Best Picture: #39
Original Release Date: December 16, 1966
Rating: G
Runtime: 2 hours
Director: Fred Zinnemann
Quick Impressions:
Boats.
If I could sum up A Man for All Seasons in one word, that would be it. Boats. Lots and lots and lots of boats.
For the first hour or so, the movie is just long, intimate conversations interspersed with even longer, silent boat rides. At first, my daughter found all these prolonged river journeys extremely aggravating, but after a while she started to enjoy the boats and now jokes that they’re the only thing she remembers about the movie. If she were ten years older, we could have made it a drinking game. Every time somebody boards a boat, quaff some mead. (I keep thinking up these Tudor themed cocktails that are in such poor taste that I think it’s best not to write them down.) (They’re not bawdy. Just gruesome.)
I have a love/hate thing with the boats myself. As I watched, I found my feelings for the boats were intense and ever-shifting (sort of like Henry VIII’s feelings for Anne Boleyn).
If the travel scenes were cut, so much time would be saved. After all, aren’t the conversations what matter, not the boats? Why do we need to watch everyone boating from location to location?
On the other hand, the boats do build atmosphere, and travel along the river (for efficiency or simply pleasure) was extremely common in Henry VIII’s day, something easy to forget (or even never to discover at all) when you’ve got your nose buried in a book about the period.
Also there’s a marvelous moment midway through the film when More has fallen out of favor with the king, and (as a direct result of this) no boat will come for him when he calls for one. This does illustrate the danger he now faces. “You’re up a creek now!” I exclaimed. (It’s silly, but it’s true.)
Boats were not what I was expecting as we prepared to watch this movie. When I was my daughter’s age, I was just starting to get interested in the Tudor family. Somewhat weirdly, my obsession began with Mary I. (I don’t know why. We weren’t Catholic yet.) And then I branched out into Elizabeth. By the time I was in grad school, I had devoured all popular history available about every Tudor (and most Plantagenets), and I was working on my dissertation about Mary, Queen of Scots and the Elizabethan complaint poem.
Yet somehow I had never seen A Man for All Seasons. I wondered what my daughter would think of the film. I didn’t tell her anything beforehand because I wanted her to form her own opinion. That may have been a mistake because this movie works best if you already know the history and understand the situation and its stakes.
My daughter’s main takeaway was that during the reign of Henry VIII, everybody spent a lot of time riding around in boats.
The Plot:
England, just about 1530. Henry VIII wants a son and heir, and he’s pretty desperate. The pope won’t annul his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Henry insists that his conscience troubles him because Catherine was his brother’s widow. He fears he has sinned, defying Levitical law by marrying his brother’s wife, and as a result, he has no sons (from his union with Catherine). Of course, it doesn’t help that he has fallen in love with Anne Boleyn and longs to marry her as soon as possible. Statesman and scholar Sir Thomas More considers himself the king’s loyal subject, but he cannot act against his conscience and acknowledge the king as head of the Church in England. More tries to sidestep the issue by saying nothing either way. But his silence is deafening, and his enemies (rightly) take it as a sign of tacit disapproval of the king’s agenda. For some reason, More believes that the law will protect him. He doesn’t know Henry VIII as well as he thinks.
The Good:
The acting in this film is top-notch. I particularly enjoyed so many of the supporting performances.
Orson Welles appears in a significant way in only one scene. (His time in one other scene is so brief that it hardly counts.) Yet he makes such a huge impression as the frustrated and ailing Cardinal Wolsey, so visibly (and alarmingly) in physical decline.
As you would expect, Wolsey wears a brilliant crimson cardinal’s robe, and yet somehow, both the skin of his face and the whites of his eyes look even redder than his garments. (My daughter and I found this remarkable.) Welles is quite memorable as Wolsey. As those familiar with More’s story would expect, Welles’s character disappears early from the film, but when I began writing this review, his great, glowering, blistering red face was the first thing that came to my mind.
If you said to me, “Cast Cardinal Wolsey,” I would never think of Orson Welles, but he leaves a huge and lasting impression in the part. I can’t deny he’s effective in the role. He’s certainly a scene stealer. (Of course, he’s practically the only person in the scene. In the strictest sense, he’s not so much stealing as dominating.)
John Hurt also impressed me in this film simply by being so young that he’s barely recognizable. Even though he co-starred in Alien just a little over a decade later and we watched all the Alien films in the summer of 2019, my daughter didn’t recognize him when I pointed him out. I kept calling out names of various characters Hurt has played, but to be honest, even I could hardly believe it really was Hurt. I checked the cast list over and over again because he looks so different here. He plays a curious character, the ambitious (and fittingly named) Richard Rich. Early on, I thought we might spend a bit more time with Rich. More devotes so much energy to trying to straighten him out early on. I thought we might begin to see the story through his eyes, but he’s more of a simple Judas figure in the end.
Leo McKern is exquisite as the oft (and not entirely undeservedly) vilified Thomas Cromwell. (I’ve never liked Cromwell, though I will admit I’ve been swayed by accounts sympathetic to Anne Boleyn that I read in my youth.) Even though he has his apologists, it’s easy to dislike Cromwell, and he’s played as an out-and-out villain here, determined to lay the perfect trap for Thomas More even if it takes him all the seasons to do it! McKern gives Cromwell a sinister edge, an unpalatable shrewdness that not only makes him easy to root against, but also (sometimes) makes the protagonist more sympathetic (by contrast) than More does himself. (Though it makes no difference to his portrayal of Cromwell, my daughter and I noticed that one of McKern’s eyes appears to be a different color from the other and wondered if he had heterochromia. In fact, McKern lost his eye in an early accident, and the iris of the glass replacement does not perfectly match the color of the other eye. This makes no difference to his performance, but we found it noteworthy.) Apart from the discrepancy in eye color, McKern looks exactly as I would imagine Cromwelll. He gives what is by far my favorite male supporting performance in the film.
My daughter liked Robert Shaw’s take on Henry VIII the best. Henry’s larger-than-life personality won her over. And she must not be the only one who liked his turn as Henry because Shaw was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. My daughter also loved Susannah York as More’s beloved daughter, Margaret Roper (or as she’s known in the movie Meg). I agree that the character is compelling. I do wish the movie had done a bit more with her (which is not York’s fault). But my favorite female performance (and in fact my favorite performance of all in the film) belongs to Wendy Hiller as More’s wife Alice. Hiller is an outstanding actress in general, and she brings Alice More vividly to life. I wish we had seen more of both Meg and Alice.
Also good are Nigel Davenport as Thomas Howard, Duke of York, and Corin Redgrave as the determined young Roper, Meg’s suitor/husband. My daughter liked both of these characters, too. Frankly, I was just excited to see Corin Redgrave in a film role since I remember vividly seeing him (and his sister Vanessa) on stage in Antony and Cleopatra when I was in high school. (She was Cleopatra. He wasn’t Antony, obviously.)
Speaking of Vanessa Redgrave, she’s in this movie, too. She has a very brief cameo as Anne Boleyn. I don’t remember her speaking any lines. Basically all she does is laugh, which, frankly, is a waste of Regrave’s talents, and a waste of Anne Boleyn. (If you’re going to put her in the movie, use her. It’s not like she was the quiet type who never made waves.)
I guess that leaves lead actor Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More. Scofield actually won Best Actor, and maybe he was the best lead actor of the year, but I don’t think he gives the best performance in the movie. Still, he’s given some powerful speeches and thoughtful silences, and he delivers them all well (not surprising since he also played the role on the stage).
The other thing I liked about A Man for All Seasons is its immediacy. The language hovers somewhere between Early Modern and present day, so as you watch, you don’t necessarily notice the dialogue sounding less Shakespearean than perhaps it should, but you do feel close to the characters. These events don’t seem to take place in some almost quasi-mythical, distant past. (And they shouldn’t, but you know how stuffy some period costume dramas can be!) On the contrary, all of this stuff could be happening today–if most people traveled everywhere by boat instead of motor vehicles. (Like Henry VIII, my husband and I did take a boat from Richmond to Hampton Court on our honeymoon, so I suppose boat travel still isn’t uncommon.) Sometimes movies about kings fall into a trap of making the action feel stiff and distant. This feels like we’re watching living interactions, not museum exhibits.
Best Scene:
Schofield probably secured his Oscar win by delivering More’s big speech to the court at the moment he realizes that there’s no longer a point to keep silent. The good-bye scene with Alice is excellent, too.
Best Scene Visually:
Honestly, I most enjoyed the alarming spectacle of More’s early conversation with Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey.
Best Action Sequence:
My daughter loves the part when Henry VIII goes stomping around in the mud. She was also taken with the moment when More deliberately begins a quarrel with Norfolk to damage their friendship so that Norfolk will not continue to stand with him and put his own life in danger out of misguided loyalty. I think what she likes are displays of passion. For most of the film, More plays everything so close to the chest. He does this for well considered reasons. In some ways, his silence and poise are acts of great bravery. The problem is, viewers new to the situation like my daughter have no idea what More would actually say if he were to talk.
Best Season:
For More? Probably winter.
The Negatives:
A Man for All Seasons does not do enough to contextualize the events of the story. It seems to assume that everyone knows the details of More’s conflict with Henry VIII, but I promise you, everyone does not. Most American audiences don’t even have the story of Henry VIII’s break with the Church straight. It doesn’t matter that the Tudors have inspired countless novels, plays, movies, TV shows, musicals, operas, paper doll sets. Even so, while most people know the big names of the era–Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth I, Mary, Queen of Scots, Lady Jane Grey–they do not have a clear idea of who did what to whom and when and why. (In fact, when I just asked my husband what he remembered about Henry VIII, he came up with the name Anne Boleyn, then asked, “Is he the one who asked, ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’)
I am not calling my husband ignorant. (He just has his Henrys a bit twisted.) My point is that most Americans do not know British history. Obviously those who study English history in this country know it as well as anyone, but most people don’t study it and don’t know. I know a lot of British history, but I wouldn’t call most of it common knowledge in the United States. (Frankly, we’re lucky if we know American history!) And most of what I know I learned on my own through pleasure reading or advanced study at the university level.
I have heard so many Americans guess that Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I are sisters, give just about every name you can think of as one of Henry’s wives, jumble up all the Henrys and all the Thomases. It’s natural that they would. Here more people know about the Tudors from TV and movies than anything else.
Now if you pay attention, the film does explain the barebones of Henry’s dilemma. (Wolsey gives us a lot of that, and Henry himself explains a little bit.) But these days, in this country, people in general do not understand why the Protestant Reformation got so heated (especially under Mary I, if you know what I mean). They don’t know why it would be such a big deal for a king to be head of the Church, or why it would be that big of a problem for Henry VIII to divorce Catherine, and why she would resist.
So most audience members are likely to watch this film without ever truly understanding the stakes. Doesn’t Thomas More know that he could be killed for resisting the king? What is he thinking? What could be more important than his life?
Eventually–and I mean at the very, very end–More gives us a somewhat adequate answer to these questions. But I think that leaves the audience in the dark far too long. My twelve-year-old daughter spent most of the movie puzzled. I realize that she’s young, but she’s an attentive and thoughtful movie watcher. The film doesn’t give her much.
Now I understand that one movie can’t include every detail of what was happening at the court of Henry VIII. But this is a limitation of the film. It is best enjoyed by people who have already studied the period and know the context of the events depicted here.
My daughter complained, “I felt that the movie didn’t explain the circumstances enough. It seemed to be made for a very particular, very narrow audience that already knew everything. Basically you had to be Thomas More to understand this movie. Look, even the other characters didn’t know what the heck he was thinking! They kept saying so!”
She suggested making the story more accessible by creating a fictional character to experience these events from a neutral position, to be exposed to arguments from both Henry VIII’s supporters and those who opposed the king’s desire to declare himself head of the Church in England, to divorce Queen Catherine, to marry Anne Boleyn.
Of course, this story is supposed to be about Thomas More, not Henry VIII. (Candidly, my daughter and I would prefer it to be about Henry VIII, who by sheer virtue of his big, zany personality was her favorite character by far. In fairness, though, if we’re talking about star appeal, isn’t Henry VIII the one who’s got it? I’m not talking about character, integrity, scholarship–just being the person everybody naturally wants to watch.)
If you ask me, the movie would be enhanced by more of a presence from the female players in these events. (After Henry VIII, More’s daughter Meg was my daughter’s favorite because “she had more personality than most people.” At the end, we get a brief, narrated post script about More’s head. Why not dramatize those events? Is this a movie or not? If so, include some cinematic material!) Often history simply neglects to tell women’s stories, leaving historians to fill in silences in order to recover women’s presence. But that’s not the case in this story. Both Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon had plenty to say, as did Margaret Roper.
I think the film needs to give us a clearer idea of what More is fighting for at the outset. As the film goes on and on, none of the other characters really seems to understand why More refuses to do such a simple thing as sign a document. How is the audience to be expected to understand? More finally tells us what he believes in a frank and candid way, but by then the movie is over! I think the film should show us a bit of Queen Catherine, Princess Mary, the Catholic Church in action, maybe even the Pope.
I think we also need a clearer understanding of why More believes so much in the law. As my daughter said, “This movie told us stuff, but it never showed us.” She’s right.
Part of the problem is that it feels more like a stage play than a film. Honestly, it would work better as a stage play. There wouldn’t be so many interminable scenes of people rowing around in boats. And without all the atmosphere–the boats, the exteriors of Hampton Court, the mud, the Styrofoam snow–the specifics of More’s circumstances would seem to matter less. Instead, we could see his dilemma as philosophical, more a question of ethics, an academic debate. Any historical events would take a back seat to More’s principles. But as it is, we’re shown a real, vivid world, and then not given all the tools we need to understand it.
My daughter found A Man for All Seasons too inaccessible to be enjoyable and ranked it #35 out of 40. I enjoyed it. The performances are impeccable, and I’m sure the play would be a pleasure to read. But I did feel a bit of disappointment that the film approached such an eventful moment in history in such a dry, off-putting way. (I mean that the film would be off-putting to anyone not already familiar with the history. Being Catholic would probably help, too.)
As I said, my daughter enjoyed the scenes featuring Henry VIII, and I think the film would be strengthened by an exploration of the way a cult of personality can make a mockery of the law. My daughter kept asking, “Why did people want to talk about this story in 1966?” I think that’s a good question. Perhaps there’s a topical context for the story we have missed by watching it out of its cultural moment.
Overall:
I have a lot of respect for St. Thomas More, and the performances in this film are excellent, but A Man for All Seasons works best if you’re already familiar with the story. My daughter was not impressed.