England of the first half of the turbulent, turning and at the same time tough XVI century. The young King Henry VIII married the Spanish Catholic Catherine of Aragon, after some time he acquired a new passion in the person of Anna Boleyn. But in the face of any heresy, such as the Reformation that engulfed Europe, the Roman See does not consent to the divorce of Henry VIII. However, such misunderstandings do not bother the mad English king-despot, and he begins literally out of the blue to create with his wind-seeking servants the prerequisites for the emergence of a new church. And in order to legalize everything in the “right” mode and consolidate for local citizens the idea that divorce is possible without leaving the island, Henry VIII needs the support of the most respected man in England – a philosopher, a humanist and (for now) Lord Chancellor Thomas More. But More, who just needs to verbally confirm all his agreements with the king, begins to disturb and shake the situation in the country. And this is the case when you can lose your head.
I must admit that the choice of the film academy in 1967 was very surprising. However, for academics, surprise is the norm. The production of pensioner Fred Zinneman, based on the play of the same name by Robert Bolt, will certainly be interesting for fans of believable historical films. The Tudor era, Henry VIII with his six wives, the Reformation, Thomas More is one of the favorite periods for filmmakers, which before and after 1966 was filmed a bunch of times. And this work has a number of strong qualities that cause interest. This is a well-chosen cast, and a set of entertaining phrases from the same hero Thomas More (such as - "For safety, I give the devil the privilege of the law"), and yet it is also a strong costume production.
But it's still not the movie of the year! Chamber, moralizing film, which by the end is transformed in general into the genre of judicial battle. There is no action, there is not even intrigue, and a number of characters, like a certain traitor-careerist Richard Rich (one of the first appearances in the big meter of John Hurt) and completely incomprehensible in functional terms. Moreover, those who are not too deep in the “historical topic”, in general, this film will not understand the rebellion-demarche from the main character. Thomas More, after all, was not a churchman (this is by the way the author of the leftist-communist Utopia!), he was not even a zealous Catholic. And look, I went to the principles that in this tape are explained not by moral foundations, but by a more primitive defense of legality.
He also surprised Paul Scofield, who played Thomas More. Scofield previously lacked stars from the sky, until the age of 44 there was an average visibility of a supporting actor. And now I got a theatrical role and played it perfectly in the film version. Well done. Convincing. Mentally. But it's not an Oscar. I can say the same with the statuette for Zinneman himself. At the same time, the film Academy also noted the nomination Wendy Hiller, remembered to us mainly for the “Pygmalion” sample of 1938. Here Wendy played Maura’s lush wife – she got the role, but not so much that she was awarded the Oscar nomination. The only one, perhaps, the questions with the nomination did not arise, is the Irishman Robert Shaw, who very convincingly and expressively played Henry VIII. This show has quite an interesting biography. The actor is not so much an actor as a writer. Was. Oh yes, even for lovers of swam faces, you can try to find in the languid Cardinal Wolsey Orson Welles. Here, the episodic role of Anna Boleyn was played by aspiring actress Vanessa Redgrave, but we will talk about her somewhere else.
A high-quality historical tape, which, nevertheless, did not even come close to deserve the loud epithet “best film of the year”. But fans of bright historical productions still need to get acquainted with the work of Fred Zinneman.
6.5 out of 10
It is with great regret that I have to join those of my fellow film lovers who have assessed this work of Fred Zinneman with relative restraint. The reason for this, most likely, was that before the first viewing of the picture, I expected to see the wrong Mora that I actually saw. I expected to see a deep thinker, a humanist (which, by the way, is written in most annotations to the film), the author of the famous "Utopia" & #39; in fact, which laid the first foundations of the socialist idea, whoever and how he treated it (the latter is only briefly mentioned at the beginning of the picture, and in the future the author never returns to it, which personally seemed, let's say, somewhat strange). On the screen, More appeared as a dull scholastic, entangled in political and theological sophisms and as a result became a victim of banal court intrigues, incidentally, almost sending all his household members after him. In this sense, I agree with the fact that the numerous awards won by the film should be attributed either to ' the accumulated sum of previous merits' or to ideological reasons (speech about the awards of the Moscow Festival and the favorable reviews of the papal curia).
In fact, instead of a philosophical drama, Zinneman created an ordinary historical and costumed, in fact not much different from the host of such film productions. To get this from the director, a decade earlier shot such serious works as ' Exactly at noon' and ' From now on and forever ', quite deservedly, in my opinion, took places in the list of the best pictures of world cinema, at least in the XX century, was a little sad.
The performance of most actors also did not make a great impression, largely due to the fact that many of them proposed concepts were clearly small. Especially - paradoxically - this applies to the lead actor Paul Scofield, clearly used to much more fundamental work. The only, in general, expected acting luck is an episodic (again, unfortunately), but very bright in every sense the role of Orson Welles. Even John Hurt worked well in the film, but no more than that, however, can be attributed to the fact that in the mid-60s his acting career was just beginning. The rest were more like actors of a rather mediocre provincial theater of the Shakespearean era with accentuated emotions and sarcastic remarks.
Summing up, let me repeat the idea that if the author of the film was a director who did not show himself earlier (and later) with films of much deeper content and high game quality, he could well be noted for the rating & #39; good & #39; at least for atmosphericity. For Zinneman, this, of course, is not a failure, but clearly not his best work, whatever the Oscar academics thought in 1967.
It is important that you believe, much more important that you believe.
Fred Zinnemann's film based on Robert Bolt's "Man for All Time"
A film about a man living in a society where everything is sold, including morality.
Fred Zinnemann is a famous American director, repeatedly awarded the Oscar, and many others. He worked in America, but then for political reasons went to England, where he made the film “Man for All Time”.
Robert Bolt, an English playwright, and a good director, /made a movie /, was twice awarded the Oscar.
The plot of the film, which we are talking about today, is based on the story of Thomas More, the vicissitudes of his conflict in King Henry VIII.
Thomas More English lawyer, philosopher and writer, / his book "Utopia" can be safely recommended to those who want to make a more complete picture of our world.
Henry VIII, English monarch of the Tudor dynasty. Not very pleasant personality, officially had 6 wives, 2 of whom executed, three of his many children survived, later all of them, each at one time ruled England. His death was also not very beautiful, he died of obesity.
There are a couple of colorful heroes in this story, such as the church reformer Thomas Cromwell, (not to be confused with Oliver Cromwell), adventurer Anna Boleyn, Cardinal Wolsey, but the permissible size of the review, unfortunately, does not allow you to delve into their biography. However, it will not be difficult to find information interested in this issue.
The film takes place in England of the XVI century. Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor, refuses to approve the divorce of the King, Henry VIII, on religious and ethical grounds. The king needs a divorce from his wife because he needs an heir. And the king is not used to being objected to, and More in all circumstances of life is true to his convictions and death for him, / the last argument of the king /, not an argument.
That's the story. It would be possible, as they say now, to bow down and stay and be, but. Being and being yourself are not always the same thing. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet’s words, “To be, or not to be, is the question?” – by the way, Shakespeare has a play “Henry VIII”.
As for historical cinema, in my opinion, the typical flaws usually lie in the fact that spectacle overshadows humanity, because a person is still more internal than external. Humans are the thoughts that dictate actions. Soaps that, like clothes, are beautiful.
Zinnemann succeeded in doing just that, the inner, he succeeded in showing man as he should be, as we want him to be, as we want him to be. We want, and it does not matter, that somewhere we break, somewhere we do not reach, somewhere we show weakness, but still hold. We have that inner core, those very moral principles.
Because if the laws of the world and society are imperfect, this does not mean that we have the right to be imperfect, just the opposite.
___
The film tells about one of the most unjust and tragic fates of medieval England. Humanist, philosopher and statesman Thomas More refused to recognize the marriage of King Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon invalid. The king needed the support of this beloved man to obtain the right to divorce his wife, who could not bear him an heir. More refused to go against his principles, which of course ended very sadly for him.
Henry VIII Tudor is one of the most popular historical figures in cinema, thanks to his vivid, unforgettable biography. Here you have the English Reformation, the rejection of the rule of the Catholic Church and the appointment of himself as the head of a new, Anglican, Protestant current. Here you and six wives, two of whom were beheaded, one died in prison, and another Henry refused on the first day of personal acquaintance. In general, Henry's character, apparently, was very bad. The life of such a king is very easy and convenient to film.
However, most films focus on Henry VIII's family life, especially his relationship with Anne Boleyn. If the figure of Thomas More appears in them, it is only sporadically. In this regard, the picture “Man for All Time” is unique: here Henry himself appears only in a couple of scenes, and the figure of Thomas More is the central, key. This is a film about what a man who truly believes in his ideals and is truly true to his basic principles of existence is willing to do. Thomas More simply could not accept this false document, otherwise he would not have been Thomas More. At the same time, he is not a sacrificial lamb, obediently putting his head under the blow of an axe. More tries to fight the system without going beyond the law and his conscience. His squabbles with judges and investigators are the film's best scenes. There is so much nobility, wisdom, intelligence, and a clear understanding of the laws of a time that was by no means an era of total lawlessness.
The film “Man for All Time” caused a furor among critics. Six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay, are vivid confirmation of this. And to this day, this tape is included in various critical lists of the best films of all time. I can’t say that I share the excitement of this level, but the film is very strong and well tailored. An interesting, deep script, a good game by Paul Scofield, pleasant to the eye secondary works by Orson Welles and young John Hurt, tragic, but full of hope for a bright future, the finale. This movie is definitely worth seeing.
"Man for All Time" is an old but still relevant and interesting historical film that made a rustle in the world of cinema almost 50 years ago. At the same time, it does not look outdated at all, so I think that for movie fans to watch this tape will not be superfluous at all.
8 out of 10
In the last century, a separate subgenre of court dramas has formed in the United States - films about unjustly convicted and their confrontation with the Law. The film is devoted to the attitude to the Law and the right of a person to express his own opinion.
Fred Zinemann shot the film in this genre: a biographical description of the life of Thomas More unexpectedly turns into his confrontation with King Henry VIII, and soon into a trial.
Directing and acting at the highest level. Especially stands out the play of the main role – Paul Scofield. I think the film only benefited from the fact that it did not star considered producers world-famous Richard Burton and Lawrence Olivier.
In my opinion, the story is not perfect. At a certain stage, the actions of Thomas More and his opponents become contradictory and illogical. The film will not consider historical nuances: intrigue, premises, alliances.
Despite all the advantages of the film - in my opinion, many Oscars, obtained primarily due to the personality of Zinnemann. His two previous works (Pale Horse and Sundowners) were simply brilliant, and surpass Man. But for various reasons (in the first case, political correctness, in the second – strong competition) major awards were not received. Moreover, the film about Thomas More is presented as an allegorical parable about the “black lists” and the problem of “McCarthyism”. It is known that Zinnemann emigrated twice: once from Austria, the second time from the United States.
8 out of 10