A Man for All Seasons

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.

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).

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.

This made-for-TV version of "A Man for All Seasons" both wins and loses when compared to the more famous movie version of the show, which stars Paul Scofield as Thomas More. It wins, because it stays faithful to Mr. Bolt's original theatrical script, and so keeps much of the play's impact that was lost to "production values" in the big-budget movie release. It loses, in that the main characters, especially Mr. Heston's Thomas More, are weaker than those of the movie version. For example, Mr. Heston completely misses nuances of language that Mr. Scofield caught and used to great advantage; but the supporting actors in this version (Vanessa Redgrave as More's wife comes especially to mind) are far stronger than in the movie version. On the whole, though, I highly recommend that you see this version, mainly to watch Mr. Bolt's craftsmanship that was totally lost in the movie version.

standing alone it might be a 6, even a 7; standing next to the masterpiece a 5 is generous; heston is a stock Hollywood movie star with rock-jawed delivery in every movie basically playing himself the Hollywood star; you see a clip of him on Carson it's the same, ben-hur, it''s the same; scofield is simply another level, thoughtful, wide dynamic range, crisp- and the supporting production design again no contest; maybe a personal coup for heston to get the part he wanted in 66, but it's very, very risky to remake a gem- a la the branagh remakes of olivier; they're good but as this does they pale next to the original gems, specially when you have nothing to add like an updated circumstance, romeo+juliet become west side story; zinnemann really got it right, a highly rewarding movie on every level- sets, score, you name it- and no need to go elsewhere