Man for All Seasons (1988) | Nicolas Amer, Brian Badcoe

Man for All Seasons (1988) | Nicolas Amer, Brian Badcoe | A different approach

vhs video:

Man for All Season...

	Man for All Seasons (1988) Nicolas Amer, Brian Badcoe Turner Home Ent, 2002 average customer review:based on 10 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Adaptation of Robert Bolt's play chronicling Sir Thomas More's struggles with corrupt King Henry VIII.

Be fair to this film!!!

I think most of the comments for this film are rather unfair. Unfair to the actor Charlton Heston and unfair to the film itself. Please let me explain:

It seems to me a sort of "England, England!" thing is standing in the way of a fair and objective comment on this film (as if I could give one...).
Even though Charlton Heston has sunk very much in my esteem since "Bowling for Columbine" I feel I need to set the record straight (for my own peace of mind): This film is great, and believe you me, I am a Scofield fan (I simply adored him in the 1966 version of this film as well as in the 1994 Martin Chuzzlewit television film/mini-series).

But to do away with this 1988 version of Heston as a failed attempt to improve on Fred Zinneman is not only an unfair comparison but also a foolish one.
To begin with: Heston's version is far closer and more true to Robert Bolt's play than is the Fred Zinneman version. In addition, Heston's performance, although more obviously dramatical than that of Scofield, is more passionate. The scene in which he thrashes Roper and stands for his daughter Meg is simply the greatest ("They put about too nimbly!!!"), as is his performance with the Duke of Norfolk when they discuss water spaniels.
Next to Heston, the performance of his fellow actors should not be discarded.

Roy Kinnear, bless his soul, is brilliant as the common man (a Robert Bolt invention that stayed alive in this version but was left out of the 1966 Zinneman production)

In addition, the role of the king is played simply brilliantly by Martin Chamberlain. The scene in More's garden is a scene that will never be mastered.

Vanessa Redgrave gives one of her finest performances as More's wife. The scene in the Tower where they part for the last time is always tearing me apart! (Oh God, all these plain simple men!)

And of course the roles of the "two ugly ladies" Benjamin Withrow and Jonathan Hackett are delicious and not to be found anywhere so great in the 1966 Zinneman version.

So I beg you: Please be fair, enjoy the Zinneman version, but also take the time to (learn to) appreciate Heston's version. The man has his faults, but just appreciate that what he has done right!

for more information click here

A different approach

I love this story, as a fragment of history (such as we know of it), as a dramatic work by a fine playwright and in both extant film productions. The 1966 film directed by Zinnemann is a wonderful filmic reworking of the play with some noble acting and art direction. It retains the essence of the story whilst changing 'operatically' the angle, rather like Milos Forman has done with Peter Schaffer's "Amadeus". Heston's TV film, on the other hand, sticks rather more closely to the play, in both script and format and succeeds equally well. This isn't a 'remake'; rather, it is a new approach in its own right. Both films are valid additions to the canon. Heston was, indeed, a great actor who was more than equal to this task; all too often he has been the target of 'casting snobs'. Finally, the late Roy Kinnear's contribution as the 'Common Man' (a part not featured as such in the 1966 film, Colin Blakely as More's servant, Matthew being the closest comparable) is a little gem!

for more information click here

Out of Step with the Other Reviews

While I agree that Heston wasn't as good a fit for More as Scofield, one thing I did like about this version was its fidelity to the full play. The original cinematic version strayed from it, especially from the device of having Matthew/the Common Man play multiple roles throughout.

I also found that some of the other characters were better developed here: Henry VIII demonstrated more of the desire for More's approval than Shaw's performance; Cromwell was much more conniving and shrewd; Rich was more weak and duplicitous even than Hurt's portrayal.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2

products you might be interested in