A Great Film that withstands its critics
Added 2/19/2010
They've forgotten how to make films like these. "A Man for All Seasons" wins through deliberation and great acting where other films fail through bombast and abstraction. Paul Scofield fits the role of Sir Thomas More ideally. The screenplay is bold to rise above its decade's cynicism and praise moral strength.
Regarding criticisms that allege an unbalanced portrayal of More.. Some suggest that the film avoids the matter of More authorizing the execution of four heretics.. This supposedly should detract from the heroism portrayed here. In response:
1. Without excusing More's actions, it's easy to impose our expectations upon a distant past. More lived when church conflicts were serious problems that threatened society. The men whose deaths More ordered were activists executed for efforts against the church and its doctrine rather than for merely believing differently. Does this remain uncomfortable for us? Sure! More acted decisively in bad situations, often in iffy ways. Like any leader, he made difficult choices. He was caught between his regard for life's sanctity and his belief that some things are more important than a man's life. And while we may fault More for approving the deaths, he was consistent in how he himself died for his beliefs. How many leaders today would do so? This is what the film is about, and it's consistent with More's life.
2. Detractors hold the heretics' deaths up against the moral heroism that AMFAS portrays. Any surprise that a leader with grave responsibilities living 500 years ago should have stains is one thing. Viewing More as some bloodthirsty tyrant contrary to how he's portrayed here is another. The irony is that many critics will scramble to defend people like Che or Mao(a REAL brute) and still blast More and this film. No man I mentioned had (has) the scruples of More.
Conclusion: Was More a flawed man who did something questionable? Yes, absolutely. Should that take away from our enjoyment of this film? No, absolutely not
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A classic tale of a man doing the right thing, and getting screwed in the end
Added 2/15/2010
Sir Thomas More, the lead character does exactly as his conscience demands, and does so with integrity and political caution, yet ends up being executed at the hands of King Henry VIII.
The performances are Oscar worthy, and Robert Bolt's collaboration on the film ensures that the film stays true to the intent of the play he wrote.
I use this film in my High School English course, both as an example of literature on screen, and to help students understand the political culture of the 16th century.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
corruption prior to the world as we know it
Added 1/31/2010
It is somewhat hard to follow due to the old english language.
The characters are true to many people we might relate in today's world.
The seperation of church & state, something we learn here in 10th or 11th grade.
I recommend this movie
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Sir Thomas More
Added 11/8/2009
A wonderful story and one that is inspirational. Sir More felt strongly enough about his convictions to leave his office and the power that went along with it so that he could remain loyal to his God. This version of the story does it great justice, showing Henry VIII for the tyrant he really was (although one who could be charming when he wanted to be) and the characters he surrounded himself with. The actors chosen for the roles in this film included many established actors as well as some very talented ones just making their mark. Certainly worth watching!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
one of my favorite movies
Added 11/5/2009
This is a great movie of faith and devotion to truth. The movie came in perfect shape.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Great Film that withstands its critics
Added 2/19/2010
They've forgotten how to make films like these. "A Man for All Seasons" wins through deliberation and great acting where other films fail through bombast and abstraction. Paul Scofield fits the role of Sir Thomas More ideally. The screenplay is bold to rise above its decade's cynicism and praise moral strength.
Regarding criticisms that allege an unbalanced portrayal of More.. Some suggest that the film avoids the matter of More authorizing the execution of four heretics.. This supposedly should detract from the heroism portrayed here. In response:
1. Without excusing More's actions, it's easy to impose our expectations upon a distant past. More lived when church conflicts were serious problems that threatened society. The men whose deaths More ordered were activists executed for efforts against the church and its doctrine rather than for merely believing differently. Does this remain uncomfortable for us? Sure! More acted decisively in bad situations, often in iffy ways. Like any leader, he made difficult choices. He was caught between his regard for life's sanctity and his belief that some things are more important than a man's life. And while we may fault More for approving the deaths, he was consistent in how he himself died for his beliefs. How many leaders today would do so? This is what the film is about, and it's consistent with More's life.
2. Detractors hold the heretics' deaths up against the moral heroism that AMFAS portrays. Any surprise that a leader with grave responsibilities living 500 years ago should have stains is one thing. Viewing More as some bloodthirsty tyrant contrary to how he's portrayed here is another. The irony is that many critics will scramble to defend people like Che or Mao(a REAL brute) and still blast More and this film. No man I mentioned had (has) the scruples of More.
Conclusion: Was More a flawed man who did something questionable? Yes, absolutely. Should that take away from our enjoyment of this film? No, absolutely not
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A classic tale of a man doing the right thing, and getting screwed in the end
Added 2/15/2010
Sir Thomas More, the lead character does exactly as his conscience demands, and does so with integrity and political caution, yet ends up being executed at the hands of King Henry VIII.
The performances are Oscar worthy, and Robert Bolt's collaboration on the film ensures that the film stays true to the intent of the play he wrote.
I use this film in my High School English course, both as an example of literature on screen, and to help students understand the political culture of the 16th century.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
corruption prior to the world as we know it
Added 1/31/2010
It is somewhat hard to follow due to the old english language.
The characters are true to many people we might relate in today's world.
The seperation of church & state, something we learn here in 10th or 11th grade.
I recommend this movie
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
