A Man for All Seasons (1966)

Written by Robert Bolt

Directed by Fred Zinnemann

It has taken me a couple weeks to write this review. I’m going to keep it simple: despite an excellent leading actor, and an interesting plot concept, this movie is deathly dull.

King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) tries to convince Thomas More (Paul Scofield)

A Man For All Seasons refers to Thomas More, the lone holdout on acknowledging and approving King Henry VIII’s divorce from his first wife and his new marriage to Anne Boleyn. The film explores the lengths Henry will go to make More approve of the new union (and, by extension, of the creation of the Church of England).

It sounds pretty interesting, right? It’s not. The film just drags through its scenes, mostly featuring characters standing around and talking. Every once in a while, it’s broken up by scenes of characters walking and talking, but then they also usually stand around more and continue talking. I think this is because the film is based on a play of the same name, and unfortunately, this seems to be a great example of why you just can’t film a play as a movie: there has to be some sort of adaptation in the transition. Theater is, by its nature, a lot of standing around and talking. Cinematic language is different. It’s show, don’t tell. This film tells. And tells. And just when you think it’s done, it tells some more.

Orson Welles

Another odd aspect of the film is the editing, which again makes me believe it’s the result of a bad stage-to-screen transition. There’s two main issues with the editing here: one, that the film has random time jumps with no explanation, and two, scenes end rather abruptly. The time jump issue is perfectly showcased in Orson Welles’ character, Cardinal Wolsey. We meet him pretty early, maybe three or four scenes in. There’s a long scene between him and More. Two scenes later, we see Wolsey on his death bed. According to the plot summary, “some time has passed”, but there’s no indication of that. He’s just literally dying suddenly. It’s jarring. Many scenes also just...end, but not in a cinematic way. In many scenes, there’s the main action (usually a conversation, because nobody really DOES anything in this film), and then a smaller, secondary conversation that’s a few lines long, usually tangent-ing off a point of the main conversation, that doesn’t really go anywhere. On stage, it would be very obviously a conversation as actors leave the stage or as a set is being changed. Here, it doesn’t contribute, and with no cinematic transition between the scenes, is jarring in its own way.

Paul Scofield

I do want to praise the performance of Paul Scofield as More, who has a great way of delivering his lines with gravitas and patience. I’ve seen only one performance of his before, in 1996’s The Crucible (where he played one of my favorite characters), and here, I got to see the dividing line between his natural delivery and his acting, because Scofield definitely has a unique way of acting (which isn’t to say it’s bad, for me, it’s actually quite enjoyable). Robert Shaw as Henry is also good, despite being only in two scenes, but he brings a bipolar quality to the King, which is an interesting choice.

I can’t really find much more to say about the film, because as I mentioned, the individual moments of greatness don’t make up for the shambling mess the film finds itself it. I haven’t seen the other nominees that year, but I suspect this is a great example of a Best Picture not standing up to the test of time.

FINAL GRADE: C-