托马斯.克伦威尔,BlackSmith's son,Low Born,身背年少受虐,妻女病亡的负重,寄身心于大主教沃尔西的麾下,然而主教大人无法帮助亨利八世从无子的婚姻中解脱,政敌们将他置于死地,克伦威尔减缓了沃尔西的悲剧,但不能阻止大主教走向末路。
为了生存,为了复仇,克伦威尔和野心勃勃的安妮.博林暂时结盟,他团结岛内的宗教力量对抗教皇,使亨利成为英伦教会的首领,从而宣布其与西班牙公主凯瑟琳的婚姻无效。结果是,安妮.博林成为亨利的第二任皇后,克伦威尔成为枢密院首。
然而,亨利的无子噩梦仍在延续,安妮.博林也不能为其诞下皇子,她的苟且和不忠加速了亨利对他的厌烦,后者正被纯洁的西摩小姐所吸引。克伦威尔抓住时机,扳倒安妮.博林,连同当初对沃尔西下手的博林家族。
反复无常的亨利对服帖能干的克伦威尔张开双臂,但克伦威尔浑身颤抖...
随着与西班牙关系的恶化,亨利八世对于自己的婚姻问题日益不满。到1527年,他的王后阿拉贡的凯瑟琳已年逾40,只有一个女儿玛丽而无男嗣,都铎王朝的王统面临断绝的危险。这时亨利八世爱上了在法国宫廷受过教育,倾向宗教改革的贵妇安娜?波琳,便决心离婚再娶。按教会法规,国王的婚姻问题必须由罗马教皇批准,方为合法,亨利八世便向罗马教皇克雷芒七世提出请求。但教皇此时完全受制于查理五世,阿拉贡的凯瑟琳是查理五世的姨母,所以教皇使用各种手段,拒不批准亨利八世的离婚。国内的旧贵族和教会人士也对离婚案持反对态度。指靠罗马教廷和教俗旧贵族解决这个问题,显已全然无望。在此关头,亨利八世毅然改弦易辙,转向全国要求改革的乡绅与资产阶级等阶层寻求支持,于1529年10月罢免了民愤极大的沃尔西,并在11月召开议会,开始实行宗教改革。
宗教改革引起了国内外反改革势力的强烈反对。教皇将亨利八世开除教籍,神圣罗马帝国威胁要入侵和断绝贸易。亨利八世审时度势,依靠全国民族情绪和新兴资产阶级力量的支持,进行强硬反击。他宣称:“那怕教皇开除教籍一万次,我也不在乎。我要向所有的国王证明,教皇的力量是多么微不足道。”“西班牙人要是来的话,就别想回了。”“弗兰德尔若没有英国贸易,就只有垮台。”他利用法国与西班牙的矛盾,在一些问题上取得法国国王支持,并与一些信奉路德教的德意志诸侯结盟。亨利八世在国内加强镇压,1534年议会通过“叛逆法”,规定凡是用言论、文字、行动诬蔑国王为异端、裂教者、暴君等恶名者,不承认国王是教会首领者,否认国王婚姻合法者,均为叛逆,罪当处死。依此法案,杀掉了一大批反改革的教士,托马斯?莫尔也因不承认议会有权进行宗教改革,而被处死。但同时,一些信仰各种改革教派的人,也作为“异端”被处火刑。
随着宗教改革运动的深入,巩固国家统一成为迫切的问题。当时封建旧贵族在靠近苏格兰的北部地区,威尔士和西部边区及爱尔兰的英占区,仍有着强大的割据势力。他们勾结教皇与西班牙反对改革,阴谋暴乱。1536—1537年北方的旧贵族和教会势力利用农民的不满,掀起了名为“求恩巡礼”的叛乱,向南进军,要求取消一切改革,并惩办改革派。亨利八世依靠改革派广大群众的支持,坚决镇压,杀掉废掉了一批北方旧贵族,成立由改革派主持的“北方法院”进行统治。在威尔士和西部边区,则成立了由改革派主持的“威尔士边区法院”,惩办了大批不法的旧贵族,推行英国的行政司法制度。议会于1536年和1543年通过法案,把威尔士正式并入英国。由于改革派取得的成就,1536年的议会法案规定,国内原有的一切封建特权区必须在国王的名义下治理,实行统一的行政司法制度。从此,国内的封建割据基本被消灭。1536—1537年,亨利八世还镇压了爱尔兰英占区旧贵族的反改革叛乱,派改革派人士为代表进行统治,他自己于1541年兼称爱尔兰国王。1538—1539年,亨利八世以勾结教皇的罪名,杀掉了最后一批约克王朝王族,至此据地自雄的旧贵族基本被清除掉。
宗教改革运动,尤其是没收大批修道院地产,带来了深刻的社会经济变革。王室由于财政需求和谋求政治支持,把大批地产转卖或赠送给新贵族和工商业资产阶级,使这些新兴势力发财致富,成为宗教改革的既得利益者。他们大搞圈地,提高地租,赶走佃户,造成大批农民流离失所,社会秩序动荡不安。1531年和1536年议会通过法案,用肉刑、奴隶劳动和处死等血腥手段,残酷镇压流浪者。惩办流浪者、安置劳动力、征救济税、维持治安,管理地方行政司法事务的权力,则交给由乡绅担任的治安法官和教区职员,使他们取代教俗封建主,成为中央在地方上实行统治的工具。
其实看完这个片子,在英剧中,我认为他的总体水准比较一般,比雀起乡到竹镇这样的BBC class要差。调子还在,但是没有那种由内而外的从容感,没有那种将矛盾和人性搅和在一起却是一团平静的和谐的那种英剧特有的柔和和光辉感,总的来说就是骨子里缺乏高级感。
第一段贬低的多了,其实也不完全,我觉得这种片子是英剧的现代化,也不能完全是古典,总要带一点不和谐音,要带点现代性,关于这一点,这个片子非常漂亮,看做政治恐怖片也不为过,看片子从头到尾就是一种心惊肉跳之感。这点我觉得我们最顶级的正剧都要学习(说的是大明王朝和走向共和这个级别的)我们太喜欢表现高位权谋的怡然自得感,问题是,这东西是个虚伪的,底层看高层的视角,你以为高层是像剧里严嵩高拱张居正那样老奸巨猾忙里偷笑不断调情游戏政治之间吗?你以为像李中堂一样料事如神,洞察所有,周边环境尽在掌握吗?错了。高层是像狼厅里这位克伦威尔一样,胆战心惊、如履薄冰、牢牢抓住一个个救命稻草、不断的在即兴表演、运气性的出色发挥、到处留情、随处留后路、和长期性的黯淡、绝望之间做着调换。这个片子无数个细节,从主教被抓时那种自欺欺人的话、主教感谢克伦威尔却自身做不出什么时候那种无奈,到克伦威尔自己放起戒指,到主教确认死了才拿出来戴上,到他在皇帝面前被骂双手交叉,回到家中手不断的发抖,传闻皇帝死时带着匕首出门,下属建议他在港口封锁前准备逃跑,皇帝杀安妮时抓着儿子的膀子,莫尔当年没看他,但他一直仰望莫尔时的那种敬仰。这些在刻画什么?这些在刻画一个人身处高位的恐惧,赤裸裸的恐惧。出生低贱,知道自己要活着,所以感恩于主教,却无法去陪他,还要离开旧主顾、对每个敌人卑躬屈膝,而皇帝让他去解梦那次,是他真正的绝杀,片子中的那种一个隐忍的人发自内心的溢于言表的喜悦描写,他让大家回家轻一些,说没事了,说皇帝曾经以为那是个噩梦,但其实不是噩梦,他知道自己已经绝地翻盘了,那种压抑的内心克制不住的狂喜,影片所传递出来的实在是太到位了。
总的来说,片子中的一切,用细节堆砌起来的,不是以前古典英剧的厅堂感,而是切实的官场恐怖。包括他自己的衣服一点点的华丽、包括所有主要他一手操办的事情他都在一旁小心的观察一切,几乎是蜷缩的站在一个幕后的角落。只有最后一次,审安通奸,那是他的复仇,他站在前台。
其实在此片中的克伦威尔几乎是个神,他从未失败,对所有的女性都有天然的吸引力,以至于安把他作为自己人、主教作为自己人、安的舅舅也把他作为自己人,皇帝不必说,莫尔也对他欣赏有加,这种左右逢源的本事放到现实中是不可能的,但是他在剧中做到了,但就算如此,依旧危机四伏。大致上这个片子在告诉你,在剧中的世界里,克伦威尔拿上了全天下最好的牌,打出了最精明的套路,即使如此,这赢的也太险了,赢的太惨了,而且你看的明明白白,他只要出错半步,立刻崩盘,而最后大家也都知道,他还是个彻彻底底的输家,就在片子结束几年之后。那么观众们,一个手牌没有他十分之一,水平不到他十分之一的普通人,再这样的局中,你有任何赢的可能吗?你能坚持到底几个回合?我自己在看这个片子的时候,基本上就更看恐怖片差不多。
而这,才是这片子最值得看的地方,告诉你,什么是高处不胜寒。像我日记中写的,很多时候,我们幻想着我们在凯旋式上如何摆出一个漂亮的姿态,但往往最后,我们能做的只是在投降仪式上,选择一个更有尊严的死法。
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/thomas-cromwell-fixer-wolf-hall?CMP=share_btn_fbCromwell, the fixers’ fixer: a role model for our times
Martin Kettle
Thomas Cromwell is the politician of the moment. We seem entranced by him. How cunning and deep he is. How clever and calculating. With what skill he acquires, husbands and uses his power. How precise he is in his judgment of when to speak and when to stay silent, when to watch and when to act, absolutely ruthlessly if need be.
We are a nation hooked on Cromwell, as a result of Hilary Mantel’s novels. And now perhaps in even greater numbers than before, thanks to the BBC’s dramatisation of Wolf Hall that began this week, whose centrepiece is Mark Rylance’s Cromwell: the outsider who mesmerisingly watches, plots and thinks his way into the heart of the English Tudor state.
On one level, the current national embrace of Cromwell is easy to explain. The Tudors are box office. And Cromwell was a big Tudor figure. Mantel’s books expertly draw the reader into Cromwell’s reflective world, where his words are the tip of an iceberg of unspoken feelings and thoughts. After just one episode, Rylance’s portrayal is already a masterpiece of suggestion, tempting us to overlook Shakespeare’s advice that there’s “no art to find the mind’s construction in the face”
It is sometimes implied that Mantel’s reimagining of Cromwell has overturned the way we see the reign of Henry VIII. But this shows what short memories we all have. This is not the first time in English history that Cromwell’s stock has been so high. After his death, many Elizabethans saw him as a heroic martyr to the English protestant cause. And after the second world war Professor GR Elton – uncle of Ben – placed him on a very different pedestal at the heart of what he called the Tudor revolution in government.
Elton’s Cromwell was the man who blew away the medieval system of government based on the king’s household. He replaced it with a departmental bureaucracy that was the forerunner of the modern constitutional state. In Elton’s judgment, Cromwell was “the most remarkable revolutionary in English history”, and his intellect “the most successfully radical instrument at any man’s disposal in the 16th century”. Mantel’s Cromwell owes much to Elton’s heroic reinvention.
Yet Cromwell, even in the Elton-Mantel version, is a very improbable hero for our times. Cromwell’s essential attraction is his mastery of statecraft, his ability to identify a political goal and achieve it unerringly but pragmatically. He is unsentimental, cold-blooded, secular, and ruthless. He is a master of detail and of small moves in the service of larger ones. It is not clear whether Cromwell ever read Machiavelli, but there have been few leaders in English or British political history who better embodied Machiavellian ideas. In short, he is the sum of much that the modern era dislikes, or affects to dislike, in its politicians.
What is even more unlikely about Cromwell’s place in the sun, as Mantel’s readers and viewers will know, is that he was an enemy of a man who in so many ways is the sum of everything that the modern era admires, or affects to admire. Thomas More remains the incarnation of individual conscience, of rising above the quotidian, and doing the morally right thing in difficult and dangerous times. It is no surprise that in postwar Britain, it was More, especially as embodied by Paul Scofield in A Man for All Seasons, who ruled the Tudor roost.
By rights, More ought to be the man for our season too. He is pre-emenintly the Tudor politician who embodies sticking to firm principles, upholding moral authority and obeying the dictates of conscience. He refuses to do the politically convenient thing because he believes it is wrong – and pays with his life. Not for him Cromwell’s cynical survive-the-day relativism. If anyone is the man for an age that feels tarnished by illegal wars, mistreated by the power of corporations and banks, betrayed by MPs’ expenses, demeaned by the banality of modern politics, it is surely More.
And yet our age has embraced not pious, high-minded More, but aspirational, crafty Cromwell, who stands for everything we say we dislike about modern politics and statecraft. It is a very odd disjunction. It could simply be that we all love a costume drama with great actors. But it could also suggest there is some hope for politics yet.
Politicians could hardly suffer from lower esteem than they do at the moment. A survey published this week by the Edelman PR company confirms the overwhelmingly negative picture of the past few years, with trust in the doldrums, and with the reputations of government, business and media all flatlining. “People are desperate for honesty and fair play,” the report concludes. This is one reason why support for the established political parties is so low and why a proportion of the electorate is now embracing parties that offer easy answers to complex and difficult real problems.
Cromwell stands against all that. He stands for the art of politics, not for fantasy politics. It has often been said, including by RA Butler, who chose the phrase for the title of his memoirs, that politics is the art of the possible. I prefer Robin Cook’s characterisation that politics is also the art of the impossible. Cromwell was the vindication of that view – and his distant and later relative Oliver wasn’t bad at the game either. Cromwell knew precisely where he was trying to get, and he was pretty effective about getting there.
There is no point requiring every politician to have Cromwell’s gifts. It would be a scary political scene if they did. But there is a great deal of point in valuing and celebrating the statecraft and the political calculation that Cromwell mastered so well. Honesty and fair play are all very well, but effectiveness and continued support count for more in the end.
I read somewhere that the late Caroline Benn, wife of Tony, thought that political leaders fell into three categories: , which she called pedestrians, fixers or madmen. Allocating British prime ministers to the three categories is an entertaining exercise, especially if you remember that no category has all the virtues or all the vices. Tony Benn, apparently, was confident that if he had become prime minister he would have been one of the madmen.
I like fixers. The pedestrians frustrate me. The madmen frighten me. True, fixers aren’t always the best politicians. But the best politicians are almost always good fixers. Think Lloyd George or Franklin Roosevelt. And Cromwell, a fixers’ fixer, is right up there too. As long as we understand that knowing what you want is utterly useless unless you also know how to get it, then politics will have a storied future as well as a storied past.
I am no history buff and haven't read the book(yet) and I basically know nothing about the history of Tudor England except that the king had many wives......however I was hooked after watching the first episode Three Card Trick and the second episode Entirely Beloved was even better but I think I need to re-watch them with subtitles to fully understand the plots...so here's my spoiler-free review.
Though I knew people might dislike the dark visual effect. I for one absolutely love director Peter Kosminsky's shooting style with hand-held cameras and using only natural (candle/fire) light for night scenes. It's rare to do a television series(especially historical period drama) like that but the gloom does make the show feel more authenticity.
Both Mark Rylance and Damian Lewis gave brilliant, nomination-deserving performance. Mark Rylance will surely be a serious Emmy (& Bafta)contender for best actor in a leading role this year and probably win. I'm biased obviously but I have to say it’s Damian Lewis who really steals the show every single time he appears.
Wolf Hall seems likely to be one of the best historical drama ever so hopefully the upcoming episodes will live up to the hype.
Mark Rylance棒棒棒,安妮博林的选角各种不合适,亨八由于大乔先入为主,觉得Damian Lewis的气场稍弱?但是每场和克伦威尔的戏眉来眼去简直_(:з」∠)_制作已经能算很好啦,只可惜剧集篇幅限制,有些地方走得太快了。
总算【放】完了六集。最大的感想是一定要读完原著小说。电影的大部分镜头可以直接镶上画框变成伦勃朗的油画。亨八很抢戏,克伦威尔很好地还原了小说中的感觉。等看了小说以及周边准备再看一遍。必须什么都不做地,全神贯注的去一帧帧还原每个镜头。英剧实在是五星重灾区。
作为一部关于政局之凶险的史诗,迷你剧[狼厅]却看上去如此安静,这也许很符合史实:历史本身说不定即是如此毫无波澜地残忍着。我们则被一位在银幕上颇为消极的男主角带入了这场旅程,如果说前半段我们还能通过某些不甚聪明的闪回了解他的想法,后半段他就变的过于神秘。整出剧就这样忽然变得有些肥皂。
画面美,光影分分钟都像伦勃朗。叹一下惊人的细节,连给Anne行刑露面仅数分钟的刽子手都都处理得一丝不苟。
制作真是很精良啊。可怜的安妮博林,在历史的舞台上,她被送上断头台。之后,再无数次在戏剧电影电视里被送上断头台。幸好之前看过乔美人的《都铎王朝》,当时还查了不少亨利八世和他几任妻子的生平事迹。不然单独楞看这剧的话真的搞不明白人物关系和历史背景。
在都铎时代做一条狗都很难
强力推荐,剧本到演员摄影极其nb,好作品的前提真是得好本子,book奖得主。Mark Rylance演技太厉害,戴米恩第一季就出来一下,国土太深入人心,我还觉得有影子在。byw麦哥不愧是大英政府,亨8时代就开始干了,太资深
这个才真正叫历史剧。细节精准到具体饭菜都严格按都铎时代呈现,作为一名历史考据癖实在是对BBC充满敬意。整个剧集宛如茴香豆,味清而弥久。君王无常,安博林的现在就是克伦威尔的明天,最后那个拥抱着实意味深长。另,扮演安的姑娘我从《小杜丽》起就十分欣赏她,此处演技更加炉火纯青
先去熟背欧洲近代史。
太好看了,还原了那段历史
画风精美,故事就是亨利求子换妻。。
第七十三届金球奖电视类最佳迷你剧
剧情节奏的确让观众需要耐心,如果你对历史感兴趣,里面有乌托邦的作者托马斯莫尔,有英版圣经的翻译丁道尔,此克伦威尔非彼克伦威尔,但没有他英国没有能够真正独立富强起来,亨利八世之后是短命的爱德华,血腥玛丽和伟大的童真女王伊丽莎白一世,三者都是亨利的子女,但是因为出身不同走上了不同道路
飞机上看完了第一季,超!好!看!最近少有的优秀历史剧,Cromwell的表演尤其好,很内敛含蓄,又很有层次。看上去就是一张扑克脸,但是怎么看怎么觉得好有味道~~~好喜欢这样的男人啊~~~
“你们可能都忘记了,但我还记得。”
菲茨杰拉德奶奶曾经说,她觉得传记应该写你崇敬的人,小说则要写你认为被深深误解的人。从电视剧判断原著应该是把上述合二为一了。很好看,就是太短了像纪录片,沿着历史一溜儿下去,看客等着瞧角儿们各就各位。克伦威尔最后与亨八拥抱的表情,你们瞅着像谁不?我看可不就是乔治史迈利吗。
有都铎王朝在先还是拍得更好 BBC果然牛 还有音乐太棒了 ~ 可惜小乔霸气的颜早已经深入人心 这部的选角各种让人不适应
铁匠儿子儿子复仇记
一口气看完,节奏明明就是太快不是迟缓。好在写出了每个人的多面性,与之俱来则会有很多观点暧昧不明的缺点。服装道具等对历史神还原。总体来说,我不是很认同把Cromwell定位成为红衣主教复仇而染手坏事的定位,一个出身寒微却有野心和雄才大略 为达目的不择手段的人,更真实点。没必要装那么憋屈。
获过布克奖就是不一样,改编的剧比《白王后》可要对味儿多了。麦哥可萌( ^_^ )///对里朗斯产生了深深的好感,竟然是演亲密的那位大叔!