A Man For All Seasons: Beautifully Tragic Tale of Moral Integrity? or, Stuffy British Costume Drama?

First of all, my congratulations to those of you who decided to watch this film despite the fact that the film was made in 1966. You will find that the year a film was made is absolutely meaningless if real quality is present, and this is certainly a quality film. Fred Zinnemann's A Man For All Seasons is a powerful film on many different levels. It is first of all necessary to understand the cultural backdrop of the film. Up until the point of King Henry VIII, England was a Catholic state officially. However, the winds of change are blowing all over Europe as the Protestant Reformation spreads throughout the region. England's impending reformation, though, is a far cry from the doctrinal disputes that took place in German speaking areas of Europe, heavily influenced by Martin Luther. Instead, Henry VIII is rejecting the Catholic Church, not for doctrinal reasons, but for the political reason of wanting a divorce, one which the church vehemently opposes. Therefore, Henry VIII decides to steer England on an uncharted course, creating his own Church of England, making himself the head of his church, therefore making his divorce guaranteed. Enter Thomas More, Henry's friend, confidant, and newly appointed chancellor. More is portrayed with a moral fiber rare in most human beings, one of incorruptibility, even in the face of death. More chooses not to publicly denounce the king, but instead decides to remain silent on the issue, a position that the king sees as treason. All More has to do is simply pay lip service to the king and publicly endorse his decision, whether he truly believes what he is saying or not. So many important questions are raised here, the foremost being: When your personal beliefs conflict with the law of the land, at what lengths would you go to stay true to your beliefs? Would you maintain your integrity even in the face of death? Is such a death heroic or a nonsensical show of moral stubborness? Should obedience to the law ever supercede obedience to one's conscience? As a society, do we see consciencious objectors as admirable or law-defying citizens? At what point does a person become a martyr as a consciencious objector? Can martyrdom even be clearly defined, and if so, who defines it? What do you think? These are all questions that should be assessed in a discussion of this film. I also want to take the time to give due attention to the performance of Paul Scofield as Thomas More. Scofield handles this very challenging role with much dignity and care, never coming across as reckless, but never overtly prudish either. It truly is one of the great on-screen performances, especially driven home by a monologue for the ages near the end of the film, a monologue that never fails to send chills down my spine, as many times as I've seen this film now. If you were impressed by Paul Scofield's performance, you may also consider checking out Scofield in his older age, but still pitch perfect, in Robert Redford's 1994 film Quiz Show. If you enjoyed this film as a whole and enjoyed the challenging nature of Zinnemann's directing, I would recommend that you check out two of my all time favorite films, both directed by Zinnemann. One would be the 1953 film From Here To Eternity (this is the Pearl Harbor film that you should see, as opposed to the insulting, repulsive mess of a film that was Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor in 2001). My other recommendation would be the 1952 film High Noon (this is really one of the definitive films of the western genre, never over the top, always challenging, and with an amazing Cold War backstory that brings life and depth to an already masterful screenplay). Finally, if the issue of conscience in the face of government opposition is an interesting topic to you, I would also recommend one of the best films of this decade that few have seen despite George Clooney's star status, that being George Clooney's 2005 film Good Night, and Good Luck.