“It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the world, but for Wales?”
Fred Zinnemann’s film of Robert Bolt’s play is, as its title says of its protagonist, a film for any and all time.
I recently revisited the film, after having once been gifted a copy by a dear friend who ranks it as a favorite. Though I could see the film’s strength and craft at the time, it resonated with me deeply today.
Starring a stirring Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More, the film chronicles the man’s steadfast belief in the Catholic Church’s authority over the marriage of King Henry VIII of England (Robert Shaw), even in the face of fierce opposition from the King and his fellow statesmen. With a stellar cast, a sharp script, and focused direction and pacing, the film holds up marvelously.
The strict adherence to Catholic tradition is seemingly passé by now, but the King is not motivated by a hunger for progress or diverse thinking. Bolt’s script is careful not to lean heavily on the divorce itself as a point of contention, but rather it’s illegality in Catholicism.
Films like this, about men standing up for the principles of their faith, could easily be ignored by those who don’t claim any strong spirituality, myself included. But, in the case of this film and many others, characters’ faith and dedication to God’s law is not characterized by a hatred of any person or group. Sir Thomas More and figures like him would not stand up to modern progressive scrutiny, but what they and their piety stand for in dramatized works is a commitment to humanity, humility, and compassion.
Sir Thomas wrote on the pros and cons of different kinds of governments and societies, and settled on a vision that saw a role for both secular law and religion. Though he might disagree with me, I think there are many antiquated, dogmatic aspects of various faiths that need not be held as the gold standard. The core of the good that organized religion does in a society is its ability to imbue followers with compassion for others. That is the single truth I take away from this film as the higher rule we must all be moved to adhere to.
When King Henry and his government move to prosecute and persecute Sir Thomas, it’s because of the latter’s refusal to place any one individual above his faith. No one supersedes God’s law, he thinks, nor deserves exemption from it.
Whether or not you agree with my own interpretation of More’s faith, or of anyone else’s for that matter, I think anyone who views A Man for All Seasons would agree that More does not act selfishly, nor with self-righteous intent. His own view of his autonomy and morality is the same standard he would apply to any other person. As he says when on trial, “I am the King’s true subject. I pray for him and his realm.”
This spirit of selflessness is only one theme the film exposes as absent in our modern world. Another thread followed throughout the story is the King’s willingness to dispense with people who impede his will or disagree with him, be they his wife or his Lord Chancellor. The King is not inherently wrong to want a divorce, but his sin is casting aside a spouse not for lack of love, but for lack of male children. She’s disposed of like any other “useless” player in his orbit. Though Sir Thomas More knows of these shortcomings in his King, he aims to operate within the system justly and responsibly, and with no conflicts of interest.
Everyone in Henry VIII’s England is expected to bend to the King’s will if asked, and that’s the real parable at play here; the warping of a society to meet the whims of a powerful few or one. More refuses to partake in transactional relationships, no matter how insignificant they are to the greater picture. He encourages people to work for others and not themselves, as when he encourages the young Richard Rich (John Hurt) to pursue a life of teaching rather than beg for a position of influence within the government.
The Cardinal Wolsey (Orson Welles), the King’s Lord Chancellor when the story begins, has become a de facto consigliere for the King, not truly representing the Church or God’s interests. And when Wolsey fails to deliver approval for a divorce, the King turns to Sir Thomas, and then to any Lord Chancellor willing to usurp the law of the land. It’s not unlike dismissing multiple Attorneys General until one is found that will get the job done, God and country be damned.
Sir Thomas More would likely not find a home in today’s world, but not for a lack of progressive thinking. He would be shunned and shouted down, as in his King’s court, for decrying the boundless and ignorant wielding of authority.
A Man for All Seasons was rightly heralded upon its release in 1966, and it has lost none of its power in the time since. It’s a salute to the men and women who stand up in the face of the craven powerful, and a damning condemnation of those rulers and the people who lay down in their wake.
Near the film’s conclusion, when Sir Thomas Moore sees that Richard Rich has risen through deceit to become the Attorney General of Wales he mockingly asks, “It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the world, but for Wales, Richard?” No power is worth sacrificing one’s humanity. Hopefully the world will soon see a greater number who understand the gravity of this sentiment; people who will share Sir Thomas More’s convictions, but not his fate.