Political Intrigue And Great Lines Make A Man For All Seasons!

The Good: Good costumes, Good cinematography, Generally good acting, Interesting character, Good lines.
The Bad: Light on DVD bonus features, Pacing issues
The Basics: A decent classic film, A Man For All Seasons tells the story of the demise of Sir Thomas More as he stood by his principles against Henry VIII!


It has been a long time since I sat down and watched a 1960s-produced period drama of times long past. In high school, I loved the Zeffirelli version of Romeo & Juliet. Since then, about the only similar film I have seen and enjoyed was A Lion In Winter. So it was certainly atypical that I should sit down and watch A Man For All Seasons. Given my appreciation for Church intrigue, I was quickly drawn into the film, which won the 1966 Best Picture Oscar.

A Man For All Seasons is based upon the play by the same name. As always, it is worth noting that this is a review of the film only, not the play nor historical events. This is intended to be a rather pure review of A Man For All Seasons as a work of entertainment. Even so, it is worth noting right off the bat that director Fred Zinnemann uses the cinematic medium quite well and the movie does not look, nor feel, like a stage play set on the big screen.

Sir Thomas More is called by the Cardinal Wosley to discuss the fact that King Henry VIII is not going to have a child with his wife. Concerned about dynastic wars within the monarchy and the Church's inability to negotiate such struggles, the Cardinal charges More with figuring out a solution to the problem of the King's potential to have a child with his mistress and the problems that will result in. Returning home, Sir Thomas finds a suitor for his daughter and a young man seeking favors waiting and his family curious about the future of England. With an abrupt death of Wolsey, More is promoted to Chancellor and becomes even more mired in the politics of the royal court as Henry VIII considers him a friend. Henry turns to More to find a way for him to get out of his marriage. Demanding a divorce, Henry puts More's life on the line and to keep his neck, More stands by as Henry rids England of the Catholic Church.

When that happens, More is put in the awkward position of being the last Roman Catholic in England. Refusing to swear an oath validating the divorce and the new marriage, More is persecuted and imprisoned. But while the courts figure out a charge - no easy task as he has remained brilliantly silent on the matter - More suffers for his principles.

Shockingly, A Man For All Seasons is surprisingly engaging and actually fun to watch. Despite most of the film being about one man standing by his principles and not much actually happening, the film is a pleasure to watch and generally well-performed. The way the film compensates for not having much in the way of movement or even character development - More starts as a man of principle and finishes the film with an equal sense of resolve without actually developing or changing - is through the dialogue. A Man For All Seasons is filled with witty banter and great lines. More is a man of faith who uses law and logic and virtually every one of his lines is a clever recitation of a loophole or simple fact. While others around him assume his thoughts and beliefs, he refuses to correct them until his life is imperiled and then his words are so simple that there is a delightful quality to them that almost makes the description "wicked" applicable. More is presented almost as a collection of colloquialisms and logic-table retorts that make one feel like they are watching a truly keen mind in action.

By contrast, King Henry VIII's scene is passionate, boisterous and loud. Presented as a crazed crackpot, Henry is an obvious foil to More, even though he is barely on the screen at all. A force for which virtually all of the other characters work, Henry is characterized as energetic and illogical. Far more of a presence on screen is the dogmatic Cromwell, whose purpose is to act as a literal adversary to Sir Thomas. Comwell, using the ambitious Rich, works to entrap and convict Sir Thomas and he is slimy, active and hotheaded. Like More, he does not so much develop throughout the film as he attains more power to menace Sir Thomas. The result is a pair of characters fighting throughout the film with verbal jabs. The film is engaging because Sir Thomas very coolly deflects the advances and jibes of Cromwell, which frustrates Cromwell and his allies.

Throughout, More retains a friend in Norfolk, who begs Sir Thomas to take the oath and get himself off the hook. Norfolk is in some ways the most pitiable character as he agrees with the position Sir Thomas has taken, but is not in a politically viable place to survive standing up the way Sir Thomas is. As a result, he becomes part of the body Cromwell uses to convict More, even though it is not what he wants at all.

A Man For All Seasons is performed by an able and exceptional cast. Led by Paul Scofield, as Sir Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons is a collection of great performances. Classically trained, Scofield brings a strong theatrical sensibility to his role of More and manages to make the role dramatic through minimalism as opposed to melodrama. He is tight-lipped and wonderful as the persecuted Catholic and he makes the principled moments equally real as the moments More spends with his loving and distraught family.

Scofield is supported through performances by Wendy Hiller (More's wife, Alice), Susannah York (Meg, More's daughter), Robert Shaw (Henry VIII) and a very young John Hurt (Richard Rich). Orson Welles has what amounts to a cameo performance as Cardinal Wosley and he is decent in the role. Leo McKern is appropriately monolithic as Cromwell, but his performance is quite good. It is Nigel Davenport as the Duke of Norfolk who has arguably the most impressive range in the film. Davenport play Norfolk as a man caught in an unenviable position of having to convict his friend and he plays it with genuine pathos. There are moments he expresses more with his eyes than many actors ever present with the lines they deliver.

On DVD, A Man For All Seasons is remarkably anemic. In fact, there is only a featurette on the actual life of Sir Thomas More. The featurette points out the differences with reality and the film, but is generally educational. There are no other featurettes or bonus features (though there were two preview trailers for other period dramas before the movie) and this is a bit disappointing for the supposed magnitude of the film.

For a story of a principled man standing by his beliefs, it is hard to go wrong with A Man For All Seasons, even if it is a bit of a one-trick pony.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, which is online here! Please check it out!]

For other films featuring John Hurt, please visit my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Alien
The Lord Of The Rings (1978 animated)

8/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not The Masterpiece I Anticipated: Citizen Kane Bores Instead Of Thrills.

The Good: Direction, Moments of acting
The Bad: Characters, Plot, Purpose
The Basics: I'm glad I watched Citizen Kane only for the fact that I understand about five allusions from it in The Simpsons. Pointless, unmotivated and blandly characterized, Citizen Kane is a huge disappointment.


I went into Citizen Kane with the idea that I was sitting down to watch an American Masterpiece. I had decided it was time to buckle down and watch the film that appears at the top of so very many critic's Best Movies of All Time list. I kid you not; Citizen Kane is rated the #1 movie of all time by at least 10 professional film critics.

The bottom line ought to be that it's not at the top of mine. In fact, I can count about a hundred films I'd rather watch again than Citizen Kane. And I gave the film three tries now. That's right, it has taken me three viewings to actually get myself to sit through the whole thing (twice) with the attempt to truly see why people love this movie. And I'm someone who loved Magnolia (reviewed here!). The difference between Magnolia and Citizen Kane? Magnolia is long, but it doesn't feel it; Citizen Kane isn't long, yet it feels about eight hours long.

Allow me to give my point of view. I was expecting an amazing film, a masterpiece that would endure to this day and beyond. Citizen Kane isn't it; for one, it is horribly dated. Not only because it's in black and white, but more relevantly because of the attitudes, characters and disappointing obviousness of the film.

Citizen Kane opens with a series of voiceovers and print titles that become obvious. That is, on the screen, it will say something to the effect of "Last Week, a Most Strange Funeral Was Held In Xanadu." Then, the booming voiceover voice will say, "Last week, a most strange funeral was held in Xanadu," as if we, the viewers, were unable to read. I'm not so big on having my intelligence insulted. Xanadu, in case you were wondering, is the estate of Charles Foster Kane.

In fact, I won't insult your intelligence by telling you the film's primary focus is Charles Foster Kane, but I will mention that the thrust of the movie is a witless quest to discover who or what "Rosebud" is. Why? "Rosebud" is the last word Kane utters. Why does anyone care? I'm still trying to figure that out; it wasn't terribly important to me, it didn't seem earthshaking in the film. So, right away, you're seeing one of the key problems with the film; the premise isn't terribly interesting. In fact, when the meaning of "Rosebud" is revealed, it's terribly hard to care; the people in the film care about as much as I did and I found that laughable.

The film opens beautifully with shots of Kane's immense Xanadu Estate, picturesque images and fades of the massive mansion, the snow globe and an aged Kane. Too quickly, the film goes from beautiful images to booming voiceovers.

Which leads to the most disturbing aspect of the film; the film goes nowhere. That is, in the first five minutes, the entire film is told. The voiceovers tell the viewer everything and then we, the viewer, are shown it. The problem is, the straightforward exposition (the TELL) accomplishes all there is to the story, such that the actual narrative (the SHOW) is simply repetitive; it adds nothing. That is to say that the flat, bland, straightforward transmission of information in the first five minutes is the essence of the film; when the incidents described in the first five minutes are shown, they feel as flat, lifeless and direct as the simple exposition. It doesn't add anything new.

The film is especially dated in that way. As well, there are attempts to liven it up with other perspectives. Unfortunately, these often fall flat. They don't "read" as real and they end up being detrimental to the film. One such example is from a character that dislikes Kane. He refers to his estate as ". . . El Dorado . . . whatever. Xanadu. I knew it all along." Like he's trying to be clever with the viewer. Instead, it falls flat. He thinks he's being witty or spiteful, but instead, he appears as an idiot.

So, what is Citizen Kane about? It's basically a quest to find out what "Rosebud" is. It's told by watching Kane and through narrative bursts from peripheral characters who serve only to reinforce the idea that Kane was a giant of the time. He owned the newspapers, was a yellow journalist and basically created the news.

The peripheral characters are flat; their conversations are all "off." If you've watched Once and Again, you'll know how effective the articulation of private thoughts can be as they have a little black and white "Thought Box" (My term for it) wherein characters react emotively and truthfully to events in their lives. At best, some of the interviews with peripheral characters about Kane reveal their own insecurities and honesties about Kane. The problem is, they cut out from the film inorganically, so it has the feel of "Now we're getting somewhere outside the main narrative that will show Kane as a human." Then they go back to the larger than life Kane. Sigh.

On the bright side, I'd recommend enduring Citizen Kane if you like watching well-directed films. Some of the angles and fades truly are expert. Orson Wells is simply fantastic in his acting of Kane. Even his acting can't save the lack of characterization, but he makes do with what he has in the script. As well, some of the peripheral characters, particularly Kane's second wife played by Dorothy Comingore, are well acted. It's not Dorothy's fault she's a whiny, annoying, weak nag of a wife. But Dorothy acts well as her.

If you want the best of Citizen Kane, watch the first five minutes, through the annoying voiceovers and look at the back of the video box. Yup, someone in marketing decided it wasn't much of a mystery what/who Rosebud was after all so they put Rosebud on the box.

For other classic films, please check out my reviews of:
Wings
All Quiet On The Western Front
The Broadway Melody

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |