Ah, someone who's been taken in by the Wolf Hall production. No,
   there's no difference (except Shakespeare was GREAT) between Wolf Hall
   & Shakespeare -- Mantel has done indeed much research, but Wolf Hall is
   no more worthy of history than Shakespeare (though Shakespeare is great
   which I'm afraid Wolf Hall is not!)...very little difference in various
   doings between Shakespeare & Wolf Hall...though Shakespeare, well, is
   great. Wolf Hall is not. Mildly amusing. A rather good response it is
   to the history, but NOT of the quality of Shakespeare...
   Timothy Swain

   On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Robert Clair <[1]rcl...@elroberto.com>
   wrote:

     Some rather sweeping generalizations here.
     I'm currently reading Wolf Hall. My knowledge of Tudor England is
     not what it could be so the book often sends me Googling. I every
     case I've encountered so far it seems that Ms. Mantel has done her
     research.
     As for adaptations - while I haven't seen it I'm given to understand
     that The Tudors was done as a bit of a bodice ripper. The BBCA
     production of Wolf Hall is most definitely not.
     Aside from "Ah, Robin" played on lute over the opening, the music
     falls in two categories: Any music that is mise en scene - that the
     characters on screen would have heard - is real 16th C music. (There
     is a shawm band.)A  There is also a modern background score of which
     the best I can say is that it it unobtrusive.
     Beyond music, the BBC has gone to a staggering amount of work to get
     the visuals correct. Check out some of the material here:
     [2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02
     <[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02>
     I've also just seen the excellent Royal Shakespeare Company
     production. (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies - 3 hours each on the
     same day with a break for dinner.) Which brings up a question for
     Ron: Does your antipathy to historical fiction extend to the
     Shakespeare history plays? You could, if you like, argue that
     Shakespeare was a better writer than Ms. Mantel and Mike Poulton
     (who did the RSC adaptation) but is there any fundamental difference
     in what they are doing?
     --
     To get on or off this list see list information at
     [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. mailto:rcl...@elroberto.com
   2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02
   3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02
   4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Reply via email to