MovieChat Forums > Wolf Hall (2015) Discussion > whitewash Cromwell, blackwash More?

whitewash Cromwell, blackwash More?

posted 10 years ago by bastasch8647
26 replies | jump to latest

Okay, I don't know the historical sources very well - admittedly.

And I don't know how closely Wolf Hall follows those sources.

However: just "scanning" More's career via Wiki, I think the series does him a disservice, even judging by Wiki's small amount of presented data.

First, the actor selected to play More: not just elderly, but sloppily and penuriously elderly - like an aged, scrawny, hook-nosed Scrooge - nothing like the Holbein portraiture. And a slob. In his first extended dialogue scene, More is tacky: his shirt has schmutz running down the middle - whether the filth is food spillage or a tear in the shirt that More is too oblivious of, or too cheap to repair, the clothing decision immediately pegs him as a Grubby One from the get-go.

In fact, all through the More-story I found myself wishing that Rylance had played More - "it's the eyebrows" - but not only the eyebrows. If they wanted to portray More darkly, Rylance could easily have handled the part as scripted. A Rylance/More - this I could believe as a torturer/capturer of heretics ... but also as the man who educated his wife and daughters in a time in which such treatment of women was exceptional...and as the man who wrote Utopia. The man who said at his execution, "I die the King's good servant - but God's first". Not only did the screenplay deny its More this final dignity, it denied him any prior credibility as "the Great Persuader" of his times. Simply having Cromwell mention that More is the Great Persuader is insufficient to establish More as such in the viewer's mind.

Second - and again, admittedly, having not much exposure to the historical sources - I have read enough and seen enough British documentaries to know that Cromwell was responsible for at least as much misery, imprisonment, torment and killing as was More. The series skips over Cromwell's darkness(es) - just as A Man for All Seasons ignores More's evils. Which is of course dramatically necessary in order to present a character ethical enough to encourage sympathy. But, having said that, I wish the script had been a bit more favorable to Thomas More.

[–] chicago85 10 years ago

Holbein, the younger, visited England and it was suggested that he befriend Thomas More who was a powerful speaker in Parliament at the time. Holbein may have flattered More in his painting. When Cromwell was trying to arrange a marriage for Henry, Holbein was sent to Germany to paint Anne of Cleaves and her sister.

When Henry met Anne in person he got upset at her appearance and blamed Cromwell for what he claimed was a deception. It was too late to back out without angering her family. The marriage was annulled about six months later. Holbein wouldn't be the last artist to make a subject better looking than they were in person. Henry said Anne had the face of a horse although that was an exaggeration.

Thomas More may have been an intelligent person with the courage of his convictions but he was also a brutal persecutor of protestants who he saw as heretics.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else

[–] wendyhull-52071 8 years ago

I doubt Anne was that ugly like history makes her out to be. Sure there may have been some changing in her appearance in her portrait, but I think she truly looked like that. Holbein would've gotten beheaded if he made her look completely different.

[–] hilaryjrp 10 years ago

Yes, I said the same thing in my thread titled Historical Agendas, or something to that effect. Apparently Mr. Lesser is much younger and of better comportment than More, who come off as a troll beneath a bridge. The novelist's hatred for the man (and producers') is palpable and juvenile--considering that *all* the nobles, highly-placed ministers, and king were murderous, torturing bastards.

[–] CatchyUserID 10 years ago

But tell us how you really feel...

I dunno, I'm just not seeing any real slight here. All the major characters are flawed, and we already know how it turns out - so for me, it's rather hard to be on anyone's side. I'm truly enjoying their complexities and struggles against each other and within themselves.

Also, I REALLY like these actors. Rylance's subtleties have grown on me, and I'm appreciating the way he underplays this role. Just love Anton Lesser, and it's impossible not to feel for his plight. And Damian Lewis, well...it's hard to get enough of him.

[–] Clemencedane 10 years ago

I found Anton Lesser's portrayal lent More a touching vulnerability, and a noble sense of principle. To me the way they handled his arrest, persecution and death was designed to evoke great sympathy for him.

As for Cromwell, we start out seeing him in all his humanity and looking on him sympathetically. But gradually we see his ambition and underhanded manipulations start to show beneath the surface till we can no longer believe in him as a man of principle.

[–] Maya55555 10 years ago

bastach8647:

It is fashionable now to bash More as it also serves to attack the Catholic Church.

I just bought a More biography and I have not read it.

"A stitch in time, saves your embarrassment." (RIP Ms. Penny LoBello)

[–] CitizenCairParavel 10 years ago

They totally mischaracterized the trial,of more acc to official transcripts of the trial. He didn't whimper as the tv show represented. He gave a towering defense of himself.

[–] hilaryjrp 10 years ago

It is fashionable now to bash More as it also serves to attack the Catholic Church.

It's interesting that many major online Catholic websites gave positive reviews of "The Tudors" despite the highly non-Catholic extramarital, premarital, forget-the-marital sex in that series. While your argument might be correct, in "Wolf Hall" every character whom Cromwell, in other "versions" of the period, is shown destroying comes off badly.

If Anne Boleyn or even Mark Smeaton came off indifferently rather than negatively, I'd agree that bashing More is bashing the Roman Catholic Church. But here, I don't think that's the case.

[–] sokeyt 10 years ago

Hilary have you read the novels yet? I will read the 3rd one when published, but more and more I find Mantel's "blackwashing" of Cromwell's adversaries, distasteful. Concomitant with that is whitwashing Cromwell's allies and friends: even Richard Rich. No reputable historian doubts that Rich perjured himself to destroy More.

Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

[–] hilaryjrp 10 years ago

I haven't read the first two novels and having seen "Wolf Hall," as much as I'm loving it for Mark Rylance and its revisionist approach, I won't read the third. With great respect to Ms. Mantel, Mark Rylance single-handedly turned this production into a tour de force. I think without him, the series might well have been nigh unwatchable. (As for the Richard Rich perjury, I've almost succeeded in memorizing the testimony, it is repeated or cited so often.)

Henry VIII could not have subjected England to a reign of terror without the very willing help of many men who, like at Thermidor in Paris, all ended up devoured too. The production of "Wolf Hall" has succeeded in showing the slippery slope men of good conscience trod in those days. Men! Heck--"Meg" More! She signed.

The very heavy-handed agenda evident in the production--in addition to many negative reviews of the novels--makes me uncertain whether this BBC production asset (i.e., the many men necessary for Henry's reign of terror) was present in Ms. Mantel's works or even in her thoughts. I wonder if, rather, she just wanted to give Thomas Cromwell his day in the sun.

[–] CitizenCairParavel 10 years ago

One of the saddest commentaries on Catholicism today is the number of "Catholics" (in name only) who don't mind trashing it in order to destroy it and remaking it into some kind of liberal, watered-down Protestant sect. I can say this because I actually am a catholic.

[–] e827 10 years ago

I can say this because I actually am a catholic.

Whoever could have predicted it? 

Insisting that if people who disagree with you, then they aren't actually Catholics, is pretty disturbing.

[–] CitizenCairParavel 10 years ago

You would fit in well with Protestantism. Unlike Protestantism which is based upon an individual's own perspective, the Catholic Church is bound by its traditions. So I can say that...with credibility.

[–] hilaryjrp 10 years ago

With all due respect-- I attended 10:30 Mass this morning and will attend on Thursday for Ascension-- What in God's name are you talking about? The title of this thread, sir or madame, indicates that the original poster thinks "Wolf Hall" did a disservice to More.
How on earth is that something for a Catholic to take exception to?

[–] RoseVioletDaisy 10 years ago

Many Protestant churches are rigid and dogmatic and leave no room for any "individual's own perspective", especially the Evangelicals and Baptists in the US. There are also many Catholic parishes, especially in the US, that are far more liberal than their Protestant counterparts. That doesn't make them less Catholic or non-Catholic, just less rigid and dogmatic. Tradition and dogma aren't the same thing.

[–] sokeyt 10 years ago

Henry VIII could not have subjected England to a reign of terror without the very willing help of many men who, like at Thermidor in Paris, all ended up devoured too.

Two words: land grab. The wealth of the church offered rich pickings for those who lined up behind Henry. The shrine of St Thomas in Canterbury alone, was fabulous. And that was only one of many sites to be plundered.

It's still going on, although now they call it "privatization".

Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

[–] hilaryjrp 10 years ago

Two words: land grab.

Oh, absolutely. One thing "Wolf Hall" has done better than any Henry VIII "romance" is show how venal and gross men like Norfolk and the Boleyns were (although we haven't seen a great deal of Thomas Boleyn). Have we seen Suffolk at all?

[–] bryanmillsfist 10 years ago

Land grabs otherwise known as empire are as old as human civilization itself. Privatization can and is a good thing under the circumstances. Nationalization isn’t an unalloyed positive either.

[–] angelosdaughter 10 years ago

I am over halfway through the book 'Wolf Hall' and am enjoying it as what it is: fiction. I like reading about the Tudors in fact and fiction. Mantel writes well, but to take these novels as fact would be a mistake. Her portrayals of More, Cromwell, and even Anne Boleyn do not square with historical facts.
I have enjoyed the series on TV even though it, too is more fiction than fact regarding the main characters. It has the atmospheric feel and lighting of its historic time. I still think it is better than the Tudors, which played to the fascination with soap opera and attractive actors who bore not the slightest resemblance to their historical counterparts.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

[–] CCCampedel 10 years ago

I'm currently reading a biography of Thomas Cromwell, written by Tracy Borman, in which she notes the differences between Cromwell and Thomas More. More didn't take care of his appearance and would dress sloppily. It simply didn't matter to him. He wasn't a man who cared what he ate and preferred water to wine. Wealth didn't matter to him. Maybe the characterization of Thomas More in 'Wolf Hall' is closer to the real man than anything we've seen before.

[–] CitizenCairParavel 10 years ago

I didn't know she was such a good friend of More's and hence a good source.

[–] CCCampedel 10 years ago

It's called research.

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 10 years ago

More didn't take care of his appearance and would dress sloppily. It simply didn't matter to him.

Well -- it's definitely not your Paul Scofield's More (A Man for All Seasons). 

Not saying you're wrong -- just an observation. I wasn't aware of how the historical More dressed.

It Follows: 8.5
Whiplash: 9
'71: 8.5
Two Days, One Night: 9

[–] LeofricsBeloved 9 years ago

After seeing Paul Scofield's eloquent portrayal of More in A Man for All Seasons, it is hard to watch any other interpretation of More. Scofield's portrayal of More is one of the greatest performances of all time.

Wolf Hall showed More to be an unkempt hypocrite. His distinction as a great man of letters wasn't shown very much. Cromwell's starry-eyed admiration of his More's scholarly abilities was acknowledged in just a few lines but not much development of More was explored at all.

I think what you said was interesting - Cromwell also had to be seen as sympathetic to engage audience interest. I don't think engaging an audience's sympathy is necessary - just interest in a character's fate is enough. After all, the gangster genre wouldn't be successful if sympathy is necessary.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com "Mind over matter; if you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Room

[–] best_of 8 years ago

Wolf Hall is a compelling historical drama. If More comes off badly, so what? For the last hundreds of years More has gotten a pass, seen as some kind of a martyr of the Tudor era. Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons with the performance (an Oscar winner) by Paul Scofield sealed the deal, ensuring his reputation. Wolf Hall takes another point of view and reveals a lot of the unsavory, less heroic things about More. Mark Rylance's Cromwell, is one of the most nuanced performances that has been on television in a very long time. Historically, the truth about Cromwell and More is probably somewhere between the two poles of A Man for All Seasons and Wolf Hall. However much is fact or fancy, this series, Wolf Hall, is an outstanding addition to what we think we know about the Tudor period. It is a great job by Hilary Mantel.

[–] KatharineFanatic 8 years ago

Thomas More IS done an injustice in this series... and so is Anne. She's a bitchy trollop in this, when in real life she was a reformist who wound up married to her stalker -- who then murdered her via execution. So romantic. :P

Cromwell... I have mixed feelings about. He's extremely likable here; he was considerably more ruthless in history.

I don't actually hold much of anything against these people; it was a much different time and acts of kindness more extraordinary than acts of cruelty.

I just don't understand why drama has to force us to choose sides -- why not have a fair representation of Cromwell AND More? Make it that much more difficult for the audience to know what is the 'right' thing to do or which side to take.