A Man for All Seasons

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.

... 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.

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.

`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.

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.