Location: The Tudors Wiki Discussion Forum

Discussion: Film Study A Man For All Seasons

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion

Report thread
Watch thread
Share this

Previous | 1 2

LadyTudorsFan	20. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Sep 29 2011, 5:57 PM EDT Overall it was a very good film. The actor that played Thomas More definitely kept the audience's attention in some of the tense and poignant moments. I thought that the way Henry and Wolsey had been portrayed was from quite an interesting perspective - both come across as bullies to show the story from More's side. Norfolk was not the usual dark lord scheming in the background - it was almost like he was actually trying to help More. I thought the interrogation scene between More, Cromwell and Richard Riche was quite good - full of witty one-liners. Anne Boleyn didn't have much of a part in the film I felt - you didn't really get to see much of her in the story. Interestingly, she doesn't come across as a scheming jezebel or seductress either. I recognised parts of Hever Castle and Hampton Court being used in the film too! All that was missing was More's portable rack....... Post reply Do you find this valuable?
royalfalcon	21. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Sep 29 2011, 6:46 PM EDT \| Post edited: Sep 29 2011, 6:47 PM EDT There were many brilliant quotes in the film one I particularly liked was from the trial. When Rchard Rich has betrayed Thoma More. More asks to see Rich's chain of office and asks him what it is for. Rich says he has been made Secretary for Wales. More replys "It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the entire world, but for Wales Richard for Wales.. The way Paul Schofield delivered that line was terrific.. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeverRose	22. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 2 2011, 1:30 PM EDT \| Post edited: Oct 2 2011, 1:30 PM EDT I watched it yesterday. Some thoughts: 1. What is up with Norfolk being More's BFF? I know he was Catholic, but he was also Anne Boleyn's uncle and certainly promoted that marriage. Norfolk's relationship to Anne was not brought up in the film. 2. In the movie Rich seems to perjure himself regarding the story of what More said about Parliament and its right to make the King head of the Church. In The Tudors, if I remember correctly, More says it himself. I believe it is more poignant if More did say it, because it shows that even a cautious man like he was can trip himself up. 3. I agree Henry came off as a lunatic, but the film was not about Henry. He was just the force that More was up against. He also had limited scenes and they had to capture all his frustration, his mercruial personality, his power in that one scene. I think the actor did a brilliant job and he certainly scared the daylights out of me. 4. I loved the scene with his wife in the Tower. I would have said the same things to him as she did. Overall question: How are we supposed to respond to More? Should we hold him in awe or should we think he was far too idealistic? Post reply 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
royalfalcon	23. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 2 2011, 4:02 PM EDT \| Post edited: Oct 2 2011, 4:02 PM EDT I believe that More and Thomas Howard were friends at one time. Up until Mores downfall . In the film they did not show Rich visiiting More in the Tower. They just implied that he had perjured himself. In the Tudors of course we have More saying the words and tripping himself up. I am not sure how it actually happened. I think what is interesting here is the different portrayal of More. In The Tudors Jeremy Northam's More is shown as more human with faults and imperfections. Paul Schofield's More does come over as pretty much perfect. No doubt the way the writer intended. I understand what you are saying about Henry he only has a small cameo role but of course it is highly significant. I can also understand what others have said that his over the top behaviour makes More look even more perfect. But of course this was shown to emphasis Mores impossible position. LOL coming up against an irremovable object! I also loved the scene with his wife and Family in The Tower it was very emotional. How are we supposed to respond to More? I personally thought he was far too idealistic. This is a wonderful film to watch. I just think that it shows More as too perfect. It does not explore the darker side of his nature at all. However, a superb cast and wonderful cinmatography make this a great film to watch. Also I did not feel that it had particularly dated although it was made in the 1960's Post reply Do you find this valuable?
LadyTudorsFan	24. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 2 2011, 4:21 PM EDT \| Post edited: Oct 2 2011, 4:21 PM EDT I agree that More is portrayed as too perfect in this. Maybe it's a sign of the times? In the 1960s, people in general seemed to be a bit more religous than today and as More had just been canonised in 1935, they may have thought it wrong to portray him in any other way as perfect. However, today religious views are a bit more diverse (or relaxed) and maybe the fact that he has been made a Saint does not mean that historians cannot delve into the possible wrong things he did? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeverRose	25. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 3 2011, 12:19 PM EDT "In the film they did not show Rich visiiting More in the Tower. They just implied that he had perjured himself. In the Tudors of course we have More saying the words and tripping himself up. I am not sure how it actually happened. I think what is interesting here is the different portrayal of More. In The Tudors Jeremy Northam's More is shown as more human with faults and imperfections. Paul Schofield's More does come over as pretty much perfect. No doubt the way the writer intended. " If anyone knows the answer to this, i would love to know. It is obviosly of great significance in regard to what really happend and how he ended up on the scaffold. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeverRose	26. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 3 2011, 12:22 PM EDT "I agree that More is portrayed as too perfect in this. Maybe it's a sign of the times? In the 1960s, people in general seemed to be a bit more religous than today and as More had just been canonised in 1935, they may have thought it wrong to portray him in any other way as perfect. However, today religious views are a bit more diverse (or relaxed) and maybe the fact that he has been made a Saint does not mean that historians cannot delve into the possible wrong things he did? " Rather than to do with religion, I think the sixties was a decade of revolution and protest. At least here in the US, 1966 was the beginning of protest against authority especially regarding the Vietnam War. Sir Thomas More would ha eve been a fine example of conscientious objection! Post reply Do you find this valuable?
LadyTudorsFan	27. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 3 2011, 5:24 PM EDT \| Post edited: Oct 3 2011, 5:24 PM EDT "Rather than to do with religion, I think the sixties was a decade of revolution and protest. At least here in the US, 1966 was the beginning of protest against authority especially regarding the Vietnam War. Sir Thomas More would ha eve been a fine example of conscientious objection! " Yes, that's true. There were plenty of moments in the film where he was portrayed as the strong and silent type. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
FrancePetre	28. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 10 2011, 12:21 PM EDT "For those that want to take part in the film study of A Man For All Seasons I would like us to watch it any time in the next 14 days. We can post any comments that we wish to make on this thread. " what exactly must we do ? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
royalfalcon	29. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 10 2011, 12:40 PM EDT Hello FrancePetre. We just watch the film and make a note of anything that we would like to discuss with fellow wiki members. Even if you just want to make a comment that does not require an answer that is also fine. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	30. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 12 2011, 7:21 AM EDT I haven't seen this film for a long time. However, going by memory, the thing that bothered me was what a complete whitewash of history it was. As though the sainthood had washed away all of More's bad points. I got feeling I was watching nothing more than a piece of Catholic propaganda. I will download and watch the film again, though, and see if the intervening years have softened my stance. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeverRose	31. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 12 2011, 12:15 PM EDT \| Post edited: Oct 12 2011, 1:06 PM EDT "I haven't seen this film for a long time. However, going by memory, the thing that bothered me was what a complete whitewash of history it was. As though the sainthood had washed away all of More's bad points. I got feeling I was watching nothing more than a piece of Catholic propaganda. I will download and watch the film again, though, and see if the intervening years have softened my stance." This is certainly true. I don't know the history of this movie, or the politics or religious persuasions of the director and writers. My feeling is, as it came out in 1966, is that it showed an example of conscientious objection to authority, which was very much in fashion during the sixties. Of course, More had to be perfect in order to stand out from the others. It seemed to me more of a parable then a character study. Therefore the various characters, including More, are one dimensional. Looked at this way, it is not a biography of Thomas More, but rather a political/philosophical question: To what point do you sacrifice your own life for your beliefs? Post reply Do you find this valuable?
royalfalcon	32. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 12 2011, 12:46 PM EDT For me it is still a wonderful piece of cinema. With a superb cast. It certainly whitewashes More though.. Strange that Robert Bolt who wrote the screenplay was agnostic Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeverRose	33. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 12 2011, 1:07 PM EDT "For me it is still a wonderful piece of cinema. With a superb cast. It certainly whitewashes More though.. Strange that Robert Bolt who wrote the screenplay was agnostic" Well that is good to know. I did not get the feeling the film was about religion at all. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
Elliemental	34. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 12 2011, 5:45 PM EDT I have downloaded it, but not yet watched it. I ended up watching Anne of The Thousand Days :P But, it is there. It is a great piece of cinema, that I totally agree with. Hever Rose also makes an excellent point about the contemporary political climate of the sixties. Anyway, I'll watch again, and see if I view it any differently now. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
marymore	35. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 22 2011, 7:05 PM EDT Sorry this is a bit late, but I hope I can help! I've done some reading on More and all of the authors seem to have this to say: At the trial Rich did give that testimony and it was accepted. However, there was a lot of doubt as to whether it was true even at that time. One factor was that the other witnesses to the statement were conspicuously away at the time of the trial, another was the doubt that More would say such a thing to someone he was only aquantinces with. Also, of course, there was the fact that More himself deinied making this statement. Personally I find it hard to believe that More, who didn't even trust his daughter and confidant Meg with his true opinion, would say something so damning, especially when he was always so careful with his words. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
jrmslady09	36. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 22 2011, 11:12 PM EDT First of all the movie looked beautiful not all full of CGI and stuff like most modern films are today and Paul Scofield as Thomas More he was wonderful in my opinion and carried himself in much the way I would have imagined the real Sir Thomas More to have but I have really only a small of amount of research that I have done coupled with the only other performance I had seen was that of Jeremy Northam which was also good. However I didn't really care for Robert Shaw as King Henry he seemed almost like a well a goofy sort of person acting as he was a10 year old stuck in the body of 40 something with a fraction of the maturity that he seemed to possess there again based on the limited performances I have seen of the role, and the research. It in the end seemed to be as if the film makers wanted to tell a story but in a limited dimension,and not so much a biography but, a story about how one might decide to swim against a tide when others don't even though you know success is unlikely you know for yourself even if you fail in the eyes of others in your own you succeeded by traveling the less traveled road and swimming against a stronger tide. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
royalfalcon	37. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 23 2011, 6:20 AM EDT This film was a triumph on many different levels especially the acting and the cinematography. But at the end of the day it is Paul Scofield's towering performance as More than stands out. His every word, look and gesture was perfect. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
LadyTudorsFan	38. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 23 2011, 4:49 PM EDT I thought it was interesting as well that while everyone else died horrible deaths, Richard Riche had a relatively happier ending. Post reply Do you find this valuable?
HeverRose	39. RE: Film Study A Man For All Seasons Oct 23 2011, 7:50 PM EDT \| Post edited: Oct 23 2011, 7:52 PM EDT In this film Sir Thomas certainly was an ideal ( and in life he was an idealist) and thematically, I think, the film pitted against each other idealism and reality. God represented to More the authority that no man could trump, and therefore what the King ( and everyone else) was doing was wrong. It is good to strive for the ideal, but reality will always require one to compromise one's idealism. In the historical case of Sir Thomas More and his situation, I believe there were some other factors as well. Post reply Do you find this valuable?

Previous | 1 2

JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to contribute to this site.
To start contributing, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again.

Home