A Man For All Seasons is an erudite examination of the old Biblical maxim: a man cannot serve two masters. Sir Thomas More (poignantly portrayed by Paul Scofield) struggles to be true to both his faith and his monarch (the lusty and hearty King Henry VIII superbly played by Robert Shaw). I think it is difficult for citizens in our present secular society to truly understand just how central a role religion played in a man's life during the period of the film; it was an age of faith when Christianity exerted the most powerful of influences on one's thinking. On a side note, the American Republic wisely sought a nation that "divided church and state." However, the fine distinction remains that it would be a state informed by faith but not run by the church. The aforementioned exemplary performances by the leads are backed by excellent supporting turns, especially from Orson Welles as the less than saintly Cardinal Wolsey and the eternally ebullient Susannah York as Sir Thomas's daughter Margaret. This is a true masterpiece that richly deserves all the accolades and plaudits it has received.
224 Reviews
Lush costumer well set , magnificently performed and convincing directed
ma-cortes6 March 2009
This magnificent picture concerns on Sir Thomas Moro'conflict with Henry VIII . Moro(Paul Scofield, in the title role) was Henry VIII's(Robert Shaw) most able chancellor, he was a man of the Renaissance, lawyer , philosopher, writer(His most famous work was Utopia), and statesman. He was also a devoted husband and father, and, above all, a pious Catholic. Henry was well aware of Moro's brilliance and the strength of his chancellor's religious faith. When Henry proclaimed himself Head of Church, it was inevitable that the two men would clash. The origin conflict takes place when Catherine of Aragon was married to Arthur,Henry VII's older brother, Arthur died six months later, and Henry VIII marries to Catherine.Cardinal Wolsey(Orson Welles) failed to obtain the Pope's permission for Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn and his fall was swift, he was summoned before Henry and forced to surrender his seal of office. Then Henry breaks with Catholic Church and secretly married Anne Boleyn and after creates Anglican religion. Thomas is led to council formed by Duke of Norfolk(Nigel Davenport), Archbishop Cranmer, Cromwell(Leo McKern) and Richard Rich(John Hurt). Later Moro is judged by the court, those who stood in Henry's way, even those he claimed to love, invariably ended on the scaffold.
This splendid costumer-drama contains excellent performances by all star cast. Paul Scofield won deservedly Academy Award as upright chancellor with fateful destination but he was led from his cell in the Tower of London and beheaded. Outstanding Orson Welles at a brief appearance as Cardinal Wolsey and extraordinary plethora of secondaries as a young John Hurt, Wendy Hiller as his spouse Alice, Nigel Davenport as astute Duke of Norfolk, among others. And of course Robert Shaw as selfish King who discarded his first wife Catherine of Aragon and executed Anne Boleyn-Vanessa Redgrave in a very secondary role-. Colorful,luxurious scenarios by John Box with evocative cinematography by Ted Moore, also Oscar winner. The movie benefits from sensible and perceptible musical score by George Delerue.Brilliant direction by Fred Zinnemann who adapted perfectly Robert Bolt's screenplay.
The story is remade in 1988, an inferior TV version directed and produced by Charlton Heston with John Gielgud as Cardenal Wolsey, again Vanessa Redgrave and Heston as Thomas Moro.
This splendid costumer-drama contains excellent performances by all star cast. Paul Scofield won deservedly Academy Award as upright chancellor with fateful destination but he was led from his cell in the Tower of London and beheaded. Outstanding Orson Welles at a brief appearance as Cardinal Wolsey and extraordinary plethora of secondaries as a young John Hurt, Wendy Hiller as his spouse Alice, Nigel Davenport as astute Duke of Norfolk, among others. And of course Robert Shaw as selfish King who discarded his first wife Catherine of Aragon and executed Anne Boleyn-Vanessa Redgrave in a very secondary role-. Colorful,luxurious scenarios by John Box with evocative cinematography by Ted Moore, also Oscar winner. The movie benefits from sensible and perceptible musical score by George Delerue.Brilliant direction by Fred Zinnemann who adapted perfectly Robert Bolt's screenplay.
The story is remade in 1988, an inferior TV version directed and produced by Charlton Heston with John Gielgud as Cardenal Wolsey, again Vanessa Redgrave and Heston as Thomas Moro.
What Profit In Selling One's Soul?
slokes3 April 2005
Fred Zinnemann's one of our great forgotten directors, amazing considering that he was nominated for eight directing Oscars in four decades, winning two. Today's critics and auteurs don't champion him; you won't read much about him in "Entertainment Weekly." For Zinnemann, the script was the thing, what he worked from, and his greatest genius may have been in choosing the right scripts and knowing how to do them justice.
"From Here To Eternity" may well be Zinnemann at his highest tide, though IMDb voters seem to prefer "High Noon." Then there's "A Man For All Seasons," the film of the year in 1966, though its hard to imagine a film that represents the ethos of the 1960s less. "A Man For All Seasons" presents us with an unfashionable character who refuses to surrender his conscience to the dictates of king and countrymen, resolute instead in his devotion to God and Roman Catholic Church.
"When statesmen lead their country without their conscience to guide them, it is short road to chaos," Thomas More tells his nominal boss, Cardinal Wolsey, when the latter unsuccessfully presses him to give his blind assent to King Henry VIII's request for a convenient divorce. Perhaps out of pique, Wolsey makes sure More inherits his office of Counselor of the Realm, where More's sterling convictions are really put to the test.
More is a marvel of subtleties, tensile steel covered in a velvet glove, a mild-mannered lion trying at every turn to do well even though his political savvy knows how dangerous that can be. As a lawyer, More knows the angles, yet he is no sharpie. He respects the law too much for that. Rather, he sees in law the only hope for man's goodness in a fallen world. "I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake," he explains.
Paul Scofield plays More in such a way as to make us not only admire him but identify with him, and come to value both his humanness and his spirituality. His tired eyes, the way he gently rebuffs would-be bribers around Hampton Court, his genuine professions of loyalty to Henry even as he disagrees with the matter of his divorce, all speak to one of those great gifts of movies, which is the ability to create a character so well-rounded and illuminating in his window on the human condition we find him more haunting company than the real people we meet in life. It's a gift the movies seldom actually deliver on, so when someone like Scofield makes it happen, it is a object of gratitude as much as admiration.
The script, adapted by Robert Bolt from his stage play, is very literate and careful to explain the facts of More's dilemma. It moves too slowly and opaquely at times to qualify "A Man For All Seasons" as a true classic, that and a supporting cast full of one-note performances, though some are quite good (a few, however, are notably flat.) I especially liked Robert Shaw as a young and thin Henry VIII, full of vigor yet also a childish temperament and inconsistent mind. He demands More not oppose his marriage to Anne Boleyn, then decides he must have either More's outright assent or else his head. There's no bargaining with such a man. Perhaps More was better off standing on his principals as he did than climbing into bed with homicidal Henry. Just ask Anne.
Zinnemann presents some interesting visual images in "A Man For All Seasons," letting the period detail inform the story without overwhelming it. Several times, such as during the opening credits, inside More's cell at the Tower of London, and during More's trial, the camera shoots through narrow openings surrounded by high stone walls, a reminder not only of More's own trapped situation but the human condition. Aspirations of divinity may be unfashionable, even dangerous to one's health, but they present mankind with its one hope for overcoming its base nature, the dead-end character of temporality. "A Man For All Seasons" is a rallying cry for just such an approach to life, and remains undeniably effective in its artful, artless way.
"From Here To Eternity" may well be Zinnemann at his highest tide, though IMDb voters seem to prefer "High Noon." Then there's "A Man For All Seasons," the film of the year in 1966, though its hard to imagine a film that represents the ethos of the 1960s less. "A Man For All Seasons" presents us with an unfashionable character who refuses to surrender his conscience to the dictates of king and countrymen, resolute instead in his devotion to God and Roman Catholic Church.
"When statesmen lead their country without their conscience to guide them, it is short road to chaos," Thomas More tells his nominal boss, Cardinal Wolsey, when the latter unsuccessfully presses him to give his blind assent to King Henry VIII's request for a convenient divorce. Perhaps out of pique, Wolsey makes sure More inherits his office of Counselor of the Realm, where More's sterling convictions are really put to the test.
More is a marvel of subtleties, tensile steel covered in a velvet glove, a mild-mannered lion trying at every turn to do well even though his political savvy knows how dangerous that can be. As a lawyer, More knows the angles, yet he is no sharpie. He respects the law too much for that. Rather, he sees in law the only hope for man's goodness in a fallen world. "I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake," he explains.
Paul Scofield plays More in such a way as to make us not only admire him but identify with him, and come to value both his humanness and his spirituality. His tired eyes, the way he gently rebuffs would-be bribers around Hampton Court, his genuine professions of loyalty to Henry even as he disagrees with the matter of his divorce, all speak to one of those great gifts of movies, which is the ability to create a character so well-rounded and illuminating in his window on the human condition we find him more haunting company than the real people we meet in life. It's a gift the movies seldom actually deliver on, so when someone like Scofield makes it happen, it is a object of gratitude as much as admiration.
The script, adapted by Robert Bolt from his stage play, is very literate and careful to explain the facts of More's dilemma. It moves too slowly and opaquely at times to qualify "A Man For All Seasons" as a true classic, that and a supporting cast full of one-note performances, though some are quite good (a few, however, are notably flat.) I especially liked Robert Shaw as a young and thin Henry VIII, full of vigor yet also a childish temperament and inconsistent mind. He demands More not oppose his marriage to Anne Boleyn, then decides he must have either More's outright assent or else his head. There's no bargaining with such a man. Perhaps More was better off standing on his principals as he did than climbing into bed with homicidal Henry. Just ask Anne.
Zinnemann presents some interesting visual images in "A Man For All Seasons," letting the period detail inform the story without overwhelming it. Several times, such as during the opening credits, inside More's cell at the Tower of London, and during More's trial, the camera shoots through narrow openings surrounded by high stone walls, a reminder not only of More's own trapped situation but the human condition. Aspirations of divinity may be unfashionable, even dangerous to one's health, but they present mankind with its one hope for overcoming its base nature, the dead-end character of temporality. "A Man For All Seasons" is a rallying cry for just such an approach to life, and remains undeniably effective in its artful, artless way.
A Man Stands Up for His Beliefs Even in the Face of Execution at the Hands of His Sovereign
classicalsteve7 January 2010
Voltaire would probably not have agreed with Thomas Moore's beliefs. But he would have defended Moore's right to have them. For centuries, the Medieval Church had propagated any belief contrary to those disseminated by the Holy See was heresy. People not only faced eternal damnation but could also be tortured and executed for holding contrary religious ideas since the time of Charlegmagne, sometimes even for very slight doctrinal disagreements. Part of these sets of beliefs included unquestioned allegiance to and even worship of the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope. The film, "A Man for All Seasons" is about a man who stood up for the traditional beliefs propagated by the church and his refusal to recant, somewhat in the same vein as Martin Luther but in the opposite direction.
In the early 1500's, seven hundred years after Charlemagne used military might to secure the supremacy of the Pope in Western Europe, King Henry VIII of England decided to break with religious and political tradition. Almost over night, the king rebuked the political-religious power of the Pope in Rome and declared himself to be head of the church in England mainly as a mechanism to secure a divorce and re-marry. Fearing the awesome power of the king, all of the nobility and legates which surrounded the royal court signed a declaration not only recognizing the king as head of the church but that God had granted him this power directly from above. Except one did not sign. Sir Thomas Moore.
Thomas Moore was the only member of the class of litigators and lawyers who would not sign the document. Openly, he kept silent on his exact opinion. The King decided to regard this act of defiance as treasonous, although Moore never openly admitted his point of view until the trial. He simply refused to sign the document. The case against Moore was certainly on shaky legal grounds as Moore had not actually done anything treasonous. He simply refused to sign and refused to give his reasons.
Thomas Moore was a devout Roman Catholic. And although, from a modern perspective, his reasons for refusing to sign the document may seem like blind loyalty to a medieval church and its dogma, Moore's point was that by signing, he would lose all religious integrity and ultimately condemn himself to damnation. His signature meant a recognition of something he did not believe in his heart. He ultimately believed the divorce between Catherine and King Henry was an act of heresy. Simultaneously, he did not deny Henry as head of the English church and Anne Boleyn as the new queen. The document he was asked to sign contained religious wording that placed the powers of local monarchs over that of the church, "inviolable grants of jurisdictions given by God". The wording was far too religiously charged for Moore to consent to signing it. It is speculated that if the wording had been altered slightly and words pertaining to God and the Roman Church had been removed, Moore might have signed it. But of course, King Henry, who was as stubborn as Moore, would not revise the document.
The film in question is a tour-de-force period piece that well-reflects the religious and monarchical fanaticism of the age. Paul Scofield offers an Acamemy-Award-Winning performance as a man who could not recant even with the threat of the headsman's ax being wielded above his head. Robert Shaw is more than convincing as King Henry VIII who after having broken with Rome could not abide any nobleman or subject to disagree with his position as head of his reformed church. I would not have thought that Shaw would be the ideal actor for this role, but Shaw brings a hot-headed sensibility to Henry that may be relatively historically accurate. Honorable mention goes to John Hurt as Richard Rich, considered by some English historians to be the worst Brit of the 1500's, partly because of the perjury he committed against Moore at his trial, and Wendy Hiller as Alice Moore. Both Shaw and Hiller were nominated for their supporting roles. A great film, not to be missed especially for viewers who enjoy Renaissance and English history.
In the early 1500's, seven hundred years after Charlemagne used military might to secure the supremacy of the Pope in Western Europe, King Henry VIII of England decided to break with religious and political tradition. Almost over night, the king rebuked the political-religious power of the Pope in Rome and declared himself to be head of the church in England mainly as a mechanism to secure a divorce and re-marry. Fearing the awesome power of the king, all of the nobility and legates which surrounded the royal court signed a declaration not only recognizing the king as head of the church but that God had granted him this power directly from above. Except one did not sign. Sir Thomas Moore.
Thomas Moore was the only member of the class of litigators and lawyers who would not sign the document. Openly, he kept silent on his exact opinion. The King decided to regard this act of defiance as treasonous, although Moore never openly admitted his point of view until the trial. He simply refused to sign the document. The case against Moore was certainly on shaky legal grounds as Moore had not actually done anything treasonous. He simply refused to sign and refused to give his reasons.
Thomas Moore was a devout Roman Catholic. And although, from a modern perspective, his reasons for refusing to sign the document may seem like blind loyalty to a medieval church and its dogma, Moore's point was that by signing, he would lose all religious integrity and ultimately condemn himself to damnation. His signature meant a recognition of something he did not believe in his heart. He ultimately believed the divorce between Catherine and King Henry was an act of heresy. Simultaneously, he did not deny Henry as head of the English church and Anne Boleyn as the new queen. The document he was asked to sign contained religious wording that placed the powers of local monarchs over that of the church, "inviolable grants of jurisdictions given by God". The wording was far too religiously charged for Moore to consent to signing it. It is speculated that if the wording had been altered slightly and words pertaining to God and the Roman Church had been removed, Moore might have signed it. But of course, King Henry, who was as stubborn as Moore, would not revise the document.
The film in question is a tour-de-force period piece that well-reflects the religious and monarchical fanaticism of the age. Paul Scofield offers an Acamemy-Award-Winning performance as a man who could not recant even with the threat of the headsman's ax being wielded above his head. Robert Shaw is more than convincing as King Henry VIII who after having broken with Rome could not abide any nobleman or subject to disagree with his position as head of his reformed church. I would not have thought that Shaw would be the ideal actor for this role, but Shaw brings a hot-headed sensibility to Henry that may be relatively historically accurate. Honorable mention goes to John Hurt as Richard Rich, considered by some English historians to be the worst Brit of the 1500's, partly because of the perjury he committed against Moore at his trial, and Wendy Hiller as Alice Moore. Both Shaw and Hiller were nominated for their supporting roles. A great film, not to be missed especially for viewers who enjoy Renaissance and English history.
The Ultimate Lead Performance
tomreynolds20044 March 2004
Paul Scofield's rendition of Sir Thomas More as written by Robert Bolt and directed by Fred Zinneman is the greatest lead dramatic performance EVER in cinematic history. He is that magnificent. He IS Sir Thomas More. We feel his hope, weariness, fire, virtue, protectiveness, morality, and bemusement as richly as he conveys each one frequently, one right after another. He was made for Bolt's dialogue, and Bolt's dialogue is drilled forever into our conscious by Scofield's flawless performance.
Everything else is also here. Leo McKern is brilliant as politically motivated prosecutor, Lord Cromwell. A bit subtler, but no less brilliant is Nigel Davenport as a man of some conscience, but not quite enough. John Hurt is unforgettable as ambitious young Rich led into temptation by Lord Cromwell. The incomparable Dame Wendy Hiller -- who passed just last year -- adds several more dimensions than her rather sparsely written role as Scofield's wife should have allowed for. Every minute she is on the screen is magnificent. Susannah York walks a tightrope between being scholarly reason and her passion for what is right. Robert Shaw as Henry VIII and Orson Wells as Cardinal Woolsey are larger than life and completely compelling during their all-too-brief virtuoso solos. The cinematography is lush. The soundtrack is historically accurate and perfectly positioned. Key sounds punctuate three pregnant pauses with explosive impact. The movie is technically as perfect as an historical epic can be. The film is simply exquisite.
All that being said, as I reflect momentarily in my head on closing this, it is Scofield's incomparable and breathtaking performance which still leaves me in complete awe.
Everything else is also here. Leo McKern is brilliant as politically motivated prosecutor, Lord Cromwell. A bit subtler, but no less brilliant is Nigel Davenport as a man of some conscience, but not quite enough. John Hurt is unforgettable as ambitious young Rich led into temptation by Lord Cromwell. The incomparable Dame Wendy Hiller -- who passed just last year -- adds several more dimensions than her rather sparsely written role as Scofield's wife should have allowed for. Every minute she is on the screen is magnificent. Susannah York walks a tightrope between being scholarly reason and her passion for what is right. Robert Shaw as Henry VIII and Orson Wells as Cardinal Woolsey are larger than life and completely compelling during their all-too-brief virtuoso solos. The cinematography is lush. The soundtrack is historically accurate and perfectly positioned. Key sounds punctuate three pregnant pauses with explosive impact. The movie is technically as perfect as an historical epic can be. The film is simply exquisite.
All that being said, as I reflect momentarily in my head on closing this, it is Scofield's incomparable and breathtaking performance which still leaves me in complete awe.
Took His Catholicism Very Seriously
bkoganbing4 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Sir Thomas More, a multi-talented man of letters and law, went to the executioner's block because he would not recognize a temporal king as head of his country's church. Though a friend of Henry VIII and his chancellor he was more afraid of offending God than the king. A man who took his Catholic faith quite seriously.
Robert Bolt's play ran for 637 performances in the 1961-1963 season on Broadway and the only two who came over from the Broadway cast were Paul Scofield as More and Leo McKern as Thomas Cromwell. They present quite a contrast indeed as antagonists, Scofield the man of honor and principle and McKern as the sly intriguing Cromwell. This Cromwell was in fact the grand uncle of Oliver Cromwell and he suffered the same fate as More for finding himself out of step politically at Henry VIII's court.
That's the way it was in court politics in Tudor England. You stayed in step with the monarch whims or the executioner shortened you a little bit. As Henry VIII, Robert Shaw does actually have reason to be concerned.
The only American in the cast, Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey, explains it quite clearly. It was only 40+ years since the king's father Henry VII took the throne and reunited the York and Lancastrian claims to the crown. Previous to that for sixty years England went into a steep decline during the period known as the War of the Roses where rival factions fought for the crown. The lack of a strong male heir would guarantee such an event which was fresh in a lot of minds.
Why wouldn't the Pope just find some ecclesiastical loophole and give who had been his ardent defender a divorce? Very simply Henry VIII's first wife Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Emperor Charles V and his army was occupying Rome after the battle of Pavia a few years back. Catherine's marriage to Henry put England in the Spanish orbit and he wasn't about to let it go. Basically the Pope was going to dance to Emperor Charles's tune.
Which still left Henry VIII with a dynastic problem. He made the complete break and said he was head of the Church in England. That is how the Anglican church came into being. A lot like More thought this wrong and paid with their lives.
Paul Scofield won Broadway's Tony Award for playing Sir Thomas More and matched it with an Oscar for Best Actor in 1966. Scofield set a standard for playing a man willing to die for a belief. His More is a man of wit and humor, not a priggish sort by any means. It's what makes More such an appealing character and even non-Catholics can certainly appreciate his sacrifice.
Besides those I've already mentioned the cast also includes Wendy Hiller as More's good wife, Susannah York as his daughter and Corin Redgrave of that great theatrical family as his somewhat bumptious, but well meaning son-in-law. Sister Vanessa is her briefly as Anne Boleyn who Henry hoped to marry to begat a son with her. For the story from her point of view see Anne of a Thousand Days or for the whole saga see the fine BBC production of their mini-series starring Keith Mitchell as Henry VIII.
Besides Scofield though, my favorite in A Man for All Seasons has always been McKern. To see what a wide ranging player he was apart from being the henpecked barrister Horace Rumpole you have to see A Man For All Seasons. He plays Thomas Cromwell every bit as slimy as he has come down to us in history. Also note the presence of a young John Hurt who plays Richard Rich whose perjured testimony convicts More.
A Man For All Seasons, a film for all seasons and lots of reasons.
Robert Bolt's play ran for 637 performances in the 1961-1963 season on Broadway and the only two who came over from the Broadway cast were Paul Scofield as More and Leo McKern as Thomas Cromwell. They present quite a contrast indeed as antagonists, Scofield the man of honor and principle and McKern as the sly intriguing Cromwell. This Cromwell was in fact the grand uncle of Oliver Cromwell and he suffered the same fate as More for finding himself out of step politically at Henry VIII's court.
That's the way it was in court politics in Tudor England. You stayed in step with the monarch whims or the executioner shortened you a little bit. As Henry VIII, Robert Shaw does actually have reason to be concerned.
The only American in the cast, Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey, explains it quite clearly. It was only 40+ years since the king's father Henry VII took the throne and reunited the York and Lancastrian claims to the crown. Previous to that for sixty years England went into a steep decline during the period known as the War of the Roses where rival factions fought for the crown. The lack of a strong male heir would guarantee such an event which was fresh in a lot of minds.
Why wouldn't the Pope just find some ecclesiastical loophole and give who had been his ardent defender a divorce? Very simply Henry VIII's first wife Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Emperor Charles V and his army was occupying Rome after the battle of Pavia a few years back. Catherine's marriage to Henry put England in the Spanish orbit and he wasn't about to let it go. Basically the Pope was going to dance to Emperor Charles's tune.
Which still left Henry VIII with a dynastic problem. He made the complete break and said he was head of the Church in England. That is how the Anglican church came into being. A lot like More thought this wrong and paid with their lives.
Paul Scofield won Broadway's Tony Award for playing Sir Thomas More and matched it with an Oscar for Best Actor in 1966. Scofield set a standard for playing a man willing to die for a belief. His More is a man of wit and humor, not a priggish sort by any means. It's what makes More such an appealing character and even non-Catholics can certainly appreciate his sacrifice.
Besides those I've already mentioned the cast also includes Wendy Hiller as More's good wife, Susannah York as his daughter and Corin Redgrave of that great theatrical family as his somewhat bumptious, but well meaning son-in-law. Sister Vanessa is her briefly as Anne Boleyn who Henry hoped to marry to begat a son with her. For the story from her point of view see Anne of a Thousand Days or for the whole saga see the fine BBC production of their mini-series starring Keith Mitchell as Henry VIII.
Besides Scofield though, my favorite in A Man for All Seasons has always been McKern. To see what a wide ranging player he was apart from being the henpecked barrister Horace Rumpole you have to see A Man For All Seasons. He plays Thomas Cromwell every bit as slimy as he has come down to us in history. Also note the presence of a young John Hurt who plays Richard Rich whose perjured testimony convicts More.
A Man For All Seasons, a film for all seasons and lots of reasons.
Definitely worth watching every single season
bsinc30 July 2003
If on occasions I babbled about some actor's performance being the best I've ever seen it was just because I hadn't seen "A Man For All Seasons". Well, up until today. And I definitely won't be that quickly amazed and impressed by a performance again. May I just say that Paul Scofield embodies great acting to it's very core. Comprehending his masterful and skillful acting is evident even to the greatest fool or layman and I (not being a big expert myself) could not believe how a man can attain such knowledge of perfection. His every word is spoken with the greatest skill, intonation and accent as well as his facial expressions and movements. His performance is so strong it's scary when I think about it. As if he knew(and he most definitely did!) EXACTLY how to perform his acting task. This movie is an explosion of outstanding acting and actors, showing their skills to the fullest and to the amazed viewers. It may well be the greatest movie ever made, but the reason for this lies also in the jaw dropping and mind opening script that deserves more credit than it could have ever gotten. If you thought "On The Waterfront", "Bridge On The River Kwai", "Glennary Glen Ross" or even "The Usual Suspects" or "Pulp Fiction" had some great dialogs then this inspiring and simply amazing script will definitely change your mind. There are so many memorable lines, monologues and great battling dialogs I can't even give an approximate number. Every moment is meaningful and the movie is full of smart and important thoughts. I won't go into the story, because as a previous commenter said, there are just too many points of view and meanings to it, but I will say this; Sir Thomas More was too moral and too strong to give in to the Church, and because of his reasons he was respected. But because he was, for some, this stubborn, he paid the price which in the real world when you play with the big boys, is a given. A movie every future actor, actress, director and screen writer should and must see and a movie that makes most of the later Oscar winners for best picture look like a joke. And a final though, Leonard Maltin was absolutely right; if Paul Scofield acted only in this movie he'd still be remembered as a marvel worth every praise and respect. 9/10
A Film for All Seasons
JamesHitchcock24 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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
"This silence of his is bellowing...."
alynsrumbold15 December 2005
One of the greatest cinematic studies of the nature of personal integrity, I sometimes think that this film is in danger of being forgotten -- and it shouldn't be. One wonders at the degree of corruption in More's time that he should have been so highly regarded for his honesty -- and how he might have been regarded today.
What Robert Bolt and Fred Zinnemann had wrought is absolutely brought to glorious life by the incomparable characterization of Sir Thomas More by the chronically underrated Paul Scofield. Bringing superb support to the role are Nigel Davenport as More's close friend Norfolk, who is caught between the rock of his respect and concern for More and the hard place of his duty to (and fear of) Henry VIII; Leo McKern as the jovially sinister Thomas Cromwell, whose verbal jousts with More are virtual poetry from Bolt's pen; John Hurt as More's fair-weather friend Richard Rich; Dame Wendy Hiller as More's devoted but frustrated and misunderstanding wife; and the elegant Susannah York as his equally devoted and strong-minded daughter. Two stand-out performances in relatively small but vital roles: Orson Welles, magnetic as the shrewdly pragmatic Cardinal Wolsey; and Robert Shaw, whose energetic portrayal of a young Henry VIII (before his corpulent days!) dominates the screen the two times he's on it.
As with "The Lion in Winter," the remarkable scriptwriting is the driving force behind the story, but Scofield's dignified, restrained, but at the same time quietly forceful delivery are what give the writing its power. The great quotes of the film ("Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the entire world...but for Wales?" "When you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?" etc.) are conveyed with either enormous gravity or poignancy by nothing more than the tone of Scofield's voice.
I think that the dilemma at the heart of the tale and how men of power came to grips with it is artfully summed up in the dying words of Wolsey and, of course, More. Wolsey regrets he did not serve God as well as he served his king. More, on the other hand, dies as "His majesty's good servant...but God's first." Whether criticized or praised as a morality play, it's wonderful to at least HAVE an uncompromising morality play to watch from time to time -- especially one so well crafted.
What Robert Bolt and Fred Zinnemann had wrought is absolutely brought to glorious life by the incomparable characterization of Sir Thomas More by the chronically underrated Paul Scofield. Bringing superb support to the role are Nigel Davenport as More's close friend Norfolk, who is caught between the rock of his respect and concern for More and the hard place of his duty to (and fear of) Henry VIII; Leo McKern as the jovially sinister Thomas Cromwell, whose verbal jousts with More are virtual poetry from Bolt's pen; John Hurt as More's fair-weather friend Richard Rich; Dame Wendy Hiller as More's devoted but frustrated and misunderstanding wife; and the elegant Susannah York as his equally devoted and strong-minded daughter. Two stand-out performances in relatively small but vital roles: Orson Welles, magnetic as the shrewdly pragmatic Cardinal Wolsey; and Robert Shaw, whose energetic portrayal of a young Henry VIII (before his corpulent days!) dominates the screen the two times he's on it.
As with "The Lion in Winter," the remarkable scriptwriting is the driving force behind the story, but Scofield's dignified, restrained, but at the same time quietly forceful delivery are what give the writing its power. The great quotes of the film ("Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the entire world...but for Wales?" "When you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?" etc.) are conveyed with either enormous gravity or poignancy by nothing more than the tone of Scofield's voice.
I think that the dilemma at the heart of the tale and how men of power came to grips with it is artfully summed up in the dying words of Wolsey and, of course, More. Wolsey regrets he did not serve God as well as he served his king. More, on the other hand, dies as "His majesty's good servant...but God's first." Whether criticized or praised as a morality play, it's wonderful to at least HAVE an uncompromising morality play to watch from time to time -- especially one so well crafted.
Fantastically acted, beautifully shot
NoArrow14 July 2004
`A Man For All Seasons', much like the film `Becket', is about a man standing up to his king, with tragic results. In this film the man is Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) a well-liked and well-respected lawyer and the king is Henry VIII (Robert Shaw). Henry VIII wants to divorce his wife and marry another, something illegal by the courts of England. But since he is the king and he is fond of executions, practically no one objects, except More, who refuses to believe that anyone is above the law, even his king.
It's not that More objects, rather that he doesn't go along with it. He never says he's against it because that way he could be charged with treason but he doesn't sign the new law passed in favor of the king. He could get away with this, of course, but Henry VIII stubbornly refuses to have any opposition, and the rest of the movie is spent on characters trying to persuade More to abide, for this reason or that. There is also a subplot about Richard Rich (a young John Hurt) and Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern) plotting to frame More to quiet him.
That is what I got from the plot, at least. I could be wrong. It was hard to follow, this film, because of the fast fury of dialogue in each scene, never relenting for the audience to understand. This fast approach to the subject matter wasn't too tedious, but it did prompt me to rewind a few times to hear things over.
That, I am glad to say, is the movie's only flaw. Everything else is wonderful. The acting was great. Scofield creates a sense of pride, duty, confidence and principle with his character that gives him a high, strong presence whenever he's onscreen. His character is complex and in a way simple. Simple: he's refusing to relent not because he believes strongly on the issues of marriage and divorce, but because he believes strongly that no one, not even the king, is above the law. Complex: his strength and duty begins to become self-destructive when he is jailed, his family is made poor and unhappy and he loses respect from most around him, all the while still refusing to conform. An Oscar well deserved.
The rest of the cast rounds out nicely. We have Orson Welles in a small role as the gruff Cardinal Wolsey, Leo McKern using scorn as his technique as Cromwell, Hurt playing a sad role that goes from nice and likable to selfish and nasty, and much others. Ones that stood out for me were Robert Shaw and Wendy Hiller, both Oscar nominated. Shaw is loud, rude, stupid, and in some way likable as the king, it's not his best performance but it is an entertaining one. Hiller, playing More's wife, creates a character whose pride and strength diminishes when her husband is punished, revealing what we least expected: love.
Also, the film is beautifully shot. Its scenery is nice, but how the camera captures it is better. The set direction and costumes are also very impressive, making the film as much a wonder to look at, as it is to watch. And notice how as the movie progresses and More's situation becomes more and more hopeless the tones become muddier; there are more grays and browns than the reds and oranges from early on.
The film won the 1966 Academy Award for Best Picture. I liked `The Sand Pebbles' a little more, but it was still a deserved win in my book. A great picture, made better by Scofield's powerful performance, 8/10.
It's not that More objects, rather that he doesn't go along with it. He never says he's against it because that way he could be charged with treason but he doesn't sign the new law passed in favor of the king. He could get away with this, of course, but Henry VIII stubbornly refuses to have any opposition, and the rest of the movie is spent on characters trying to persuade More to abide, for this reason or that. There is also a subplot about Richard Rich (a young John Hurt) and Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern) plotting to frame More to quiet him.
That is what I got from the plot, at least. I could be wrong. It was hard to follow, this film, because of the fast fury of dialogue in each scene, never relenting for the audience to understand. This fast approach to the subject matter wasn't too tedious, but it did prompt me to rewind a few times to hear things over.
That, I am glad to say, is the movie's only flaw. Everything else is wonderful. The acting was great. Scofield creates a sense of pride, duty, confidence and principle with his character that gives him a high, strong presence whenever he's onscreen. His character is complex and in a way simple. Simple: he's refusing to relent not because he believes strongly on the issues of marriage and divorce, but because he believes strongly that no one, not even the king, is above the law. Complex: his strength and duty begins to become self-destructive when he is jailed, his family is made poor and unhappy and he loses respect from most around him, all the while still refusing to conform. An Oscar well deserved.
The rest of the cast rounds out nicely. We have Orson Welles in a small role as the gruff Cardinal Wolsey, Leo McKern using scorn as his technique as Cromwell, Hurt playing a sad role that goes from nice and likable to selfish and nasty, and much others. Ones that stood out for me were Robert Shaw and Wendy Hiller, both Oscar nominated. Shaw is loud, rude, stupid, and in some way likable as the king, it's not his best performance but it is an entertaining one. Hiller, playing More's wife, creates a character whose pride and strength diminishes when her husband is punished, revealing what we least expected: love.
Also, the film is beautifully shot. Its scenery is nice, but how the camera captures it is better. The set direction and costumes are also very impressive, making the film as much a wonder to look at, as it is to watch. And notice how as the movie progresses and More's situation becomes more and more hopeless the tones become muddier; there are more grays and browns than the reds and oranges from early on.
The film won the 1966 Academy Award for Best Picture. I liked `The Sand Pebbles' a little more, but it was still a deserved win in my book. A great picture, made better by Scofield's powerful performance, 8/10.
The phenomenal Paul Scofield
blanche-210 February 2007
Paul Scofield is Sir Thomas More, "A Man for All Seasons," in a 1966 film directed by Fred Zinnemann and also starring Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, John Hurt, Leo McKern, Wendy Hiller, and Susanna York. Vanessa Redgrave, who was to play York's role, did a play instead and agreed to do the non-speaking role of Anne Boleyn, provided she not be given billing in the ads for the movie.
The story concerns Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine, is brother's widow, and his desire to marry Anne Boleyn so that she can give him an heir. Great pressure is put on More, a well-respected lawyer, to support the King, but More will not. He instead chooses to be silent on the matter, even when the King pronounces himself the head of the Church of England. If More speaks out, he will be charged with treason; by keeping silent, the King has no case against him. Nevertheless, a number of people work on More from all angles to get him to sign an oath to the King, but he will not. Finally, the King's cohorts realize that perjury is the only avenue left open to them in order to secure a charge of treason against More and have him executed.
Really, there's not much to be said about this profound film about a man who, to the death, had a commitment to his beliefs and never faltered. Paul Scofield is not as famous to vast audiences as Sir Laurence Olivier, Richard Burton, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and a whole host of excellent British actors who have made contributions to film. Scofield has made 30 movies, each chosen by him carefully. If he cared about money, he could gone slumming as a few of his counterparts did; with his magnificent voice and imposing presence, he could have done a Grey Poupon or a Polaroid commercial. But as a true artist and not an actor looking for production money, money to support a theater, or, like Burton, unable to recover from an impoverished childhood, his film work is not geared toward superstardom or prolific work. In every role he plays, from the obsessed Nazi in "The Train," to van Doren Sr. in "Quiz Show," he is magnificent.
But Sir Thomas More is his greatest role. It was turned down by Richard Burton, who would have been excellent but perhaps given us a more showy performance. Scofield's Sir Thomas More is a man humble before God, his true leader. He believes that no man is above the law, and that no man is above God. He is an unusual person in this world - he stands up for what he believes in no matter the cost. We seem to love these characters in films and books - More, Atticus Finch, Terry Malloy, and yet in the world outside of film, there are fewer and fewer exhibitions of such character.
The rest of the cast is uniformly great, including Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey; Leo McKern, so beloved as Rumpole of the Bailey, is here the horrid Thomas Cromwell, who will stop at nothing to make More bend his way; John Hurt as the slimy Richard Rich; Wendy Hiller as More's suffering wife; and Susannah York as his beloved daughter Margaret.
It's sometimes forgotten that Henry VIII was once a young, athletic, and very attractive man - I was reminded of it just last summer when I saw an absolute hunk play the young Henry. The arrogant, flirtatious, handsome man playing Henry in "A Man for All Seasons" looked familiar, but I couldn't place him. Having only seen the Robert Shaw of "The Sting" and "Jaws," it was hard to believe that he had ever looked or sounded the way he did in this film. He gives a marvelous, fiery performance.
The cinematography and scenery in this film is stunning, and there are many outside scenes - the sunlight in Thomas More's eyes as the King comes into view, the hustle and bustle of the town, the darkness of More's cell juxtaposed with the bright outdoors - all important parts of the story.
The last half hour is hard to take for the viewer, but it is some of the most beautiful work ever in film. More's final moments are magnificent and to be treasured.
A must-see for the story of a great man, and for one of the top performances of all time.
The story concerns Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine, is brother's widow, and his desire to marry Anne Boleyn so that she can give him an heir. Great pressure is put on More, a well-respected lawyer, to support the King, but More will not. He instead chooses to be silent on the matter, even when the King pronounces himself the head of the Church of England. If More speaks out, he will be charged with treason; by keeping silent, the King has no case against him. Nevertheless, a number of people work on More from all angles to get him to sign an oath to the King, but he will not. Finally, the King's cohorts realize that perjury is the only avenue left open to them in order to secure a charge of treason against More and have him executed.
Really, there's not much to be said about this profound film about a man who, to the death, had a commitment to his beliefs and never faltered. Paul Scofield is not as famous to vast audiences as Sir Laurence Olivier, Richard Burton, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and a whole host of excellent British actors who have made contributions to film. Scofield has made 30 movies, each chosen by him carefully. If he cared about money, he could gone slumming as a few of his counterparts did; with his magnificent voice and imposing presence, he could have done a Grey Poupon or a Polaroid commercial. But as a true artist and not an actor looking for production money, money to support a theater, or, like Burton, unable to recover from an impoverished childhood, his film work is not geared toward superstardom or prolific work. In every role he plays, from the obsessed Nazi in "The Train," to van Doren Sr. in "Quiz Show," he is magnificent.
But Sir Thomas More is his greatest role. It was turned down by Richard Burton, who would have been excellent but perhaps given us a more showy performance. Scofield's Sir Thomas More is a man humble before God, his true leader. He believes that no man is above the law, and that no man is above God. He is an unusual person in this world - he stands up for what he believes in no matter the cost. We seem to love these characters in films and books - More, Atticus Finch, Terry Malloy, and yet in the world outside of film, there are fewer and fewer exhibitions of such character.
The rest of the cast is uniformly great, including Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey; Leo McKern, so beloved as Rumpole of the Bailey, is here the horrid Thomas Cromwell, who will stop at nothing to make More bend his way; John Hurt as the slimy Richard Rich; Wendy Hiller as More's suffering wife; and Susannah York as his beloved daughter Margaret.
It's sometimes forgotten that Henry VIII was once a young, athletic, and very attractive man - I was reminded of it just last summer when I saw an absolute hunk play the young Henry. The arrogant, flirtatious, handsome man playing Henry in "A Man for All Seasons" looked familiar, but I couldn't place him. Having only seen the Robert Shaw of "The Sting" and "Jaws," it was hard to believe that he had ever looked or sounded the way he did in this film. He gives a marvelous, fiery performance.
The cinematography and scenery in this film is stunning, and there are many outside scenes - the sunlight in Thomas More's eyes as the King comes into view, the hustle and bustle of the town, the darkness of More's cell juxtaposed with the bright outdoors - all important parts of the story.
The last half hour is hard to take for the viewer, but it is some of the most beautiful work ever in film. More's final moments are magnificent and to be treasured.
A must-see for the story of a great man, and for one of the top performances of all time.
Simply a masterpiece
mOVIemAN565 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A Man For All Seasons is quiet frankly a masterpiece. The film follows the true-life story of Saint Thomas More, a English noble man who stood up to the King when the King attempted to throw down the Catholic Church for a divorce. English actor Paul Scofield portrays the noble rebel and his opponent is none other then Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII.
As the film begins we meet Thomas and his family. We see him as a kind, God loving man, highly respected among the people of England and its king. Soon the problem of the king not having a heir is brought about and the king seeks to divorce, Highly against Church law, the bishops of England stand against it as does Thomas.
Soon Thomas is stripped of everything and thrown into the Tower of London. Form the first scene of this film to the last word of Thomas you are virtually stunned by this man. The film is able to portray his brilliance in staying alive in the tower, his love of God, and his opposition to the King bending Church laws so he can have what he wants.
Paul Scofield is absolutely brilliant as St. Thomas More. He is able to portray a man in a constantly struggle between his service to God and his service to his country. He out acts everyone in the film and in the final scene in the court you want to stand up and applaud him.
Robert Shaw is also acts his heart out in the role of the King. He is able to capture the insanity that actually was in the real King and also is a good villain for the film. Shaw, along with Scofield, make the film what it is. They are simply amazing and bring out their characters true nature.
The film conveys a powerful message of not bending to something you don't believe even if it means punishment. in St. Thomas More's case, the punishment was hatred from the country. This is one of the best films I've seen this year.
A Man for All Seasons. Starring: Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Wendy Hiller, and Leo McKern.
5 out of 5 Stars.
As the film begins we meet Thomas and his family. We see him as a kind, God loving man, highly respected among the people of England and its king. Soon the problem of the king not having a heir is brought about and the king seeks to divorce, Highly against Church law, the bishops of England stand against it as does Thomas.
Soon Thomas is stripped of everything and thrown into the Tower of London. Form the first scene of this film to the last word of Thomas you are virtually stunned by this man. The film is able to portray his brilliance in staying alive in the tower, his love of God, and his opposition to the King bending Church laws so he can have what he wants.
Paul Scofield is absolutely brilliant as St. Thomas More. He is able to portray a man in a constantly struggle between his service to God and his service to his country. He out acts everyone in the film and in the final scene in the court you want to stand up and applaud him.
Robert Shaw is also acts his heart out in the role of the King. He is able to capture the insanity that actually was in the real King and also is a good villain for the film. Shaw, along with Scofield, make the film what it is. They are simply amazing and bring out their characters true nature.
The film conveys a powerful message of not bending to something you don't believe even if it means punishment. in St. Thomas More's case, the punishment was hatred from the country. This is one of the best films I've seen this year.
A Man for All Seasons. Starring: Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Wendy Hiller, and Leo McKern.
5 out of 5 Stars.
Brilliant cast, director, script...memorable Paul Scofield...
Doylenf23 January 2007
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS has Sir Thomas More (PAUL SCOFIELD) pitted against Henry VIII (ROBERT SHAW) as he struggles with his conscience and religious convictions rather than give in to those who want him to support the King's desire to annul his barren marriage and wed another.
He's up against all sorts of devious schemers, two of the most infamous extremely well played by LEO McKERN and JOHN HURT. ROBERT SHAW gives an over-the-top, typically flamboyant performance as Henry VIII that sometimes borders on the ludicrous. Yet, for this performance, he received much acclaim.
But PAUL SCOFIELD carries the film with his intelligent, piercing eyes and wit as he spars verbally with every member of his household, including WENDY HILLER as his stubborn wife who wants him to spare himself the indignity of being sent to the Tower. He maintains his poise and quiet determination at all times.
The costumes, the sets, the exteriors--all are brilliantly captured to give the film an authentic feeling of time and atmosphere. The screenplay by Robert Bolt is a pleasure to watch and listen to as it unfolds a period of history right before our eyes. This is the sort of film only the British can do in the royal manner--and it justifiably won several well deserved Oscars, including one for Scofield as Best Actor and other awards that included Best Picture and Best Director (FRED ZINNEMANN).
As a history lesson, you can't afford to miss it.
He's up against all sorts of devious schemers, two of the most infamous extremely well played by LEO McKERN and JOHN HURT. ROBERT SHAW gives an over-the-top, typically flamboyant performance as Henry VIII that sometimes borders on the ludicrous. Yet, for this performance, he received much acclaim.
But PAUL SCOFIELD carries the film with his intelligent, piercing eyes and wit as he spars verbally with every member of his household, including WENDY HILLER as his stubborn wife who wants him to spare himself the indignity of being sent to the Tower. He maintains his poise and quiet determination at all times.
The costumes, the sets, the exteriors--all are brilliantly captured to give the film an authentic feeling of time and atmosphere. The screenplay by Robert Bolt is a pleasure to watch and listen to as it unfolds a period of history right before our eyes. This is the sort of film only the British can do in the royal manner--and it justifiably won several well deserved Oscars, including one for Scofield as Best Actor and other awards that included Best Picture and Best Director (FRED ZINNEMANN).
As a history lesson, you can't afford to miss it.
Classic with a phenomenal lead performance
petra_ste11 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Fred Zinnemann (High Noon) directs this fine adaptation of the play by Robert Bolt (Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago), who also penned the script. The plot follows the conflict between Sir Thomas More and Henry VIII over the king's marriage to Anne Boleyn which led to the English Reformation.
Paul Scofield elevates the movie with one of the great performances of the Sixties, playing More with dignity, intelligence, humour and vulnerability. To appreciate how great Scofield is, compare him to Charlton Heston as More in the 1988 version. While Heston's performance isn't bad (just like the remake), it lacks the nuance and subtlety of Scofield's.
Also featuring Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, Leo McKern as Cromwell, Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk, a young John Hurt (in his first major role) as a social climber and a memorable cameo by Orson Welles as bitter, bleary-eyed Cardinal Wolsey.
8/10
Paul Scofield elevates the movie with one of the great performances of the Sixties, playing More with dignity, intelligence, humour and vulnerability. To appreciate how great Scofield is, compare him to Charlton Heston as More in the 1988 version. While Heston's performance isn't bad (just like the remake), it lacks the nuance and subtlety of Scofield's.
Also featuring Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, Leo McKern as Cromwell, Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk, a young John Hurt (in his first major role) as a social climber and a memorable cameo by Orson Welles as bitter, bleary-eyed Cardinal Wolsey.
8/10
great acting and solid production
SnoopyStyle31 January 2015
It's 16th century England. King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) wishes to divorce his wife Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. He needs a son. Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles) pressures Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) to bend to the will of the King. More advises ambitious acquaintance Richard Rich (John Hurt) to be a teacher. He refuses to allow lawyer William Roper to marry his daughter Meg for the sole reason that he's a follower of Luther. Wolsey dies and Henry appoints More as the Lord Chancellor of England. However he can't support the divorce in opposition to the Pope. Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern) tries to use Rich to get damaging information on More. More is hounded by both sides as the King Henry declares himself as Supreme Head of the Church in England. More can't renounce his allegiance to the Pope and resigns to live a quiet life. Cromwell continues to hound him to declare his opinions. There is terrific big acting from Robert Shaw and Paul Scofield is superior. There are some slower moments. Scofield's performance maintains the focus. The production value is terrific and elevates it from a simple transfer from the play. The character has a profound message and worthy of its many awards.
powerful and misunderstood study of identity
Brixia26 February 2004
This is one of my favorite films. It is of perfect length and pacing, and the script is one of the best ever written. The acting, direction, and design of this movie are uniformly excellent. The segue into Henry VIII's entrance is alone reason for seeing the movie. The production design is top-notch, both beautiful and--unlike many "costume dramas"--not so overwhelming as to lose the actors among outrageous sets and costumes. For an adaptation of a stage play, a remarkable proportion of the action taking place outdoors, with More's house at Chelsea being particularly lovely.
It's very easy to see this film superficially as a moral fable, and many people scoff at it as being a stagy morality play. But it's both more subtle and more vibrant that that. The subtlety of Robert Bolt's script lies in its exploration of identity. We're not meant to identify or admire More's religious ideas, which the movie actually tiptoes around. Instead it's what Bolt called More's "adamantine sense of his own self" that the movie really highlights.
It's very easy to see this film superficially as a moral fable, and many people scoff at it as being a stagy morality play. But it's both more subtle and more vibrant that that. The subtlety of Robert Bolt's script lies in its exploration of identity. We're not meant to identify or admire More's religious ideas, which the movie actually tiptoes around. Instead it's what Bolt called More's "adamantine sense of his own self" that the movie really highlights.
Not 100% historically accurate but a marvelous achievement nevertheless
planktonrules13 July 2006
Okay, here comes the history teacher in me,...the movie had a reasonably high number of historical inaccuracies. However, despite this, the spirit of the film is still true--but the details are often lacking. Instead of pointing out the many flaws, I'll just mention a few. Richard Rich in this film is the scheming bad guy. In real life, this probably wasn't the case. And, while in the film Thomas More retired to a quiet life and said nothing negative about his king, this wasn't exactly what More did.
However, these are just minor quibbles--the film itself is simply marvelous. Paul Scofield did a fantastic job as More and justifiably received the Oscar for this performance. The movie is very moving and interesting and gives a wonderful insight into the sort of slimy toad that Henry VIII really was. And, all this is done with great reverence to the costumes and manners of the period. A wonderful film with an uplifting message of decency and honor.
While they would have stood on opposite sides of the fence as far as religion goes, this movie would be a great double-feature with LUTHER--another great man who was resolute in his convictions during these same troubled times.
However, these are just minor quibbles--the film itself is simply marvelous. Paul Scofield did a fantastic job as More and justifiably received the Oscar for this performance. The movie is very moving and interesting and gives a wonderful insight into the sort of slimy toad that Henry VIII really was. And, all this is done with great reverence to the costumes and manners of the period. A wonderful film with an uplifting message of decency and honor.
While they would have stood on opposite sides of the fence as far as religion goes, this movie would be a great double-feature with LUTHER--another great man who was resolute in his convictions during these same troubled times.
Splendid film, brilliant Scofield
TheLittleSongbird19 October 2010
What can I say about A Man for All Seasons that hasn't been said already? Other than to say it is a wonderful film, with a brilliant cast? And that it is for me Fred Zinnerman's best film along with A Nun's Story? A Man For All Seasons is beautifully filmed, with lavish photography and costumes and a brilliant use of sets and locations. The story is never less than compelling, Fred Zinnerman's direction is impeccable and the dialogue is moving and intelligent.
And of course, how can I not write this review without mentioning the cast? Robert Shaw is a different Henry VIII, younger, thinner and is quite intelligent with a lot of political skill. Orson Welles is a fine Cardinal Wolsey and John Hurt in his first major role is suitably eloquent, while Leo McKern, Susannah York and Vanessa Redgrave play their roles with aplomb. Easily though, the best performance comes from Paul Scofield, who is simply brilliant as Sir Thomas Moore, with a balance of virtue and vanity.
All in all, a splendid film, elevated by Scofield and the rest of the cast. 10/10 Bethany Cox
And of course, how can I not write this review without mentioning the cast? Robert Shaw is a different Henry VIII, younger, thinner and is quite intelligent with a lot of political skill. Orson Welles is a fine Cardinal Wolsey and John Hurt in his first major role is suitably eloquent, while Leo McKern, Susannah York and Vanessa Redgrave play their roles with aplomb. Easily though, the best performance comes from Paul Scofield, who is simply brilliant as Sir Thomas Moore, with a balance of virtue and vanity.
All in all, a splendid film, elevated by Scofield and the rest of the cast. 10/10 Bethany Cox
"I'll show you the times"
Steffi_P18 September 2011
Although the ancient world epic died its death during the 1960s, period pictures were still popular and prevalent. In particular, this era saw a little fad of features set in medieval England. They differed from their more ostentatious forebears not just in setting, but in a realistic and intimate approach that went with the new generation of filmmaking. A Man for All Seasons represents the subgenre at its peak.
A Man for All Seasons is derived from a play by Robert Bolt, a name most familiar from the screenplays for David Lean's epics. It stands as one of his best works. He has these brilliantly succinct and engaging ways of introducing characters. When we first meet Thomas More, he has that exchange with his servant Matthew where he implies his knowledge that Matthew has sneaked a peak at the letter. It shows More's intelligence, but also his maturity, and in a way that also endears him to us. Similarly, the little moment when the king first appears, and he jumps in the mud, there is an awkward silence as his lackeys are unsure how to react, then they all laugh when the king laughs. It tells us everything we need to know about the king's character, and by extension the state of politics in the country at the time. All the way through characters are fully rounded and familiar, yet never clichéd. One of Bolt's biggest weaknesses in the Lean screenplays was an inability to write strong female characters The part of Alice More is an exception to this.
The director is Fred Zinnemann. Zinnemann has, not exactly a documentary style as some have stated, but certainly a penchant for naturalism, frequently staging little acts that make logical sense without ever delving into the banality of protracted realism. For example, in the opening scene we see Leo McKern giving the paper a little shake to dry the ink – you wouldn't see anything so everyday in a 50s historical picture. A few shots later, and we see the messenger momentarily lose his balance as he leaps out of the boat. This aspect of normality, when coupled with the impressively authentic sets and costumes, seems to bring us incredibly close to the era depicted. Zinnemann's camera is wonderfully calm and meditative, with Spartan shot compositions that show us only what we need at any given moment. Every reaction shot has some meaning, and I'm not just talking about the close-ups. Sometimes they are further back (yet still noticeable) for a more subtle touch. I'm thinking for example of John Hurt's reaction when he hears that the cup he sold for fifty shillings was worth a hundred. Zinnemann's montages of carvings and monuments give context to the scenes that precede them without being too contrived in their symbolism. The shot of fluttering leaves and the sound of bird song that open the final scene create a really beautiful moment, a hint of undaunted nature carrying on regardless.
And then of course there is the magnificent cast making all this work. Paul Schofield gives a nicely subdued performance, showing us not only More's calm demeanour but also a man smothering his true thoughts, smothering even his emotions, allowing them to break through to the surface just a little in the last few scenes, and even then doing so with breathtaking control. Wendy Hiller is similarly understated, yet always hinting at the potential fieriness of Alice's personality. When her character does give full vent to her feelings, Hiller does so with such power and such precision. Even in the smaller roles, the quality of someone like Colin Blakely (Matthew) is enough to make memorable his "I wish we had wings" outburst. The only performance I dislike is Robert Shaw's as the king, which is conspicuously theatrical. Presumably this was intentional, paralleling as it does portrayals of Nero and the like, but it's out of step with the realism of everything else. It's a pity it resulted in Shaw's only Oscar nomination because he did much better stuff that was not so recognized.
The only other problem with A Man for All Seasons is that, for all the bravery and principle with which it is carried out, Thomas More's silence regards what boils down to little more than technicalities; a mere detail of religious bureaucracy. What's more both the political and even the religious arguments against it seem fairly sensible. To my mind it somewhat blunts the presentation of More as a man of logic and shrewdness. Still, I guess the fact that A Man for all Seasons is still a forceful and affecting motion picture despite the relative triviality of More's struggle is a testament to the quality of its writing, direction and acting. Purely as a piece of filmmaking, this comes pretty damn close to perfect.
A Man for All Seasons is derived from a play by Robert Bolt, a name most familiar from the screenplays for David Lean's epics. It stands as one of his best works. He has these brilliantly succinct and engaging ways of introducing characters. When we first meet Thomas More, he has that exchange with his servant Matthew where he implies his knowledge that Matthew has sneaked a peak at the letter. It shows More's intelligence, but also his maturity, and in a way that also endears him to us. Similarly, the little moment when the king first appears, and he jumps in the mud, there is an awkward silence as his lackeys are unsure how to react, then they all laugh when the king laughs. It tells us everything we need to know about the king's character, and by extension the state of politics in the country at the time. All the way through characters are fully rounded and familiar, yet never clichéd. One of Bolt's biggest weaknesses in the Lean screenplays was an inability to write strong female characters The part of Alice More is an exception to this.
The director is Fred Zinnemann. Zinnemann has, not exactly a documentary style as some have stated, but certainly a penchant for naturalism, frequently staging little acts that make logical sense without ever delving into the banality of protracted realism. For example, in the opening scene we see Leo McKern giving the paper a little shake to dry the ink – you wouldn't see anything so everyday in a 50s historical picture. A few shots later, and we see the messenger momentarily lose his balance as he leaps out of the boat. This aspect of normality, when coupled with the impressively authentic sets and costumes, seems to bring us incredibly close to the era depicted. Zinnemann's camera is wonderfully calm and meditative, with Spartan shot compositions that show us only what we need at any given moment. Every reaction shot has some meaning, and I'm not just talking about the close-ups. Sometimes they are further back (yet still noticeable) for a more subtle touch. I'm thinking for example of John Hurt's reaction when he hears that the cup he sold for fifty shillings was worth a hundred. Zinnemann's montages of carvings and monuments give context to the scenes that precede them without being too contrived in their symbolism. The shot of fluttering leaves and the sound of bird song that open the final scene create a really beautiful moment, a hint of undaunted nature carrying on regardless.
And then of course there is the magnificent cast making all this work. Paul Schofield gives a nicely subdued performance, showing us not only More's calm demeanour but also a man smothering his true thoughts, smothering even his emotions, allowing them to break through to the surface just a little in the last few scenes, and even then doing so with breathtaking control. Wendy Hiller is similarly understated, yet always hinting at the potential fieriness of Alice's personality. When her character does give full vent to her feelings, Hiller does so with such power and such precision. Even in the smaller roles, the quality of someone like Colin Blakely (Matthew) is enough to make memorable his "I wish we had wings" outburst. The only performance I dislike is Robert Shaw's as the king, which is conspicuously theatrical. Presumably this was intentional, paralleling as it does portrayals of Nero and the like, but it's out of step with the realism of everything else. It's a pity it resulted in Shaw's only Oscar nomination because he did much better stuff that was not so recognized.
The only other problem with A Man for All Seasons is that, for all the bravery and principle with which it is carried out, Thomas More's silence regards what boils down to little more than technicalities; a mere detail of religious bureaucracy. What's more both the political and even the religious arguments against it seem fairly sensible. To my mind it somewhat blunts the presentation of More as a man of logic and shrewdness. Still, I guess the fact that A Man for all Seasons is still a forceful and affecting motion picture despite the relative triviality of More's struggle is a testament to the quality of its writing, direction and acting. Purely as a piece of filmmaking, this comes pretty damn close to perfect.
A Masterpiece
screenman28 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have a confession to make: this is my favourite movie.
Mr Boult's script is surely one of the most intelligent works ever to find its way onto celluloid. I have the original and he has topped and tailed it for clarity and perhaps brevity, but nothing of value has been lost. Every line is worth hearing, and most of them are gems.
But a near-perfect script could be wasted upon inept or unsuitable players. Happily, that doesn't happen here. This movie contains some of the cream of British acting. And towering above them all is Paul Schofeild. I have seen him miscast and wasted in other works, but he was surely born to play Sir Thomas More - 'the most moral man in England'.
It is a beautiful and lavish production that is both a time capsule of English history and British acting at its best. With modern actors constantly striving for Hollywood stardom and appealing to some kind of mid-Atlantic, cross-cultural ideal, it is unlikely than anything so quintessentially representative of English culture will ever be made again. I was told that even the theme music was played on authentic instruments of the period.
There have been other productions, but they pale by comparison. Apparently Charlton Heston lobbied to get his hands on the part. Can you imagine? Now there is surely an elephant that thought it could fly. I have observed more gravitas staring out at me from my aquarium. Indeed, he did feature in a TV production, and I winced with embarrassment at his hammy Hollywood excess. He appeared to confuse the role with El Cid.
There's not much else I need say. If you don't agree, then you won't agree; and it's not my business to persuade you.
Enjoy it, or leave it be; it's much too precious to criticise.
Mr Boult's script is surely one of the most intelligent works ever to find its way onto celluloid. I have the original and he has topped and tailed it for clarity and perhaps brevity, but nothing of value has been lost. Every line is worth hearing, and most of them are gems.
But a near-perfect script could be wasted upon inept or unsuitable players. Happily, that doesn't happen here. This movie contains some of the cream of British acting. And towering above them all is Paul Schofeild. I have seen him miscast and wasted in other works, but he was surely born to play Sir Thomas More - 'the most moral man in England'.
It is a beautiful and lavish production that is both a time capsule of English history and British acting at its best. With modern actors constantly striving for Hollywood stardom and appealing to some kind of mid-Atlantic, cross-cultural ideal, it is unlikely than anything so quintessentially representative of English culture will ever be made again. I was told that even the theme music was played on authentic instruments of the period.
There have been other productions, but they pale by comparison. Apparently Charlton Heston lobbied to get his hands on the part. Can you imagine? Now there is surely an elephant that thought it could fly. I have observed more gravitas staring out at me from my aquarium. Indeed, he did feature in a TV production, and I winced with embarrassment at his hammy Hollywood excess. He appeared to confuse the role with El Cid.
There's not much else I need say. If you don't agree, then you won't agree; and it's not my business to persuade you.
Enjoy it, or leave it be; it's much too precious to criticise.
An Inspirational Lesson of Courage and Integrity ...
ElMaruecan8230 August 2012
Adapted from Robert Bolt's prize-winning play, "A Man for All Seasons" is the historical chronicle of an announced martyrdom: Sir Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England in the 16th century, the man who stood up against the cancellation of King Henry VIII's first marriage, and refused to take the oath that recognized him the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
"A Man for All Seasons" is not 'one of these' big-budgeted costume-dramas typical of the declining sixties. In 1966, it was the 5th highest grossing film, it 'stole' several Oscars to the more popular "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", including Best Picture and Best Actor, and is regarded by the British Film Institute as the 43rd best British film. The film is directed by Fred Zinnermann, who'd already made the Best Picture winner "From Here to Eternity" and "High Noon", another gripping story of a man finding the courage to stand alone against adversity. It features magnificent performances from Paul Scofield, embodying the moral strength of Thomas More with a subtle, quiet yet undeniable aura, and Robert Shaw literally inflamed the screen with the living paradox of Henry VIII's intimidating charisma and threatening joviality.
But beyond all these cinematic qualities, it's for its inspirational lesson of integrity that I will never admire it enough. Since the dawn of ages, it's always been more profitable to cheat, and to betray in order to gain in wealth and power while the soul of humanity relies on justice, goodness and fairness, and Thomas More, more than anyone embodies these virtues. A jurist and lawyer, none of his enemies denies his honesty. But fate also placed him as King Henry VIII's servant. Henry married his brother's widow after having obtained the Pope's dispensation but incapable to have a son from his wife Catherine, he needed to divorce before marrying his mistress, the fertile Anne Boleyn. The film opens with Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles) pleading Thomas to help him to pressure the Church. Invocating its independence, More refuses, as he'd say later: he might be the King's servant, but he's God's first.
More can't betray his private conscience, if he wants to lives up with himself the rest of his life, it's not even a dilemma, it's certitude. In an ironic turn of events, Wolsey's dying words are: "if I had served God half as good as I served the King, He (God) wouldn't have let me die in this place". Wolsey's miserable ending shows that even compromising one's beliefs to obey an illegitimate authority can be sometimes unrewarding. But More, if not a cleric, is a true man of religion, he believes in the soul's salvation of the and can't compromise it by denying himself, not that the King's authority is illegitimate, but if it tries to surpass the Papacy, it is. The Magna Carta guarantees the Church's independence and so does the Coronation's oath, More doesn't have his faith but Law too in his side. But he's too naive to really believe that these considerations would matter.
The first encounter with the King strikes by its cheerful friendliness; Henry is in a jovial mood, happy to meet the new Chancellor of England. Robert Shaw steals the show as the charismatic figure, good-natured yet unpredictable, when he accidentally put his feet on mud, he lets an awkward moment of silence go, suspending the courtship to his reaction, before bursting out laughing. The on-going conversation between the King and More leaves no doubt about their mutual respect, but it's even more certain that Henry would not tolerate any opposition. More seals his own fate when even to the King, he's incapable to lie to himself, he even calls Catherine the Queen, provoking Henry's uncontrollable furor before he quietly storms off and decides to go back to he barge, abruptly shortening his visit. It will be one of the several occasions given to More to bend to the King's marriage, in vain.
Ironically, it's because everyone admires his integrity and honesty, that his allegiance is required. More can't even afford to remain silent, and as he does, arguing that Law can only base its judgment on facts, and none of his facts ever proved a treason, he's the object of a plot driven by Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern) and his new protégé Richard Rich. The 26-year old John Hurt is remarkably despicable as the ambitious go-getter who'd do anything to have power, or at least the allure of it. He embodies men's natural tendency to moral corruption. He'll inspire one of the film's greatest quotes when he condemns More by perjury. Learning that he's been appointed Attorney General of Wales, More stoically replies, "it profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole word. But for Wales"
"A Man for All Seasons" strikes by an intelligent screenplay inviting us to question the value of More's sacrifice, sacrificing privileges, titles, freedom, Family and ultimately life, life for such abstractions as beliefs or faiths. When you think about it, it's only in the moments where they're undermined that these abstractions have a value. It's seen as abstractions as long as actions don't speak for them but Thomas More is a man who acts according to his word. When Rich asks him for an employment, he quietly but ruthlessly say "no", he knows men's value enough, and judge them according to their capability to answer for themselves. Ironically, out of all those who plotted, Rich is the only one to die peacefully in his bed, after having been Chancellor of England himself.
The film concludes with this irony as a reminder that power doesn't necessarily belong to the most deserving, and that we all ultimately die but it's all about the marks we leave. And what Thomas More left is a universal example of courage and integrity, regardless of the faith that inspired him.
"A Man for All Seasons" is not 'one of these' big-budgeted costume-dramas typical of the declining sixties. In 1966, it was the 5th highest grossing film, it 'stole' several Oscars to the more popular "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", including Best Picture and Best Actor, and is regarded by the British Film Institute as the 43rd best British film. The film is directed by Fred Zinnermann, who'd already made the Best Picture winner "From Here to Eternity" and "High Noon", another gripping story of a man finding the courage to stand alone against adversity. It features magnificent performances from Paul Scofield, embodying the moral strength of Thomas More with a subtle, quiet yet undeniable aura, and Robert Shaw literally inflamed the screen with the living paradox of Henry VIII's intimidating charisma and threatening joviality.
But beyond all these cinematic qualities, it's for its inspirational lesson of integrity that I will never admire it enough. Since the dawn of ages, it's always been more profitable to cheat, and to betray in order to gain in wealth and power while the soul of humanity relies on justice, goodness and fairness, and Thomas More, more than anyone embodies these virtues. A jurist and lawyer, none of his enemies denies his honesty. But fate also placed him as King Henry VIII's servant. Henry married his brother's widow after having obtained the Pope's dispensation but incapable to have a son from his wife Catherine, he needed to divorce before marrying his mistress, the fertile Anne Boleyn. The film opens with Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles) pleading Thomas to help him to pressure the Church. Invocating its independence, More refuses, as he'd say later: he might be the King's servant, but he's God's first.
More can't betray his private conscience, if he wants to lives up with himself the rest of his life, it's not even a dilemma, it's certitude. In an ironic turn of events, Wolsey's dying words are: "if I had served God half as good as I served the King, He (God) wouldn't have let me die in this place". Wolsey's miserable ending shows that even compromising one's beliefs to obey an illegitimate authority can be sometimes unrewarding. But More, if not a cleric, is a true man of religion, he believes in the soul's salvation of the and can't compromise it by denying himself, not that the King's authority is illegitimate, but if it tries to surpass the Papacy, it is. The Magna Carta guarantees the Church's independence and so does the Coronation's oath, More doesn't have his faith but Law too in his side. But he's too naive to really believe that these considerations would matter.
The first encounter with the King strikes by its cheerful friendliness; Henry is in a jovial mood, happy to meet the new Chancellor of England. Robert Shaw steals the show as the charismatic figure, good-natured yet unpredictable, when he accidentally put his feet on mud, he lets an awkward moment of silence go, suspending the courtship to his reaction, before bursting out laughing. The on-going conversation between the King and More leaves no doubt about their mutual respect, but it's even more certain that Henry would not tolerate any opposition. More seals his own fate when even to the King, he's incapable to lie to himself, he even calls Catherine the Queen, provoking Henry's uncontrollable furor before he quietly storms off and decides to go back to he barge, abruptly shortening his visit. It will be one of the several occasions given to More to bend to the King's marriage, in vain.
Ironically, it's because everyone admires his integrity and honesty, that his allegiance is required. More can't even afford to remain silent, and as he does, arguing that Law can only base its judgment on facts, and none of his facts ever proved a treason, he's the object of a plot driven by Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern) and his new protégé Richard Rich. The 26-year old John Hurt is remarkably despicable as the ambitious go-getter who'd do anything to have power, or at least the allure of it. He embodies men's natural tendency to moral corruption. He'll inspire one of the film's greatest quotes when he condemns More by perjury. Learning that he's been appointed Attorney General of Wales, More stoically replies, "it profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole word. But for Wales"
"A Man for All Seasons" strikes by an intelligent screenplay inviting us to question the value of More's sacrifice, sacrificing privileges, titles, freedom, Family and ultimately life, life for such abstractions as beliefs or faiths. When you think about it, it's only in the moments where they're undermined that these abstractions have a value. It's seen as abstractions as long as actions don't speak for them but Thomas More is a man who acts according to his word. When Rich asks him for an employment, he quietly but ruthlessly say "no", he knows men's value enough, and judge them according to their capability to answer for themselves. Ironically, out of all those who plotted, Rich is the only one to die peacefully in his bed, after having been Chancellor of England himself.
The film concludes with this irony as a reminder that power doesn't necessarily belong to the most deserving, and that we all ultimately die but it's all about the marks we leave. And what Thomas More left is a universal example of courage and integrity, regardless of the faith that inspired him.
Unshakable, Unflinching, Uncompromising...
Xstal23 September 2020
Astounding dialogue, cinematography and performances, especially that of Paul Scofield - leaves us with the story of Thomas More to absorb and ultimately determine our own perspective of what we've experienced. To this day, a far from uncommon tale of religious dogma resulting in the most severe of consequences, on this occasion however, the way More chose to exercise his position is the way he draws our empathy - regardless of our agnosticity, Joan of Arc has the same effect. Perhaps, in modern times, it is that unshakable belief we have trouble coming to terms with, especially if, as a result, it concludes with the ultimate sacrifice.
Thomas More truly was a Man for all Seasons
gigan-9222 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A Man for all Seasons is a 1966 film directed by Fred Zinneman. It tells the story of the final years of Sir Thomas More. Like Elizabeth, the film was praised and won an impressive six Oscars. It was an adaptation of a play written by Robert Bolt and this is important to note, unlike certain adaptations that would come years later. A Man for all Seasons sticks much, much, closer to the actual history. In fact, only very minor details were changed as opposed to the almost fantasy-like take on Queen Elizabeth. While both are great films, A Man for all Seasons has a little more of my respect because of this. Now to the movie's story.
The film centers on Sir Thomas More, played excellently by Paul Scofield, who refuses to submit in the face of ever increasing pressure. More is portrayed as a man who adhered to his religion no matter the consequence. Interestingly enough, the DVD I purchased had the tagline "His silence was more powerful than words". At first, I had not a clue what that meant. After watching the film, I see now that the meaning behind it is really rather tragic. In the face of threats and endless persecution from his peers and King Henry VIII himself, More refused to crucify himself by openly declaring his reasoning. It was a clever way of going about it, but also sad in that a man had to resort to such tactics in the first place.
Of course , in the end it is not enough to save the main character from the king's wrath. Unfortunately, he goes the way of the martyr. In so doing, however, he became an impeccable symbol of virtue and strength. By refusing to allow politics to mold his beliefs, Sir Thomas More became a testament to integrity. The movie's theme is wrapped up cleverly inn its very title. Sir Thomas More truly was a Man for all Seasons.
The film centers on Sir Thomas More, played excellently by Paul Scofield, who refuses to submit in the face of ever increasing pressure. More is portrayed as a man who adhered to his religion no matter the consequence. Interestingly enough, the DVD I purchased had the tagline "His silence was more powerful than words". At first, I had not a clue what that meant. After watching the film, I see now that the meaning behind it is really rather tragic. In the face of threats and endless persecution from his peers and King Henry VIII himself, More refused to crucify himself by openly declaring his reasoning. It was a clever way of going about it, but also sad in that a man had to resort to such tactics in the first place.
Of course , in the end it is not enough to save the main character from the king's wrath. Unfortunately, he goes the way of the martyr. In so doing, however, he became an impeccable symbol of virtue and strength. By refusing to allow politics to mold his beliefs, Sir Thomas More became a testament to integrity. The movie's theme is wrapped up cleverly inn its very title. Sir Thomas More truly was a Man for all Seasons.
Idiot Wind
tieman646 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Fred Zinnemann's "A Man For All Seasons" tells the tale of Sir Thomas More, an English Chancellor who was persecuted and eventually executed for treason. A staunch Roman Catholic, More found himself caught in a moral quandary: should he publicly support King Henry VII's reformation and marriage to Anne Boleyn, or trumpet pre-reformation laws, which he believed no earthly man had the right to change? More stuck by his faith, of course, and was decapitated months later.
The film captures well the drumbeat of modern politics, Zinneman conveying the corruption, legal wranglings and cloak and dagger manoeuvrings seemingly inherent to state affairs. And like he does in his 1959 film, "The Nun's Story", in which Audrey Hepburn plays a nun caught between conscience and confrontation, Zinnemann paints More as a man torn between private ethics and public duty, which the film curses for not being one and the same.
"A Man For All Seasons" was released at the height of the Vietnam war, and gave embittered audiences something they increasingly didn't believe in: politicians with real honour, morals and character. But though Zinneman captures several truths – that our entire political system is conductive of corruption, that seemingly everyone sells their souls for power, position, title and silver, that disengagement is increasingly, paradoxically, both the only moral choice and a profound betrayal of one's beliefs – his portrait of More is nevertheless far too idealistic. Everyone in Zinnemann's film is severely flawed in some way, except for the noble, loving, honest More. Of course in actuality, More's "moral stance" is no admirable stance at all; he was merely preoccupied with a hard-nosed, absolutist, ultra-conservative reading of the Bible and irrationally believed God to be on his side. It is easy to sacrifice your life when you've been conditioned to think you shall be rewarded in death. And of course the very reformation More opposed was a somewhat positive thing, as it was from this moment onwards that divorce, marital affairs and a bevy of other things began to slip away from Rome and the ecclesiastical courts.
So the film simplifies what should be far murkier. It presents a false choice – God, goodness and a good man vs mortals, politics and evil men - and then lets you pat yourself on the back for knowing that you too would never sacrifice your ideals. But it's never that clear cut. Historically, both "sides" of this film were equally repressive, and the King's Protestanism was politically, not religiously motivated. Meanwhile, all of the historical More's perversions, fanaticisms and cruelties have been completely washed away by Zinnemann (as an Inquisitor he was responsible for many murders). End result, a false binary made legitimate by fantasy.
The film is nevertheless impeccably acted. Phillip Scofield plays More as a man of wit, intellect and unflappable cool and the always watchable Orson Welles has a bit part as a the corpulent Cardinal Wolsey. Based on a stage-play by Robert Bolt, the film's dialogue is both beautifully written and marvellously spoken. Lines dart back and forth like daggers, and much of the film simply consists of wonderful word-smiths wielding words like weapons. Ironically, "A Man For All Seasons" is a film in which almost everything said is about More's refusal to speak. His silence, his refusal to swear allegiance to the King, is the film's loudest cry.
Aesthetically Zinnemann adopts a simple, sedate tone. His camera rarely moves, and the film unfolds very much like a stage-play. To overcome this theatricality Zinnemann inserts a loud, bombastic score, pumps his dialogue full of glucose and removes all dead air from the film (shades of Hawks and Mamet). His tale sledgehammers you so hard that you don't quite notice how idiotic and insidious it all is.
7.9/10 – See "12 Angry Men", "Becket" (1964) and "The Lion In Winter" (1968).
The film captures well the drumbeat of modern politics, Zinneman conveying the corruption, legal wranglings and cloak and dagger manoeuvrings seemingly inherent to state affairs. And like he does in his 1959 film, "The Nun's Story", in which Audrey Hepburn plays a nun caught between conscience and confrontation, Zinnemann paints More as a man torn between private ethics and public duty, which the film curses for not being one and the same.
"A Man For All Seasons" was released at the height of the Vietnam war, and gave embittered audiences something they increasingly didn't believe in: politicians with real honour, morals and character. But though Zinneman captures several truths – that our entire political system is conductive of corruption, that seemingly everyone sells their souls for power, position, title and silver, that disengagement is increasingly, paradoxically, both the only moral choice and a profound betrayal of one's beliefs – his portrait of More is nevertheless far too idealistic. Everyone in Zinnemann's film is severely flawed in some way, except for the noble, loving, honest More. Of course in actuality, More's "moral stance" is no admirable stance at all; he was merely preoccupied with a hard-nosed, absolutist, ultra-conservative reading of the Bible and irrationally believed God to be on his side. It is easy to sacrifice your life when you've been conditioned to think you shall be rewarded in death. And of course the very reformation More opposed was a somewhat positive thing, as it was from this moment onwards that divorce, marital affairs and a bevy of other things began to slip away from Rome and the ecclesiastical courts.
So the film simplifies what should be far murkier. It presents a false choice – God, goodness and a good man vs mortals, politics and evil men - and then lets you pat yourself on the back for knowing that you too would never sacrifice your ideals. But it's never that clear cut. Historically, both "sides" of this film were equally repressive, and the King's Protestanism was politically, not religiously motivated. Meanwhile, all of the historical More's perversions, fanaticisms and cruelties have been completely washed away by Zinnemann (as an Inquisitor he was responsible for many murders). End result, a false binary made legitimate by fantasy.
The film is nevertheless impeccably acted. Phillip Scofield plays More as a man of wit, intellect and unflappable cool and the always watchable Orson Welles has a bit part as a the corpulent Cardinal Wolsey. Based on a stage-play by Robert Bolt, the film's dialogue is both beautifully written and marvellously spoken. Lines dart back and forth like daggers, and much of the film simply consists of wonderful word-smiths wielding words like weapons. Ironically, "A Man For All Seasons" is a film in which almost everything said is about More's refusal to speak. His silence, his refusal to swear allegiance to the King, is the film's loudest cry.
Aesthetically Zinnemann adopts a simple, sedate tone. His camera rarely moves, and the film unfolds very much like a stage-play. To overcome this theatricality Zinnemann inserts a loud, bombastic score, pumps his dialogue full of glucose and removes all dead air from the film (shades of Hawks and Mamet). His tale sledgehammers you so hard that you don't quite notice how idiotic and insidious it all is.
7.9/10 – See "12 Angry Men", "Becket" (1964) and "The Lion In Winter" (1968).
A Protest
strat-814 October 2004
It is a travesty that this film is not in the top 250. Something is very very wrong with rating system that says The Big Lebowski is a better film.
I can't add anything to what has already been said about A Man for All Seasons. Unquestionably one of the greatest films of all time, and stands the test of time. It will be revered as a great film 100 years from now. Will Lebowski? Doubt it. Winner of nearly every award it was nominated for. Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Screenplay, etc. One of the few movies that makes my whole being vibrate when I watch it. I am moved to tears in almost every scene because the scene is executed so perfectly.
Please IMDb, this must give you pause. Any system that does not put this film in the top 100 borders on insanity or uselessness.
I can't add anything to what has already been said about A Man for All Seasons. Unquestionably one of the greatest films of all time, and stands the test of time. It will be revered as a great film 100 years from now. Will Lebowski? Doubt it. Winner of nearly every award it was nominated for. Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Screenplay, etc. One of the few movies that makes my whole being vibrate when I watch it. I am moved to tears in almost every scene because the scene is executed so perfectly.
Please IMDb, this must give you pause. Any system that does not put this film in the top 100 borders on insanity or uselessness.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews