A Man for All Seasons (1966)

The first time I saw 'A Man for All Seasons' I was a young man living in Melbourne (I had emigrated from the U.S.)almost 40 years ago. From the dramatic musical score that opened the story, and red tip of boat's white oar dipping into the water, to the first sight of Paul Scofield's earnest, troubled countenance I would be mesmerized for the following two hours. When I entered the theater (the film had already been a mega-hit in London) I didn't know what to expect, but the theater's reserved seat policy indicated it would be a very special movie.

And it was. Indeed, seeing 'A Man for All Seasons' was an extraordinary experience for me. When I walked out of the theater I felt a change in my consciousness; Paul Scofield's performance was so brilliant he appeared to transcend acting, i.e., watching him play Saint Thomas More (or, Sir Thomas,if you prefer)was somehow like seeing More himself and his whole world get get caught up in a time-warp and play out their fates on the screen four centuries after their time on the planet.

Wordsworth said that all of literature tries to answer the same question: "How should a man live?" When I left that theater in Australia almost four decades ago, that movie, 'A Man for All Seasons,' made such an impression on my thinking I learned how to TRY to live, and I've tried to carry on as such ever since: as close to the values espoused by Thomas More as possible.

Fmovies: `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.

A Man for all Seasons is simply a fantastic film which I highly recommend to anyone who enjoys historical dramas. The film is directed by the late great Fred Zinnemann, who has helmed such diverse classics as From here to Eternity and Day of the Jackal, brings a sense of immediacy to the screen, and thereby transcends some of the screenplays stage like origins.

Paul Scofield plays the title role of Sir Thomas More. His dilemma being that he's forced against his will to acknowledge King Henry VIII divorce. The film's action therefore is confounded to a battle of wits between Sir Thomas Moore and his opponents at the Kings court.

That might not sound like much in terms of excitement in the classical sense, but this is offset by the brilliant acting of the entire cast and especially Paul Scofield, who received an Academy Award for his outstanding work, as Sir Thomas Moore and his main nemesis Thomas Cromwell, played by Leo McKern, exchange arguments and counterarguments in a bid for victory, where only one of them may come out the winner.

The sumptuous productions values must also be noted as they play a crucial part in the film's overall success. Both the cinematography and the music is some the best I've seen in a period-piece such as this one. As I've just said, a truly fantastic achievement by all involved parties. Go and see for yourselves!! You won't be disappointed! I'll guarantee You that!

A Man for All Seasons fmovies. Voltaire would probably not have agreed with Thomas Moore's beliefs. But he would have defended Moore's right to have them. For centuries, the Medieval Church had propagated any belief contrary to those disseminated by the Holy See was heresy. People not only faced eternal damnation but could also be tortured and executed for holding contrary religious ideas since the time of Charlegmagne, sometimes even for very slight doctrinal disagreements. Part of these sets of beliefs included unquestioned allegiance to and even worship of the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope. The film, "A Man for All Seasons" is about a man who stood up for the traditional beliefs propagated by the church and his refusal to recant, somewhat in the same vein as Martin Luther but in the opposite direction.

In the early 1500's, seven hundred years after Charlemagne used military might to secure the supremacy of the Pope in Western Europe, King Henry VIII of England decided to break with religious and political tradition. Almost over night, the king rebuked the political-religious power of the Pope in Rome and declared himself to be head of the church in England mainly as a mechanism to secure a divorce and re-marry. Fearing the awesome power of the king, all of the nobility and legates which surrounded the royal court signed a declaration not only recognizing the king as head of the church but that God had granted him this power directly from above. Except one did not sign. Sir Thomas Moore.

Thomas Moore was the only member of the class of litigators and lawyers who would not sign the document. Openly, he kept silent on his exact opinion. The King decided to regard this act of defiance as treasonous, although Moore never openly admitted his point of view until the trial. He simply refused to sign the document. The case against Moore was certainly on shaky legal grounds as Moore had not actually done anything treasonous. He simply refused to sign and refused to give his reasons.

Thomas Moore was a devout Roman Catholic. And although, from a modern perspective, his reasons for refusing to sign the document may seem like blind loyalty to a medieval church and its dogma, Moore's point was that by signing, he would lose all religious integrity and ultimately condemn himself to damnation. His signature meant a recognition of something he did not believe in his heart. He ultimately believed the divorce between Catherine and King Henry was an act of heresy. Simultaneously, he did not deny Henry as head of the English church and Anne Boleyn as the new queen. The document he was asked to sign contained religious wording that placed the powers of local monarchs over that of the church, "inviolable grants of jurisdictions given by God". The wording was far too religiously charged for Moore to consent to signing it. It is speculated that if the wording had been altered slightly and words pertaining to God and the Roman Church had been removed, Moore might have signed it. But of course, King Henry, who was as stubborn as Moore, would not revise the document.

The film in question is a tour-de-force period piece that well-reflects the religious and monarchical fanaticism of the age. Paul Scofield offers an Acamemy-Award-Winning performance as a man who could not recant even with the threat of the headsman's ax being wielded above his head. Robert Shaw is more than convincing as King Henry VIII who after having broken with Rome could not abide any nobleman or subject to disagree with his position as head of h

After 60 years--and many hundreds of movies--I steadfastly maintain that "A Man for All Seasons" is hands down the best ever. What's more (no pun intended), Paul Scofield's performance is also the finest job any actor (of any gender) has ever turned in...at least in a motion picture.

I've seen this film perhaps ten times (far fewer than I have seen "Star Wars," for example...or "Casablanca," my personal choice for Second Best), and each time I see it I marvel, not just at Scofield, but at the extraordinary performances of nearly everyone else in the movie--Leo McKern, Wendy Hiller, John Hurt, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, Susannah York, and everyone else in the cast--as well as the magnificent dialogue and the sheer beauty of the film.

It may be that someday I'll see a better movie (heaven knows I keep looking), but even though some have come close ("Lion in Winter," "Citizen Kane", e.g.), there's still a fair-sized gap between the best of them and the best of all, "A Man for All Seasons."

If on occasions I babbled about some actor's performance being the best I've ever seen it was just because I hadn't seen "A Man For All Seasons". Well, up until today. And I definitely won't be that quickly amazed and impressed by a performance again. May I just say that Paul Scofield embodies great acting to it's very core. Comprehending his masterful and skillful acting is evident even to the greatest fool or layman and I (not being a big expert myself) could not believe how a man can attain such knowledge of perfection. His every word is spoken with the greatest skill, intonation and accent as well as his facial expressions and movements. His performance is so strong it's scary when I think about it. As if he knew(and he most definitely did!) EXACTLY how to perform his acting task. This movie is an explosion of outstanding acting and actors, showing their skills to the fullest and to the amazed viewers. It may well be the greatest movie ever made, but the reason for this lies also in the jaw dropping and mind opening script that deserves more credit than it could have ever gotten. If you thought "On The Waterfront", "Bridge On The River Kwai", "Glennary Glen Ross" or even "The Usual Suspects" or "Pulp Fiction" had some great dialogs then this inspiring and simply amazing script will definitely change your mind. There are so many memorable lines, monologues and great battling dialogs I can't even give an approximate number. Every moment is meaningful and the movie is full of smart and important thoughts. I won't go into the story, because as a previous commenter said, there are just too many points of view and meanings to it, but I will say this; Sir Thomas More was too moral and too strong to give in to the Church, and because of his reasons he was respected. But because he was, for some, this stubborn, he paid the price which in the real world when you play with the big boys, is a given. A movie every future actor, actress, director and screen writer should and must see and a movie that makes most of the later Oscar winners for best picture look like a joke. And a final though, Leonard Maltin was absolutely right; if Paul Scofield acted only in this movie he'd still be remembered as a marvel worth every praise and respect. 9/10