A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS: The 1966 and 1988 Film Adaptations

Robert Bolt’s 1960 play portraying the unflagging integrity and commitment to conviction was a surprise success on the London stage in 1960 and on Broadway in ‘61. Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), author, theologian, attorney, statesman, and lord chancellor to King Henry VIII, was a fascinating Renaissance figure, and one brought to life in two film adaptations by two very different actors: Paul Scofield in 1966 and Charlton Heston in 1988. Both films are entertaining and edifying, and each has its particular merits and demerits.

The Plot and the Conflict

It’s 1530 and King Henry VIII desperately wants a son. He’s in a loveless marriage to the “barren as a brick” Catherine of Aragon, the widow of his late brother. In order to marry Catherine, Henry got a special dispensation from the Pope. Henry suspects God is withholding a male heir as punishment for Henry’s sin, a violation of Leviticus 18 () He wants the special dispensation dispensed with so he can divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn, with whom he’s been shamelessly sporting. The established order, among them Cardinal Wolsey, are pragmatists. Let the king divorce Catherine, marry Anne, and have a chance of a male heir. The reasons are practical, without a male heir, upon Henry’s death  war among rival dukedoms is liable to break out as they vye for the throne.

Standing steadfast in opposition is Sir Thomas More, who stands with the pope and the Roman Catholic Church. One cannot ask a special dispensation be dispensed with when it becomes inconvenient. The king becomes an “accidental reformer,” breaking with the Catholic Church, establishing the Church of England, which further galvanizes More to stand in opposition to him. The king seeks to break More, imprisoning him, putting him on trial for treason, and when More won’t bend, has him executed.

The 1966 Film

The 1966 film was made on an epic scope and a large budget, and it shows on screen. Fred Zinneman, who had directed such films as High Noon, From Here to Eternity, and Oklahoma!, did an admirable job in bringing Bolt’s stage play to the screen. He wisely engaged the playwright himself to adapt it, and in many ways Bolt’s screenplay became a work unto itself as it subtracted characters and scenes from the play and added new ones.

I appreciated that the leading role went to Paul Scofield, who played More in the London premiere and took it to Broadway in 1961.  Scofield, primarily a stage actor and by no means a “bankable” or “name” star to moviegoers, played More with aplomb and won the Oscar, beating out such formidable competition as Alan Arkin, Richard Burton, Michael Caine, and Steve McQueen. 

Highlights among the cast are Leo McKern as Cromwell, John Hurt as the insipid opportunist Richard Rich, and Orson Welles perfectly cast as the corpulent Cardinal Wolsey. On the London stage McKern had played the “Common Man,” a role snipped from the ’66 version,  and assumed the role Cromwell on Broadway. He’s a lot of fun to watch for fans of his work during this peak period—Help (1964), The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968) and his iconic role as Number 2 on The Prisoner (1967). And his theatrics in the climactic courtroom scene presages his later role as Rumpole of the Bailey. 

Paul Scofield and Leo McKern

  Another standout in the cast is Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII. Fellow James Bond fans will fondly recall Shaw’s role as Grant in From Russia with Love. Shaw brings a lot of bombast to his role as the younger, vibrant king. But he also brings menace, exploding into hysterical rages when he doesn’t get his way. Henry respected More, and desperately desired his approval. When it was withheld, the axe fell. 

This version runs a brisk two hours, dragging in the extended scenes of boats rowing up and down the Thames. It appeared to be almost a fetish of Zinneman’s, but upon reading the introduction to my old green-covered Vintage paperback of the play, Bolt used the river  as a metaphor for going with the flow and the difficulty of swimming against it. Scenes with More’s family dragged too as none of the characters were especially engaging, even the household heretic, More’s Lutheran son-on-law Will Roper.

An award-winning and admirable film, but one I suspect is more appreciated than enjoyed.  

The 1988 TNT TV Movie

Charlton Heston directed and starred in this 1988 TV movie, which launched a line of TNT original films for Ted Turner. It was an ambitious undertaking and Heston ably delivered. I recall watching this television “event” just before Christmas back in 1988. Heston’s film career was in a lull at the time, and he had recently spent a season headlining the primetime soap The Colbys, a spinoff of Dynasty. Heston played More in several off-Broadway productions in the 1970s and 1980s and had just enjoyed a successful run in London that led to the making of this film.

Judging by IMDb ratings and reviews, this 1988 version is scorned as a poor man’s remake, an unnecessary affront to the 1966 version, or as a Heston vanity project. There’s a little truth in those criticisms, but on the other hand . . . .  Robert Bolt returned to write this adaptation and restored many of the play’s features that were cut from the 1966 film, first and foremost the pivotal character of the Common Man. This character, and Roy Kinnear’s masterful portrayal of him, elevates this film and makes it at minimum a necessary complement to the ’66 film. The ’88 version captures better the original stage version, which brings with it the charge that it’s “stagey.” But is that necessarily a bad thing? This is after all a dialogue-driven play and film.

Kinnear, who sadly died before the film was broadcast, serves as the narrator and plays a variety of characters throughout the movie, often addressing the audience directly. In many ways he’s as much a star of the show as Heston, and he’s an eminently appealing one.

Heston’s version runs two and a half hours, and it does admittedly begin to feel a little long. I wished several interminable scenes of the More family slipping into poverty had been snipped as they actually undercut the movie’s message, making More seem selfish and peevish instead of principled. As their clothes grew ragged and they dragged into the house bundles of twigs to burn in the fireplace, More defends his staunch refusal to accept a charitable gift of much-needed money from the Catholic bishops because it could be misinterpreted as payment for his writings. His family didn’t buy it, and I didn’t either, and it seemed More slipped into scrupulosity and an unhealthy embrace of his martyrdom with no regard of its effect on others.  

Scenes with the Spanish envoy Chapuy—cut from the ’66 version—could also have been cut as they added little except a reminder that Spain would be provoked if Catherine of Aragon were cast aside and disgraced.

By no means a perfect version, but a thoroughly enjoyable one, due in great part to Heston and Kinnear.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Let’s compare some of the major players and see which version’s actors came out on top.

Sir Thomas More. I reached this pop cultural conclusion watching the films: Paul Scofield plays More as Mr. Spock, Charlton Heston plays More as Captain Kirk. Scofield is emotionally unmoveable, detached, and difficult to warm up to. Heston brings an emotional dimension to the character, a vulnerability that makes him relatable, and yes, a degree of bombastic hamminess. In prison, Scofield is clean-shaven and unruffled; Heston is stubbly, disheveled, and weeping. Both portrayals make More out to be a superhuman paragon of integrity, but Heston at least appears to have reached it through struggle and a clear sense of what he’s lost as a result.

The Winner: Charlton Heston (’88)

King Henry VIII. Robert Shaw’s portrayal was so definitive that Martin Chamberlain in 1988 appears only to ape his predecessor. Further hindering Chamberlain’s portrayal is his anachronistic eighties’ feathered hairstyle.

The Winner: Robert Shaw (’66)

Thomas Cromwell. I love Leo McKern and thought he was wonderful as the conniving Cromwell . . . until I saw Benjamin Whitrow in the ’88 version. McKern plays Cromwell as a “dockside bully,” and Whitrow as a wily and scheming Machiavellian. I have to set aside sentiment and admit that McKern really is number two, taking a backseat to  Whitrow in this role.

The Winner: Benjamin Whitrow (’88)

Richard Rich. No, not the poor little rich boy of comics and cartoon fame, but an indolent ladder-climbing opportunist courting the influential for a place in court. Rich scorns a teaching post More could get for him. Rich will play the toady, stooge, and even perjurer if it will get him another rung up the ladder. A young John Hurt played Rich in ’66 and he’s at once loathsome and menacing. It was a perfect portrayal of a weasel. Jonathan Hackett plays Rich in ’88 as a more jovial and almost clownish figure. His arrival at court in splendid raiment painted him more as a vain fop than as a man who sold his soul for material wealth and power.

The Winner: John Hurt (’66)

The Duke of Norfolk. Nigel Davenport was fine as the Duke of Norfolk in the ’66 version, going from friend to foe of the intransigent chancellor. But the character wasn’t especially memorable. In ’88 the role is played by Richard Johnson, Shakespearean star and erstwhile secret agent Beau Brummel, who creates a compelling character. Johnson’s Duke is a true friend of More, a friend tortured by the fate More has chosen and the thankless role the vindictive king has cast him in—judge at More’s trial for high treason. Johnson and Heston were off-stage friends, and that easy chemistry translated well to the screen.  

The Winner: Richard Johnson (’88)

Cardinal Wolsey. Orson Welles appears to have relished his role as Wolsey, looking pained and full of gout, and pathetic as he waits for death. That voice and delivery added real heft to his short scenes. John Geilgud has a commanding voice and delivery, too, but he’s no Cardinal Wolsey. Thin, he bore no resemblance to the bloated churchman, and worse, he phones it in. Geilgud’s screen time amounts to only a few minutes, yet there he is prominently featured in all the promo material and DVD box. It wasn’t worth it, a major miscasting misstep.  

The Winner: Orson Welles (’66)

Baby, the Axe Must Fall

I rewatched my DVDs of these films a day apart this week. I enjoyed and appreciated both versions and will enjoy them both again some day. There’s no real reason to choose a favorite. Each offers something the other lacks. For what it’s worth, I gave each version an 8-star rating on IMDb, holding them about equal. But were someone to corner me and demand to know which version is my favorite upon threat of beheading, would I maintain my silence like More? No way:

The Winner: The 1988 TV Movie starring Charlton Heston.

PS: Sir Thomas More, who died a martyr’s death, was beatified in 1878 and canonized a saint in the Catholic Church in 1935. His feast day is celebrated on June 22 in conjunction with that of Bishop John Fisher, who is mentioned in passing in A Man for All Seasons. Ironically, since 1980 the Anglican Church also recognizes More and Fisher as “martyrs of the Reformation,” and celebrates their feast day on July 6, the anniversary of More’s execution.  One wonders what More would think of that!

This look at A Man for All Seasons is my contribution to the inaugural Broadway Bound Blogathon hosted by Taking Up Room. Check out all their other Broadway-related reviews!