SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home TNR Film Classic: ‘A Man for all Seasons’ (February 25,...

FILM SEPTEMBER 24, 2011

TNR Film Classic: ‘A Man for all Seasons’ (February 25, 1967)

A Man for All Seasons is tasteful and moderately enjoyable; Robert Bolt’s dialogue is crisp, lucid, and well-spoken; the actors are generally efficient. Fred Zinnemann’s direction is placed at the service of Bolt’s material—in the manner of a good, modest stage director who does not attempt more than a faithful, respectful interpretation of the play. It’s pleasant to see a movie made with integrity and sensibility: A Man for All Seasons wasn’t that easy to do and it wasn’t “safe”—though it appears to have turned out well for all concerned.

But that’s really just about all I can say for it. As conceived by Bolt, Sir Thomas More isn’t A Man for All Seasons: he isn’t particularly relevant to this season, I doubt if he’s relevant to any season. (And as interpreted by Paul Scofield, he’s not my kind of guy, either.) Bolt’s presentation of More’s martyrdom is so totally one-sided that we don’t even get to understand that side—as we might if it were challenged and engaged in conflict. Though the principle for which he is beheaded (his belief that the Pope represents divine law so that he is saving his soul in taking the Catholic position against Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Boleyn) seems doubtful at best, it is given as beyond question in this film that a man should follow the dictates of his conscience. (The Afrikaners willing to die for apartheid—and they find their justifications in divine law also—could probably make as good a case.) This More is simply right and he’s smart and good and just about omniscient (he even knows his Judas); his great opponent, Henry VIII, is vain and childish, and everyone else is weak, stupid, cowardly, or corrupt. More is the only man of honor in the movie, and he’s got all the good lines.

Bolt’s More is the kind of hero we used to read about in the biographies of great men written for twelve-year-olds: the one against the many. Perhaps people think A Man for All Seasons is so great because unlike the usual movie which is aimed at 12-year-olds, it’s aimed at 12-year-old intellectuals and idealists. And if they’ve grown into compromising and unprincipled people, they can hail A Man for all Seasons as a masterpiece: heroism so remote, so totally the property of a supra-human figure, absolves them of human weakness. It becomes romantic.

There’s more than a little of the school pageant in the rhythm of the movie: Though it’s all neater than our school drama coaches could make it, the figures group and say their assigned lines and move on. The camera, ever faithful to the author, does not open them up to us: they are set faces, fully—rigidly—formed from the start. For a too-brief sequence, Orson Welles’ Wolsey overpowers the orderly progression of attitudes, but then we are left with Scofield—so refined, so controlled, so dignified, so obviously “subtle”—just the way a man of conscience in a school play would be expected to behave.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

More didn't refuse to take the oath on the grounds this review suggests. Read the play or the screen play. More made careful legal arguments, and they didn't include opposition to the marriage (though he opposed it).

- NR135152

September 24, 2011 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pauline Kael was a fine critic. She was merciless toward middlebrow "masterpieces" like *A Man for All Seasons*. The lady had, in Hemingway's words, "a built in BS detector".

- bulbman1066

September 26, 2011 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"middlebrow" or not, the move had great performances by Scofield, Wendy Hiller, and Shaw. Some could say that the script's version of Henry (as Shaw, robustly, characterizes) is cliched; nonetheless, it's an ENJOYABLE script, and well-edited.

- JohnBorder

September 26, 2011 at 2:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with JohnBorder on this movie. I generally find Pauline Kael provocative in a lightning rod sort of way but idiosyncratic. Here, her intellectual problem with the proposition More stands on: ...Though the principle for which he is beheaded (his belief that the Pope represents divine law so that he is saving his soul in taking the Catholic position against Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Boleyn) seems doubtful at best, it is given as beyond question in this film that a man should follow the dictates of his conscience... takes her out of being a critic and into implicit ideology parading as criticism. ...(The Afrikaners willing to die for apartheid—and they find their justifications in divine law also—could probably make as good a case.)... This distorts her ability to grant the movie its given: ...This More is simply right and he’s smart and good and just about omniscient (he even knows his Judas)... The movie's theme is not that "More is simply right." It's the dramatization of his steadfastness to his principle and to his conscience as he conceives them. Kael wants a different movie and criticizes this movie for what it is not, the dramatization of the fragility of the principle, or the agonizing over its correctness, or the play of countervailing arguments: ...And if they’ve grown into compromising and unprincipled people, they can hail A Man for all Seasons as a masterpiece: heroism so remote, so totally the property of a supra-human figure, absolves them of human weakness. It becomes romantic.... There are and have been principled figures such as More, men and women for all seasons, who at the risk of life itself will cling to what they hold highest. That is ample subject enough for art. Here we have it dramatized, at a minimum, pace Kael, with crisp dialogue, lucid and well spoken, efficient acting, all in faithful service to the original text, the movie made with integrity and sensibility. The whole well worn distinction between high art and middling (brow) art as mass cult, I'd argue, is outmoded. Compelling art appears in all kinds of places that defy neat categories.

- basman

September 26, 2011 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close