A Man for All Seasons

`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.

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

... 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.

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.

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.