Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 209: More English History Lessons

As I've been trawling through the 1960s nominees I've been amazed at how many British films I've come across. Those of you who read my Peter O'Toole piece know that the actor starred in two films in which he played Henry II, those being Becket and The Lion in Winter. I'd like to think that those two films make up some sort of trilogy with my final 1960s film - A Man for All Seasons. The film, which won Best Picture at the 1967 ceremony, also concerns English monarchy and is full of idyllic outdoor locations. Like Becket, the film is about the relationship between a King and one of his nobleman, in this case Henry VIII and his Chancellor Sir Thomas More. The film is all based around the story of Henry attempting to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he can marry his mistress Anne Boleyn. The incredibly pious More doesn't think that Henry should get the divorce and moreover refuses to implant him as head of the Church of England. It's clear that Henry really loves Thomas, however he can't understand his friend's decision not to let him do whatever he wants. In the end, Thomas realises that resistance is futile so he resigns as Chancellor and the marriage later goes through. However, Henry is keen to punish More for both refusing the marriage and not attending the wedding. Henry requests that the new Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, try to find evidence that proves More is a traitor. However, More remains steadfast in his silence and is arrested for his supposed betrayal of the King. Anybody who knows their English history knows how the story ends, however I'm not going to spoil it for those who didn't listen during class.

From the opening few scenes of A Man for All Seasons, it's pretty easy to see that the film was based on a play. A lot of the scenes involve characters simply talking to each other in rooms while I times I felt I was simply watching a filmed version of the play. Having said that, the film attempts to make the most of its exterior locations most notably the journey More makes between his house and court using the river. The Oscar-winning costumes are all also stunning and really add to the realism of the film as you really believe you're in Tudor England. However, the film's best quality is definitely its ensemble cast, all of whom completely embody their respective characters. Paul Scofield won the Best Actor Oscar for his role as More and I found him completely engrossing throughout. Scofield is able to convey More's moral standing with ease but also makes him somewhat of a flawed hero. As his wife, the Oscar-nominated Wendy Hiller puts in another great turn as she pleads with her husband to forgo his morals and save himself. In addition, the film boasts several scene-stealing performances most notably Robert Shaw as the boisterous King Henry and Orson Welles as the shady Cardinal Wolsely. In one of his first on-screen roles, John Hurt makes a big impression as the slimy Rich who plays both sides of the court to get his own way. My main issue with A Man for All Seasons was that it remained fairly static throughout and I never really found myself immersed in the story in the way I probably ought to be. This is probably because I studied this period of history quite extensively and therefore found it quite hard to enjoy A Man for All Seasons as pure entertainment film.

Overall, A Man for All Seasons is an incredibly well-acted film that boasts gorgeous costumes and art direction. At the same time a lot of the scenes are quite static and I never felt I could truly relax while watching the film. But did the film deserve to win Best Picture? Join me next time as I look back at the 1960s ceremonies and reveal my decisions on whether the ten winners all deserved their awards.