by Chris Marshall:
At the risk of inserting too much Real Life into this post,
I feel compelled to mention that I’ve just finished writing a final for
hierarchical linear modeling class, so if this is of a lower quality than
usual, it’s because I’m having trouble switching over from multilevel
statistical analysis mode to let’s write about movies mode.
So yeah, A Man for All Seasons! I hadn’t seen many of the winners from the
1960s before I started the project, but I was at least familiar with all of
them, save for this and Tom Jones. I
had a vague idea that it was based on a play, but that was really about it.
Pauline Kael once wrote about how the first questions anybody asks upon hearing
of a movie are “what’s about it” and “who’s in it,” and I didn’t have the
answer to either of those.
Well, Orson Welles is in it, but
don’t get your hopes up that he hangs around for very long. After that you get
a brief appearance from Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn, and John Hurt appears in
his very first film role. Oh, and Paul Scofield won Best Actor for his
portrayal of Sir Thomas More.
Now we’re getting into what the
movie is about. If you guessed that it’s about Henry VIII, you’re half right.
It’s set during his reign, but he is in fact the antagonist, at least
indirectly. Sir Thomas More, for those who hadn’t heard of him[1],
was a Catholic martyr who was beheaded for refusing to recognize the legitimacy
of Henry VIII’s divorce, among other minor offenses.
If that seems like a pretty harsh
punishment for such a small “misdeed,” then congratulations, you’re not
completely evil. I don’t mean to imply that Henry was, except that I kind of
do. I couldn’t care less that he got divorced, but he also had a tendency to
execute people for disagreeing with him, including two of his wives.
For the most part, there’s
nothing spectacular about this film, but I did find myself very much engaged in
the story toward the end. Scofield gives a magnificent performance, and the
script affords him the opportunity to deliver some great monologues. Even
though I knew that Sir Thomas More met a grisly fate, I kept hoping against
hope that the movie version would have a happy ending. Alas.
 |
| When I first saw him, I thought he was wearing a $$$ chain. |
The courtroom scene at the end of
the film was very well done. The gist of it is that Sir Thomas More refuses to
sign the 1534 Act of Succession, though he will not voice any specific
objection to it. His reasoning is that if he speaks out, he will easily be
convicted of treason, but if he keeps quiet, he won’t have to break his loyalty
to the Catholic church, but in the eyes of the law, his silence must imply
consent. It was good, logical reasoning, but he also knew that he was being
railroaded, and his days of having a head were numbered, no matter what his
defense.
The scene was written
extraordinarily well, though. The back and forth between More and his
inquisitor is delightful. More, a former lawyer, knows his rights and
formulates a seemingly flawless defense, while the man trying to convict him is
shrewd as well and tries to lure him into a trap. Or since I watched the
National Spelling Bee immediately after watching this movie, perhaps I should
say “tries to lure him into a guetapans.”
Hmm, I went into this post
feeling no more than lukewarm about the movie, but now I’m beginning to think I
really liked it. It’s strange how movies can grow in your mind like that. This
is also an example of how an otherwise mediocre movie can be completely saved
by one performance or by a couple of brilliant scenes.
Of the nominees from
1966, Alfie and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf have better reputations now, and
perhaps one of them was more deserving of the award, but A Man for All Seasons has nothing to be ashamed of.
[1] I
wasn’t much better. I basically only knew him as the author of Utopia, something which is important to
know for trivia purposes. And I knew he was executed, though I didn’t know why.
No comments:
Post a Comment