The comments are, as is often true, more interesting than the review (sorry, Mr. Brantley). I write only to add that my vision of Anne will forever be that of Lydia Leonard in the part. Her voice and her aura of command, for a woman in that period of history, is extraordinary. In my mind, the books are the basis for everything and to understand what the plays have, of necessity, streamlined, reading the books is the way to go. Cromwell is not portrayed as a hero in the least. He is, however, portrayed in the novels and the dramatic renderings as a human being. Whether or not he's likeable, sympathetic, heroic, vicious, vengeful or corrupt, or all of the above, is for each of us to decide in this context, and if inspiration strikes there's Tudor history galore to delve into!
A great, streamlined production that is a marvel of economy and stagecraft, but indeed it is just gossip. It lacks the depth of character and the magnificent recreation of life in those days that both the excellent series and the novels portray. For those who have not read the books, all the wordiness with little context of the stage version may feel like torture. Cromwell seems very passive in the first part, but he gains stature in the second part. Ben Miles is likable but lacks the calculation and daring of the books' hero (something that Mark Rylance balances beautifully in the series). As beautifully as it is done, compressing these rich and rewarding books into five hours on stage thins out Mantel's extraordinary depiction of Thomas Cromwell and his time.
4
Saw both parts 2 Sundays ago with my husband. We both loved it and like Brantley, liked that it was so not high-brow. And don't be afraid to buy the cheaper seats. We were in the rear mezzanine and could see and hear just fine.
2
I am getting tired of people saying the stage version is not based on the same books the masterpiece pbs version is. of course they are both based on the same pair of books. read the books. they are simply two different productions. wofhallbroadway.com
And I understand Hilary Mantel was involved in both.
1
How lucky Mr. Brantley is to have seen these plays 3 times. I know it is part of his job -- but for most of us who would love to see these plays, the cost of attending even one session is beyond our means.
We have to make do with NT Live showings of plays from London, and PBS.
We have to make do with NT Live showings of plays from London, and PBS.
12
Perhaps someday the New York Theater, will take the show on the road. We have the Guthrie theater in Minnesota. We're not all country bumpkins.
2
And most of us don't even have that option.
2
There are rush tickets, not limited to students as far as I know, that are $39 per play. Don't know if that is within your budget.
Ms Mantel certainly performed an act of wizardry, transforming Cromwell into a suave and vaguely admirable chap, a hero for our own time who knew how to Get Things Done. Unfortunately her wizardry required dumping the crucial facts. A few examples: Cromwell destroyed the social welfare system of an entire nation. Ninety per cent of all hospitals in England were emptied and sold, the king pocketing the cash. The occupants were put out in the rain, to die. (See a letter from the Mayor of London to Henry complaining about their stink.) Meanwhile the religious who staffed the institutions (orphanages, chantries, etc) were out in the rain as well. '20,000 nuns and monks roam the roads of England and know not how to live' writes Chapyus in 1536. A monk who refused to dishonour his religious vows was tied up over a bonfire (made from church carvings) and roasted to death while the loathsome Latimer urged him to 'repent'. Meanwhile Cromwell anticipated Hitler by passing perhaps Europe's first genocidal law - Gypsies who did not leave the realm were to be captured and hung. 'How many men has he sent down into the sea of death?' one contemporary wrote of him.
Ms Mantel never mentions any of this. Instead she chooses to libel the shade of Thomas More, the 'darling of England' who gave up his life rather than his conscience.
Strange that it is only in our era that this squalid figure should become an object of sly admiration, BBC series and Broadway plays....
Ms Mantel never mentions any of this. Instead she chooses to libel the shade of Thomas More, the 'darling of England' who gave up his life rather than his conscience.
Strange that it is only in our era that this squalid figure should become an object of sly admiration, BBC series and Broadway plays....
8
Then again, Thomas More did burn heretics. I ask: what of their conscience? Squalor all around, I'd say. But really, how do we judge the conscience of a distant age? Not so easily, I suggest.
7
Thanks to Colombus for making this observation. I still wonder what Mantel was thinking when she decided to cast Cromwell as hero. Facts matter even in history as fiction or is it fiction as history.
1
Perhaps part of the problem is your idea that she intended Cromwell to be a "hero."
6
Yeah, sure, but after the various Mantel adaptations, stage and screen, can pop culture please take a break from the Tudors? I'm Tudored out. English history stretches back a few millennium and surely the Tudor clan doesn't have an exclusive monopoly on royal sexual and political intrigue. I mean, hey, what about that other Cromwell, Oliver? OK, he was a puritan and he might not be the sexiest stuff , no multiple wives or anything (count HBO out) however, he did manage to lop off King Charles I's head and run England for a while. Surely there's a mini-series or play in that?
3
My husband -- a tough theater customer who did not read the books and, while a history buff, knows little of the history of the monarchy -- was absolutely enthralled. As we left the theater, he bemoaned the fact that our tickets for Part 2 are for next month, as he couldn't get enough at that moment. I'd consider that an achievement on its own.
3
Seeing Wolf Hall for the 4th time on Sunday. Truly an amazing production.
Love the RSC - always spot on and disciplined. But we felt just the opposite of EDitKitten and agree with the NY Post: "Beautiful But Boring." Was a bit parsimonious of passion. Loved Wolf Hall the book (not as much Bring up the Bodies), though agree with Columbus - this Cromwell is a more romantic rendering than a fully ruthless rendition. Which might have packed more of a punch and given us more of a jolt.
This is pedantic, I know, but at this point the Tudors were kings of England (and Ireland and Wales), but not of Scotland. So they weren't 'the British royal family'. That wouldn't emerge until the Scottish King James (VI and I) succeeded the last of the Tudors – and invented the idea of Britain and Britishness.
19
Henry VIII was the al-Baghdadi of his time. The same certainties.
Both used beheadings to terrorize.
The scale of cruelty was about the same.
There needs to be an end to this glorification for cinema of this butcher or let's have other genocidal tyrants of our recent past be dignified in the same fashion.
Both used beheadings to terrorize.
The scale of cruelty was about the same.
There needs to be an end to this glorification for cinema of this butcher or let's have other genocidal tyrants of our recent past be dignified in the same fashion.
1
This “Wolf Hall” is not to be confused with... the Man Booker Prize-winning, best-selling novel by Hilary Mantel...”
Really, Mr. Brantley? How on earth could you disassociate the two?
Really, Mr. Brantley? How on earth could you disassociate the two?
2
Spot on review. The hours flew by.
1
Sounds to me like this treatment completely ignores how seriously the real actors in this drama took their roles, the imperatives that motivated their decisions and their actions, and most of all their Christian faith. I'll stick with The Six Wives, Anne of the Thousand Days, and A Man for All Seasons, thanks very much. And of course the last laugh is on Thomas Cromwell himself since he gets taken down a notch or two (or however many notches downwards correspond to losing one's head) after the disaster that was Henry's fourth marriage.
1
On just one of your points; I thought Ben Miles extraordinary. His making Cromwell an observant opportunist made the performance wonderful to watch. Unfortunately the direction set this against a court of fools. I appreciated the Jane Seymour inside humor as a curtain line to act I. I would also have appreciated a recognition somewhere that the real manipulator was Henry the King, not Henry the lust driven. Poor Jane died later as a result of childbirth and Cromwell died later because Henry no longer needed him. Making Cromwell a seeming success ignores the fact that he was but Henry's tool.
2
Excellent and enjoyable production. Alas, the RSC will not be putting out a DVD of this production. Somebody please fix this.
4
Oh, come on, Stu! As a man with a prodigious and open mind, I'm surprised you won't give it a nod!
I hope you're watching "Wolf Hall" on PBS; it's really magnificent, and honors the Mantel novels beautifully. The subtlety of the watchful Cromwell is a marvel of acting. I too, was enamored of "A Man for All Seasons" and the great Paul Scofield, until I read Mantel's books, in which she cleverly and soundly places him far below Robert Bolt's estimation.
I hope you're watching "Wolf Hall" on PBS; it's really magnificent, and honors the Mantel novels beautifully. The subtlety of the watchful Cromwell is a marvel of acting. I too, was enamored of "A Man for All Seasons" and the great Paul Scofield, until I read Mantel's books, in which she cleverly and soundly places him far below Robert Bolt's estimation.
3
Hilary Mantel is a novelist -- not an historian. Just because she "cleverly and soundly" places Thomas More "far below" Bolt's estimation of the man does not make it fact. I agree that Mark Rylance is amazing as Cromwell but his performance does not mean that Mantel's version is historically accurate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/05/how-wolf-...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/05/how-wolf-...
3
Um, yes. it's fiction. I didn't say it wasn't. We're talking historical fiction here, not history. I assumed from the tenor of the conversation that you would figure that out. Sorry.
Robert Bolt was a playwright/screenwriter, not a historian. But sound research is what really matters and I would put my money on Mantel.
2
I thought Part One was ok. But Part Two was terrific with Nathaniel Parker and Lydia Leonard acting their butts off. Part One had too much English history that I know about and couldn't care less, while Two was like a domestic drama that ends in tragedy.
2
Saw a lot of CEOs, agents and studio execsat the showing i attended. They were all taking notes. And I hear that the show is now a requirement for 2nd year MBA students at HBS.
7
So why are Harvard Business School 2nd year students supposed to see this? For advice on how not to behave, how TO behave, or maybe just some sophisticated executive coaching on getting away with murder?
1
Thrilling theater. Beautifully staged and lit. Ben Miles is a revelation as Thomas Cromwell. Nathaniel Parker is Holbein's Henry VIII come to life.
1
I was very excited to see these plays, having read the raves. I also read one of the books, and though it never really grabbed me, I am interested enough in the subject matter to follow up with the play.
Despite the glowing tone of this review, I felt the stage version had some big problems; mainly a reactive main character at its center. Whether or not that is the point that Hilary Mantel was making in her book - that Thomas Cromwell was a cipher- a play without compelling central character will lack dramatic action. That is dramaturgy 101. Ben Miles was a strong presence on stage buy he had, literally, nothing to do on stage until the last scene of the play.
True, the costumes and staging are superb, and the acting is terrific. But at its core, the play is static. That's a bit risky for a project that's over 5 hours long, in my opinion. Mr. Herrin and Co pull it off only because the production values are so high, however, I do not feel this is a great piece of theater in any way shape or form. I left the theater feeling very disappointed and wishing I had not paid full price for my tickets!
Once again, I am struck how Mr. Brantley's review reinforces the status quo (the play is great - big hit in London!) without shedding any critical depth on the actual play.
Despite the glowing tone of this review, I felt the stage version had some big problems; mainly a reactive main character at its center. Whether or not that is the point that Hilary Mantel was making in her book - that Thomas Cromwell was a cipher- a play without compelling central character will lack dramatic action. That is dramaturgy 101. Ben Miles was a strong presence on stage buy he had, literally, nothing to do on stage until the last scene of the play.
True, the costumes and staging are superb, and the acting is terrific. But at its core, the play is static. That's a bit risky for a project that's over 5 hours long, in my opinion. Mr. Herrin and Co pull it off only because the production values are so high, however, I do not feel this is a great piece of theater in any way shape or form. I left the theater feeling very disappointed and wishing I had not paid full price for my tickets!
Once again, I am struck how Mr. Brantley's review reinforces the status quo (the play is great - big hit in London!) without shedding any critical depth on the actual play.
11
If you want to see someone shed critical depth on the actual play, I suggest you check out Roma Torre's review on NY1. She generally provides more thoughtful detail on why something is good (or bad), and I find I tend to agree with her on shows I have also seen. She did like this production very very much and when I watched her review I felt she was articulating how I had experienced the show.
Before going to see a show (at least a show that's already opened) I often check out her reviews. In the case of "Wolf Hall," I had already seen the show in previews, but still looked forward to and seeing her take on it.
Before going to see a show (at least a show that's already opened) I often check out her reviews. In the case of "Wolf Hall," I had already seen the show in previews, but still looked forward to and seeing her take on it.
Really. I found it utterly tedious and plodding. And it is, in fact, almost word for word the same script as the mini-series, but more condensed. Ben Brantley's anglophilia has always been a little over the top, but this review is really beyond the pale. The production is underlit, skimpy and cheap looking. The company is workmanlike - just fine - but nothing more. The whole experience like a History Channel mini-series Live! with actor reenactments. Nothing more.
6
On The 20th Century is playing just down the street...I hear it's very well lit.
2
"And it is, in fact, almost word for word the same script as the mini-series, but more condensed."
Oh, come. "Tedious and plodding" would be a question of individual taste, but this statement is just not accurate. Of course both works are drawn from the same source, meaning roughly the same plot and characters, and some of the better lines will recur (who would want to give them up?), but there are substantial differences in emphasis and focus. For instance, I don't think there's a single reference to the abuse Cromwell suffered in childhood at the hands of his father in the play, which gets a fair chunk of screen time in the mini-series. The mini-series also includes Cromwell's affair with his wife's sister, eliminated from the play. Thomas More is positioned as a long-time antagonist of Cromwell in the play, aggressive towards him personally even before the cardinal falls; in the mini-series, he appears as a figure Cromwell has largely gazed at from afar, More being largely indifferent towards him until practically the moment of crisis. And so on.
Oh, come. "Tedious and plodding" would be a question of individual taste, but this statement is just not accurate. Of course both works are drawn from the same source, meaning roughly the same plot and characters, and some of the better lines will recur (who would want to give them up?), but there are substantial differences in emphasis and focus. For instance, I don't think there's a single reference to the abuse Cromwell suffered in childhood at the hands of his father in the play, which gets a fair chunk of screen time in the mini-series. The mini-series also includes Cromwell's affair with his wife's sister, eliminated from the play. Thomas More is positioned as a long-time antagonist of Cromwell in the play, aggressive towards him personally even before the cardinal falls; in the mini-series, he appears as a figure Cromwell has largely gazed at from afar, More being largely indifferent towards him until practically the moment of crisis. And so on.
1
Yes, well, I think it's "seeing is believing" not hearing about it second hand. But if you're into hearing and not seeing, Wolf Hall is definitely for you. Maybe the bus and truck will come to San Fran.
Director Herrin does an excellent job. The stage is mainly bare, and that doesn't matter a whit. We're invested in the characters, not in scenery, and it works.
2
It has to be better than the dreary flat miscast TV series that's playing now on PBS.
6
I couldn't agree more with this review. I saw the play(s) on consecutive nights last week and may have to see it/them again before the run ends.
That line at the end of Part 1 that Leah Brotherhead as Jane Seymour spoke "I'm nobody, only Jane Seymour") sent me scrambling to my program to see exactly who that actress was, and it was then I realized she was playing three roles: the equally memorable Princess Mary (daughter of Henry and Katharine) and Lady Worcester, in addition to Jane. I thought the 4 or 5 women in this play were all terrific, and all playing multiple roles.
Also agree this wasn't that much different from any large-scale workplace. It particularly reminded me of the white shoe NY law firms and consultancies in which I once worked. Ben Miles as Cromwell reminded me very much of a typical sort of up from nothing self-deprecating smart boy who rises to editor of the law review and on to partner, and sometimes very dangerous person, at a Wall St. law firm.
I had not read the book or brushed up on Tudor history before I saw the play and worried it would be like seeing a Shakespeare play you'd never read -- but it wasn't -- it was easy to follow, engaging, and energizing. After the first night I couldn't wait to get back for the second night.
That line at the end of Part 1 that Leah Brotherhead as Jane Seymour spoke "I'm nobody, only Jane Seymour") sent me scrambling to my program to see exactly who that actress was, and it was then I realized she was playing three roles: the equally memorable Princess Mary (daughter of Henry and Katharine) and Lady Worcester, in addition to Jane. I thought the 4 or 5 women in this play were all terrific, and all playing multiple roles.
Also agree this wasn't that much different from any large-scale workplace. It particularly reminded me of the white shoe NY law firms and consultancies in which I once worked. Ben Miles as Cromwell reminded me very much of a typical sort of up from nothing self-deprecating smart boy who rises to editor of the law review and on to partner, and sometimes very dangerous person, at a Wall St. law firm.
I had not read the book or brushed up on Tudor history before I saw the play and worried it would be like seeing a Shakespeare play you'd never read -- but it wasn't -- it was easy to follow, engaging, and energizing. After the first night I couldn't wait to get back for the second night.
7
Sorry but having seen the incomparable Genevieve Bujold in the film version of "Anne of a Thousand Days" I can't bear to watch anyone else play that role.
Sorry but I don't get your point of view. Great performances should open us up, not close us off.
9
Puh-leeze...Have you ever seen Lydia Leonard? Her performance on "London Hospital" (stream on Amazon) ranks with the best TV acting I have seen.
1
That's too bad. Bujold was a romantic portrayal - beautifully done, but not particularly realistic. Lydia Leonard brought life to Anne Boleyn and made her quite real. It's a wonderful portrayal - and a long day (or in my case 2 evenings) of theatrical pleasure.
4
That said, about a half-hour in, I found myself thinking "This historical drama doesn't have a helluva lot of drama to it." I didn't find myself caring about any of the characters. It becomes obvious real fast that everyone in the play is just trying to keep from being purged long enough to get the chance to wield power, at which point they will start purging everybody else. I could see no significant difference between the ultimate goals of anyone in the show. It is so obvious from the first scene that Cromwell is going to be just as ruthless as Thomas More, why should I care if Anne or More or Cromwell is in command of the governmental noose?
It just struck me that this is another play like THE COAST OF UTOPIA that allows the audience to feel superior for being familiar with the source material, without giving much else. If you want a play that shows some actual historical insight and authentic empathy, you should have seen THE HEIDI CHRONICLES.