I was thoroughly impressed with this film. I must admit that I knew nothing about it going in, and I had actually never even really heard about it before I started this exercise. All I knew about A Man for All Seasons going in was what I read about it on the back cover of the DVD. It is the story of Sir Thomas More, who refused to approve of Henry VIII divorcing his wife so that he could marry Ann Boleyn. It is a story of political intrigue & ambition, as well as a story about living by your conscience and sticking to your principles and what you believe in, no matter the price. It’s also about the rule of law and whether or not the highest people in the land may be above those laws or if they have the power to change them simply to suit their own needs.
A Man for All Seasons is a thinking person’s film. This film has no action sequences, no love scenes, no sex, no innuendo. There is nothing to titillate the viewer and there is also very little levity. This is a serious film that you have to pay attention to, and close attention at that. It has a complex and complicated story that you have to actively watch in order to be able to follow it. This is a film that requires effort on the part of the viewer. We don’t get many films like this one anymore.
That being said, if you’re willing to put forth that effort, you will be rewarded by enjoying a wonderful film that has a lot to offer. I wouldn’t call this an entertaining film, but it is still a highly enjoyable film, if you’re willing to put forth the effort of paying close attention to it. It is a film that will make you feel smarter after having watched it. You will see amazing performances by the actors and you will experience a wonderfully written script with dialogue that is as poetic as it is provocative. There are clear characters to root for and against and there is a dramatic situation that will illicit clear emotional responses. But you have to be prepared for the fact that you’re going to be watching a film that, while not necessarily slow, is certainly deliberate. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about My Fair Lady, and how I felt that many of the scenes were too long with dialogue that was either too repetitive or didn’t say anything important, and the movie suffered for it. A Man for All Seasons is a film that has scenes that are as long, if not longer than those in My Fair Lady, and probably could have been edited just as much in order to give the film a more efficient pace. However, the pacing works much better in this film, for the obvious reason that it has completely different subject matter and a totally different tone. However, there is a deeper reason that the more deliberate pacing works in this film and that is because we have to be able to take in all of the information that it is feeding us. Sometimes a film has to take a slower pace in order for the viewer to get the best possible experience with it, and A Man for All Seasons is the perfect example of that type of film. It’s not slow. It’s deliberate. It has to be deliberate in order to most effectively tell the story, and that’s a good thing. It’s proper and it’s unfortunate that calling a movie “slow” is more often than not a criticism, when perhaps the story was told in the appropriate way, but the viewers were too impatient. You cannot be an impatient viewer if you want to enjoy A Man for All Seasons.
There are three things that I found particularly compelling about this film, and those things are the overall story, the deep and intertwined thematic elements, and the character of Sir Thomas More, played brilliantly by Paul Scofield, who would also win Best Actor for his efforts in this film. Of course, Scofield’s performance is woven with the story and themes in a way that carries the film and makes it what it is.
On the surface, this appears to be a fairly simple story. Henry VIII wants to divorce his wife so that he can marry Ann Boleyn. He feels that he needs Sir Thomas More, England’s Roman Catholic Chancellor to give his approval, but Sir Thomas will not give approval without the approval of the Pope, who is certain not to give it. Sir Thomas remains steadfast in his denial, claiming not only his conscience, but also the rule of law. He’s not going to change his morals so that Henry VIII may feel better about his sin. Within this simple story idea, we have a bountiful amount of characters fitting certain archetypes that give the story depth and emotion. There are men of ambition in Lord Cromwell, who lusts for the blood of Sir Thomas as though he believes getting it will assure him a higher position with the King. We have Richard Rich (John Hurt), whose ambition for any type of office leads him from ultimate loyalty to Sir Thomas to ultimately betraying him on behalf of Cromwell. Then there is the Duke of Norfolk who is so loyal to Sir Thomas that he’s willing to give up their friendship “for friendship’s sake.” Sir Thomas’ daughter Margaret (Susannah York) and wife Alice (Wendy Hiller) also show their loyalty by allowing Sir Thomas to keep his silence.
Sir Thomas More was a lawyer before becoming Chancellor. He knows the law, and he knows that he cannot support Henry VIII declaring himself Head of the Church in England, and he cannot take the oath swearing support for his marriage to Ann Boleyn. He knows that his only recourse is silence. This way he avoids supporting something his conscience won’t allow him to, and he needn’t deny allegiance to the king. This trait leads to one of the great thematic elements of the film, and that is the rule of law. Sir Thomas time and again throughout the film elegantly and eloquently delivers dialogue regarding the law that could be mistaken for poetry. His back and forth with Cromwell is like a man against a boy when discussing what the law requires and what punishment is appropriate under the law. Sir Thomas also makes no bones about the difference between man’s law and God’s law, and how, in this case, following one means disobeying the other. Therein lies the drama in this film. Ultimately, A Man for All Seasons is about a man who must make a choice between an outer need and an inner need. Does he follow his conscience and live in a manner in which God prescribes and could lead to his salvation, or does he follow the secular wishes of his King and take the easy road to peace in this lifetime and risk damnation? Normally in a drama, you would have the main character struggle with that conflict. In A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas doesn’t struggle with it at all, at least internally. He makes his choice straight away, and the struggle is with Cromwell, Norfolk and the King. They demand to know his choice, but his silence keeps up the ambiguity until they have no other choice then to charge him with high treason.
On the surface, Sir Thomas More doesn’t seem like the type of man that audiences would be able to relate to. He’s sullen, pious and devout. He has more moral fiber in his little finger than most of us have in our entire bodies. However, screenwriter Robert Bolt and director Fred Zimmerman did a superb job of humanizing Sir Thomas. They gave him a wit that belies his serious tone. They made him a devoted family man who has earned the love and respect of his wife and daughter. He is a man with many friends and many more admirers. These traits allowed us to relate to Sir Thomas on a human level as equals, for whom among us doesn’t have some of these qualities? What’s unique about Sir Thomas is the very traits that make him such a good man, his pious nature, is moral clarity, his devotion to God, end up being his undoing. I’ve learned over the years in screenwriting classes and seminars, and I’ve pointed out in notes that I’ve written for others that in order to give a character depth, you need to give that character at least one negative trait if they’re a hero or one positive trait if they’re a villain. At first glance, Sir Thomas More has no negative traits. He’s a good man through and through. Bolt and Zimmerman created depth in him by making his good qualities the agent of his demise. What starts out the story in his favor turns out to cause his defeat. It’s a unique way of telling a story and developing a character that works very well for this film and allows the audience to relate to what would otherwise be a character with whom they could not otherwise relate.
Did the Academy get it right?
This is a bit of a tough one for me, but I believe that they did. I’ve never seen The Sand Pebbles, so I can’t speak to that film. The Russians Are Coming, the Russians are Coming is a fun film and a comedy, but doesn’t feel to me like the type of film that would be Best Picture-worthy. I have a similar feeling about Alfie. Michael Caine is terrific and Shelley Winters has always been one of my favorite underrated actresses. As wonderful as it is, it just doesn’t feel like a Best Picture winner. I hope I don’t come across here as anti-comedy. I love comedies, and do not think that comedies should be disqualified from Oscar consideration. It just seems to me that the best picture of the year ought to have a certain gravitas and neither of these films has it. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, however, is a film that had gravitas and deserved consideration. You want to talk about a serious movie, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is as serious as a heart attack, and you might just have one watching that movie. It’s a wonderful film that, had it come out in another year might have taken home the statue. Before seeing A Man for All Seasons, I was certain that I was going to say that Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf should have won the Oscar. However, after actually seeing A Man for All Seasons I can honestly say that the Academy did get it right, although I would have no complaints Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf taken home the award. As it was, A Man for All Seasons was a worthy recipient.