A Man for All Seasons

Rating:
Summary: A man of great conscience and priciples
Review: This movie was an inspiring masterpiece. Paul Scofield dsplays more as an honest honorable man, who always lives up to what he believs him.

My favorite scene in the movie was probably the court scene. When More is put on trial for treason and is completely set on his decision of refusing to take the oath and denies himself guilty of treason.

My favorite and I think one of the most significant quotes in the movie is, what he says before his beheading, "I die his majesty's good subject, but God's first."

-I surely recomend this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Magnificent
Review: This movie deserved every single Academy Award it ever won. I am currently writing a paper on, basically, the historical worth of this movie. I can't find a single historical discrepancy in this movie!

Scofield plays More as a man so admirable that all the other characters almost seem to fade out around his brilliance. Completely honest, honorable, never taking a step wrong (at least, in his conscience).

My three other favorite characters were Orson Welles as the increasingly creepy Cardinal Wollesy, hugely fat and dressed all in red, Robert Shaw as Henry VIII, a completely hilarious madman, as anyone would imagine, and Wendy Hiller as Alice, Thomas's wife. "I married a lion!" he proclaims.

One of the most significant phrases that More makes, before his beheading: "I die his majesty's good subject, but God's first."

This movie not only gives the viewer true insight into what actually happened regarding Henry VIII's Anne Boleyn fiasco, but it also will stand ageless as an incredible work of film.

Rating:
Summary: Like a Fine French Wine
Review: It may be supposed that this film inherits its greatness from the play, but that would be unfair. It stands as a great film in its own right, not least because the filmmaker had the good sense to leave well enough alone. Unlike most Hollywood fare, this film does not seek to overwhelm us with style because it knows that it has something better on offer - genuine substance.

I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about the life of Thomas More or the meaning inherent in this work. If you are looking for such a synopsis, I invite you to read my review of the play.

This film though, like all films, constitutes something more than either its literary or its theatrical ancestry. Film affords filmmakers the opportunity to 'improve' on the source material. It allows for framing and perspective changes, close-ups, points of view, cutaways, on-location scenes and those musty Hollywood crutches, stunts and special effects. This material could easily have been 'improved' to the point of repugnance. Give thanks that it was not.

The performances are all superb. Paul Scofield deserves his Oscar for his performance as More. Indeed, after seeing him play More, it's impossible imagining anyone else in the part. Like George C Scott's "Patton", or Peter O'Toole's "Lawrence", or Marlon Brando's "Godfather", Scofield's More is definitive. The supporting cast is just as good, but the performances, good as they are, serve to enhance the film, not define it.

This is a film that deserves our appreciation because of what the filmmaker does not do. He resists melodrama, histrionics and embellishment. This film is like a fine French wine: Zinnemann went for refinement and subtlety over pizzazz. Its Renaissance setting is used to enhance the story, not displace it. The filmmaker limits himself to showing us the life of a complex and fascinating man and has the good grace to leave the telling to Thomas More. A modern superstar director would not have been able to resist showing off his technical prowess. This film is great because it has the wisdom to recognize that its subject matter is stronger than any modern film conventions and therefore adopts a non-interventionist and minimalist approach to the filmmaking. The result is a clean and unmannered film that achieves great dignity and clarity of purpose. Were that all filmmakers could show such humility.

Rating:
Summary: history: from stage to screen
Review: Robert Bolt's screenplay differs considerably from Robert Bolt's stage play. Gone is the narrator, also the lenthtly, chatty references to actual historial events. The film is not a wordy history lesson. The screenplay focuses very tightly on the battle between Henry VIII and Thomas More over divorce and Henry's bold acts to make him head of a new, non-Catholic English church. Here, Bolt assumes that you know a little bit about English history. It compresses the events of several years into a neat running time of just over 2 hours. Enjoyable as it is, it is just one view of Thomas Moore. He is a little more saintly on film than he actually was in life. It avoids all the other issues that he dealth with as Chancellor. It does very effectively zero in on a man facing a moral crisis, in which he must think of his ideals first and his family second. Moore's family suffered terribly as a result of his stance. Neither the play nor the film discloses one interesting historical note: John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, and also a vocal opponent of Henry's actions, was arrested several times for treason. Just before his death a month before Moore's, the Pope elevated the Bishop to Cardinal, thinking that Henry would never execute a Cardinal. Think again. Historically, it was Fisher's death that raised a greater public outcry than Moore's. Moore was simply one of many of Henry's opponents who went to their deaths as martyrs to the cause. I know that's a history lession and I'm simply nitpicking. I think that Bolt's screenplay is tighter than the play; it is shorter but covers the same material in a more tightly controlled way. For an interesting difference of opinion on the character, read Charlton Heston's diary on playing Moore (in the full-length play) for cable television. Heston lordly proclaims that HIS Moore is better than Scofield's. He finds Scofield's portrail too "winney" and not lofty enough to justify the stature of the real man. Anyway, the Fred Zinnemann film is outstanding and endures the test of time. As with all historical dramas, license has certainly been taken, and you cannot believe that everything you see is exactly how it originally played out. But Bolt is a supurb writer of human emotions. He's a good story teller and that's all that counts in the end.

Rating:
Summary: The best movie you'll ever see in your life.
Review: I only saw this movie once, but I never forgot it.

I have thought of Thomas Moore (at least, as he appears in this movie) as one of those people you want to save from themselves. You may find yourself saying "Just compromise already! It's not like you can stop the King from getting a divorce and marrying whomever he likes anyway!"
But if he did compromise he would no longer be so special as to be worth all your emotion. He must fight the King, not out of stubbornness, or arrogance. The King stands for something and must be moral. And Thomas Moore, the man, is not a puritan. He wants to appear pure before God when his time comes. Whether one believes in the after life or not is irrelevant: HE believed in it.
The intelligence and goodness, the pearls of wisdom that come from this man leave you in awe. And I like the fact that him and the King are never really enemies on a personal level, it's a cold, intellectual battle that takes place. Even as Moore looses the fight, I am reminded of Churchill's quote, that when you must kill a man it doesn't hurt to be polite. Nothing personal only business, as the Godfather would say. That's politics for you...

Thomas Moore the character (in this movie) makes me think of Abraham Lincoln giving a speech, as he was once described doing. The witness said that when he appeared everyone wondered what this ugly, shabby man could have to offer, what he could possibly say that was of any interest. And then he started to speak and soon after-wards everyone was thinking what a wonderful, marvelous man he was.

That character sweeps me off my feet in that same way, I fall in love with the man's dignity and sheer genius. If only there were dozens more movies like this one...

Rating:
Summary: "The world must construe according to its wits."
Review: In the modern day, powerful men frequently divorce their wives with minimal repercussions on society as a whole. In the time of King Henry VIII, Henry's divorce caused a major rift between church and state that redefined the political landscape in Europe. Fred Zinnemann's "A Man for All Seasons" chronicles this event and captures all the moral and practical dueling that took place in the wake of one monarch's desire to move onto a new wife.

King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) desperately wants to marry Anne Boleyn (Vanessa Redgrave) so that he can sire a male heir. When the Chancellor of England, Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield), refuses to support the King's divorce from his current wife, Henry turns his back on Rome and the Pope and appoints himself as the head of the Church of England. Troubled by this wanton disregard of the law, More refuses to publicly acknowledge King Henry in his new position. His stubbornness to stick to his morals eventually leads to his imprisonment and eventual execution.

"A Man for All Seasons" plays like a film out of time. Its strong honorable message seems dated in a contemporary society where role models are scarcer than ever. Yet it still remains an inspiring story that reminds us of how noble the human spirit can be when it does not buckle under the pressures of morally-dubious forces. The performances in the film from top to bottom are outstanding. Scofield richly deserved his Best Actor Oscar and Shaw shines in his role as Henry. Leo McKern, John Hurt, Orson Welles, Susannah York also turn in strong work with York being particularly effective as More's headstrong yet devoted daughter. If anyone needs a refresher course on how to detect the finer distinctions between right and wrong then a viewing "A Man for All Seasons" would be a good starting point.

Rating:
Summary: SCOFIELD'S MASTERFUL PERFORMANCE SHINES THROUGH ON DVD
Review: "A Man For All Seasons" is a case study for Thomas Moore, an English nobleman of influence who is first courted, then condemned by, the king (Robert Shaw)when a divorce decree is not granted. This is a powerful closet drama, full of finely tuned performances. Orson Welles is really something. But the centerpiece of the film is Paul Scofield's masterful handling of Thomas Moore - a truly inspiring tour de force that is brilliant, spellbinding and Academy Award Winning.
Columbia Tristar Home Video give us a DVD to equal the subject matter. Colors are well balanced. Black levels are solid. Edge enhancement, shimmering and aliasing are all kept to a bare minimum. There is no pixelization to speak of. The audio is mono but well presented - only briefly sounding strident. No extras.
BOTTOM LINE: A great movie in a good-looking transfer.

Rating:
Summary: SCHOFIELD'S DEFINITIVE ROLE
Review: I work in Thomas More Street, London E1 not far from the Tower of London and when working for a previous employer (Barclays) joined their Drama & Operatic Society.One of the roles I was cast in was as William Roper, More's son-in -law who as Bolt states in his production notes to the play " is a man of mediocre intellect".Yes I thought ironically that's me! How could I compete with a character who was prepared to go to the block for his Catholic beliefs.Talking of the block, not far from my workplace is the sight where those who committed "treason" and were incarcerated in the Tower, were executed and it bears a plaque bearing the names of its notable victims.

Of course being filmed in 1966, I saw this film long before I was in the play (1974).We even did a performance "in the round" at All Hallows Church, in sight of the Tower and the film was obviously very much to the fore when we did our production.The intelligent comments from other reviewers I agree with especially the point that this film is about a man who tries to bend without breaking his inner religous beliefs but cannot deny his soul in the end.According to his biography, during his time as Chancellor More himself could be quite vindicative and witnessed with relish several condemned being hanged, drawn and quartered for their beliefs.Let us not forget why More was coerced thus by Henry VIII.He wanted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, his first wife, who could only produce Mary (later "Bloody Queen Mary" in 1555).After failing to obtain a divorce from the Pope he set himself up as "Defender of The Faith" i.e. the titular head of the newly created Church of England and could thus give himself a divorce.It was important that the Act of Succession be countersigned by all the important court notables including its Chancellor.Sorry for the history lesson but viewers will appreciate the dialogue much better if they are clued up on this period of the Tudors.

As so often when dealing with history, is is essential to get the facts right as a playwright (and film producer).Yes this does seems like a play with lovely location shots at times but in the interest of integrity, fiction should not be mixed into fact (faction) a la Titanic (1997) just to pull in those with a low attention span.Of cource we know the pressure film producers are under to appeal to as wide range of audience as possible with high budgets to recoup, so it is not surprising dramatic licence is taken in filming history and its been said before but audiences should not obtain their knowledge of history just from films.

This film was easily the best film for that year and richly deserved the Oscar.Might I suggest viewers read up on this period of Tudor history before seeing the film to obtain empathy for the main characters and what drove them.For example it was essential Henry had a male heir as queens were not then anointed to rule this land and he needed a male successor.Cromwell was appointed and under pressure from Henry to find "the final solution" and we all know what that entails.He was driven to condemn More for not bending to his will in days when democracy as we know it, did not exist.

Rating:
Summary: Stunning portrayal of a true martyr to his beliefs...
Review: Paul Scofield is so brilliant in his portrayal of this most admired man, it is stunning. His words "I die the King's good servant, but God's first" is perfect, as are his morals and reasoning for his stand and his belief to die for what he believes in, above all other earthly considerations, including his family. Sir Thomas More really was exceptional in his day, and in any day, and unusual in the depth and absolute certainty in his convictions. Robert Shaw makes a perfect Henry VIII, and there is a wonderful scene of Henry arriving in his Royal barge, to the estate of More, and jumping from the boat into the muddy water and laughing uproariously and with great delight; you can SEE the real Henry doing the same thing. There was a deep affection and respect for More, from Henry, and after More was executed, he reproached Anne Boleyn with great vehemence hissing to her:"It is because of you that the bestest man in my Kingdom is dead." (Anne's fate was later sealed by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who erroneously told her Henry had suffered a fatal fall from his horse while hunting, causing her to miscarry the male heir which may have prevented her execution...he also testified against her at her "trial.") Richard Rich, the worst of the worst and the very antithesis of More's character, wound up with a great deal of wealth, and died of old age, peacefully in his bed...so much for Karma. The movie is a triumph, and is nmot in any way "dated", (it is, simply, a movie that came out in 19966, which has nothing whatsoever to do with it's quality/content/performacnes) as it is a historical classic, and true and appropriate for today and 1966 when it was first released, and for future audiences. The anguish on Scofield's face when he saw his family, in the Tower, for the last time, is unforgettable, and the pain and anger from Wendy Hiller, as his wife, is heartfelt. Scofield's face and emotions are so plain and honest and true throughout the entire production, is a tribute to Sir Thomas More, and represents what the real man must have endured and the nobility of his beliefs. One envies someone with this much faith, that he is willing to lay down his own life and give up his family for them...there is a portrait of More, and if you see it, you can see this man was truly exceptional, for his or any other time...you can see it in his face. After we saw this movie, when it came out, no one spoke for a long time, as we were all so moved, and words seemed a travesty after witnessing the nobility and strength of Sir Thomas More. A must for any library...

Rating:
Summary: Stunning portrayal of a true martyr to his beliefs...
Review: Paul Scofield is so brilliant in his portrayal of this most admired man, it is stunning. His words "I die the King's good servant, but God's first" are perfect, as are his morals and reasoning for his stand and his belief to die for what he believes in, above all other earthly considerations, including his family. Sir Thomas More really was exceptional in his day, and in any day, and unusual in the depth and absolute certainty in his convictions. Robert Shaw makes a perfect Henry VIII, and there is a wonderful scene of Henry arriving in his Royal barge, to the estate of More, and jumping from the boat into the muddy water and laughing uproariously and with great delight; you can SEE the real Henry doing the same thing. There was a deep affection and respect for More, from Henry, and after More was executed, he reproached Anne Boleyn with great vehemence hissing to her: "It is because of you that the bestest man in my Kingdom is dead." (Anne's fate was later sealed by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who erroneously told her Henry had suffered a fatal fall from his horse while hunting, causing her to miscarry the male heir which may have prevented her execution...he also testified against her at her "trial.") Richard Rich, the worst of the worst and the very antithesis of More's character, wound up with a great deal of wealth, and died of old age, peacefully in his bed...so much for Karma. The movie is a triumph, and is not in any way "dated", (it is, simply, a movie that came out in 1966, which has nothing whatsoever to do with it's quality/content/performances) as it is a historical classic, and true and appropriate for today and 1966 when it was first released, and for future audiences. The anguish on Scofield's face when he saw his family, in the Tower, for the last time, is unforgettable, and the pain and anger from Wendy Hiller, as his wife, is heartfelt. Scofield's face and emotions are so plain and honest and true throughout the entire production, it is a tribute to Sir Thomas More, and represents what the real man must have endured for the conviction and nobility of his beliefs. One envies someone with this much faith, that he is willing to lay down his own life and give up his family for them...there is a portrait of More, (I believe by Hans Holbein) and if you see it, you can see this man was truly exceptional, for his or any other time...you can see it in his face. After we saw this movie, when it came out, no one spoke for a long time, as we were all so moved, and words seemed a travesty after witnessing the nobility and strength of Sir Thomas More. A must for any library...