Un uomo per tutte le stagioni

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.

... 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.

`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 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.

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.