A Man for All Seasons (1966)

Winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1966, A Man for All Seasons is the story of Sir Thomas More, the chancellor who resigned his post rather than support Henry VIII's attempts to divorce his first wife in order to marry Anne Boleyn. The first half of the film relates the tensions within the court over Henry's desires to circumvent the Catholic Church's ban on divorce, particularly for his marriage, which had resulted from a special dispensation from the Pope so that Henry could marry his brother's widow. The second half of the film follows More as the court and much of the country becomes more and more obsessed with issues of loyalty, particularly as they might be displayed by public statements or signatures.

This is an admirable film in many ways. It's beautifully photographed, and the acting is all strong. Paul Scofield as More won the Oscar for Best Actor that year, and he is ably supported by Wendy Hiller as his wife, Susannah York as his daughter, and dozens of other performers, including an incredibly young John Hurt. Almost the equal of Scofield is Robert Shaw, more famous now for his role in Jaws, but playing Henry VIII here as a petulant, infuriating monarch. Shaw only gets a few moments of screen time, but he certainly makes the most of them. The film also pays very close attention to period detail, with the sets and costumes all as lavish as you would expect among the royal court during the 16th Century.

However, despite all of these traits and despite the noble message of the film (to stand by one's principles even in the face of certain punishment, even death), I have to say that I think this is a pretty dull film overall. I can admire all of the work that went into the making of A Man for All Seasons, but as entertainment, I feel it falls a bit flat. This film is another in that tradition of costume dramas that were prevalent in the 1960s. I've already discussed a later film, Anne of the Thousand Days, which mines much of the same territory but with more of a sense of excitement. Perhaps it's the central hero that is the problem here. More is a solid man, a stable one, but he isn't a very passionate figure to deserve two hours of film for his story. I realize that Henry VIII cannot always be the center of a movie about this issue that England confronted, but he does seem to be a more compelling force than More does here.