230 reviews
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.
- alynsrumbold
- Dec 14, 2005
- Permalink
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.
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 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.
- perfectbond
- Feb 8, 2005
- Permalink
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.
- tomreynolds2004
- Mar 3, 2004
- Permalink
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.
This magnificent picture concerns 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 (Vanessa Redgrave's cameo role) 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. But only Sir Thomas has the courage and conviction to oppose the king's wishes. Thomas is led to council formed by Duke of Norfolk (Nigel Davenport), Archbishop Cranmer, Cromwell (Leo McKern) and Richard Rich (John Hurt). Later on, Moro is judged by the court, those who stood in Henry's way, even those he claimed to love, invariably ended on the scaffold. The furious monarch launches a campaign to discredit More, but his steadfast refusal to abandon his principles will eventually lead to his place in history as a "Man for All Seasons." ..a motion picture for all times!. His silence was more powerful than words !. The award-winning stage triumph brings more excitement to the screen...with its grandeur and its gripping drama!. From The Celebrated Prize-Winning Play !.
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 wife Alice, Nigel Davenport as astute Duke of Norfolk, Leo McKern as Cromwell, 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, in fact she refused to be paid for her supporting 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. Fred directed good films, such as: High Noon, The Seventh Cross, Act of violence, The Men, From here to Eternity, Oklahoma!, The Search, The Nun's story, The Sundowners, A Man for all seasons, The Day of the Dead, Jackal, Julia, among others. Rating: 8/10. Worth seeing. Fans of historical genre will like the film. Essential and fundamental seeing for completists of Fred Zinnemann's prosperous career.
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 wife Alice, Nigel Davenport as astute Duke of Norfolk, Leo McKern as Cromwell, 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, in fact she refused to be paid for her supporting 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. Fred directed good films, such as: High Noon, The Seventh Cross, Act of violence, The Men, From here to Eternity, Oklahoma!, The Search, The Nun's story, The Sundowners, A Man for all seasons, The Day of the Dead, Jackal, Julia, among others. Rating: 8/10. Worth seeing. Fans of historical genre will like the film. Essential and fundamental seeing for completists of Fred Zinnemann's prosperous career.
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.
`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.
Robert Bolt's literate film adaptation of his own play portrays Thomas More as a man of principle, envied by his rivals such as Thomas Cromwell and loved by his family and the people.
King Henry VIII, who is athletically portrayed by Robert Shaw who wants More to grant a divorce because his wife cannot have children and considers breaking away from the Catholic church. If there is no heir then England will have civil war as rival Barons lay claim to the crown.
More is shown here as a man of conscience, torn between duty and obedience to his King and God. He remains true to himself and his beliefs despite external pressure or influence from people who constantly buckle themselves
Of course the More shown here might not be the historically accurate one. Bolt screenplay has an anti-authoritarian theme. People in positions of power such as the King, Cromwell, Wolsey, Norfolk; are depicted as being either corrupt, power hungry or expedient.
The acting by Paul Scofield is superb and restrained with effective cameos from Orson Welles and Robert Shaw who are more showy. The direction by Fred Zinnemann shows an England that is elegant rather than vulgar or hammy which other Tudor adaptations have a tendency to do. Its an acting masterclass from some of the finest actors in Britain of the last 60 years and sadly only a few of the cast now remain with us.
King Henry VIII, who is athletically portrayed by Robert Shaw who wants More to grant a divorce because his wife cannot have children and considers breaking away from the Catholic church. If there is no heir then England will have civil war as rival Barons lay claim to the crown.
More is shown here as a man of conscience, torn between duty and obedience to his King and God. He remains true to himself and his beliefs despite external pressure or influence from people who constantly buckle themselves
Of course the More shown here might not be the historically accurate one. Bolt screenplay has an anti-authoritarian theme. People in positions of power such as the King, Cromwell, Wolsey, Norfolk; are depicted as being either corrupt, power hungry or expedient.
The acting by Paul Scofield is superb and restrained with effective cameos from Orson Welles and Robert Shaw who are more showy. The direction by Fred Zinnemann shows an England that is elegant rather than vulgar or hammy which other Tudor adaptations have a tendency to do. Its an acting masterclass from some of the finest actors in Britain of the last 60 years and sadly only a few of the cast now remain with us.
- Prismark10
- Apr 22, 2014
- Permalink
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.
- classicalsteve
- Jan 6, 2010
- Permalink
I consider myself a discriminating viewer, and I enjoy historical epics as much as anyone-- "Laurence of Arabia", "Becket", "Anne of the Thousand Days" and other period films are among my favorites. But I have never understood the wild acclaim given to "A Man For All Seasons", a perfectly enjoyable film that makes an audience think, but is so subdued that it never moves one emotionally. To me, it has always been a scandal, and a sure sign of the Motion Picture Academy's conservatism, that this film won a Best Picture Oscar over the much better "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", and that Paul Scofield, as great as he is in this film, beat out Richard Burton in what is surely Burton's most brilliant performance onscreen.
When I first saw this film, I could not understand the acclaim for Scofield's performance. It seemed so ordinary---no fireworks to it at all. Then, years later, I saw a college production of the play, and the actor who played Thomas More in that production missed all the tiny nuances that Scofield brought to his portrayal. It was then that I understood how carefully Scofield had created his performance.
Unfortunately, his performance does not keep the film from being just a reasonably good historical drama.
The dialogue in "A Man For All Seasons" tries hard to be "interesting", pseudopoetic, and provocative, but just falls flat. (Robert Bolt often is rather disappointing for a screenwriter and playwright who is so highly esteemed. Think of Bolt's screenplay for "Lawrence of Arabia", for instance. Is the screenplay for that unforgettable film REALLY it's most memorable quality?) Just compare his dialogue with Edward Albee's savagely hilarious, barbed one-liners in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", and you will notice the difference instantly. Nearly all of the dialogue in that film is endlessly quotable.
The other actors in "A Man For All Seasons" have been just as good in any number of films. The standouts are Robert Shaw as Henry VIII and Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey. Each is onscreen for only about fifteen minutes; yet they come close to stealing the film from Scofield.
This film is most certainly not the greatest film ever made, as some here claim---just compare it with the great films of Olivier, Burton, and Peter O' Toole. It is well acted, it is beautifully crafted visually, but it just does not have the impact of other great epics. And I am not saying that because there are no action scenes or explosions every five minutes. An epic can be thoughtful and quiet. But this film is very one-note, unlike other great plays brought to film, and most of the blame must be laid at the feet of Robert Bolt. "A Man For All Seasons" works too hard at being subtle without being very interesting.
When I first saw this film, I could not understand the acclaim for Scofield's performance. It seemed so ordinary---no fireworks to it at all. Then, years later, I saw a college production of the play, and the actor who played Thomas More in that production missed all the tiny nuances that Scofield brought to his portrayal. It was then that I understood how carefully Scofield had created his performance.
Unfortunately, his performance does not keep the film from being just a reasonably good historical drama.
The dialogue in "A Man For All Seasons" tries hard to be "interesting", pseudopoetic, and provocative, but just falls flat. (Robert Bolt often is rather disappointing for a screenwriter and playwright who is so highly esteemed. Think of Bolt's screenplay for "Lawrence of Arabia", for instance. Is the screenplay for that unforgettable film REALLY it's most memorable quality?) Just compare his dialogue with Edward Albee's savagely hilarious, barbed one-liners in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", and you will notice the difference instantly. Nearly all of the dialogue in that film is endlessly quotable.
The other actors in "A Man For All Seasons" have been just as good in any number of films. The standouts are Robert Shaw as Henry VIII and Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey. Each is onscreen for only about fifteen minutes; yet they come close to stealing the film from Scofield.
This film is most certainly not the greatest film ever made, as some here claim---just compare it with the great films of Olivier, Burton, and Peter O' Toole. It is well acted, it is beautifully crafted visually, but it just does not have the impact of other great epics. And I am not saying that because there are no action scenes or explosions every five minutes. An epic can be thoughtful and quiet. But this film is very one-note, unlike other great plays brought to film, and most of the blame must be laid at the feet of Robert Bolt. "A Man For All Seasons" works too hard at being subtle without being very interesting.
A Man for all Seasons is simply a fantastic film which I highly recommend to anyone who enjoys historical dramas. The film is directed by the late great Fred Zinnemann, who has helmed such diverse classics as From here to Eternity and Day of the Jackal, brings a sense of immediacy to the screen, and thereby transcends some of the screenplays stage like origins.
Paul Scofield plays the title role of Sir Thomas More. His dilemma being that he's forced against his will to acknowledge King Henry VIII divorce. The film's action therefore is confounded to a battle of wits between Sir Thomas Moore and his opponents at the Kings court.
That might not sound like much in terms of excitement in the classical sense, but this is offset by the brilliant acting of the entire cast and especially Paul Scofield, who received an Academy Award for his outstanding work, as Sir Thomas Moore and his main nemesis Thomas Cromwell, played by Leo McKern, exchange arguments and counterarguments in a bid for victory, where only one of them may come out the winner.
The sumptuous productions values must also be noted as they play a crucial part in the film's overall success. Both the cinematography and the music is some the best I've seen in a period-piece such as this one. As I've just said, a truly fantastic achievement by all involved parties. Go and see for yourselves!! You won't be disappointed! I'll guarantee You that!
Paul Scofield plays the title role of Sir Thomas More. His dilemma being that he's forced against his will to acknowledge King Henry VIII divorce. The film's action therefore is confounded to a battle of wits between Sir Thomas Moore and his opponents at the Kings court.
That might not sound like much in terms of excitement in the classical sense, but this is offset by the brilliant acting of the entire cast and especially Paul Scofield, who received an Academy Award for his outstanding work, as Sir Thomas Moore and his main nemesis Thomas Cromwell, played by Leo McKern, exchange arguments and counterarguments in a bid for victory, where only one of them may come out the winner.
The sumptuous productions values must also be noted as they play a crucial part in the film's overall success. Both the cinematography and the music is some the best I've seen in a period-piece such as this one. As I've just said, a truly fantastic achievement by all involved parties. Go and see for yourselves!! You won't be disappointed! I'll guarantee You that!
As is the case with many films who swept up a bunch of Academy Awards including Best Picture, you might feel compelled to watch A Man for All Seasons. However, if you are bored to tears and wonder how anyone could stay awake the entire time, you're not alone. With so many other exciting period pieces made during the 1960s, why did this one sweep the Oscars? Preceded by Becket and succeeded by The Lion in Winter and Anne of the Thousand Days, it paled in comparison to either. Yes, the costumes and set designs were lovely, but the direction was slow, the characters tough to root for, and Paul Scofield's Oscar-winning performance was lackluster. He'd originated the role on the stage; didn't he have enough practice to give an exceptional performance for the camera? Just imagine how wonderful Richard Burton or Peter O'Toole would have been instead. It just grates on the nerves that neither of those actors ever won an Oscar (even though they were nominated for the aforementioned similar period pieces) but Scofield won for saying his lines in a monotone to match his deadpanned expressions.
If I ever were to sit through this lengthy period piece, it would be for the supporting cast. Wendy Hiller plays Paul's long-suffering wife, Susannah York is their sweet, beautiful daughter. Leo McKern is Cromwell, and Orson Welles came out of the woodworks to play Cardinal Woolsey. I always like to see Nigel Davenport, and Robert Shaw has a great commanding presence as King Henry VIII. Had another actor played Thomas More, I probably would enjoy watching it over and over again, like I do Anne of the Thousand Days.
If I ever were to sit through this lengthy period piece, it would be for the supporting cast. Wendy Hiller plays Paul's long-suffering wife, Susannah York is their sweet, beautiful daughter. Leo McKern is Cromwell, and Orson Welles came out of the woodworks to play Cardinal Woolsey. I always like to see Nigel Davenport, and Robert Shaw has a great commanding presence as King Henry VIII. Had another actor played Thomas More, I probably would enjoy watching it over and over again, like I do Anne of the Thousand Days.
- HotToastyRag
- Dec 13, 2022
- Permalink
... For Best Picture Oscar winner you have "Sound of Music" in 1965 and this film in 1966, turning to the more controversial (for its time) "In the Heat of the Night" in 1967 and then back to innocent musical storytelling with Oliver! In 1968 and then back to controversy with "Midnight Cowboy" in 1969, even rated X at the time. Amidst this change was "A Man For All Seasons", ironically about the importance of holding fast to your ethics in spite of changing times.
The Tudor dynasty of England was an interesting 120 years or so. This film focuses on the very brief time that Henry VIII was fighting the Roman Catholic Church over him marrying a second wife after the same church had made a special dispensation for him to marry the first, with that first wife now past the age of childbearing and no surviving son resulting from the marriage.
Into the fray comes Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic. This film distills More's viewpoints down to his refusal to recognize that Henry has any right to break off from Rome and declare himself supreme head of the church in England. More seemed willing to help with arguments made to Rome in favor of granting Henry a divorce from his first wife, Katharine of Aragon, but he would not go past that into the taking of church property as Woolsey suggested or into the complete break from Rome that Henry eventually made. More was willing to help Henry as far as "working within the system", but he believed that system - the Roman Catholic Church - was established by God and he would not support an alternative view.
More remained silent on the issue of what Henry was doing, thinking this would protect him. He even remains silent to the viewer, since he refuses to share his opinion with anyone, though one can surmise it from what he has said he will not do or swear to and the resignation of his office of chancellor.
The real irony is everybody wondering at More's caution proclaiming - "This isn't Spain, it's England!", with everyone being so sure of their civil liberties there. Yet Thomas Cromwell was executed by Henry in 1540 for pretty much facilitating his marriage to an unattractive woman (Anne of Cleves), Anne Boleyn was executed on trumped up charges of adultery because she too failed to produce a male heir and a second divorce would have just been embarrassing, and the Duke of Norfolk only escaped execution because Henry died the night before Norfolk's scheduled execution. So it turned out that in Tudor England, dying in bed could be a goal difficult to attain in spite of it not being Spain.
In the end, More was executed because of the lies of RIchard Rich, as depicted in the film. More had this guy's number from the beginning. Before his fall from grace, More had urged Rich to take a teaching job and not press his luck at court because of his weakness of character and thus his susceptibility to being bribed and tempted. And yet it was the morally weak and treacherous Rich who eventually ascended to the office of chancellor, lived past the age of 70, and died in bed of natural causes.
The strength of this film lies in its performances - Scofield's steadfastly loyal and honest Thomas More, Robert Shaw as the bombastic and big as life Henry VIII, Susannah York as More's well educated and wise daughter, and especially an almost unrecognizable John Hurt as the slimy little weasel Richard Rich. My apology to weasels everywhere.
It is intensely political and philosophical and really appeals to people who think about standing up for one's ideals even when it is very easy to allow ethics to be bent.
The Tudor dynasty of England was an interesting 120 years or so. This film focuses on the very brief time that Henry VIII was fighting the Roman Catholic Church over him marrying a second wife after the same church had made a special dispensation for him to marry the first, with that first wife now past the age of childbearing and no surviving son resulting from the marriage.
Into the fray comes Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic. This film distills More's viewpoints down to his refusal to recognize that Henry has any right to break off from Rome and declare himself supreme head of the church in England. More seemed willing to help with arguments made to Rome in favor of granting Henry a divorce from his first wife, Katharine of Aragon, but he would not go past that into the taking of church property as Woolsey suggested or into the complete break from Rome that Henry eventually made. More was willing to help Henry as far as "working within the system", but he believed that system - the Roman Catholic Church - was established by God and he would not support an alternative view.
More remained silent on the issue of what Henry was doing, thinking this would protect him. He even remains silent to the viewer, since he refuses to share his opinion with anyone, though one can surmise it from what he has said he will not do or swear to and the resignation of his office of chancellor.
The real irony is everybody wondering at More's caution proclaiming - "This isn't Spain, it's England!", with everyone being so sure of their civil liberties there. Yet Thomas Cromwell was executed by Henry in 1540 for pretty much facilitating his marriage to an unattractive woman (Anne of Cleves), Anne Boleyn was executed on trumped up charges of adultery because she too failed to produce a male heir and a second divorce would have just been embarrassing, and the Duke of Norfolk only escaped execution because Henry died the night before Norfolk's scheduled execution. So it turned out that in Tudor England, dying in bed could be a goal difficult to attain in spite of it not being Spain.
In the end, More was executed because of the lies of RIchard Rich, as depicted in the film. More had this guy's number from the beginning. Before his fall from grace, More had urged Rich to take a teaching job and not press his luck at court because of his weakness of character and thus his susceptibility to being bribed and tempted. And yet it was the morally weak and treacherous Rich who eventually ascended to the office of chancellor, lived past the age of 70, and died in bed of natural causes.
The strength of this film lies in its performances - Scofield's steadfastly loyal and honest Thomas More, Robert Shaw as the bombastic and big as life Henry VIII, Susannah York as More's well educated and wise daughter, and especially an almost unrecognizable John Hurt as the slimy little weasel Richard Rich. My apology to weasels everywhere.
It is intensely political and philosophical and really appeals to people who think about standing up for one's ideals even when it is very easy to allow ethics to be bent.
- JamesHitchcock
- May 23, 2010
- Permalink
- bkoganbing
- Feb 3, 2007
- Permalink
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.
Scofield's excellent delivery and dry wit distinguish him even from the solid cast that supported him, and it's very much lamentable that his decision to prioritize his stage career has robbed us of other solid performances.
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.
By the mid-'60s, a group of young directors had begun to scrap many of the conventional rules that had governed Hollywood for generations. Therefore many industry insiders were surprised when Columbia Pictures announced that timeworn veteran Fred Zinnemann would direct "A Man for All Seasons". The fact that it was an old-fashioned period piece, adapted from a stage play, seemed to guarantee that the studio had a guaranteed box office flop on its hands.
The film is about King Henry VIII of England, who in 1530 wanted a divorce because his wife could not give him a male heir. However, the king's chancellor, Sir Thomas More, opposed this strongly.
When principal shooting started, Colombia Pictures had begun to be understandably nervous about "A Man for All Seasons" and its box office potential. Consequently, only a minimal budget was allocated to the project. The producer was also more interested in another movie he was responsible for. However, this brought with it some unexpected, positive side effects. It meant that Fred Zinnemann was largely given free rein to make the film exactly the way he wanted.
The director insisted on using Paul Scofield in the male lead role, even though the actor was almost unknown to the moviegoing audience. Like all the other thespians, Scofield then worked well below his usual salary to keep the budget down. In fact, Vanessa Redgrave didn't require any payment at all to play Anne Boleyn.
Against all odds, "A Man for All Seasons" became a big, international hit at the box office. And even though several other films grossed more money overall, executives at Columbia Pictures could still be pleased. With its modest budget "A Man for All Seasons" had the highest return over production cost of any picture that year. Not bad for a clever little movie that nobody really had believed in.
The film is about King Henry VIII of England, who in 1530 wanted a divorce because his wife could not give him a male heir. However, the king's chancellor, Sir Thomas More, opposed this strongly.
When principal shooting started, Colombia Pictures had begun to be understandably nervous about "A Man for All Seasons" and its box office potential. Consequently, only a minimal budget was allocated to the project. The producer was also more interested in another movie he was responsible for. However, this brought with it some unexpected, positive side effects. It meant that Fred Zinnemann was largely given free rein to make the film exactly the way he wanted.
The director insisted on using Paul Scofield in the male lead role, even though the actor was almost unknown to the moviegoing audience. Like all the other thespians, Scofield then worked well below his usual salary to keep the budget down. In fact, Vanessa Redgrave didn't require any payment at all to play Anne Boleyn.
Against all odds, "A Man for All Seasons" became a big, international hit at the box office. And even though several other films grossed more money overall, executives at Columbia Pictures could still be pleased. With its modest budget "A Man for All Seasons" had the highest return over production cost of any picture that year. Not bad for a clever little movie that nobody really had believed in.
Whenever I am asked to name my favorite movie, I unhesitatingly say "A Man for All Seasons". To me, there isn't a wrong note in the entire film. Every performance is superb; the dialog is brilliant, witty, sublime; the production values ~ costumes, scenery, etc. ~ are the standard to which other films should aspire.
Had Paul Scofield never appeared in another film or stage performance in his life, he should STILL be included amongst The Immortals for his portrayal of Sir Thomas More.
Not only does this movie entertain, but it enlightens, and inspires, as well... What more could one want?
I find so much to admire in Sir Thomas More's refusal to recant his beliefs simply for the sake of convenience, or to go along with his friends "...for fellowship's sake", as the Duke of Norfolk says to him. If only more people would have faith in their own convictions...
And, I believe More's retort to Cardinal Wolsey that a statesman who forsakes his own private conscience for the sake of his public duties leads his country by a short route to chaos should be incorporated into the oath of office that elected officials take upon assumption of office.
Had Paul Scofield never appeared in another film or stage performance in his life, he should STILL be included amongst The Immortals for his portrayal of Sir Thomas More.
Not only does this movie entertain, but it enlightens, and inspires, as well... What more could one want?
I find so much to admire in Sir Thomas More's refusal to recant his beliefs simply for the sake of convenience, or to go along with his friends "...for fellowship's sake", as the Duke of Norfolk says to him. If only more people would have faith in their own convictions...
And, I believe More's retort to Cardinal Wolsey that a statesman who forsakes his own private conscience for the sake of his public duties leads his country by a short route to chaos should be incorporated into the oath of office that elected officials take upon assumption of office.
- ianlouisiana
- Oct 14, 2006
- Permalink
Certainly "A Man for All Seasons" is a very distinguished film (unlike "The Big Lebowski") but to call it "one of the greatest films of all time" is the sort of thing that makes IMDb absurd. It has superior acting (of course) and a very literate screenplay, but as a film -- well, it is a filmed play, and not a particularly well filmed play. More people should learn to distinguish what makes for great cinematic art and not what tickles their fancies or judge film by their "subjects." Those are not the proper criteria for cinematic greatness. Of course, that would require more commentators to IMDb to learn something about movies, something about standards and have the ability to think -- but we can hope, can't we?