Un uomo per tutte le stagioni

I watched this film with some trepidation as the 1966 version has long been a favourite of mine. I could not imagine an American actor portraying my hero, Thomas More. However, I enjoyed it very much. Charlton Heston's performance was a revelation. I thought he did a really good job of showing More's famous wit but at times, his anguish too. Vanessa Redgrave's Dame Alice seemed at times almost a caricature ('A printed boook!') Yes I know Alice was from Yorkshire but Redgrave's 'common touch' was a bit overdone! Ben Whitrow as Cromwell was wonderful. Genial yet sinister, loved it! As for Roy Kinnear, he was just perfect as the common man, I always thought it a shame that this part was left out of the 1966 film. Having seen the play a few times, this is truer to the stage version but I wouldn't compare the two films, they are both very good.

While this television remake of "A Man For All Seasons' is closer to the script of the play,it falls far below the masterpiece original film version. The main problem is the miscasting of Charlton Heston as Thomas More. His performace ranges from Bombast to boredom. Never a strong actor all his flaws show here,especially when compared to Paul Scofield's masterfully poignant performance in the original film.Roy Kinear as Common Man holds best of show honors. He is a delightfully sly narrator and covers the role of Matthew with ease. Vanessa Redgrave is as strong as Wendy Hiller as More's wife Alice but Adrianne Thomas' Lady Margaret falls far short of Susanna York's memorable portayal.Even the great Sir John Gielgud is miscast here. As Cardinal Wolsey his voice is indeed imposing but his slight frame in no way conveys the "full fed prince of the church" that Wolsey was. Over all it is a good effort at preserving the play, but for emotional power,well developed relationships and emotional passion...see the original film.

I saw Charlton Heston and Roy Kinnear do this on stage in the UK in the 1980s and they were superb. Some of the intensity of the stage production is missing from this depiction, but it's still a formidable effort from a star out to prove that he didn't always need a tunic and an horse. Firstly, though, it's Roy Kinnear who introduces us to the principal characters and outlines the plot. Henry VIII (Martin Chamberlain) wants a divorce so he can marry Anne Boleyn. His long-serving Chancellor - Cardinal Wolsey (Sir John Gielgud) is on a slippery slope and Sir Thomas More (Heston) looks like he will take the top job. With the Pope increasingly unwilling to co-operate, the King is advised to break from the church and grant himself an annulment. This is where More has issues, and as the plot develops we see him facing a scenario that could cost him dearly. He's a shrewd man and tries to accommodate both his king and his conscience but with forces gathering against him, can he survive? This is a fine adaptation of Robert Bolt's story, and using the excellent Kinnear's "Common Man" as a conduit to keep us right, we follow a tale of political intrigue that becomes increasingly bereft of principle and more about survival - at any cost. It's not just the wrath of the King that More must deal with, but also that of his wife Alice (a powerful effort from Vanessa Redgrave) who is terrified of losing him to his beliefs (and an axe). There's a strong supporting cast to bolster the narrative - Richard Johnson's sympathetic Duke of Norfolk, Benjamin Whitrow's fiercely ambitious Thomas Cromwell and Jonathan Hackett's turn as the odiously climber of the greasy pole Richard Rich all help create an environment of sophisticated fear. The production design is effective and the costumes and sets augment well this story of integrity. Or not. Don't think of it as a remake of the Scofield/Shaw version (1966) - it's makes different emphasis and is more a reimagining of the original stage play. "Better a live rat than a dead lion"!

Heston is not Scofield, and this is not what the movie version is. Still, it preserves the core of More's life and meaning, and is far better than the typical TV-movie (if only because it dares to take out of the closet the old-fashioned notion that life means nothing unless there is something to die for).

One of Charlton Heston's great disappointments in his career was that he did not get to do the original film of A Man For All Seasons. Heston couldn't really complain though, Paul Scofield had done the play on the London stage and Heston never faulted Scofield's Academy Award winning performance.

But he made sure he did get to do another screen version after appearing on stage in the production of Robert Bolt's play. He did something else too, what you see Heston in is how it actually was originally presented on stage with the Everyman Character, done here by Roy Kinnear, as a narrator.

When Bolt did the 1966 version for the screen, he adapted his own work and dropped the Everyman character probably because Fred Zinneman who directed the film wanted it that way. I believe Zinneman was right that what he did was better suited for the screen.

That's not to decry Heston's performance because as a man who made a career out of playing great men of character and integrity, Thomas More was definitely a role he was most suited for. I can certainly understand his disappointment. By the way, Heston's other goal never realized was to do Abraham Lincoln, but I'm guessing he never got a suitable script or story.

With son Fraser Clarke Heston as producer, I'm sure Heston got to pick who he would appear with and we are fortunate to have John Gielgud as Cardinal Wolsey, though Orson Welles in build and in acting style was much more suited for the role. Heston's very good friend from across the pond, Richard Johnson, got to play the key role of the Duke of Norfolk.

Though this production of A Man For All Seasons suffers from comparison to the Paul Scofield version, it can definitely stand on its own merits and Charlton Heston and the rest of the cast have nothing to be ashamed of.