To celebrate my 800th review for IMDb I turn to another of my favourite films. Fred Zinnemann is one of my favourite directors, for three reasons. Firstly, he made "High Noon", my all-time favourite Western. Secondly, he made "From Here to Eternity", another great film of the early fifties. Thirdly he made "A Man for All Seasons", which must be the greatest ever film about British history.
The screenplay was adapted by Robert Bolt from his play of the same name and tells the story of Sir Thomas More, the 16th-century writer, scholar, lawyer, philosopher and theologian who became Lord Chancellor of England and a confidant of Henry VIII. More, however, resigned his office because he disagreed with the King over his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his break with Rome, disagreements which were to lead to More's execution after conviction on false charges of treason. Today More is regarded as a saint, not only by the Catholic Church but also (remarkably) by the Anglican Church.
When I first saw the film as a teenager, I had little knowledge of the historical background, but today I am well aware that the Catholic church had, throughout history, used charges of heresy to silence and persecute those who disagreed with its teachings, often over minor points of doctrine, and that as Lord Chancellor More had played a part in the persecution of Lutherans. (Henry at this time was still regarded as a loyal son of the Church). These matters are not mentioned in the film, and some have seen Bolt as dishonest for praising More's courage while ignoring the sufferings of his equally courageous religious opponents.
Does this matter? In my view it does not. Bolt was not a Catholic but an agnostic, and wrote his play not to make propaganda for one religion against another but because he saw More as a man of conscience and integrity who remained true to his principles even under threat of death. The title is borrowed from a description by a contemporary of More, but it also reflects Bolt's view of More as a man for all time.
For the film, Bolt abandoned some of the Brechtian devices used in the play, clearly feeling that these would not work in the cinema. In particular, there is no "Common Man", the character who acts as the narrator in the play. The film does, however, retain something of the character of a play, with the story presented in a formal, stylised way. Unusually for a film derived from a stage play, it is very visually attractive with memorable scenes, such as that opening boat ride down the Thames against a backdrop of the setting sun. The sets and costumes are very good and combine with Georges Delerue's excellent musical score to give a vivid sense of Tudor life.
The main reason why I love this film is the quality of the acting. Zinnemann was an American, and there was an obvious temptation to have More played by a major Hollywood star, such as Charlton Heston who greatly admired Bolt's play and had campaigned to get the role. (Heston was eventually to produce and star in his own version more than twenty years later). Zinnemann, however, resisted this temptation and insisted on using Paul Scofield who had created the role on stage, even though the producers would have preferred a better-known name like Richard Burton or Laurence Olivier. Zinnemann was absolutely right, because Scofield gives a towering performance which rightly won him a Best Actor Oscar, brilliantly demonstrating not only his character's moral integrity but also such other qualities as wisdom, humour, powers of intellect and love for his family.
Apart from Orson Welles, all the supporting cast were British. (Although Leo McKern was born in Australia, he spent most of his career in Britain). All were excellent; there is not a single poor performance. Those I would single out for special mention are:-
Robert Shaw as King Henry. Shaw plays the King as an outwardly jovial character whose air of bluff good fellowship conceals a hot temper and an intolerance of any opposition to his wishes. This was a much more convincing portrayal of England's most notorious monarch than Eric Bana's in the recent "The Other Boleyn Girl".
John Hurt as Richard Rich, a young friend of More who treacherously betrays him in the interests of self-advancement. (More has refused to find Rich a position at Court, fearing that he lacks the strength of character to resist the temptations he will find there). This was Hurt's first major role and helped establish him as a promising newcomer.
Welles in a brief cameo as Cardinal Wolsey, played as the supreme politician who realises, too late, that realpolitik is not enough.
Wendy Hiller as More's loyal wife Alice, who continues to love him and stand beside him, even if she cannot always understand his motivation.
McKern as Thomas Cromwell, a cynical, unscrupulous man on the make who acts as the bullying prosecutor at More's trial.
Corin Redgrave as More's fiery son-in-law William Roper, who perhaps reflects Redgrave's own personality. (He was a passionately committed Marxist). Redgrave's sister Vanessa appears briefly as Anne Boleyn.
Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk, another friend of More. Unlike Rich, Norfolk is not portrayed as a villain but a basically decent if intellectually undistinguished man who does his best to protect his friend.
· Besides Scofield's "Best Picture", the film also won awards for Best Picture and "Best Director" for Zinnemann. Certainly, the Academy have at times honoured some unworthy titles, but this is not one of them. Few films have deserved "Best Picture" more. It remains as relevant today as it ever was, a film for all seasons. 10/10
The screenplay was adapted by Robert Bolt from his play of the same name and tells the story of Sir Thomas More, the 16th-century writer, scholar, lawyer, philosopher and theologian who became Lord Chancellor of England and a confidant of Henry VIII. More, however, resigned his office because he disagreed with the King over his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his break with Rome, disagreements which were to lead to More's execution after conviction on false charges of treason. Today More is regarded as a saint, not only by the Catholic Church but also (remarkably) by the Anglican Church.
When I first saw the film as a teenager, I had little knowledge of the historical background, but today I am well aware that the Catholic church had, throughout history, used charges of heresy to silence and persecute those who disagreed with its teachings, often over minor points of doctrine, and that as Lord Chancellor More had played a part in the persecution of Lutherans. (Henry at this time was still regarded as a loyal son of the Church). These matters are not mentioned in the film, and some have seen Bolt as dishonest for praising More's courage while ignoring the sufferings of his equally courageous religious opponents.
Does this matter? In my view it does not. Bolt was not a Catholic but an agnostic, and wrote his play not to make propaganda for one religion against another but because he saw More as a man of conscience and integrity who remained true to his principles even under threat of death. The title is borrowed from a description by a contemporary of More, but it also reflects Bolt's view of More as a man for all time.
For the film, Bolt abandoned some of the Brechtian devices used in the play, clearly feeling that these would not work in the cinema. In particular, there is no "Common Man", the character who acts as the narrator in the play. The film does, however, retain something of the character of a play, with the story presented in a formal, stylised way. Unusually for a film derived from a stage play, it is very visually attractive with memorable scenes, such as that opening boat ride down the Thames against a backdrop of the setting sun. The sets and costumes are very good and combine with Georges Delerue's excellent musical score to give a vivid sense of Tudor life.
The main reason why I love this film is the quality of the acting. Zinnemann was an American, and there was an obvious temptation to have More played by a major Hollywood star, such as Charlton Heston who greatly admired Bolt's play and had campaigned to get the role. (Heston was eventually to produce and star in his own version more than twenty years later). Zinnemann, however, resisted this temptation and insisted on using Paul Scofield who had created the role on stage, even though the producers would have preferred a better-known name like Richard Burton or Laurence Olivier. Zinnemann was absolutely right, because Scofield gives a towering performance which rightly won him a Best Actor Oscar, brilliantly demonstrating not only his character's moral integrity but also such other qualities as wisdom, humour, powers of intellect and love for his family.
Apart from Orson Welles, all the supporting cast were British. (Although Leo McKern was born in Australia, he spent most of his career in Britain). All were excellent; there is not a single poor performance. Those I would single out for special mention are:-
Robert Shaw as King Henry. Shaw plays the King as an outwardly jovial character whose air of bluff good fellowship conceals a hot temper and an intolerance of any opposition to his wishes. This was a much more convincing portrayal of England's most notorious monarch than Eric Bana's in the recent "The Other Boleyn Girl".
John Hurt as Richard Rich, a young friend of More who treacherously betrays him in the interests of self-advancement. (More has refused to find Rich a position at Court, fearing that he lacks the strength of character to resist the temptations he will find there). This was Hurt's first major role and helped establish him as a promising newcomer.
Welles in a brief cameo as Cardinal Wolsey, played as the supreme politician who realises, too late, that realpolitik is not enough.
Wendy Hiller as More's loyal wife Alice, who continues to love him and stand beside him, even if she cannot always understand his motivation.
McKern as Thomas Cromwell, a cynical, unscrupulous man on the make who acts as the bullying prosecutor at More's trial.
Corin Redgrave as More's fiery son-in-law William Roper, who perhaps reflects Redgrave's own personality. (He was a passionately committed Marxist). Redgrave's sister Vanessa appears briefly as Anne Boleyn.
Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk, another friend of More. Unlike Rich, Norfolk is not portrayed as a villain but a basically decent if intellectually undistinguished man who does his best to protect his friend.
· Besides Scofield's "Best Picture", the film also won awards for Best Picture and "Best Director" for Zinnemann. Certainly, the Academy have at times honoured some unworthy titles, but this is not one of them. Few films have deserved "Best Picture" more. It remains as relevant today as it ever was, a film for all seasons. 10/10