A Man For All Seasons

When the old DL was populated with decent people, this thread would have been on fire.

If Thomas was so Saintly, why did he take Averil Maichland's silver goblet?

They made Thomas Moore out to be a hero of principle. in fact he was another murderous religious fanatic. He ordered the execution and torture of hundreds of protestant "heretics". Which of course is why he became Saint Thomas Moore.

The big government fans (i.e. Biden voters) will side with Henry VIII in this thread.

I've always loved Thomas More.

That's all.

DO THEY TAKE ME FOR A SIMPLETON

Anything that MOVES

Thomas More was much more than that,

Explain to to me your idea of him .

He died for his beliefs.

I'll bet you wouldn't even as stand by a friend for your beliefs.

I think you can thank Hilary Mantel for casting More in a more complex, less saint-like light; he was a religious fanatic responsible for the torture & execution of many as noted above. This movie portrays him as a man of principle unwilling to back down, but possibly he was just a good old fashioned fanatic willing to be martyred for his "righteous cause"

This scene is perfection.

"Thomas Moore"

R12, we call them Tom and Hank.

Brilliant Scofield. Should be required viewing for every Republican. Because few of them have any morals or conscience.

You are so right, r10

Scofield is absolute perfection.

R13 sentences are supposed to have both a noun and a verb.

I love how all the people who shouted "Russia Russia Russia" for three years now claim to be unimpeachable seekers of the truth, like Thomas More.

Where would you hide, Roper?

r9, Mantel is on record as having said that part of the point of her books was to take down Thomas More's legacy.

While upping the despicable, disgusting Thomas Cromwell.

Hard to believe that the guy behind More at R10's clip is (with the unfortunate haircut) is John Hurt

"the despicable, disgusting Thomas Cromwell"

Oh please - More and Cromwell were both fanatics. Both were responsible for reprehensible actions. Both were destroyed by a mad king.

The one I always feel (slightly) sorry for is Thomas Wolsey

R16 fuck you Kellyanne. He damn well worked with Russia, as did his missing link sons.

R21 you and your ilk would cut down every law in the country to get at him if you had to, wouldn't you?

R22 nope that’s Cheetos specialty if he could get away with it.

R10, that scene is indeed perfection. It must be noted that it is so in no small part because of Nigel Davenport and Leo McKearn.

*McKern

The recent series The Spanish Princess (about Catherine of Aragon) depicted Moore torturing men in his house.

How was Cromwell a fanatic? He was ruthless, but in service to the King.

Cromwell was a fanatical Protestant - the way he went after the monastic foundations went beyond just service to the King. He wanted the Roman faith completely discredited, not just suppressed (and I'm an admirer - Cromwell made Machiavelli look like a beginner)

But then there is always the argument that he served Henry completely- and what Henry wanted, Henry got.

And when Henry didn't get, someone had to pay... and that's when the axe came out (the Anne of Cleeves fiasco)

r26, Early Modern houses rarely had cellars, far less one which would enable torture. Also, More wrote against the Ottoman habit of crucifixion.

I understand the Protestants very much wanted the Catholic More to have tortured someone a la the later Bloody Mary but, unfortunately there is zero evidence of that.

Who said anything about a cellar? The rack was set up in one of the main rooms. The King’s cousin, Lady Margaret Poole, stumbles upon it.

Footnote: She too ultimately will meet Henry’s axe.

Really?

Do you have a link please, r30?

Brilliant movie.

I saw the Broadway play with Frank Langella, and he was very compelling as Sir Thomas More.

[quote] that’s Cheetos specialty

R23 Oh, dear.

For r16.

It's MORE, not MOORE.

For R34

R31– I’m talking about a TV series. You can see it on Starz.

Brilliant film, perfectly realized! It's SO good, it can make 20th and 21st century viewers are deeply about 16th century politics!

It's better than the similar "Beckett", which is BTW a beatification of a truly horrible person. Thomas Beckett wanted everyone who was associated with the church to be above the law, or above secular law, King Henry II wanted to bring the rule of law to his kingdom, and make the same laws apply to rich, poor, civilians, and people associated with the church. Henry was absolutely right and Beckett was wrong, but Beckett was treated as a martyr by people who found secular law inconvenient, and was canonized after his death. If that isn't proof of the corruption of the medieval church, I don't know what is.

R19 he may have looked like an extra in that scene but Richard Rich (John Hurt) becomes important later in the movie.

Incredible play as well as an utterly fantastic film.

Our Faye was in the original Broadway play, yet they did not use her in the film.

For this reason, I refuse to watch it. EVER!

[quote] One of the greatest movies

I can't agree, R1. I'd call it more of a treatise, a talk-fest, or an argument rather than cinema.

[quote] They made Thomas More out to be a hero of principle.

Robert Bolt did that, R3. Why? Did he merely want to have an intellectual argument?

Was Robert Bolt Catholic? Was he reacting to the pompous TS Eliot and his then new-found popularity writing 'Murder In The Cathedral' (which I have not seen. Have you seen it? I hear it was rather solemn and dreary).

[quote] The big government fans (i.e. Biden voters) will side with Henry VIII in this thread. [quote] Should be required viewing for every Republican.

Can you enlarge on these idea of yours, R4 and R13. This monarch's behaviour of half-a-millennia distance seems a little distant to me from the current mess.

"half-a-millennia"

Oh, dear!

The Spanish Princess -especially Season 2, was quite historically inaccurate.

A movie about White Boy problems.

[quote] White Boy

Could you expand on that, R46?

The Austrian Zimmerman assembled a cornball cast. The American Orson Welles playing an English Cardinal and the hero is married to a woman a full decade older than him.

[quote] the guy with the unfortunate haircut is John Hurt

Yes, R19, Corin Redgrave had the same haircut and he never looked as pretty ever.

^ It's a tragedy that the gorgeous Michael Redgrave would spawn a homely-looking son.

Vanessa is the identical match for her mother, Rachel Kempson. But Lynn… I'm not sure about her.

"Executioner, bring me the ax!".

R43 don't you know that there is nothing new under the sun. Human nature never changes.

[quote] Human nature never changes.

Thomas More never changed. He refused to change and he was beheaded for all his pig-headedness.

His act of refusing to change makes the play title rather ironic. He wasn't a 'man for seasons' at all.

He wanted his own season and refused to accept any others'.

"I'd rather have you go BALD to the cathedral than looking like a tramp!"

[quote] unimpeachable seekers of the truth

All those men who seek for the truth, who loved 'A Man for All Seasons', and are happy to accept the label of 'Intellectual Social-justice-warriors should watch the 1948 film called 'The Winslow Boy'.

It's similar to 'A Man for All Seasons' with its cut-and-thrust debate. But it's different in that it’s in black and white, has a hint of elegance and also a bat-squeak of sex-appeal.

Scofield was never pretty.

Was it some kind of acne? Even Cecil Beaton couldn't make him pretty.

Scofield didn’t need to be beautiful. He was probably the best interpreter of Shakespeare of any British actor. His voice was a gift from God. Not to mention his acting. A poll was done of British actors of the best stage performance and Scofields King Lear won. Richard Burton said of the 10 best Shakespearean performance eight were probably Scofields or something along those lines. He showed up for his Tony win for Man for All Seasons (he might’ve been in NY on stage anyway) but skipped and didn’t care for the Oscars. The Oscar was shipped to him in England and was broken in transport. He never repaired it.

[quote] A poll was done of British actors

Which poll? When?

He was perverse. He knocked back 90% of roles offered to him.

He REFUSED to be a Luvvie!

He played an old man in his very first film. He never played ingénues.

More's stance wasn't about "seeking the truth" (r54) or stubbornly refusing "to change" (r52).

He was "a man for all seasons" because his belief system wasn't dependent on which way the monarchical wind blew. More's faith was evergreen, not deciduous.

More's word, his pledge, his oath, was his bond with his Church and his God, transcending all things temporal, including his very life---not a trifle easy for him to forsake, but a necessary one when doing otherwise would be forsaking his eternal soul.

In the play Sir Thomas shades Richard Rich with the "But for Wales?" line. And therein More tacitly speaks to his own spiritual warning: "But for Henry?

Thus More---as so many others at the whims and decrees of the eighth and last Henry, no doubt with a heavy heart at realizing the terrible price his sovereign lord to whom he, More, had pledged earthly fealty, was willing to pay and to inflict in the pursuit of the Deadly Sin of lust---went to his death.