Wolf Hall Previews — Page 2
#27
Posted: 3/27/15 at 11:37pm
I waited to post until I caught both halves of this this week. I thought they were two very good productions, that each stand well on their own but that add up to something greater.
This is the kind of production, honestly, that I wish ALL THE WAY had been. Where that play simply paraded a series of events, speeches and anecdotes in front of the audience in chronological order to simulate a history play, WOLF HALL brings that history to life in a thrillingly modern way. Focusing on Cromwell was a masterstroke on Mantel's part; his part is at the crux of almost every major narrative development, and as written (and brilliantly, subtly performed by Ben Miles) he is inscrutable. We know the history and we see his manipulations, but he plays his cards so close to the vest that we completely understand why nearly everyone with the misfortunate to be drawn against his will is compelled to question just who he is and what he wants. It's a masterfully Machiavellian portrayal of Cromwell, and he is a magnetic enigma. Also, Miles barely leaves the stage for the duration of the two plays: this is a titanic performance and he barely broke a sweat. Bravissimo!
The overall production is stunningly beautiful. The massive set, spare though it is, provides a cold, modern slate on which Jeremy Herrin and his company create dynamic stage image after dynamic stage image. The more modern production (set entirely conrete, top-rate but simple fire effects, minimalist maximalism) also complements the modern script. The story may be four hundred years old, but the words flow with contemporary rhythms, phrasings, and an artfully-paced dosage of foreshadowing. (Perhaps a little too much foreshadowing for some, but I found it mostly appropriate.) The pacing of the shows overall were incredibly well-managed. It may have added up to almost five-and-a-half hours, but I swear ALL THE WAY felt longer. And it was only one night!
Not without its qualms and not for everyone, but for those clamoring for a good, epic history play, WOLF HALL delivers. Twice.
This is the kind of production, honestly, that I wish ALL THE WAY had been. Where that play simply paraded a series of events, speeches and anecdotes in front of the audience in chronological order to simulate a history play, WOLF HALL brings that history to life in a thrillingly modern way. Focusing on Cromwell was a masterstroke on Mantel's part; his part is at the crux of almost every major narrative development, and as written (and brilliantly, subtly performed by Ben Miles) he is inscrutable. We know the history and we see his manipulations, but he plays his cards so close to the vest that we completely understand why nearly everyone with the misfortunate to be drawn against his will is compelled to question just who he is and what he wants. It's a masterfully Machiavellian portrayal of Cromwell, and he is a magnetic enigma. Also, Miles barely leaves the stage for the duration of the two plays: this is a titanic performance and he barely broke a sweat. Bravissimo!
The overall production is stunningly beautiful. The massive set, spare though it is, provides a cold, modern slate on which Jeremy Herrin and his company create dynamic stage image after dynamic stage image. The more modern production (set entirely conrete, top-rate but simple fire effects, minimalist maximalism) also complements the modern script. The story may be four hundred years old, but the words flow with contemporary rhythms, phrasings, and an artfully-paced dosage of foreshadowing. (Perhaps a little too much foreshadowing for some, but I found it mostly appropriate.) The pacing of the shows overall were incredibly well-managed. It may have added up to almost five-and-a-half hours, but I swear ALL THE WAY felt longer. And it was only one night!
Not without its qualms and not for everyone, but for those clamoring for a good, epic history play, WOLF HALL delivers. Twice.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.
Updated On: 3/27/15 at 11:37 PM
#28
Posted: 3/27/15 at 11:52pm
The TV series is coming to PBS next week so it'll be interesting if people who have already seen the plays will watch the TV series to compare it. They're both excellent but different in their own ways.
#29
Posted: 3/28/15 at 12:07am
I really can't blame Roscoe for being so oddly measured in his review. I found Part One tonight a perfectly competent but rarely thrilling 3-hour wordfest with barely a pause for us to catch our breath and absorb what was being said. Three or four times in the night the incessant chatter would let up enough for a lovely stage picture to emerge (the choreographed interludes were very welcome, as was the snow-kissed funeral for a key character). But too often I felt like I was witnessing a radio play in full costume, a beautifully spoken radio play, but one missing the essential juice of no-holds-barred live theater. Terrific performances alone were not enough to rouse me out of the general torpor.
It may be a long wait before I catch Part Two.
It may be a long wait before I catch Part Two.
#30
Posted: 3/28/15 at 5:22am
I saw both parts in London (for a mere £5 each part!) and was so so surprised by how much i actually enjoyed the show! When i went in i was expecting a long, relatively boring history play, but i couldnt have been more wrong! The time flew by and not once did i check my watch to see how long there was left because i was so engaged in what was going on. Also the humour was so unexpected! I laughed so much, which i really wasnt expecting at all given what the play is about.
Im coming to NY in May with a friend who only got to see part one in London, so we will be coming to see part two and i just cant wait as i saw about 35 shows last year and Wolf Hall still stands as my favourite! It will be nice to see what changes they have made to it since i saw it as well.
Im coming to NY in May with a friend who only got to see part one in London, so we will be coming to see part two and i just cant wait as i saw about 35 shows last year and Wolf Hall still stands as my favourite! It will be nice to see what changes they have made to it since i saw it as well.
Updated On: 3/28/15 at 05:22 AM
#31
Posted: 3/29/15 at 7:48am
I saw both parts yesterday and was thrilled from beginning to end.
I approached it with a mild sense of dread: lately I've started to think I have the attention span of a fruit fly. But at the intermission and again at the end of each play, my friends and I looked at one another in astonishment--the whole thing seemed to just rocket by. If at the end of the evening they'd started in on the next wife, I'd have happily stayed all night.
I approached it with a mild sense of dread: lately I've started to think I have the attention span of a fruit fly. But at the intermission and again at the end of each play, my friends and I looked at one another in astonishment--the whole thing seemed to just rocket by. If at the end of the evening they'd started in on the next wife, I'd have happily stayed all night.
#32
I'm surprised and intrigued to hear these good reviews. Somehow, I had assumed that this couldn't possibly be as good as previous tellings of Henry and his wives--and that the length would be oppressive, not good enough to last as long as a Nicholas Nickelby or Angels in America.
I'm not sure why I assumed that, but I look forward to seeing both parts now.
Posted: 3/29/15 at 8:23am
I'm surprised and intrigued to hear these good reviews. Somehow, I had assumed that this couldn't possibly be as good as previous tellings of Henry and his wives--and that the length would be oppressive, not good enough to last as long as a Nicholas Nickelby or Angels in America.
I'm not sure why I assumed that, but I look forward to seeing both parts now.
#33
Posted: 3/29/15 at 8:39am
Reggie, glad you enjoyed the 2 evenings so much. I'm wondering if Part Two is markedly more engaging than Part One? Any coups-de-theatre in Part Two that have more impact than words alone would have?
I'm still willing to attend Part Two to have my mind changed-- I'd hate to miss out on what others found so extraordinary.
I'm still willing to attend Part Two to have my mind changed-- I'd hate to miss out on what others found so extraordinary.
#34
Posted: 3/29/15 at 8:43am
Not really. If you didn't enjoy the first part, I doubt you'd feel differently about the second.
#35
Posted: 3/29/15 at 3:20pm
I saw Parts One and Two yesterday through TDF - Right Orchestra Rows M & J. I thought the whole show was very well-paced, and I was never bored. However, I usually felt a bit distant from the story, seldom becoming emotionally involved in the way I do when I watch, for example, A Man for All Seasons (which is largely the same story as Wolf Hall Part One, but with different emphases). At the end of the two Parts, I sort of just shrugged my shoulders at five and a half hours of political machinations -- interesting enough, but not really memorable, in my view.
(Incidentally, I noticed that a segment toward the end of Part Two is staged almost identically to one covering the same ground in the Richard Burton version of Anne of the Thousand Days -- Cromwell stands over Henry's right shoulder and places documents emphatically, one by one, on the desk.)
(Incidentally, I noticed that a segment toward the end of Part Two is staged almost identically to one covering the same ground in the Richard Burton version of Anne of the Thousand Days -- Cromwell stands over Henry's right shoulder and places documents emphatically, one by one, on the desk.)
Updated On: 3/29/15 at 03:20 PM
#36
Posted: 3/29/15 at 9:18pm
But at the intermission and again at the end of each play, my friends and I looked at one another in astonishment--the whole thing seemed to just rocket by.
I was one of those friends, and I agree with everything Reg wrote. I was captivated by the performances.
That we know the story makes it even more remarkable. I was kept on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would come next.
(Thanks, again, dear Reginald!)
I was one of those friends, and I agree with everything Reg wrote. I was captivated by the performances.
That we know the story makes it even more remarkable. I was kept on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would come next.
(Thanks, again, dear Reginald!)
"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."
#37
Posted: 3/29/15 at 10:15pm
I approached these plays with a bit of trepidation. I went into the first night exhausted and worried that if it was dry in the slightest, I would doze off. I ended up riveted and to echo earlier commenters, I couldn't believe how quickly it moved.
At times, yes, the exposition was laid on a bit thick. In the interest of getting as much of the story from the books into each night, there ended up being some didactic scenes. And at times, I did wish I could find ways to connect to some of the characters a touch more. But while I can quibble with some moments in the script, it is overall so beautifully paced, wonderfully acted, and stunningly designed. The whole cast is fantastic, but I have to single out Nathaniel Parker for bringing an incredible inspired depth to Henry Viii, finding more humanity and humor in the character than I've seen in other performances in other plays. He renders Henry's brutality not forgivable, but understandable. It is an inspired, haunting performance.
At times, yes, the exposition was laid on a bit thick. In the interest of getting as much of the story from the books into each night, there ended up being some didactic scenes. And at times, I did wish I could find ways to connect to some of the characters a touch more. But while I can quibble with some moments in the script, it is overall so beautifully paced, wonderfully acted, and stunningly designed. The whole cast is fantastic, but I have to single out Nathaniel Parker for bringing an incredible inspired depth to Henry Viii, finding more humanity and humor in the character than I've seen in other performances in other plays. He renders Henry's brutality not forgivable, but understandable. It is an inspired, haunting performance.
#38
Posted: 3/30/15 at 12:10pm
The tv version starts Sunday 4/5 on Channel 13 PBS
Cast includes Mark Rylance with Homeland's Brody Damian Lewis as Henry VIII. Will tune in for the 6 part series.
Cast includes Mark Rylance with Homeland's Brody Damian Lewis as Henry VIII. Will tune in for the 6 part series.
Poster Emeritus
#39
Posted: 3/30/15 at 12:41pm
Excellent post, Sauja, and I agree with all you said.
I also have to say I didn't care for the actor playing Sir Thomas More. In the novel, he's a much darker, more sinister character. In the play, I just found him sort of whiny and a bit silly. He was the weakest link, to me.
I also have to say I didn't care for the actor playing Sir Thomas More. In the novel, he's a much darker, more sinister character. In the play, I just found him sort of whiny and a bit silly. He was the weakest link, to me.
#40
Posted: 3/30/15 at 12:56pm
More was portrayed rather silly, I agree. I also think that his whole plotline was sort of rushed and he wasn't fleshed out very well. It's probably the only criticism I really have of the text.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
#41
Posted: 3/30/15 at 1:02pm
You're right. It may be the script as much as the actor. He also had a ludicrous wig. At least I hope it was a wig.
#42
Posted: 3/30/15 at 1:12pm
It was; the same actor played Harry Norris.
Such a terrible wig.
Such a terrible wig.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
#43
Posted: 4/1/15 at 11:19pm
Finally saw Part Two tonight and absolutely loved it. Thought it was as juicy as a year's worth of Dorian vs Viki feuds in Llanview! So yes, it's pure soap opera, but some really fun stuff for all the actors to sink their teeth into. I never wanted it to end.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#44
Posted: 4/2/15 at 1:37am
I saw both parts today. Wonderful acting, imbeccable direction, striking design... A great day and night at the theatre. I admit not being too knowledgable about the history or the source material, but that didn't matter at all. I found it riveting from start to finish. And wow, that final act was so gripping!
I had mezzanine row E and orchestra right row K through TDF. I preferred my seat in the mezzanine so I could see the set and lighting from some distance and so I could see those stunning stage pictures. My orchestra seat felt a little obstructed to be honest.
#45
Posted: 4/5/15 at 9:41pm
Just got out of the back to back Sunday's shows and not since the original Broadway production of Angrls In America, have I witnessed something so thrilling. Some amazing performances , the six hours flew by, funny, dark, get a ticket its that simple
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
#46
Posted: 4/6/15 at 12:25pm
Saw both parts this past Saturday - quite wonderful. The direction, cast and lighting were all top notch. I never got bored but I did think the final 45 minutes slows down just a bit. I could have used a bit of "coup de theatre" to perk me up a little at that point. Or maybe at that point the effects of a lovely dinner at 6pm caught up to me!
LOVED Anne Boleyn and her brother George, and of course, Ben is a mighty perfect Cromwell.
There were quite a few empty seats on the sides of the Mezzanine for both Saturday shows. More so for the evening.
#47
Posted: 4/6/15 at 4:04pm
Lydia Loenard is giving a amazing powerhouse of a performance as Anne Boleyn, and she should just be handed the Tony Award now, it really is a once in a your lifetime performance.
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
#48
Posted: 5/30/15 at 12:09am
Thanks to a friend, I was able to see Part Two tonight. I've never read the books, though I of course know the basic history behind them, and I was expecting everything to be competently done, but I was floored by tonight's performance. This show is beautifully staged, and though the play itself can get a bit wordy, I found the whole experience very compelling- there were a few moments towards the end where I had to catch my breath.
The cast was also very good, though I do admit, given the large cast of characters, I had trouble distinguishing a few people when they changed characters, but I suppose that's the price of distilling such a huge slice of history into a play. Ben Miles was great, and his stamina is very impressive, but for me the absolute standout was Nathaniel Parker. It's a tremendous performance, and my friend and I were truly impressed by him. In particular, his scene signing the death warrants is stunning. I hope he wins the Tony, it will be very deserved.
I wish I could make it to see Part One, or better yet see the marathon! I'm sure I'd be just as enthralled.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
BroadwayWorld TV
Ticket Central
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $71
Buy Tickets