Oscars Retrospective: A Man for All Seasons (39th Academy Awards Review)
.gif)
Opening Credits~Georges Delerue - A Man for All Seasons
The closing years of the Golden Age of Hollywood in the mid-1960s had a lot of genres that came, went and would never return again. We’ve discussed the epic comedies and the sex-fueled spy adventures but one of the most comparatively forgotten genres were the medieval drama. You might be inclined to think these fall under the “epic” banner akin to the Roman/Biblical epics (e.g. Cleopatra (1963)) but these were actually a bit smaller-scale than those. These are movies that adapted the politics of medieval Europe (or, let’s be honest here, medieval England), using them as a window to examine aspects of human nature since, back then, family drama and geopolitics were usually the exact same thing.
These movies can be a very acquired taste and seem to have run the gamut in how well-received they were at the time. Unlike the Biblical and Roman epics, which were usually more about the grandiosity of God and religion, these movies were much quieter and focused on people just talking with each other. Because there were no epic battles or big special effects pieces, it’s easy to see why these types of movies eventually died out, as the costumes and settings required a pretty large amount of money for what were essentially soap operas. The closest modern equivalent would actually be some medieval drama TV shows that were focused exclusively on politics, such as The Tudors (2007-2010), The Borgias (2011-2013) or the earlier seasons of Game of Thrones (2011-2019).
A Man for All Seasons centers on Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) who served as Lord Chancellor under King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) during his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon. If you know anything about English history, you know that Henry VIII was unhappy about Catherine’s inability to give him a son so he wished to get an annulment so he could marry the comparatively (apparently) fertile Anne Boleyn (Vanessa Redgrave). Thus, he commanded his court to help him petition the Vatican for said annulment. More, as the most powerful member of the court, had a signature that mattered more than anyone else’s and Henry was eager to get it. More, however, steadfastly refused, citing that the law was absolutely clear about the limited reasons for why an annulment should be allowed and, as a proud follower of the law, he would not do so. Fellow nobleman, Cromwell (Leo McKern), seeks More’s job and King Henry’s favor so he uses this situation as a way to start engineering More’s downfall to secure the King’s annulment that he so earnestly desires.
The rest of the movie is a slow character study of More’s relationship with all of the other people at court and the various legalese and court intrigues that go into annulments and other matters in medieval England. It is interesting going back to watch these movies years later, especially compared to the Biblical epics, because of how slow they are. Movies like A Man for All Seasons and The Lion in Winter (1968) (which is probably the most well-regarded of this genre) would never in a million years get made today. They were usually based on plays and you can tell that looking at the story. While A Man for All Seasons didn’t fall into the trap of not making the jump to film successfully; the cinematography’s very good and there’s a good variety in filming locations; you can also tell that it was a talk-heavy medium first. There are no swordfights, no great setpieces, the movie is characters in fun costumes in stuffy castles talking about the implications of what the King is doing.
These movies were definitely considered a lot more highbrow in their heyday, which meant that the theater and literary snobs that occupied the Academy usually adored them. For most of the 60s, it was almost guaranteed that you would see a medieval drama be a frontrunner at the Academy Awards, although A Man for All Seasons was the only time one of them won the biggest award. In terms of if they deserved this praise, eh. They can sometimes feel dull to the modern audience member, especially because, despite their verbosity, there’s usually not a whole lot of hidden meanings to be read into. The Lion in Winter is about a dying marriage, Becket (1964) is about a ruined friendship, what you see is largely what you get. They’re done maturely and handled elegantly but also very slowly to the extent that the question that some critics might ask is what entertainment value is being provided to make this setting the preferred avenue for analyzing these common human relationships?
While A Man for All Seasons might come off as boring to some, I do think it’s comparatively the most interesting of these movies from this time period because it’s not intrinsically about these common human relationships. Instead, it’s about something far different, illustrated here in the movie’s best and most famous speech:
The closing years of the Golden Age of Hollywood in the mid-1960s had a lot of genres that came, went and would never return again. We’ve discussed the epic comedies and the sex-fueled spy adventures but one of the most comparatively forgotten genres were the medieval drama. You might be inclined to think these fall under the “epic” banner akin to the Roman/Biblical epics (e.g. Cleopatra (1963)) but these were actually a bit smaller-scale than those. These are movies that adapted the politics of medieval Europe (or, let’s be honest here, medieval England), using them as a window to examine aspects of human nature since, back then, family drama and geopolitics were usually the exact same thing.
These movies can be a very acquired taste and seem to have run the gamut in how well-received they were at the time. Unlike the Biblical and Roman epics, which were usually more about the grandiosity of God and religion, these movies were much quieter and focused on people just talking with each other. Because there were no epic battles or big special effects pieces, it’s easy to see why these types of movies eventually died out, as the costumes and settings required a pretty large amount of money for what were essentially soap operas. The closest modern equivalent would actually be some medieval drama TV shows that were focused exclusively on politics, such as The Tudors (2007-2010), The Borgias (2011-2013) or the earlier seasons of Game of Thrones (2011-2019).
A Man for All Seasons centers on Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) who served as Lord Chancellor under King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) during his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon. If you know anything about English history, you know that Henry VIII was unhappy about Catherine’s inability to give him a son so he wished to get an annulment so he could marry the comparatively (apparently) fertile Anne Boleyn (Vanessa Redgrave). Thus, he commanded his court to help him petition the Vatican for said annulment. More, as the most powerful member of the court, had a signature that mattered more than anyone else’s and Henry was eager to get it. More, however, steadfastly refused, citing that the law was absolutely clear about the limited reasons for why an annulment should be allowed and, as a proud follower of the law, he would not do so. Fellow nobleman, Cromwell (Leo McKern), seeks More’s job and King Henry’s favor so he uses this situation as a way to start engineering More’s downfall to secure the King’s annulment that he so earnestly desires.
The rest of the movie is a slow character study of More’s relationship with all of the other people at court and the various legalese and court intrigues that go into annulments and other matters in medieval England. It is interesting going back to watch these movies years later, especially compared to the Biblical epics, because of how slow they are. Movies like A Man for All Seasons and The Lion in Winter (1968) (which is probably the most well-regarded of this genre) would never in a million years get made today. They were usually based on plays and you can tell that looking at the story. While A Man for All Seasons didn’t fall into the trap of not making the jump to film successfully; the cinematography’s very good and there’s a good variety in filming locations; you can also tell that it was a talk-heavy medium first. There are no swordfights, no great setpieces, the movie is characters in fun costumes in stuffy castles talking about the implications of what the King is doing.
These movies were definitely considered a lot more highbrow in their heyday, which meant that the theater and literary snobs that occupied the Academy usually adored them. For most of the 60s, it was almost guaranteed that you would see a medieval drama be a frontrunner at the Academy Awards, although A Man for All Seasons was the only time one of them won the biggest award. In terms of if they deserved this praise, eh. They can sometimes feel dull to the modern audience member, especially because, despite their verbosity, there’s usually not a whole lot of hidden meanings to be read into. The Lion in Winter is about a dying marriage, Becket (1964) is about a ruined friendship, what you see is largely what you get. They’re done maturely and handled elegantly but also very slowly to the extent that the question that some critics might ask is what entertainment value is being provided to make this setting the preferred avenue for analyzing these common human relationships?
While A Man for All Seasons might come off as boring to some, I do think it’s comparatively the most interesting of these movies from this time period because it’s not intrinsically about these common human relationships. Instead, it’s about something far different, illustrated here in the movie’s best and most famous speech:
The overarching theme of A Man for All Seasons is that of the law: what is it, how important is it and how important is it to defend? How important is the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law? More is a man who knows that the spirit of the law is what’s important and the law is also ultimately what binds a country together as a commonly-agreed understanding that all citizens of the realm follow. Henry VIII and Cromwell meanwhile, like most terrible people throughout history, try to look at numerous little clauses and obscure legalities to warp the law for their own selfish desires, being completely ignorant of the spirit of the law for the letter of it.
When this movie came out, and when the Academy Awards took place, America was reeling from the first of many Long, Hot Summers where almost every major city in America was gripped by furious race riots. One of the first that started this trend were the Watts Riots (a city that’s very close to Los Angeles), which itself started launching a conservative backlash to the Civil Rights Movement and counterculture (members of which were pretty notoriously picky on which laws they chose to follow) on the basis of law-and-order. Simultaneously to this, the Civil Rights Movements had more televised demonstrations in the South where peaceful protesters were attacked by Southern police officers who were enforcing clearly unjust laws. A movie analyzing the law in this manner was clearly very timely.
On the movie itself, it is a political thriller, a slow one but an engaging one. Paul Scofield is great as Sir Thomas More, winning the Academy Award for Best Leading Actor for his performance. What I like, and what makes him stand out as a unique protagonist, is how droll he sounds. This is not a man prone to outbursts of emotion or to extreme displays of affection. He is a very dry, bookish man. This lends itself well to the allegory of the law being cheapened as he seems to encompass every stereotype we have of the extremely knowledgeable lawyer or judge. I don’t know how historically accurate he is (apparently, the real Sir Thomas More had an intense genocidal hatred of Protestants which is definitely not mentioned in the movie) but it’s a great performance.
The rest of the cast are all excellent as well, which usually tends to be the big allure of watching these medieval dramas. Cromwell is a diabolical villain, Orson Welles is always excellent playing the ill-fated Cardinal Wolsey, all of the nobles and More’s family are given a believable aura. The role that seemed to get the most press when this movie came out was Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII, even earning the actor a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. It’s interesting too because despite his marriage and annulment being the nucleus that the film’s story revolves around, he’s actually not in the movie very long, only showing up twice. The movie’s mostly about people around the King talking about him and not the King himself.
Despite not being in the picture often, it’s still a pretty great performance. Robert Shaw was a phenomenal actor who left us far too soon as he stole the show in almost every movie he was in (even in From Russia With Love (1963) where he barely talked for most of it). He plays Henry almost like a frat bro; like he’s entirely unaware of all the politicking and scheming going on around him and is simply mystified why he can’t just get a new wife at the drop of a hat. Despite his brief appearance and chummy demeanor, he still gets down the essence of Henry VIII pretty well. There’s a bit of cruelty to his smile, and you totally believe that he will turn into the selfish, obese tyrant he became.
Henry VIII is one of those rare monarchs who was so awful that his name is still pretty ubiquitous 500 years later. He was also basically a real-life Fat Bastard.
The last thing to mention about A Man for All Seasons is the look of the film and it is exquisite. You really do believe that you’ve been transported back to 16th-century England and it feels a lot more real than some of the sets from the 30s and 40s Hollywood. The splurge for color definitely helps. Contrary to modern-day depictions, the real medieval times were very colorful (as you can tell by the ocular migraines that most folks in paintings wore). The tapestries, the costumes, the lighting, it all just pops and it won the movie the well-deserved Oscars for Best Color Cinematography and Best Color Art Direction.
A Man for All Seasons is a very good drama that offers a pensive take on the usage of the law and how it should be adhered to but also how it can be weaponized for wicked purposes. Paul Scofield plays a surprisingly fascinating and likable protagonist and by the end of the movie you actually feel genuinely sorry for him as you see the inevitable tragedy come to a head. The dialogue is crisp and believable and the production design looks amazing. It is admittedly on the slow side and likely wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea but, if this seems like something that might interest you, it’s worth a watch.
But could it be called the best movie of the year?
In case you missed it:
1st Academy Awards (1927/28): Wings/Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans: Part 1, Part 2
2nd Academy Awards (1928/29): The Broadway Melody: Part 1, Part 2
3rd Academy Awards (1929/30): All Quiet on the Western Front: Part 1, Part 2
4th Academy Awards (1930/31): Cimarron: Part 1, Part 2
5th Academy Awards (1931/32): Grand Hotel: Part 1, Part 2
6th Academy Awards (1932/33): Cavalcade: Part 1, Part 2
7th Academy Awards (1934): It Happened One Night: Part 1, Part 2
8th Academy Awards (1935): Mutiny on the Bounty: Part 1, Part 2
9th Academy Awards (1936): The Great Ziegfeld: Part 1, Part 2
10th Academy Awards (1937): The Life of Emile Zola: Part 1, Part 2
11th Academy Awards (1938): You Can't Take It With You: Part 1, Part 2
12th Academy Awards (1939): Gone With the Wind: Part 1, Part 2
13th Academy Awards (1940): Rebecca: Part 1, Part 2
14th Academy Awards (1941): How Green Was My Valley: Part 1, Part 2
15th Academy Awards (1942): Mrs. Miniver: Part 1, Part 2
16th Academy Awards (1943): Casablanca: Part 1, Part 2
17th Academy Awards (1944): Going My Way: Part 1, Part 2
18th Academy Awards (1945): The Lost Weekend: Part 1, Part 2
19th Academy Awards (1946): The Best Years of Our Lives: Part 1, Part 2
20th Academy Awards (1947): Gentleman's Agreement: Part 1, Part 2
21st Academy Awards (1948): Hamlet: Part 1, Part 2
22nd Academy Awards (1949): All The King's Men: Part 1, Part 2
23rd Academy Awards (1950): All About Eve: Part 1, Part 2
24th Academy Awards (1951): An American in Paris: Part 1, Part 2
25th Academy Awards (1952): The Greatest Show on Earth: Part 1, Part 2
26th Academy Awards (1953): From Here to Eternity: Part 1, Part 2
27th Academy Awards (1954): On the Waterfront: Part 1, Part 2
28th Academy Awards (1955): Marty: Part 1, Part 2
29th Academy Awards (1956): Around the World in 80 Days: Part 1, Part 2
30th Academy Awards (1957): The Bridge on the River Kwai: Part 1, Part 2
31st Academy Awards (1958): Gigi: Part 1, Part 2
32nd Academy Awards (1959): Ben-Hur: Part 1, Part 2
33rd Academy Awards (1960): The Apartment: Part 1, Part 2
34th Academy Awards (1961): West Side Story: Part 1, Part 2
35th Academy Awards (1962): Lawrence of Arabia: Part 1, Part 2
36th Academy Awards (1963): Tom Jones: Part 1, Part 2
37th Academy Awards (1964): My Fair Lady: Part 1, Part 2
38th Academy Awards (1965): The Sound of Music: Part 1, Part 2
Comments
Post a Comment