The general feeling of the mini-series fits in with the writer's and probably the filmmakers' intent - the story is just as serene and calm, as Thomas Cromwell himself. Even the pacing of the events unfolding fits his attitude - never in a rush, never more excited than needed, and always under control. The acting also fits this description - it doesn't feel like any of the actors go off their course, no matter what happens. Their reactions are as precise and genuine as they are, to some extent, predictable - that is, if you know what you're dealing with, at least.
Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell
After seeing James Frain from The Tudors play the role of one of the most cunning men in English politics history, it was an interesting transition for me to watch Mark Rylance. They are completely different - where Frain's calmness comes from his character's growing influence, Rylance's stillness is that of experience. He is a less obvious candidate to be the king's right hand - to me it seemed that his ambition is so quietly disguised, that it's actually hard to put your finger on it. Cromwall was all of these things - gone unnoticed for years, clever, strategic, influential and very, very precise in his doings. However, where in The Tudors he was a survivor, who managed to withstand the storm of his master's disgrace (the fall of Wolsey), in Wolf Hall Cromwell is a redeemable antihero - a loyal friend, who remembers the kindness shown to him.
Damian Lewis as Henry VIII
I have to admit, Lewis is probably the best Henry VIII I'd seen out of the most modern interpretations - that is, The Tudors and The Other Boleyn Girl. First of all, finally we got a ginger Henry - history buffs can finally sigh with relief at this one. Secondly... he is a very charismatic actor, and the most crucial thing for anyone tackling this role is the potential for violent bursts - yet controlled most of the time, which is brilliantly demonstrated by Lewis. His performance is spot on - although lacking the 'larger-than-life' portrayal, in my opinion. No matter who the Tudor film or tv series focuses on, it is an essential part to give enough room for the famous tyrant himself - after all, only a man of unusual courage and nerve would dare go against Catholic church for love at that age, especially if that meant risking his country's welfare. But given how restrained the show felt overall, it's forgivable that Henry VIII is just as controlled as all other characters. But I have to say, the classical Henry stance with his feet wide apart was a great touch.
Claire Foy as Anne Boleyn
Another large shoes to fill, in terms of charisma, is, of course, Anne Boleyn. A minor(ish) noblewoman famous for breaking Henry VIII's marriage and England's unity along with it - now, for a woman of her time, she'd have to not only match Henry's charisma but almost outshine him, determined and ruthless as the lady was. I had my own doubts, having seen Natalie Portman and Natalie Dormer portray their polished Hollywood takes on the Boleyn queen, and Foy managed to live up to the expectations to an extent. She does come across as the most confident lady out there, almost arrogant, and this confidence is not the quiet kind, like Katherine of Aragon's. She certainly has a spine... However, is there any passion in her? In her performance Foy reminded me of Portman's challenging and stubborn portrayal. But what I lacked was the seduction - something that made Dormer as well-known as she is now among her fans. You can hate or be envious of Anne, and there's even a hint (or more like... a very direct visual) that she manages to seduce even stony Cromwell - but it doesn't seem quite believable. Her sexual prowess comes from her sister's praise and commentary, rather than from Anne herself, on many occasions. And although Foy's Anne was definitely narcissistic and bold enough to seduce a dozen men under Henry's nose, was she sexy enough for that?
Mark Gatiss as Stephen Gardiner
As familiar as I am with the characters from that time period, it didn't click in my head immediately that Gatiss played Gardiner. Another great casting choice, along with Lewis and Rylance, in my opinion - of course, that is knowing him in other series and films, and realising his potential to play THAT character. Gardiner is so often overlooked, with so many more important and memorable figures around him - first Wolsey, then Cromwell and Cranmer, never mind Henry and his six wives, of course. But actually that man survived through the turbulent religious times, unlike Thomas More, and almost got Katherine Parr arrested - luckily, he failed. But he is definitely one of the most prominent, yet hidden in the shadows, figures at Henry's court. Just like Eustace Chapuys (played by Mathieu Amalric). Gatiss hits exactly the right notes in Gardiner's character, in my opinion, and his chemistry with Rylance is actually one of the show's interesting quirky points.
Jessica Raine as Jane Rochford
Yet another crucial, but often overlooked, characters from Henry's court. This jealous, spiteful woman didn't just bring down her husband's royal sister Anne - she watched Henry's next couple of wives receive the same old treatment (neglect, cheating, and even the axe - in Katheryn Howard's case) by their husband. What can I say? Rochford is often portrayed very similarly on-screen, but Raine's interpretation is slightly more aggressive than in other films I'd seen. Which might be for the best - I genuinely enjoyed her spats with Anne, and for once it felt like a personal grudge between the two. Way too often Rochford was a just a useful tool for the filmmakers to bring down Anne.
It's fair to say that the actors nailed their parts. All of them. Some of them were given a completely new light - like Duke of Norfolk and Mark Smeaton, in my opinion, - and some characters were exactly what they were supposed to be - like Thomas Cranmer. Jane Seymour, for once, has more to her than her counterpart in The Tudors, and given what I've known about her life, in Wolf Hall we are probably given the most interesting Jane Seymour there is on screen.
The miniseries vs the original novel
Unpopular opinion warning: having read the first novel of Hilary Mantel's series, I didn't like it that much. I found the slow pacing of the story dragging rather than mysterious or captivating, and first person narrative, combined with Cromwell's coldness as a character, didn't work for me. It is not the same as Perfume, where the serial killer's lack of empathy is intriguing as much as it is chilling - Wolf Hall, to me, felt a bit... empty. Just like Cromwell's eyes in the show every now and then.
The tv series seems to have improved on the books in the sense that it's more interesting to follow - in part, it is thanks to such incredible actors whose charisma simply makes up for lack of emotion in the story or the writing in the book. However, the show also remained loyal to the original's sombre feel and stillness. For better or for worse.
Could it have been better?
Yes and no. In terms of sticking to the books and preserving the most essential of the original story, connecting the story through Cromwell himself and watching the characters through him - Wolf Hall is a definite success. The desaturated, grim look of the show is probably exactly how the cunning man saw his world.
I personally felt the need for more emotion. Which I'm not sure is possible to achieve if you position yourself next to someone like Thomas Cromwell and perceive everything around you through him. The showrunners got the effect that they wanted - but I just wonder if that's enough to make a show great? It's a solid good one, for sure, and I'd advise any historical period drama lover to check it out. However, I probably wouldn't rewatch it unless I needed to. And that's a shame - because such talent, and such well-scripted story is worth watching and rewatching, again and again.
Comments