Wolf Hall

I rate this 10/10 to counterbalance a couple of people who, perhaps used to watching flat TV shows, have given a most unfair 1/10 rate to a magnificent mini-series.

The acting is impeccable. Mark Rylance plays a remarkable Cromwell, completely taking over the audience with a subtly nuanced character composition. I've always enjoyed Damian Lewis, so it is no surprise his Henry VIII hasn't disappointed me in the least. But Claire Foy, what a talented, lovely interpretation! They, together with Saskia Reeves (an excellent actress), Jessica Raine and a constellation of great actors make Wolf Hall a truly powerful experience to view more than once.

The production boasts of a marvelous attention to detail, from indoors decoration to costumes, behaviours and dining-- a pleasure to relish on.

But what most impressed me (other people have hated the show for this) is the dim, realistic candle-lit night scenes. I have always deplored movies with fake candle-lit interiors which are an insult to viewers' discerning ability. Now you watch Wolf Hall and you can almost smell the dripping burning candles!

The action is very well plotted, considering the books are quite lengthy. There is nothing boring in this 6-episode great TV show and much to enjoy and admire. When episode 6 gets to the closing scenes, you end up wishing there were a second or third season (though, the truth must be said, no one would like to see Cromwell's ill-fated decapitation in Rylance's human and favourable depiction).

In short, if you appreciate exquisite direction and photography, excellent acting, a great script adaptation and a lavish historical production, you will find this show second to none.

I don't like giving ratings of 10 out of 10 because it implies that it can't be improved, which is never the case, but when I see drama as well written and well performed as this I want to see ratings that reflect that and respect it, and my 10/10 aims to redress some of the, in my opinion, ludicrous ratings of 1/10 that I see have been posted here. First the imperfections: I'm not sure why Peter Kosminsky, whose work I very much rate, has gone for hand held camera work in what is essentially a static shot. I have no problem with hand-held camera work per se, but the reasons for its use in a wide shot are lost on me, and the result is a slightly irritating amount of camera shake. Secondly, the time shifts could be a little clearer - blink and you miss the captions, and that's if they've actually been included. I think on one occasion the shift was implied rather than signalled. I suppose it does keep the audience on their toes.

But now to its huge strengths. First and foremost, the acting. I've been lucky enough to see Mark Rylance on stage and on television many times over the years and I think he's a force of nature, with everything he turns his hand to innovative and mesmerising, whilst at the same time containing the actor's essential ingredient - truth. That there is always something going on in his head is evident, but what is all the more intriguing is that we can't quite tell what it is . . . The rest of the cast are brilliant too, and the brief scene between Damien Lewis as Henry VIII and Cromwell was a mini delight and leaves me drooling in anticipation of future encounters between these two.

The costumes and locations are as impressive as ever with BBC productions, and will no doubt gather in numerous awards (although one bit of what I imagine was a CGI rendering of a Tudor village in the background didn't quite get there). There have been criticisms about the darkness of the lighting, a result of Kosminsky using lighting by candles (albeit with special cameras). I watched it in HD in a darkened room and I can't say it caused me any problems at all, and in fact I commented on how light and airy some of the daytime scenes were, showing life in the day in the same light - literally - as it would be today, as opposed to the generalised gloom in some depictions of the period.

I thought the pace was well-judged, especially when one acknowledges the difficulties in squeezing Hilary Mantel's immense volumes into six hours of television, and Peter Kosminsky has kept events moving along without being afraid to linger a while on the subtle signals of intrigue that are never far from Mark Rylance's face. The fact that much of Kosminsky's work has been in the political arena is very obvious here, and he gives us a needle-sharp insight into the machinations of that world, indicating that in oh so many ways, things don't change that much. Apart from the costumes, of course.

I can't wait for the rest of the series.

As a life long Anglophile - with a special passion for the Tudors, I could not wait for this series - after only the first episode, I was not disappointed. Wolf Hall is the story of a (not so well known) Tudor personage Thomas Cromwell - lawyer and confidant of Cardinal Wolsey - who at one time early in Henry VIII's reign was "the most powerful man in England." After Wolsey's decline (none of them stay on top forever), Cromwell worked with King Henry VIII directly.

The fascinating thing about Cromwell is that he was a lowly born commoner, but possesses a quick mind, a sharp tongue and is utterly fearless. Mark Rylance is a great Cromwell - not striking in appearance - quite ordinary in fact, yet possessing the qualities that took him far. Even though after only a short glimpse of Damian Lewis in the first episode, I believe he will be a great Henry (based more on his past performances than anything else.)

Aside from being about one of the most interesting families and time periods in history, Wolf Hall's writing scintillates. These types of dramas are long on dialogue and short on action (so Fast and Furious or Mission Impossible fans - stay away), but the dialogue makes the story.

Some examples:

After Wolsey is disgraced (he failed to secure the annulment of Henry's first marriage to Catherine of Aragon from the Pope), Cromwell goes to Anne Boleyn - who is waiting in the wings as Henry wife #2:

Anne: "we only asked the Cardinal (Wolsey) for one simple thing (meaning the annulment)"

Cromwell: "It wasn't simple"

Anne: . . ."Maybe you think I am simple?"

Cromwell: "You may be, I hardly know you."

In Henry's court, no one talks to the next Queen in line like that.

Later, Cromwell visits Norfolk (who was an avowed enemy of Wolsey):

Cromwell: I hope he (The King) doesn't think still of invading France"

Norfolk: "What Englishman doesn't??" "We own France!!"

later same conversation:

Norfolk: "tell him (Wolsey) if he doesn't (go North) I'll come to him and I will tear him with my teeth!!

Cromwell:"May I substitute the word "bite" for "tear?"

Finally in the next scene Cromwell meets Henry and their subsequent discussion concerning a re-invasion of France shows how snarky and smart assed Cromwell can be - even to the King's face.

It is brilliant.

And of course if you have visited England, the scenery and castles will bring back fond memories of your visit.

The Tudors have been a popular subject of movies for some time (Keith Michell - 1970 Six Wives of Henry VIII; or a pretty complete list at http://tudorhistory.org/movies/), this one promises to be one of the best.

I cannot wait for subsequent episodes. DonB

Before we watched the programme, I read a review which complained about the darkness of the screen. We turned all the lights out and were totally enthralled. Mr Starkey has blown his bombast again, not having read or seen the programme. This is television, and great television at that. There might not be documentary evidence that Cromwell was sad at the death of his wife and children, but it stands to reason that he might well have been! The programme is like a series of old master paintings, the people inhabiting these settings totally realistic and believable. Mark Rylance's portrayal of Cromwell is human, kind and unpretentious: an absolute tour de force. Minimalist, lacking bombast (unlike Mr Starkey!) and memorable. I love the whole thing.

The two seasons of this series are very well made and well acted. This show should be great for fans of the Tudor period but if that doesn't interest you, or you've seen too much on that narrow topic, then maybe not.

Just one thing bothered me. They really need to stop casting black actors in historical dramas where no black people would have appeared. Okay, maybe darker skinned members of the Spanish legation but not members of Henry's court. I don't think they realize that it gives the appearance of grating racism when they cast black people in minor roles but of course never in a major role.

In Shakespeare, okay. But this is hardly Shakespeare. Bridgerton is okay too. That's a fantasy. If you are going for historical realism and not one of those fantasy shows aimed at teenagers who hate history, then stick with history.

Why put all that effort into getting the costumes right if you're going to get the actors wrong? I usually don't complain about DEI like you-know-who but this is a case where I have to object.

If the BBC needs to meet some quota for non-white actors, then choose stories that naturally lend themselves to non-white characters. If it has to be some aspect of British history, then the colonial period is a possibility.

Maybe the BBC doesn't have the budget for overseas location shooting anymore? I've heard they had budget problems for the second season of this show. Maybe that explains why there was so many padding scenes of people walking through courtyards and gardens.

In summary, it's worth watching but I think I've met my lifetime quota for Tudors now. Move on to something else.