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!