A Man for All Seasons

How many of us would be willing to lay down our lives for our beliefs? When a gun is put to our heads and the question is asked, would you swear an oath to something you do not believe in? How many would swear that oath, even if we didn’t believe it in our hearts; to say the words knowing that we were being insincere just to save our own lives? Or would we keep silent in the face of death, firmly convinced that to take such an oath would condemn us in the sight of God? That is the dilemma facing Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) in A Man for All Seasons, a film that delves into Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) and his decision to break from the Catholic Church and form the Church of England with himself at the head for the sole purpose of legitimizing his divorce from his wife who failed to provide him with a male heir. 

“Some men think the earth is round, others think it is flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?” That argument is at the heart of this film. Does the King’s command make something right in the eyes of God? The King, after all, is still just a man in God’s sight and not permitted to overwrite divine law. Yet King Henry VIII can be seen as a politician, using the growing Protestant movement to usurp the authority of the Pope in England to both cement his position as ruler over all and as a means to allow him to marry and divorce at whim without having to defer to the Pope in Rome. The truth behind his motivations is most likely a bit of it all this, but it is lost to time. This film has an opinion on the subject, but as I’ve always said, don’t learn your history from film, no matter how well it is made. 

There have been countless films made on this very subject, as well as stage plays, radio plays, books, and all other forms of entertainment, educational or otherwise. One of the things that helps A Man for All Seasons stand out from the others is that it takes the point-of-view of Sir Thomas More. We are not here to follow Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn (Vanessa Redgrave). These two historical figures play a part in the drama but barely make up fifteen minutes of the screentime. Instead, we are looking at Sir Thomas More and his role in the proceedings. We are also following Richard Rich (John Hurt), a young acquaintance of More’s who bristles at More’s suggestion to take a teaching position rather than something that will raise his station in life. More cautions that positions of power can be treacherous and that a teacher is a quiet, more dignified life, something that Rich can elevate. Rich’s ambition won’t allow him to accept a quieter life, though, and, throughout the course of the film, he will sell out his very soul for wealth and position while those, such as More, will be executed for their principles.

The central conflict of the film is More’s refusal to endorse putting pressure on Church property and revenue in England for the purpose of securing the endorsement from Rome for Henry VIII to put aside his wife for another. Henry VIII married his brother’s widow but she has failed to deliver him a male heir that has lived more than a few months and now he is using this as an excuse to divorce her and marry another who may provide that heir. He also seeks to avoid a repeat of the War of the Roses, also known as the Cousin’s War, which was fought over control of the English throne. More’s refusal to endorse this push for annulment puts him at odds with Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Wells) as well as King Henry VIII.

More is also at odds with the growing strength of the Protestant movement, including William Roper (Corin Redgrave), a young lawyer that wants to marry More’s daughter Margaret (Susannah York). Roper seeks More’s blessing, but as long as he remains committed to the “blasphemy” that is Lutheranism, More will not grant it. Meanwhile, Richard Rich is bribed with the promise of a position in court in exchange for spying on More and reporting to Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern), former aide to Wolsey but now the King’s Principal Secretary. On top of the spying, Rich will also be pressed into baring false testimony in court when More proves too smart to do or say anything that will hold up in court once the King has made it treason to not support his decision to lead the Church of England. 

Not anyone can get away with portraying such an imposing figure of legend as Henry VIII. Robert Shaw was an imposing man both on and off the screen. His drive for relevance and celebrity aged him prematurely, and some consider it a major factor in his early death. This ego and self-worth translate well to the screen, making him an ideal Henry VIII. Richard Burton would go on in just a couple of years to play the role in the less successful Anne of the Thousand Days, a film that is more focused on Henry and Anne, but Shaw manages, in about twelve minutes of screentime, to create a character that is felt throughout the entire film. You forget that this is such a small role because Shaw has made it so memorable. Cinematographer Ted Moore has further elevated Shaw’s performance by shooting him from low angles looking upward to make it look like he is a towering, sometimes threatening figure.

But he is also painted as a bit jovial as well. When we first see him, he is stepping off a boat to visit More at his home in Chelsea off the River Thames. He jumps off the boat and into the mud while his entourage watches in silence, not sure how to act. Henry pauses for a second, then breaks out into laughter, jumping in the mud for a second, breaking the tension of his people who had to know this trip was a serious one. Henry is hiding the seriousness of this visit at first, but it quickly changes as he converses with Thomas More, a conversation that darkens into shouting and disagreement very quickly. 

Sir Thomas More is painted a bit more nuanced, mainly because we spend the bulk of the film with him. This allows for time to flesh out his character. At first, he comes across as a man who has a rigid set of principles that places God first and foremost, even above his own safety. But he is also a man with ambitions, and he has more than a little pride, thinking that he can talk his way out of having to do things he doesn’t want to. We see this when he is informed that the King has made it mandatory that all his subjects take an oath that supports his marriage to Anne and position in the Church of England. On principle, More doesn’t support that marriage but thinks he may be able to take the oath anyway, depending on how it is worded. This fails, of course, and he is thrown in prison. 

While in prison, he uses his knowledge of the law to double-talk his way around the details of the law, believing that so long as he says nothing, he cannot be incriminated for speaking treason. This is a bit of an arrogant assumption. Determined individuals will find a way, even if you do nothing that could incriminate yourself. This comes in the form of Richard Rich, who purges himself by stating More said things that he didn’t actually say. 

A Man for All Seasons is an adaptation of the play by the same name. Richard Bolt, who also wrote the scripts for Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, adapted his own play, and by all accounts, the film surpasses it. The play version was originally performed in London before finding much more success on Broadway in New York City. This version, like the film, portrays Sir Thomas More as a man of principle, envied by his rivals but beloved by the common people and by his family. History, of course, paints a different picture, but we are not looking at a historical document; we are looking at a piece of entertainment. 

The film adaptation that inevitably came a few years later was a relatively low-budget production that looked like an epic period drama. This is a great-looking production, further enhanced by a recent UHD release for home video. It nearly swept up at the Academy Awards in 1967, losing only in the Supporting Actor and Actress columns. It also made bank at the box office, bringing in almost fifteen times its budget back in rentals. This was a critical and commercial success. It’s also far more entertaining than the subject has any right to be. 

A big part of that is in Paul Scofield’s portrayal of More. This could easily be a pious, better-than-thou portrayal, and there is a degree of that in this. But we also understand his convictions enough to not be kept at a distance by them. We get several scenes where he explains to someone just why he cannot take an oath he doesn’t believe in or why he cannot go along with the King’s decision in order to save his own life. We may not agree with him, but we understand him. 

This is a wonderfully told story that is far more entertaining and approachable than a film like Anne of the Thousand Days. It’s still a period drama from the 1960s, and there is no getting away from that, but that matters little when watching it these days. So many of those other films, Beckett and The Lion in Winter among them, can be intimidating, even a little too self-serious at times, but A Man for All Seasons supersedes that. This is a film about a serious subject, and it doesn’t take that lightly, but it also knows that it needs to be entertaining as well. It does both well and rightfully deserves being crowned the Best Picture of 1966.

Academy Award Nominations: 

Best Picture: Fred Zinnemann (won)

Best Director: Fred Zinnemann (won)

Best Actor: Paul Scofield (won)

Best Supporting Actor: Robert Shaw 

Best Supporting Actress: Wendy Hiller

Best Screenplay - Based on Material from Another Medium: Robert Bolt (won)

Best Cinematography - Color: Ted Moore (won)

Best Costume Design - Color: Joan Bridge and Elizabeth Haffenden (won)

____________________________________________________

Release Date: December 12, 1966

Running Time: 120 Minutes

Rated G

Starring: Paul Scofield, Wendy Hiller, Leo McKern, Orson Welles, Robert Shaw, and Susannah York

Directed By: Fred Zinnemann