狼厅

根据两届布克奖得主，希拉里·曼特尔(Hilary Mantel)的热销历史小说《狼厅》Wolf Hall和《提堂》Bring Up the Bodies改编，讲述了亨利八世统治下的都铎王朝宫廷权力斗争的故事。

根据两届布克奖得主，希拉里·曼特尔(Hilary Mantel)的热销历史小说《狼厅》Wolf Hall和《提堂》Bring Up the Bodies改编，讲述了亨利八世统治下的都铎王朝宫廷权力斗争的故事。

原文链接：http://www.wsj.com/articles/wolf-hall-viewers-flock-to-the-soundtrack-1428606881标题：Wolf Hall’ Viewers Flock to the SoundtrackThe broadcast of ‘Wolf Hall’ has brought interest in the soundtrack, which includes contemporary and early musicTelevision soundtrack music often fades from memory as fast as remotes can switch channels, but something different happened with the British miniseries “Wolf Hall.”Based on the Booker Prize-winning novels of Hilary Mantel and being broadcast on PBS Masterpiece, the series tells the story of the Tudors, the ill-fated Anne Boleyn and, most important, the royal adviser Thomas Cromwell.Behind the dynastic drama are two distinct musical backdrops, both of which are garnering attention for a type of music usually enjoyed by a niche classical audience. There’s a modern soundtrack, written by British composer Debbie Wiseman, and period music from the late 15th and early 16th century, sourced and arranged by Claire van Kampen. Neither was involved with the Broadway adaptation.In Britain, BBC2 aired the final episode of the miniseries in late February; by late March, Ms. Wiseman’s soundtrack topped the U.K.’s Classic FM chart. Most recently, it was No. 6. The album has so far sold an unexpected 2,100 copies, more than double the initial order, said a spokesman for the record label Silva Screen. A “Wolf Hall” soundtrack album of Tudor music on VIA Records, which is distributed by Naxos, became available for preorder on Wednesday in advance of a June 9 release. It’s too early to tell if American viewers will similarly focus on the music: The miniseries began airing last Sunday.This is Ms. Wiseman’s sixth collaboration with “Wolf Hall” director Peter Kosminsky. A conductor and noted film composer in the U.K., she has scored several hundred movies and television shows, including the BBC war drama “Warriors” and the 1994 film “Tom & Viv,” about T.S. Eliot and his first wife.For her “Wolf Hall” score, Ms. Wiseman says that “we decided it shouldn’t sound like a pastiche of Tudor music. There’s no sense of looking at [the characters] through some stained-glass window.” In lieu of the lush, orchestral sound often found in film, Ms. Wiseman wrote music that was performed by an ensemble of roughly a dozen musicians. They play both modern instruments and historical ones, including the theorbo, a lutelike instrument, and the vielle, a type of medieval violin. The strong response to the music on social media and from fans “has been unlike anything I’ve experienced in my career,” says Ms. Wiseman.Mr. Kosminsky felt it was important that the series’s soundscape feel contemporary. “For me, one of the triumphs of Hilary’s extraordinary books is the way they make a story set 500 years ago feel immediate, current,” Mr. Kosminsky says. For music apparently being played by on-screen musicians, “we opted for pieces that were very strictly accurate to period,” he says.Ms. van Kampen—a composer, playwright, director and music historian— turned to her considerable knowledge of the period. She works at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. Recently, she scored Broadway productions of “Twelfth Night” and “ Richard III,” both using authentic Elizabethan music and period instruments like the sackbut and hurdy-gurdy. The Broadway audience “had never seen anything like that,” says Ms. van Kampen“Henry the VIII’s period is extraordinary, because it’s when everything changes in music,” she adds. Before the Reformation, music was focused on the religious world, but afterward became part of secular society. “Henry adored music, and was an excellent dancer and singer and wrote music himself,” she says.The music is authentic, says Ms. van Kampen, to the extent that is knowable. “I did faithfully try to use the music [Henry] would have heard as much as I could,” she says. For example, in “Wolf Hall” the vocal work “Te Deum,” by 16th-century composer John Taverner, is played for Anne Boleyn’s coronation in “Wolf Hall,” because Ms. van Kampen’s research found that it was likely played in Westminster Abbey on that date.Even the filming process had aspects of the authentic. “The musicians were filmed live playing in the gallery where Henry actually walked with Anne Boleyn,” says Ms. van Kampen. “We all had goosebumps.”<图片1><图片2><图片3><图片4>中世纪乐器和现代乐器结合。

第一集还有演员拿着lutelike，soundtrack里也有lutelike的演奏。

原文段落：Ms. Wiseman wrote music that was performed by an ensemble of roughly a dozen musicians. They play both modern instruments and historical ones, including the theorbo, a lutelike instrument, and the vielle, a type of medieval violin.

帧帧都是伦勃朗，英剧的步调和美剧很不同，主演诠释了一位刻板聪明，以卑微的身份而立足于皇室，即使一直被当枪使，却能打出自己的一片天地的牛人。

就是由于表情一直刻板，而使得每个眼神和微表情都是戏，很欣赏这个演员。

不觉得最后突出主角的复仇是在简单化主角，我觉得这正对应了剧里别人对他的信仰的怀疑。

一直贯穿着一些宗教的内容，有人说他是路德派，宗教改革阶段对于人来说肯定充满了各种矛盾。

主角虽没有否认过肯定过任何说法，而且也留存着改革派的圣经，也都读过，看得出很感兴趣，但他的信仰在最后做了交代。

他尊敬的主教，他的上帝，他带着复仇的情绪审判了那些 他觉得背叛了的人。

至于他非常识时务的不对改革派做评价并且感兴趣，那是一个聪明人，在面对命运，面对那个时代最好的选择吧。

很多年前看过都铎王朝，印象很深得是亨利八世为了一个男性继承人多么执着可笑，对于其他情节印象不深。

此次看狼厅，觉得主角的表演自然中规中矩，但是印象最深的镜头却与主角无关：一是托马斯.莫尔在自知必死无疑时的那段陈词，在那一刻，我深深体会到英国当时的宗教改革面临的巨大阻力，心中受到巨大的震动。

精神信仰领域的改变是如此困难，且以如此惨烈的方式体现出来，让人心中恻然。

二是安妮.博林之死，我记得都铎王朝时我也见过安妮.博林被斩首，并无太大的感受，但是在狼厅中那一幕让我尤其不忍，几乎无法直视。

鲜活的生命瞬间香消玉殒，心中感受难以言喻。

本文首发于“来之洲”公众号首先声明一下，我觉得狼厅不适合对英国历史不够了解的朋友看，狼厅是根据一部得了啥啥严肃文学大奖的小说改编的，咱中国人看狼厅，就跟外国人看《大明王朝1566》似的，如果对英国的都铎王朝的历史一无所知，那看着片子纯属浪费时间。

如果你对英国的历史有那么点了解，至少看过都铎之类的肥皂剧，恰巧你有比较喜欢《大明王朝1566》之类剧情复杂的历史正剧，那狼厅就非常适合你了。

英剧有个好处，就是从不拿观众当傻子，改编于严肃小说的电视剧《狼厅》，没有为历史基础不好的观众做任何的历史说明，也没有为理解能力不够适合本片的观众做任何添油加醋的剧情设置，全剧没有傻白甜的人物，没有幼稚的权谋，没有平白无故的阴谋，更没有洗白为了权力而贡献阴谋——成为亨利八世最强打手的男主——克伦威尔。

电视剧的画面像极了伦勃朗的油画，细腻、精致，全片完全采用巴赫风格的古典乐配乐辅以管风琴，内敛而雅致，为电视剧奠定了中世纪故事的基调，仿佛打开了电视剧，你的所见所闻就到了都铎王朝。

前面说过，《狼厅》电视剧改编于严肃小说，而改编于严肃小说的一个好处就在于，电视剧剧本的结构非常好，譬如第一集，克伦威尔担任的是主教Worsey律师秘书类职位，Worsey随着亨利八世与罗马教廷的矛盾而下台，而克伦威尔也借着主教下台和安娜柏林的上位而上位了；而最后一集则和第一集的权力路线反过来了，最后打到了安娜柏林，为Worsey报仇，首尾呼应。

尤其是最后的结尾，克伦威尔在安娜柏林死后回到狼厅，站到亨利八世身旁的画面，预示着克伦威尔通向权力之路达到了巅峰。

围绕着克伦威尔的几条故事主线，叙事风格整体比较散漫，东一个画面，西一个蒙太奇，但整体节奏并不散漫，安娜柏林上位快，死得也很快，如果同样的剧情放到横店拍，估计要拍十几集了。

此片（我觉得）最有趣的点，则在于我越看克伦威尔，越觉得他的上位姿态与同为中世纪的大明朝的著名宠臣严嵩非常类似，两位都是踩着原上司的官帽出的名，虽然出身平平，但都因为最高权力卖命而无限接近权力巅峰，依靠着最高权力干掉了一个又一个的政敌，两人的家族都显赫一时，甚至于两人的结局，也有那么点像，都被原本信赖的皇帝干掉，不得善终——只能说这就是拥抱权力的代价了。

另外想来，好像亨利八世和万寿帝君也有那么点像，除了对克伦威尔/严嵩这类“佞臣“的态度类似之外，他们还都很克妻……

我抱着很高的期望来看这剧的。

结果发现剧情就是亨利八世换老婆，到第5/6集基本就是cat fight，mock trial，津津乐道的断头台啥的。

上一部很喜欢的伊丽莎白迷你剧，也是这范儿。

大概用连续剧来演宗教改革神马的，确实没人看？

我错了，不该把这剧认作历史剧。

其实它是个肥皂剧。

不过肥皂剧真的很华丽啊，各种戏骨啊，各种细节考究啊，背景音乐很给力。

Damian Lewis每次出场都好帅啊，直接忽视国王陛下本人的各种渣本性。

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 timesMartin KettleThomas 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.

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。

那么好，现在开始谈狼厅。

很幸运的是，我把科目三已经通过了，历时五十天，这的确我得说是一件不太容易的事情。

现在就还差一个科目四了，科目四本来这周是可以考的，但是由于学校办公室人员说什么“科三的成绩还没有发到学校之类的原因”，便阻止我约考科目四，无妨，再等一周也无妨。

考完科三之后，这两天我看了看《狼厅》这部剧，还有《叶问4》这部电影。

顺便和森一起打发了很多时光。

《狼厅》不错，背景放在刚刚迈出的欧洲中世纪社会，视角瞄向了英国皇室以朝廷中以克伦威尔等为代表的上流社会，共刻画了皇帝、皇后、废后、红衣教主、大法官乃至铁匠、女仆、乐童等相对较低等级的人物。

第二任皇后是否有罪，有网友倾向于认为是完全没有罪的——虽然我认为完全没有罪似乎也不太可能，但是话说回来这里到底有罪还是没有罪已经不重要了，毕竟“欲加之罪何患无辞”

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。