Wolf Hall Dramatisation

Paulie W

Mr Goo wrote:

RDW wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Don't think I would have fallen asleep if it was a Shardlake adaptation.

Isn't that a bit like saying you'd quite like a Sherlock Holmes series, but aren't really interested in anything that's just about, say, Queen Victoria and Disraeli? Pretty much all the characters in Wolf Hall are real people, and the plots and killings are real events. But Hilary Mantel has a fresh take on them, which is coming through pretty well in the series so far.

I do get your point. I think that what is grinding my gears about the books and now the TV series is that Mantell is being heralded as the greatest novelist of our time. All she has done is used research material from experts on the era, employed researchers and added a bit of her own narrative.

A bit of her own narrative!! Seriously! Those who are saying that she is a great novelist - and that is a matter for debate - are doing so based not on the historical veracity of her material (this is a work of fiction after all regardless of the historical nature of the characters) but on the quality of her prose, her use of language, her characterisation.

oscarbudgie

jewbs wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

jewbs wrote:

I like period dramas and i'm enjoying wolf hall but what spoils it for me personally is when i see lazy set design or just ignorance of period interiors or in other words tudor interiors furnished with furniture that would not exist for at least 2 to 3 hundred years.

I haven't the faintest clue about period interiors but I was rather enjoying some of the interiors which seem very beautiful, grand and REAL. I guess the requirement to only have Tudor furniture on the sets is pretty obvious but - I'm genuinely very interested - what is wrong with the rest of the interiors?


It tends to be the gilded furniture that is wrong. In a couple of scenes of cromwell waiting on Anne Boleyn he walks through a room with a gold centre table, that is an 18th century table. In other rooms there are a sets of tall gilded candle stands known as torcheres that date from the regency period early 19th century. Also some of the chairs look like high back chairs dating from the late 17th century. I will keep my eye out for what else i can spot. I know its probably irrelevant to everybody else except me but it can spoil it for me . I've noticed it before in other series and in major films such a shame they don't put the effort in to get it right when they put so much in to getting the costumes etc historically accurate. I have spent the best part of my life restoring the best furniture money can buy and making copies of it including original pieces by chippendale , Adam etc so it bugs me to see it in the wrong context.

We are in a similar line of business- I've written extensively on 19th and 20th century design and architecture and yes it can get in the way with any kind of period drama. I once had to turn off an episode of Foyles War because I saw a lamp in the background that wasn't produced until the 1950s.

mr_goo

oscarbudgie wrote:

jewbs wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

jewbs wrote:

I like period dramas and i'm enjoying wolf hall but what spoils it for me personally is when i see lazy set design or just ignorance of period interiors or in other words tudor interiors furnished with furniture that would not exist for at least 2 to 3 hundred years.

I haven't the faintest clue about period interiors but I was rather enjoying some of the interiors which seem very beautiful, grand and REAL. I guess the requirement to only have Tudor furniture on the sets is pretty obvious but - I'm genuinely very interested - what is wrong with the rest of the interiors?


It tends to be the gilded furniture that is wrong. In a couple of scenes of cromwell waiting on Anne Boleyn he walks through a room with a gold centre table, that is an 18th century table. In other rooms there are a sets of tall gilded candle stands known as torcheres that date from the regency period early 19th century. Also some of the chairs look like high back chairs dating from the late 17th century. I will keep my eye out for what else i can spot. I know its probably irrelevant to everybody else except me but it can spoil it for me . I've noticed it before in other series and in major films such a shame they don't put the effort in to get it right when they put so much in to getting the costumes etc historically accurate. I have spent the best part of my life restoring the best furniture money can buy and making copies of it including original pieces by chippendale , Adam etc so it bugs me to see it in the wrong context.

We are in a similar line of business- I've written extensively on 19th and 20th century design and architecture and yes it can get in the way with any kind of period drama. I once had to turn off an episode of Foyles War because I saw a lamp in the background that wasn't produced until the 1950s.

Reading your comments makes me laugh. You must have gone apoplectic when watching the Tudors. Even my ignorant self could tell that this was Disneyesque in its decor of the palace interiors, but then perhaps the American production company insisted on this, as their home audience wouldn't quite appreciate the realities of Tudor life. However they had nothing on the lawnmower stripes of the gardens at 'Hampton Court and Whitehall Palace'. Not to mention the off light switch poorly covered by a block of wood. Nor the Edwardian entrance porch to one of the Lords' houses, resplendent in white gloss, complete with a letter box!! And not forgetting a scene with Henry and Anne Boleyn stood by a wooden gate to a field framed by oak trees and telegraph poles on the horizon.

oscarbudgie

"Henry The Eight placed his toothbrush beside Stephanie's, "his a dashing royal blue, hers a luminous pink.
"How harmonious they looked together "in the silver goblet he had given her for Valentine's Day 1541.
" 'Oh, if only we could live together, ' he thought, "remembering the time they made love in the shed "where the bows and arrows were stored for the archery tournaments !"

Another Wife for Henry by Paloma Toast

Paulie W

What really hacks me off about Wolf Hall is that they havent sourced actual Tudor actors to play the roles: I mean these 21st century folk are just not authentic!

capt_slog

Taking the series apart and looking for errors reminds me of the days of HiFi, when people would spend all their time listening to the equipment but ignoring the music.

oscarbudgie

Yes I distinctly saw Mark Rylance wearing a 2015 Giro Ambient skull cap in last nights episode

oscarbudgie

The odd anachronism is fine though

Alain Quay

oscarbudgie wrote:

Yes I distinctly saw Mark Rylance wearing a 2015 Giro Ambient skull cap in last nights episode

Great end to an outstanding series. That scene of Anne Boleyn and her executioner was unforgettable.

capt_slog

Alain Quay wrote:

Great end to an outstanding series. That scene of Anne Boleyn and her executioner was unforgettable.

Any idea what the executioner said?

Alain Quay

I think his job was just to deceive, to make the task easier. He took off his shoes so he could move silently, made a sound, the queen looked one way and the sword came from the other.

capt_slog

I've found out from the replay with subtitles.

"apportez l'epee" which means "bring the sword".

This fits very closely with another version not so long ago, where the same thing was done to make the unblind-folded Anne look the other way.

mr_goo

Didn't get any better for me.
Roll on Poldark.

Giraffoto

Mr Goo wrote:

Roll on Poldark.

I was about five at the time of the previous BBC version of this. I hope they preserve the exchange:

Character I can't remember: Are you Judd Paynter?

Judd Paynter (broad accent): That depends

Character I can't remember:On what does it depend?

Judd Paynter:On whether I am or not

BeaconRuth

Mr Goo wrote:

Didn't get any better for me.
Roll on Poldark.

The last episode seemed to progress a bit too fast through the arrests, trials and executions to me - only the briefest coverage of each of the accused men and barely any time even to dwell on Anne Boleyn's demise. I suppose it was in keeping with the story being told through Cromwell's eyes but even so... There were all sorts of delays while they waited for the french executioner to arrive and Anne was only executed after her brother and friends, I believe - but none of any of that was even hinted at. One minute Anne was in court. The next she was walking to the scaffold.

Anyway, as you say, on to Poldark!

My main recollection of the 1970's version was Demelza saying "Ross...... Ross!" in a pitiful Cornwall accent.

Ruth

mr_goo

BeaconRuth wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Didn't get any better for me.
Roll on Poldark.

The last episode seemed to progress a bit too fast through the arrests, trials and executions to me - only the briefest coverage of each of the accused men and barely any time even to dwell on Anne Boleyn's demise. I suppose it was in keeping with the story being told through Cromwell's eyes but even so... There were all sorts of delays while they waited for the french executioner to arrive and Anne was only executed after her brother and friends, I believe - but none of any of that was even hinted at. One minute Anne was in court. The next she was walking to the scaffold.

Anyway, as you say, on to Poldark!

My main recollection of the 1970's version was Demelza saying "Ross...... Ross!" in a pitiful Cornwall accent.

Ruth

I too was disappointed with the last episode. Whilst The Tudors was quite flawed, the episode(s) that dealt with Anne Boleyn's demise and execution were quite good indeed. Especially where Anne's father negotiated to save his head. And gave good coverage to the execution of her brother, Thomas Wyatt and Mark Smeaton.
Plus the delay in the arrival of the French executioner that was actually chosen by Anne (I believe). They/She could have made more of the frustration Henry would have experienced in the delayed dispatch of Anne. But as you say it is Thomas Cromwell's story.

Alain Quay

Episodes 1-4 were Wolf Hall and episode 5 was Bring Up the Bodies, so inevitably all too rushed.

If you're keen the BBC interview with Mark Ryland after the series was pretty good. I like his observation that
Islam began 600 years after Christianity and that IS execute like the Tudors did, for slight deviations from
religious orthodoxy and that although IS are vile extremists and murderers, to themselves they are idealists, like the Tudor Catholics and Protestants saw themselves, and despite the fact they were burning heretics, etc.

mr_goo

Alain Quay wrote:

Episodes 1-4 were Wolf Hall and episode 5 was Bring Up the Bodies, so inevitably all too rushed.

If you're keen the BBC interview with Mark Ryland after the series was pretty good. I like his observation that
Islam began 600 years after Christianity and that IS execute like the Tudors did, for slight deviations from
religious orthodoxy and that although IS are vile extremists and murderers, to themselves they are idealists, like the Tudor Catholics and Protestants saw themselves, and despite the fact they were burning heretics, etc.

An interesting observation by Mr Ryland. But don't get me started on IS and THAT religion. It gets me into a fair bit of deep water on this forum.

BeaconRuth

Alain Quay wrote:

Episodes 1-4 were Wolf Hall and episode 5 was Bring Up the Bodies, so inevitably all too rushed.

If you're keen the BBC interview with Mark Ryland after the series was pretty good. I like his observation that
Islam began 600 years after Christianity and that IS execute like the Tudors did, for slight deviations from
religious orthodoxy and that although IS are vile extremists and murderers, to themselves they are idealists, like the Tudor Catholics and Protestants saw themselves, and despite the fact they were burning heretics, etc.

Is that interview available anywhere online do you know please? I listened to Desert Island Discs with Ryland the other week but Wolf Hall hardly got a mention - which I was sorry about. (Incidentally, he had the most odd collection of records!)

Ruth

RDW

BeaconRuth wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

Episodes 1-4 were Wolf Hall and episode 5 was Bring Up the Bodies, so inevitably all too rushed.

If you're keen the BBC interview with Mark Ryland after the series was pretty good. I like his observation that
Islam began 600 years after Christianity and that IS execute like the Tudors did, for slight deviations from
religious orthodoxy and that although IS are vile extremists and murderers, to themselves they are idealists, like the Tudor Catholics and Protestants saw themselves, and despite the fact they were burning heretics, etc.

Is that interview available anywhere online do you know please? I listened to Desert Island Discs with Ryland the other week but Wolf Hall hardly got a mention - which I was sorry about. (Incidentally, he had the most odd collection of records!)

Ruth

I haven't watched it yet, but perhaps it's in the 'Inside Story' programme, which features Mark Rylance and director Peter Kosminsky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05471yp

BeaconRuth

Oooh thanks RDW!

Ruth