Wolf Hall

Merlot I will keep a very close eye on them indeed, and have already slapped a load of clearasil on them.Perhaps I should carry a bell and shout 'unclean, unclean'! At least I would get a seat on the bus.

roses I can't believe you have the same symptoms as me! Three spots on my face and a bad hair day (not that that is unusual)
Perhaps it's all in the name - 'ring a ring a roses'

Thankyou for all those graphic descriptions of what happened to the bodies with or without their heads.

Always happy to help rose And don't forget Thomas More's daughter took his head down and carried it round with her - a bit like Isabella and The Pot of Basil!

After my original doubts about the casting of Anne Boleyn I have to say that she is really capturing the volatile character that I think Anne must have had. You can see how Henry would have found her fascinating, but then would have been very happy to move on to quiet little Jane Seymour.

Still not sure about her, but do look forward to the programme. It may be dark and it may be slow but there's a lovely, gentle rhythm to it.

I'm finding it mesmerising, he is so still and calm. I find it very relaxing to watch.

Good to know it's not just me and my husband that fall asleep watching it. We both loved the books but every time we start to watch it we fall asleep. I have recorded all the episodes that have been televised so far but am still stuck on episode 2 having tried to watch it 3 times - maybe we should give up!

lona me too.

I am mesmerised by Mark Rylance's performance. He is, as you say, still and calm, but he puts across, in his eyes, the tensions and turmoils and a hint of fear, that are going on underneath all that still and calm. A bit of "oh God, what have I started here?" I don't know if THE Thomas Cromwell ever felt any turmoil or fear, but I like Rylance's Cromwell.

He was in a play at the Apollo called 'Jerusalem' which I only heard about recently, annoyingly after it's run had ended. It had had rave reviews and I'm so annoyed that I didn't get to see it. I hadn't heard of Mark Rylance at the time and only knew about the play cause I was watching the Game of Thrones commentary dvd and one of the actors in GoT's mentioned it. I bet it was amazing; wonder if it's on dvd?

The critics raved about his performance in Jerusalem, a part which could not be further removed from his current one as Cromwell.

Greyduster I agree, Mark Rylance's performance as Cromwell is mesmerising, his calmness, the emotions and sometimes humour in his eyes. I am reading Wolf Hall at the moment and I see Mark Rylance in my mind as I read it. I think I am falling a little bit in love with Cromwell.......

I fell asleep during the last episode.

I am a history buff, and generally like historical dramas, but the jury is out on this one.

I think Rylance is very good and it's well made, but this is one series I can't get excited about. It relies heavily on words, rather than action, which is fine, but you have to be quite alert I think to all the subtleties and nuances of the script, especially as sometimes it's unclear as to who is being spoken about, and indeed, who is engaging in conversation. It's very slow and that may be one of it's charms, but I find myself not caring very much about the characters.

As others have mentioned, the whole thing is spoiled by the use of contemporary turns of phrase and conversation. I'll stick with it, but it's not ranking as high as some fairly recent drama series I've watched.

I tried to get into Mantel's book but failed, finding her writing style absolutely dreadful. (I know I am in the minority and it was generally praised, but all the excitement about it, and the plaudits, left me feeling mystified.)

Day6 You are not alone, I thought Mantel's writing was dreadful!
I had to constantly go back to work out who she was writing about and this production is consequently as clear as mud!
I do think it's been beautifully made though.

Day6 you are not in the minority about Mantel's writing. I've never understood all the praise for the complicated style....surely the mark of a good writer is that it can be read, understood and enjoyed. Dickens and Austen both in their own time were very accessible and even nowadays most of us can get to grips with it. I'm sorry but its a bit 'Emperor's New Clothes' for me......with the undercurrent being that you have to be clever (and therefore superior) to understand it. And yes.....the modern turns of phrase stick out a mile and totally undo all the wonderful lighting, costume and sets.

Thank goodness it is not just me.

I was heavily criticised on another thread for not effusively praising Mantel and calling it a case of The Emperor's New Clothes!
In fact there is a hilarious review on Amazon of one of her books - written in her curious style.

HildaW so "the modern turns of phrase stick out a mile". Here's a test then, Which of these words certainly wouldn't have been in use in Cromwell's day, which might just have begun to be used and which had been in common use for some time?

romance, library, fork, skeleton, spider, immortal, genius, taxonomy, yoghurt, explain

Answers on www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/changlang/across/languagetimeline.html

Of course it isn't possible to recreate speech of the time and if they did no-one would understand it!

Saw Ben Miles as Cromwell at Stratford ( He was the squire in Lark Rise on TV) We thought he was amazing in that. However the TV casting works too. Such a tricky part with subtle acting needed. We are loving it, but have to watch on iPlayer again as too late for tired brains when it goes out.

trisher.....my gripe is not about individual words.....its was with the modern phrases that sat so uneasily with the beautifully researched sets and costume. I am not expecting full late medieval language just something a little more redolent of the times.
In one scene Cromwell says....'May I speak' to the king and the reply was a very modern 'I wish someone would'. In another one character tells another to 'step up to it' as in take responsibility for something

When I compare the language used in the Helen Mirren film about Elizabeth I and the early Keith Michel Henry VIII, both of which managed to be both perfectly understandable and yet evocative , in my mind, of the time I find Wolf Hall a little trite and annoying.

As to your comment about no one understanding speech of the time - I am sorry but I beg to differ - Shakespeare is of the time and perfectly understandable with a bit of effort.

Actually HildaW Shakespeare isn't a contemporary of Cromwell's. Shakespeare is written in what is known as "Early Modern English" The period depicted is around 1530's and is commonly regarded as the transition period between Late Middle English and Early Modern which is generally felt to have been brought into common use by the printing and reading of the Common Prayer Book in the 1540s. Cromwell would also have used what was known as "Law French" for his legal work. The reason I gave you some words is because what we imagine is modern language and what actually is are often two different things. I think we have to be careful when assuming we know what people would have sounded like or what they might have said. I had hoped you might look at the link and perhaps have been surprised.

Fully aware Shakespeare is Elizabethan/Jacobean....I do not need a lecture on the history of common 'English' words. My gripe is simply at the script/text of Wolf Hall....I find it sounds too modern compared to the costumes and sets....that's all.

Mark Rylance is on Desert Island Discs tomorrow 11.15am
<swoon>

The accents would have been different too, but if they used authentic accents then no-one would understand anything.

I don't dislike Mark Rylance - in fact he is rather ... (*janea knows what I mean ). He just seems wrong for podgy evil-looking Thomas Cromwell.