A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Contemporary viewer’s may be perplexed by a film such as A Man For All Seasons. Why make a two our motion picture about a Tudor lawyer, statesman and scholar and their subsequent moral objection to the reigning monarchs marital status? Yet, during the sixties, it was entirely possible for a mainstream studio to produce a film based upon a stage play that dramatised such specific historical events. Furthermore, a film like this that relied upon strong performances and an intelligent script (and little more) could find a mainstream audience and be both a critical and commercial success. Nowadays, such productions still exist but they are now mainly the province of streaming services. Furthermore, the cinematic format has been replaced by that of a high budget TV show, which explores the topic at hand over an eight to ten hour running time.
Contemporary viewer’s may be perplexed by a film such as A Man For All Seasons. Why make a two our motion picture about a Tudor lawyer, statesman and scholar and their subsequent moral objection to the reigning monarchs marital status? Yet, during the sixties, it was entirely possible for a mainstream studio to produce a film based upon a stage play that dramatised such specific historical events. Furthermore, a film like this that relied upon strong performances and an intelligent script (and little more) could find a mainstream audience and be both a critical and commercial success. Nowadays, such productions still exist but they are now mainly the province of streaming services. Furthermore, the cinematic format has been replaced by that of a high budget TV show, which explores the topic at hand over an eight to ten hour running time.
Directed by Fred Zinnemann (High Noon, From Here to Eternity) and adapted by Robert Bolt from his own play, A Man For All Seasons explores Sir Thomas More’s relationship with King Henry VIII at the time of the monarch’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and remarriage to Anne Boleyn. A devout Roman Catholic, Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) has a crisis of conscience regarding the legality of the divorce and the subsequent break with the Church of Rome. The King (Robert Shaw) holds More in high regard and does not want to compel him to support his position, preferring that his public approval is given freely. Sadly it is not, leading to More risking his liberty and safety on a matter of principle. The screenplay is articulate and intelligent, placing great weight upon the importance of spiritual peril. The fate of one’s immortal soul was far from a trivial concern in Tudor England. There was no separation of church and state at the time and religion was an integral part of every aspect of life.
A Man For All Seasons is filled with outstanding British actors of the time, such as Leo McKern, Dame Wendy Hiller, Nigel Davenport and Susannah York. A young John Hurt makes his mark as the career driven Richard Rich. But it is Paul Scofield who dominates the proceedings as a man of principle trying to steer a fateful course without betraying his values. His failure to accommodate the political imperatives of the time is both laudable and tragic. His performance is poignant and dignified. The film is very much an exploration of the concept of identity and personal integrity. Director Fred Zinnemann wisely eliminates some of the Brechtian elements of the play, focusing on a more linear narrative and traditional presentation. He also skilfully uses historical locations in Oxfordshire and Hampshire to double for Hampton Court Palace and Parliament.
The film does make several changes to historical events as a means of providing the story with a more conventional cinematic arc. The screenplay features a more detailed backstory with regard to Richard Rich (John Hurt), the solicitor-general and his prior association with More. However, the nature of Rich’s perjury during More’s trial is in accord with historians’ consensus on events. The film stresses the point that Rich has accommodated Thomas Cromwell, the King’s most senior minister, and has been subsequently made attorney-general of Wales. This prompts a pithy retort from More “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world, but for Wales”? Robert Bolts liberally peppers the script with similarly acerbic, yet erudite exchanges. It is one of the major elements that gives such a straightforward plot its weight and gravitas.
A Man For All Seasons is a well honed, efficient historical drama and thoughtful exploration of the frequent incompatibility of personal moral rectitude with any sort of long established political institution. Be it the Church or the monarchy. At the start of the film Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles) regrets he did not serve God as well as he served his king. Sir Thomas More, on the other hand, states before his execution that he remains “His majesty's good servant...but God's first”. It is a most thought provoking juxtaposition. The film also stands as a masterclass in acting and remains a textbook example of the art of writing a good screenplay. A Man For All Seasons went on to win six Academy Awards at a time when such awards were still credible and relevant. It is also worth noting that it was the sixth highest grossing film in North America in 1966.
Cromwell (1970)
Big budget historical costume dramas were still popular at the box office during the seventies although the public was slowly falling out of love with them. Cromwell is a curious addition to the genre in so far that it is actually demonstrably less than the sum of its parts. Despite a high budget and a quite impressive production design, it offers nothing more than a broad historical overview of the English Civil War and is actually quite light on detail and frequently historically inaccurate. It comes across as a somewhat long-winded history primer for schools and the viewer is never really offered anything more than a dozen or so bullet points of information about this period. However, it has a few merits to consider and is certainly not a total waste of time for those seeking a few hours diversion.
Big budget historical costume dramas were still popular at the box office during the seventies although the public was slowly falling out of love with them. Cromwell is a curious addition to the genre in so far that it is actually demonstrably less than the sum of its parts. Despite a high budget and a quite impressive production design, it offers nothing more than a broad historical overview of the English Civil War and is actually quite light on detail and frequently historically inaccurate. It comes across as a somewhat long-winded history primer for schools and the viewer is never really offered anything more than a dozen or so bullet points of information about this period. However, it has a few merits to consider and is certainly not a total waste of time for those seeking a few hours diversion.
Director Ken Hughes allegedly produced a three-hour rough cut before editing the theatrical release down to a more manageable 139 minutes. At times this seems apparent due to the rather rapid way in which the historical narrative moves from one key event to another. Some scenes provide the bare minimum of detail and character development needed to make their point before moving on. For example one of Cromwell’s labourers, John Carter, is seen resisting Royalist troops as they fence off common land. He is arrested and subsequently released sans his ears to simply reinforce the plot that the King is a tyrant. The character then vanishes from the story for a considerable amount of time only to return as a loyal soldier in Parliamentary New Model Army, who is now in dispute with Cromwell’s policies. This and other examples indicate that a lot of broader detail has been excised.
However, despite discrepancies in the plot Cromwell does boast accurate period costumes, handsome sets and solid lead performances. Richard Harris is passionate and credible as a man who is constantly hamstrung by the failings of others and who frequently has to look to his own resolve to master events. Alec Guinness maintain a quiet dignity as Charles I; a man who seems to grasp that events often control the man rather than vice versa. His death scene is quite poignant, although his actual execution is discrete. The supporting cast is a veritable who’s who of British character actors from the sixties and seventies. Stalwarts such as Charles Grey, Robert Morley, Douglas Wilmer and Nigel Stocke play sundry nobles from the time. Some of the deficiencies of the screenplay are carried by the quality of the actors present who all are at ease in such opulent period productions.
The battles scenes in Cromwell also hint at some judicious editing and not necessarily for reasons of running time. There is a distinct lack of violence in the close quarters fighting with most deaths being shown in long shots. Yet there are numerous stunts with riders falling from mounts and infantry being blown up by incoming artillery fire. However, there are a few shots of the battlefield that feature bloodied corpses. Considering the rather jolting earlier scene where Frank Finlay staggers into the church with his ears cut off, I suspect that this movie was specifically trimmed for violence, as there are some tonal inconsistencies in the finished edit. Perhaps the producers wanted to focus more on the historical elements and not get bogged down in rating related issues.
Overall, Cromwell is an adequate movie, if you merely want a period drama that is light on detail and relatively easy watching. It is the performances that are its primary selling point. For those looking for something as cerebral and as multi-layered as The Lion in Winter or A Man for All Seasons, you may wish to adjust your expectations. For good or ill, Cromwell is a prime example of a genre of movie that is seldom made these days. The recent historical drama Mary Queen of Scots stood out among other mainstream theatrical releases for this very of this reason. The Outlaw King, which told the story of Robert the Bruce opted for Netflix as a medium to reach its potential audience. Cromwell also serves as a reminder that the UK still had robust stars of note and was capable of competing with the US film market at this time. Nowadays such a subject matter would more than likely be tackled via a miniseries that was internationally funded.
