A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1988 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Ted Turner could not colorize A MAN FOR
ALL SEASONS, so he remade it, letting Charleton Heston direst
himself. He gave it a good cast, restored all the dialogue
of the stage play, and did all the right things. But why
remake a film that cannot be improved? Rating: high +2.
Rating of the original film +4 and a must-see. Over and
over.
I like film more than most people. And I have seen a lot of films that have deeply affected me, but my favorite film of all time is Fred Zinnemann's 1966 A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS. Back when I was in graduate school I had the entire film on audiotape and would play it two or three times a week. It was the second film I had recorded on audiotape in a collection of eventually hundreds. It was the FIRST film I ever recorded on videotape to keep. Very well, I could never expect the new version to measure up. I was sure I would begrudge the film every minor variation from the original. That expectation turned out to be wrong, but not by a whole lot.
The plot and most of the dialogue are, of course, identical to the Zinnemann version. The first plus for the remake is that it follows very closely the original stage play. The original film rearranged things a little. For those who have not seen the 1966 version, you have my pity and this plot synopsis. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is Robert Bolt's play about the results of Thomas More's choice of principle and integrity over all else. More had an extremely nimble mind, a love of his king and close friend Henry VIII, and a love of his religion, Catholicism. These loves are perfectly consistent until Henry decides to split from the Church and expects the endorsement of the nobility. Being asked to choose between his loves, More decides to be officially neutral with full knowledge that the law should protect his stand. For the lack of one oath of support, Henry's agents make war on More. They have the power of the king; More has only the law and his agile use of it to protect himself.
For this version Charleton Heston both plays More and directs. He certainly has more name recognition than Paul Scofield, who played the role in the Zinnemann version. Scofield is better known for stage than for film. Heston's dramatic talent and acting range lie somewhere between those of a Scofield and those of, say, a Sylvester Stallone, and I would guess it lies at just about the halfway point. Heston has none of the frailty of Scofield. He has always overpowered his roles. When More tells Henry that he is sick to think how much his (More's) actions grieve Henry, Heston gives the line as if it is a matter of form, as if he is playing chess. The pain in Scofield's delivery gives the line far more sincerity. He is a friend who has to hurt a friend and does not want to, while Heston's More is only saying what is expected. In one scene in the play, More breaks down and cries. Scofield lets his voice break up and then sobs. He does it gently. Heston contorts his face in agony. He just cannot project gentle emotions so he rarely uses them.
One place where the remake should have been an improvement and disappointingly was not was in the role of Wolsey. Where Zinnemann had Orson Welles, Heston had John Gielgud. Both are good actors but I generally would give the edge to Gielgud. But not in this film. When Heston faces Gielgud, each knows his own lines but they are not playing off of each other. Talking about actions that will be taken against the Church, Wolsey refers to "certain measures, perhaps regrettable, perhaps not," then noting More's wry smile, "All right, regrettable." Gielgud does not stop to see the smile. He runs the two lines together with no change of tone and there is no wry smile. It is a misdelivery and a better director than Heston would have corrected it.
Vanessa Redgrave, the only obvious actor to play in both versions goes from playing a nubile Anne Boleyn to Alice, More's wife. Wendy Hiller played the role as an intelligent, willful woman who, when she calls herself "a fool" clearly means it only in contrast to More. Redgrave really plays it as a fool--doughty, flutterly, and superficial, with just a hint of something deeper behind the gestures. Her interpretation is certainly a valid one, but as with most interpretations of roles in the Heston version, she is not as appealing as she was in the original film.
All these criticisms are, of course, only contrasts to the original film. In its own right, the Heston version is an excellent film. It is a superb play done with a very good cast. It raises the same issues as the other version and has the same excellent writing. There is little even an indifferent filmmaker could have done to hurt the story. In good conscience I could not give the Heston film anything beneath a high +2. To my mind, however, the Best Picture of 1966 remains the best picture of all seasons.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzz!leeper
leeper%mtgzz@att.arpa
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews