SCORE
-4 out of 5-
CREDITS
- Sir Thomas More: Paul Scofield
- Alice More: Wendy Hiller
- Thomas Cromwell: Leo McKern
- King Henry VIII: Robert Shaw
- Directed by Fred Zimmerman
STORY
This film is based on the true story of Sir Thomas More. More was a high-ranking official of the Catholic church during a period when many church decisions were being made for political reasons. More is a fiercely principled, yet quiet and humble man. He is asked to acknowledge that a particular action is right, and as he continues to refuse (quietly and humbly) to do so, more and more pressure is brought to bear upon him and his family.
What I like about this film is its precision. It's examining a particular man in a particular circumstance. Everything hinges on how far More is willing to go. His "obstinacy" (as higher-ups see his refusal to acquiesce) leads to repeated escalation of the stakes. "Everyone has a price," as the old saying goes; will More's price be reached?
Those familiar with More's story will of course know how it all ends, but getting there is fascinating. More is a man who absolutely will not compromise. In a world of corrupt men, he seems to stand alone as a man with integrity and without ambition.
A parallel story thread runs throughout the film, as a former protege of More is led by his ambition down a very different path. The protege character wants an endorsement to enter politics; More sees his ambition and denies his request. More entreats the man to consider a quiet life as a teacher, suggesting that he could be a truly great teacher -- "Who will know?" is the man's response. "You will know, and your students, and God. That seems like a good audience to me," More replies.
The relationships in the film truly help it to shine. More has a complicated (though very loving) relationship with his wife, and his lack of interest in the things of this earth sets him apart from all those around him. More's feelings towards his protege -- his heartfelt plea for him to turn away from politics, and his sincere regret over advice not heeded -- are powerful. Finally, the relationship between More and the King is beautifully characterized.
The King, though the cause of More's later persecution, is not portrayed as a bad man. He is generally very jovial and kind, though prone to fits of anger. He doesn't hurt More out of anger or spite: he is truly hurt that More won't agree with him about the issue that causes all this difficulty. It doesn't seem to occur to him that More's stance is not due to personal taste but due to the morals he holds most dear. All he really wants is for More, known to be a good man, to agree with him: in some way he seems to feel that if More would only agree then the King's action would truly be acceptable, as though More could make it so.
This film ends in a truly brilliant courtroom scene. More is well versed in the law and makes an amazing case for his innocence, using legal language which could be used today.
PROS: A Man For All Seasons is a truly moral film. There's no harsh language, violence, or anything else to prevent anyone who might be interested from watching. However it's a slow and cerebral film. There is little to no physical action; everything hinges on the internal workings of More's mind.
It's valuable to see different kinds of good Christian men. Here is a man who could save himself with but a few words, but who will not do so because those words would be a lie. Each good man we see on screen helps us to better understand our God. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different the saints."
This is a fairly spartan film based on a stage play. It feels like it comes from the theater -- few sets and no scenes with large crowds or with large scope. The costumes are excellent, however, and really convey the time period. Performances are uniformly excellent, with all the relationships yielding satisfying results.
The Catholic Church is presented in a realistic way here. Corruption is present; yet it has produced a truly good man. Though I'm very much a Protestant I didn't feel off-put or bothered by the Catholic trappings of the film.
CONS: This film takes place among the clergy of the Catholic church, and at one point More makes an argument that a man who has chosen to leave the Catholic church is a heretic. However this discussion is more against impulsiveness and capriciousness with regard to one's spiritual life than it is about Catholicism being better than Protestantism. I'm not certain but this may take place in the period leading up to Martin Luther's famous declaration, so there may not be an option at the time when this film takes place.
I feel as though the ending is a bit abrupt, though I'm not sure what I would expect to come after. A few pages of textual epilogue seems unworthy of the preceding film, however.
Final Thought: It's important for us to see what it looks like for a man to uphold the Biblical principles we hold dear. Sir Thomas More, if he was anything like the portrayal in this film, was an excellent (lesser) example after Jesus' own. If you don't mind the Catholic surroundings and less than spectacular events of the film it may be worth watching.
Bottom Line: 4/5
This film is based on the true story of Sir Thomas More. More was a high-ranking official of the Catholic church during a period when many church decisions were being made for political reasons. More is a fiercely principled, yet quiet and humble man. He is asked to acknowledge that a particular action is right, and as he continues to refuse (quietly and humbly) to do so, more and more pressure is brought to bear upon him and his family.
What I like about this film is its precision. It's examining a particular man in a particular circumstance. Everything hinges on how far More is willing to go. His "obstinacy" (as higher-ups see his refusal to acquiesce) leads to repeated escalation of the stakes. "Everyone has a price," as the old saying goes; will More's price be reached?
Those familiar with More's story will of course know how it all ends, but getting there is fascinating. More is a man who absolutely will not compromise. In a world of corrupt men, he seems to stand alone as a man with integrity and without ambition.
A parallel story thread runs throughout the film, as a former protege of More is led by his ambition down a very different path. The protege character wants an endorsement to enter politics; More sees his ambition and denies his request. More entreats the man to consider a quiet life as a teacher, suggesting that he could be a truly great teacher -- "Who will know?" is the man's response. "You will know, and your students, and God. That seems like a good audience to me," More replies.
The relationships in the film truly help it to shine. More has a complicated (though very loving) relationship with his wife, and his lack of interest in the things of this earth sets him apart from all those around him. More's feelings towards his protege -- his heartfelt plea for him to turn away from politics, and his sincere regret over advice not heeded -- are powerful. Finally, the relationship between More and the King is beautifully characterized.
The King, though the cause of More's later persecution, is not portrayed as a bad man. He is generally very jovial and kind, though prone to fits of anger. He doesn't hurt More out of anger or spite: he is truly hurt that More won't agree with him about the issue that causes all this difficulty. It doesn't seem to occur to him that More's stance is not due to personal taste but due to the morals he holds most dear. All he really wants is for More, known to be a good man, to agree with him: in some way he seems to feel that if More would only agree then the King's action would truly be acceptable, as though More could make it so.
This film ends in a truly brilliant courtroom scene. More is well versed in the law and makes an amazing case for his innocence, using legal language which could be used today.
PROS: A Man For All Seasons is a truly moral film. There's no harsh language, violence, or anything else to prevent anyone who might be interested from watching. However it's a slow and cerebral film. There is little to no physical action; everything hinges on the internal workings of More's mind.
It's valuable to see different kinds of good Christian men. Here is a man who could save himself with but a few words, but who will not do so because those words would be a lie. Each good man we see on screen helps us to better understand our God. In the words of C.S. Lewis, "How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different the saints."
This is a fairly spartan film based on a stage play. It feels like it comes from the theater -- few sets and no scenes with large crowds or with large scope. The costumes are excellent, however, and really convey the time period. Performances are uniformly excellent, with all the relationships yielding satisfying results.
The Catholic Church is presented in a realistic way here. Corruption is present; yet it has produced a truly good man. Though I'm very much a Protestant I didn't feel off-put or bothered by the Catholic trappings of the film.
CONS: This film takes place among the clergy of the Catholic church, and at one point More makes an argument that a man who has chosen to leave the Catholic church is a heretic. However this discussion is more against impulsiveness and capriciousness with regard to one's spiritual life than it is about Catholicism being better than Protestantism. I'm not certain but this may take place in the period leading up to Martin Luther's famous declaration, so there may not be an option at the time when this film takes place.
I feel as though the ending is a bit abrupt, though I'm not sure what I would expect to come after. A few pages of textual epilogue seems unworthy of the preceding film, however.
Final Thought: It's important for us to see what it looks like for a man to uphold the Biblical principles we hold dear. Sir Thomas More, if he was anything like the portrayal in this film, was an excellent (lesser) example after Jesus' own. If you don't mind the Catholic surroundings and less than spectacular events of the film it may be worth watching.
Bottom Line: 4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment