |
|
By:
Hee hee, Flower Myth...
 Watched it again - can't wait for next one...btw, CAN fault it now...the bit where the daughters are dead in the bed ; one of the girls unfurls her fingers and moves her hand...could have done with another take there... |
|
By:
i liked the tudors although henry was obviously far too good looking and slim considering the vast majority of it focussed when he was over 40
as others have said he was an enormous man 6 foot 2 i think when 500 years ago the average man was probably no more than 5 foot 6 at best |
|
By:
I don't think Henry VIII was ever a really good ruler
I think he lacked the intelligence and judgement for that In some ways he seemed a child, albeit an extremely spiteful child and so prone to sins of the flesh In those days the Queen was never meant to be particularly good looking, marriages were often made for political reasons, not a love match When the King made her pregnant that was business, his mistresses were for pleasure, I think Henry confused the two. The Queen was often a powerful and intelligent woman in her own rights, she was there to support the King. |
|
By:
All Royalty was at it (they still are) not just Henry. In fact he was probably the least lascivious out of all of them. He spent more time married to different ones. There is plenty of 'Royal' blood walking across England to this day that has more right to the throne than the Krauts who rule now..
|
|
By:
Well in those days Kings did have mistresses.
The Queen's role was to provide heirs and to give him political support. The best Queens were politically skilled themselves in affairs of the court, politics, seeing dangers to the King etc. More to it than just sex. |
|
By:
Not all Queens of course. As Queen they earned the respect themselves
|
|
By:
His own daughter wasn't too shabby..
|
|
By:
Elizabeth , not Mary, yes, but she worked to men's rules
I think we are going to hit differing views here, on how I view women and how modern men view women Actually I admire women of real intelligence, strength and ability. They are an exception to the rule though. I liked Victoria as well, she is always interesting |
|
By:
We have read a lot into one episode, well I have, I look forward to seeing Hilary Mantel's take on this period of history
and hope it is good in itself as a story. |
|
By:
Programme about Holbein on BBC2 at 9pm.
|
|
By:
the Holbein documentary was excellent.
Must say the picture of Cromwell does show him as shifty and untrustworthy, where as the painting of Thomas moore shows a much more sincere person. How much of this is down to Holbein probably supporting the catholic side or just his honest opinion of the 2 people I don't know. |
|
By:
Thomas more
|
|
By:
im not sure the author Hilary mantel got it right portraying Cromwell as the good guy and More as the baddy.
|
|
By:
Anyone who has his own personal torture chamber and starts burning people
does not seem a good guy to me Cromwell I would not describe as good either tbh. But he had tremendous ability, but was also ruthless Perhaps this is more about power than good or bad, also this is where we start the move towards Protestantism. I think Cromwell was driving this more than Henry ever imagined. Henry just wanted to bed Ann Boleyn He was also obsessed about having a son to succeed him of course. I will wait and see what happens just my own opinion. |
|
By:
My first paragraph referred to Thomas More...fanatical.
|
|
By:
To be fair, life was incredibly hard in these times especially for the poor, and death was very common,
It did not necessarily impress people. So very cruel punishments were often devised to make sure people were impressed. Watching someone burnt meant that most people would say I am not that bothered whether I am Catholic or Protestant I just do not want to be burnt...a very sensible point of view. So people believed what they were supposed to, order was maintained. Only the very brave or fanatical would be prepared to suffer these type of punishments |
|
By:
Interesting thread ebulGery - might be the first time I have ever read you talking about something you've got even the remotest clue about.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
more never had his own personal torture chamber.
He denied ever torturing anyone as god is hit witness. His word on god was so important to him he was prepared to be beheaded for it. |
|
By:
his witness
|
|
By:
In fact Thomas more wrote "utopia" where all religions where tolerated and co existed (although atheists where tolerated they where despised).
|
|
By:
I wouldn't put much faith in what John Foxe says about more, which most of these stories originate.
|
|
By:
ah..my history is based on TV..including fiction
Simon Schama, populist but intelligent, repeated the torture chamber allegation in his series, which as you say comes from John Foxe..that was my source Burning was standard for heretics, More burnt 6 men. He was also a brave man who died for his faith The problem I have with More. He had seen Wolsey fall because Wolsey could not persuade the Pope to annul the King's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The solution was for Henry VIII to become head of the church himself, a Protestant idea. So why did he become chancellor? He should have seen it would lead to conflict with the King. Like others I suspect he underestimated Thomas Cromwell |