A Man of All Seasons (1966)

Like these figures coming out of the fog, one must be timid on how to approach the film A Man for All Seasons. Do not jump into the unknown, but instead be prepared for the unknown that could present itself on the other side. With full exuberance I jumped into this film without hesitation and without appreciation for the sheer power that this aged piece of cinema could bring. A Man for All Seasons is an Oscar award winning film, it currently has a rating of 8.0 on IMDB.com [as of 5/27/11], and plenty of positive reviews to keep this film floating on the DVD circuit or eventual blu ray for years to come, and quite frankly, perhaps I will rediscover this film later on in life, but for now - after finally completing this nearly two-hour behemoth - A Man for All Seasons felt shallow, underwhelming, and certainly not worthy of the accolades that it has found throughout the years. Absolutely it is grandiose, and one cannot complain about the subject matter, and for those looking for their Orson Welles fix, this film will provide it. BUT, this is not a film that can sustain itself. Taking away from the credit that is due to Alfie or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? this film just doesn't push the boundaries of film making like the other entries this year were able to do. It is disappointing to see films lauded in their time, but falling flat on their faces today. This, my friends, is the tale of A Man for All Seasons.

To begin, what can a viewer be proud of with this film? The costumes and ability to build such a large period film is standing-ovation impressive. The visuals will not send your eyes away hungry. Welles' attention to the detail of his character only shows how impressed he was with the story itself. Yet, that is all I can applaud. Watching this film, in fact, re-watching this film, sometimes scene by scene, I found myself asking the question - what did I miss? Why wasn't I being pulled further within the conflict of religion vs. politics? Why wasn't I applauding the dedication of Thomas More to his plight? As I squandered these questions, the question that inevitably came through was, "What type of movie was this?" A Man for All Seasons has no action sequences, has no direct love interests, and honestly no real humor or moments of dread. This film falls into the distraught world of being merely a true slice of recreated history. The scenery will tell you that it is true, but to the unread mind, one must merely take this as truth. Where was the music? Where was the intensity of More's life? Why did this film completely and utterly bore me nearly to death?

I am not a man who desires a big spectacle of Hollywood-ism when I sit down to watch my films, in fact, the less at times seems to capture me further into the plot, but with A Man for All Seasons it felt like I had seen this beautiful cake, only to take my first bite and it to be stale. Paul Scofield's portrayal of Thomas More should have been the crux to the film, allowing every eye to focus on his detailed nuance, but in the end, it just felt tired. I could not see the character he was attempting towards, and I could not see any dramatics behind his eyes. He was a place mat, a mere "somebody: to hold the door for the other actors that needed the work. How could he have beat Michael Caine or Richard Burton? It just doesn't make sense. This was a filmed play, nothing original or exciting about it - yet those within the blogs are using headlines like, "Best Film Ever". Did I miss something? Even the always valuable John Hurt was under served in this film, hiding behind the weaker Scofield character, and missing a fuller opportunity to shine.

While I argue that it was the acting that sent this unmanned vehicle plummeting to the sea, one must also consider the direction. This was a very bland film, despite the other options recognized that year, one must see that the camera provided no further inside into this world. It stayed still, the eye was focused on merely one character at a time, and when one walked it walked safely behind. Perhaps "safely" is too kind, the camera remained uninspiring and unoriginal as it focused on the lesser, menial moments of this film. Take a look at the basics behind this ten-minute long scene above, where Scofield walks the room without any excitment, compassion, or character - while our camera focus' us on what will happen next. The camera, in A Man of All Seasons becomes the biggest spoiler of the two hours, allowing no imagination to follow and less focused direction. There was hope early, but it just fizzed as the two hours progressed. As I attempt to put my finger on which point I completely lost interest [probably around the 23:15 mark], I continued to keep hoping that something, honestly anything, would change the perspective, but again with lacking directing, non-creative camera focus, and just a bland hope from all characters, this film quickly began a transform into mush. Despite the accolades, it just fell short.

As you may or may not guess already, I really had higher hopes for A Man for All Seasons, but sadly it just failed, and it failed hard. Sure, these images look beautiful, but substance is also needed behind the camera, and this film was utterly lacking. For those fans of Orson Welles, it is worth a few glances over the shoulder, but overall, it was painful to watch. Found in my "501 Must-See Movies", this was obviously not a "must see". This is not going to be pretty, but it gets a yellow highlight with black mark, not to be watched again (perhaps, I should say, unless a Blu of this hits, then I may - MAY - force myself back into it) Ranking along the lines of the Road Warrior I just forced myself through, this feels troublesome due to the lacking excitement. It is films like this that I wish I was part of the Academy in 1966, so that a better outcome could have been determined. How did this film happen?