Rating: 
Summary: Perhaps the movie is better.
Review: "A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts" was not my style. I adore plays, and this era in time, but this play disappointed me, and I'm disappointed that I didn't enjoy it, as I had high hopes. I looked at the play, as if I were to perform in it, and it did not strike my fancy. With practically no stage direction, and little direction of emotion, I thought to myself how I would hate to perform it. I do give credit for it being such a short play, when this time in history was anything but short and sweet. I do not recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps the movie is better.
Review: "A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts" was not my style. I adore plays, and this era in time, but this play disappointed me, and I'm disappointed that I didn't enjoy it, as I had high hopes. I looked at the play, as if I were to perform in it, and it did not strike my fancy. With practically no stage direction, and little direction of emotion, I thought to myself how I would hate to perform it. I do give credit for it being such a short play, when this time in history was anything but short and sweet. I do not recommend.
Rating: 
Summary: Practically a waste of time.
Review: "Spark Notes A Man For All Seasons" was not condensed, but was merely the play reworded. Granted that it did help decipher hidden meanings behind some of the dialogue, or certain innuendo's which can go over one's head, but other than that, it was not helpful or insightful. I think it actually took me longer to read the Spark Notes, than the actual play itself. If you do get this book, of course you know to read "Spark Notes A Man For All Seasons" AFTER you have read "A Man For All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts." I do not recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Practically a waste of time.
Review: "Spark Notes A Man For All Seasons" was not condensed, but was merely the play reworded. Granted that it did help decipher hidden meanings behind some of the dialogue, or certain innuendo's which can go over one's head, but other than that, it was not helpful or insightful. I think it actually took me longer to read the Spark Notes, than the actual play itself. If you do get this book, of course you know to read "Spark Notes A Man For All Seasons" AFTER you have read "A Man For All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts." I do not recommend.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than a lot of Shakespeare
Review: ... and I mean that, as an English major who loves Shakespeare truly, who reads the Bard for fun. I saw the movie first in high school, and then found out it was based on a play and read the play in an afternoon-- it is absolutely fantastic! Deep, moving, and ultimately a grim tale of the state of society as a whole, when we as humans view badges of office and their concommitants as more important and desirable than the human characteristics that lead to the acquisition of those badges. See it, read it, in any order, I think, because the movie is almost exactly the play, and both are unbelievable. This is literature that will enrich your life. Forget Grisham.
Rating:
Summary: A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
Review:
Bold held me from the first word
to the last. I read slowly because
I never wanted it to end.
Rating:
Summary: A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
Review:
Bolt held me from the first word to the
last. I read slowly - because I never
wanted it to end.
Rating:
Summary: Yawn
Review: A confession I can't stand this play. Thomas More was a political figure in the time of Henry the VIII. He was a committed catholic and wrote a very large number of religious works. When Henry declared himself head of the church More refused to take the oath of supremacy. He was executed as a result. Last century More was made a Catholic saint.Bolt's play however is secular. He sees More as a man who has principles and will stand against the state. The play was written in 1960 against a background of the problems of totalitarian regimes. The real more was a person who was to say the least unpleasant. He wrote long turgid books filled with foul language declaiming heretics. He was prosecuted under the enclosure legislation for restricting peasants access to land. His role also involved the prevention of vernacular copies of the bible coming into England and the persecution of heretics. Some writers suggest that he had a torture chamber in his house. The picture of More in the play is not sanitised it is a work of fiction. It is constructed to make him a figure who is perfect and brings life to everyone. In reality his death was a selfish act. More was terrified of being condemned. His death meant that his family was thrown out on the street and stripped of their possessions. More knew that this would happen and he put his personal salvation above the comfort of his family. The characters in the play are two dimensional. The villains Ritch and Cromwell are pathetic creatures. In reality Cromwell was a man of more interest and complexity than More. The most annoying character is "everyman" who acts as a narrator and does bit roles. He is meant to be a solid English yeoman type but is from the land of caricatures. Thankfully the play is now so dated they don't subject school children the agony of reading it.
Rating:
Summary: Still My Favorite
Review: A Man for All Seasons has long been my favorite, whether in written form, stage play, or motion picture. The story is fairly simple, another angle on the drama of Henry VIII. Sir Thomas More is a deeply religious man, much troubled by the king's break with Rome and the establishment of the Church of England, naming the king as head of the church (directly contravening the idea that Christ is ultimately head of the church, indeed, Catholics believe the church to espoused to Christ). In an attempt to keep the peace, and his neck, More resigns his office and refuses to make any statement about the issue of the break with Rome or the king's divorce what-so-ever, even to his own wife.
Unfortunately, it would appear that while the king doesn't want to follow the rules, he also doesn't want a bad conscience. This requires him to get the 'blessing' of someone known to be reputable on the subject, so that his conscience may rest at ease. By circumstance of who he is, More is chosen. A document is drawn up in the Parliament, rather craftily, to which subjects of the king are required to swear. Upon refusing to swear to this document More is thrown into jail. He will neither make a statement about his thoughts on the document, nor make explanation for refusing to swear. In More's thinking, he has been forced to choose between his bodily life and his immortal soul. Eventually More is tried and convicted of High Treason, carrying the sentence of death. The play is wonderfully crafted and does an excellent job of being subtle and emotional at the same time. It is the essence of a morality play. When push comes to shove, and egos, life, inheritances are on the line, where will you fall? Some criticize this play for not being historically accurate in some matters. I toss these criticisms aside with two short arguements 1.In some matters, such as More's feelings and private dealings with the king, we will never know the historical truth. 2.Most important to remember, it is a play, not a history text. It owes no wage to historical accuracy. This play is a very easy read. The language is simple enough. My only suggestion is that those readers who are not Catholic may want to do a tiny bit of research about basic Catholic theology concerning marriage and divorce, in order to understand some of the motivations in the play.
Rating:
Summary: Still My Favorite
Review: A Man for All Seasons has long been my favorite, whether in written form, stage play, or motion picture. The story is fairly simple, another angle on the drama of Henry VIII. Sir Thomas More is a deeply religious man, much troubled by the king's break with Rome and the establishment of the Church of England, naming the king as head of the church (directly contravening the idea that Christ is ultimately head of the church, indeed, Catholics believe the church to espoused to Christ). In an attempt to keep the peace, and his neck, More resigns his office and refuses to make any statement about the issue of the break with Rome or the king's divorce what-so-ever, even to his own wife.
Unfortunately, it would appear that while the king doesn't want to follow the rules, he also doesn't want a bad conscience. This requires him to get the 'blessing' of someone known to be reputable on the subject, so that his conscience may rest at ease. By circumstance of who he is, More is chosen. A document is drawn up in the Parliament, rather craftily, to which subjects of the king are required to swear. Upon refusing to swear to this document More is thrown into jail. He will neither make a statement about his thoughts on the document, nor make explanation for refusing to swear. In More's thinking, he has been forced to choose between his bodily life and his immortal soul. Eventually More is tried and convicted of High Treason, carrying the sentence of death. The play is wonderfully crafted and does an excellent job of being subtle and emotional at the same time. It is the essence of a morality play. When push comes to shove, and egos, life, inheritances are on the line, where will you fall? Some criticize this play for not being historically accurate in some matters. I toss these criticisms aside with two short arguements 1.In some matters, such as More's feelings and private dealings with the king, we will never know the historical truth. 2.Most important to remember, it is a play, not a history text. It owes no wage to historical accuracy. This play is a very easy read. The language is simple enough. My only suggestion is that those readers who are not Catholic may want to do a tiny bit of research about basic Catholic theology concerning marriage and divorce, in order to understand some of the motivations in the play.
|
