A Man for All Seasons

CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT!

Before anything else regarding this awesome movie, let me just say that a good arthouse cinema is invaluable to society. I have just recently discovered the joys of such at AFI Silver by buying a draft Yuengling, watching an aged print of a classic film so messed up you feel like you are watching an old grindhouse film, then having it followed by a local film historian/critic discussing its significance and the brilliance of the director. Although the print stunk, the quality of the experience is so superior to anything else that it makes up for any problems that may arise. If you have an "artsy" cinema in your area find out about any festivals they have coming up and if they have none but just show art films, try talking to them about arranging some. Seriously, it's incredibly worth it.

As for the film, well, okay yes. It's a good film by an exquisite director named Fred Zinnemann who also directed Oklahoma! and High Noon. The problem for me is that it stars Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More and if you haven't had the Scofield experience, spare yourself. Yes, he has presence and yes, he is a pretty good, maybe even a great actor, but my GOD! His voice is so monotone it convinces me that everyone in the theater who isn't screaming and groaning from the pain caused to their ears are hypnotized little lemurs. Actually Scofield does a good job of playing a wise man More with a quick wit and strong sensibilities and logic. The king, Henry the VIII is played ferociously crazy, loud, boisterous, and bold by the great actor Robert Shaw. Relative unkown Leo McKern is astounding as the manipulative and vendictive Cromwell. Orson Welles also turns in a great performance as the overweight sleazy Cardinal Wosley. Plus, if that doesn't give you an idea as to the quality of the acting performances, it also has two small performances by two of the Redgrave clan, Vanessa and Corin. I bet you can use that as a measuring stick for how well it is liked by the critics, like one Redgrave is pretty good to decent, two equals great film and three to four = mind blowing. If there is ever 5 Redgraves in one film be prepared for the apocalypse. Interestingly, one thing I noticed from all the performers is that they all have a commanding voice. They make you hear them which makes sense since they all originated on the stage and developed acting voices. There is no wimpy wheeze or whisper thin voice. Each actor knows how to use his/her voice to be heard and it shows. Even Scofield's monotone has a quiet mania inherent in it that forces you to pay attention like Hopkins playing Lecter.

Besides the stellar if occassionally over acted performances by the great cast, the story itself is very interesting. It is based off of a play by the same name written by Robert Bolt who also wrote the screenplay. It is a show based around Sir Thomas More's rise and fall during Henry VIII's reign and turns More into martyr/Christ tale whose main focus is on the judicial system and what it means to oppose a dictator. So there, that's what you need to know. If you don't see the Christ similarities, then you aren't looking hard enough. While this seems obvious and not very deep besides showing a lot of pity for Catholics, especially the old English Catholics that didn't convert too well, it does mask the true qustion of the film by adding an extra layer of fun discovery. Through More's resignation and silent refusal to approve or deny Henry's right to marry Anne Boleyn, it asks the question of how is opposition perceived and what is necessary to maintain order in a country shaken by a strong leader? Granted, I didn't really realize all of this until the nice critic discussed the show, however it did make sense after listening a bit.

If nothing else, this film struck me with its age through the overpowering beauty and care in which each shot was composed. The scenic designer obviously understood the importance of texture in each scene. The background is constantly textured and feels vibrant and natural to the period setting of the movie. The director carefully plans each shot and the framing is done well. Hell, a movie that can succeed at being a visual medium is amazing. Zinnemann starts the movie off by having the first minute or so be complete silence, no voices at least, and yt it is still visually interesting and not boring at all, like a great silent film. Zinnemann maintains this visual acuity throughout the film through his editing and by carfully planning his shots. Unfortunately, in this print(not the director's fault) there are a couple of plot points that get skipped over due to the wear of it. Plus there are numerous scratches and color fades and most of the time the film suffered from a red tinge. Despite these technical difficulties, it is obvious how carefully Bolt and Zinnemann adapted the play to the screen and how well they did it by inserting moments that fit the characters into the film that could only be accomplished on film. Although the film still maintains the wit and quick dialogue of the play and the film is about words and the lack of words, Zinnemann has done the amazing by turning a story in a medium about language into a story that merges language and action into one indivisible tale. The only problem came from a scene where it is broad daylight but the actors pretend like it is night time and also from the fact that apparently Zinnemann isn't afraid of letting his actors scream. The screaming all the time is a bit much on the speakers and ears, but it quickly becomes just a part of the movie.

Conclusion:
The acting at times is a bit much and Scofield has that friggin monotone going strong. On the whole though they all have presence and know their characters in and out. Hell, Scofield even won an award for his performance. The direction and adaptation of the play is superbly and impeccably done. The film is truly a visual medium and the story, although fairly simple, does ask some interesting questions given the time in which this film was made. The biggest drawback besides one or two inconsistencies and a fairly straight forward story is that the film requires a good healthy knowledge of history and a love of dialogue to enjoy. The average film goer today will not enjoy seeing the thrill of the clash between More and Cromwell nor the rise of Richard Rich without knowing the history of England. Plus the heavy and fast paced witty dialogue requires at times a knowledge of the living conditions and customs of the day and as my aunt said, it could take awhile to get used to the actor's british accent if you're an American...But definately a classic and a very good film, although I doubt given this director's pedigree that it is his best.

4.0 out of 5

Wannabe