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.

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.

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.

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.

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.