Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
A
Welcome to the Mona Charon Show. Thanks so much for joining me today. This is a special edition of this show. As I mentioned in the tease last week, I am welcoming my friend and colleague Sunny Bunch, who is our culture editor at the Bulwark. And we are going to discuss a film that I hope some of you have had an opportunity to view. It's a classic from 1966, A Man for All Seasons. And this, this film probably had more of an influence on me than any movie I have ever seen. Sunny. I guess I first saw this movie as a child when it first came out, and it was so profoundly. I wept at the end. I was so moved by this story of rock solid integrity, and I just found the movie itself to be brilliantly made. There are a number of things I want to get into, but if you could set the scene in terms of the background of what kind of a movie it was, you know, it won like six Academy Awards. The producer, director. Tell us a little bit about the background.
- [01:16]
B
Sure. So A Man for All Seasons was written by Robert Bolt. He wrote it in, I believe, 1960. He finished the play. The first staging was in 1961. Then the. He wrote the adaptation of the film, which was made in 1966. It was directed by Fred Zinnemann, who folks may know best for High Noon. High Noon is perhaps his best known film. But A Man for All Seasons was an enormous critical and award season success. Certainly it won, as you mentioned, six Oscars. It won Best Picture. It won a bunch of awards. And Bolt himself, of course, is no stranger to critical acclaim. He wrote Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia. So, you know, he, he is well situated in this, in this milieu that, you know, I think for a while was kind of dismissed as what we think of now as kind of Oscar bait. Right? It was, you know, it was. It's this big historical period piece. It's serious. It's a serious movie, right? And, you know, there are, there are ways that you can roll your eyes at serious movies, and there are ways, you know, you can, you can, you can take them more seriously for a while. Zinnamon, his, his star had totally fallen out of favor, particularly with some of the, you know, hip critics in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. Andrew Serris, Pauline Kael both kind of agreed he was, he was out of it. In fact, in. In the American Cinema, which is Andrew Sarris's book that kind of. He lays out the pantheon of directors, you know, he. He really dismissed Zinnamin. I just want to read from this because it's, it's pretty, it's pretty striking to, to read this about. About the guy who made this movie by draining every subject in every situation of any possible emotional excitement. Fred Zinnamon is now widely considered in academic circles as the screen's most honest director. His inclusion in any objective history of the American cinema is mandatory. But his true vocation remains the making of anti movies for anti moviegoers. Skip a bit toward the end. This is how he closes his, his passage on Saris. In cinema, as in all art, only those who, who risk the ridiculous have a real shot at the sublime. And that's an interesting thing to say because this is. I think that's true to a certain extent, but also kind of sad that is, that is, you know, to be considered that way for, for a guy who may. Again, a movie like this or High Noon, I just like. I don't see how you can look at that director and kind of feel that way about him.
- [03:52]
A
I don't know what it means to be an anti movie. I mean, you're the movie critic, not I. But there are all kinds of movies. There are adventures, there are sci fi, there's a million different things. This is admittedly a talkie, you know, kind of play, like movie, but there's gotta be a place for those too. Not everybody can get to the theater. And this is the kind of thing that certain OD audiences just eat up, right?
- [04:20]
B
Oh, totally. And look, this is, this is so. It's an adaptation of Bolt's play, as I mentioned. And Bolt's play was a little more. A little more abstract. You know, the setting was. It was one stage. It was very, very lightly decorated. They kind of move things in and out. This is a proper big period piece, cinematic adaptation. You know, we've got castles, we've got rivers, we've got all sorts of, you know, costuming and, you know, big, big casts and, you know, nice crowd scenes and stuff. So it's, it's, it's a, it's. It's a different sort of production. And it, I like this. There's this suggestion Saris and others have that the, the. There's not. It's boring. That this is a boring film. And again, I can, I, I look, if you don't. It is a talkie movie, certainly. There's a lot of dialogue and, And I will say I, I watched it twice and I'm glad I did for this, for this rewatch. I'd seen it before, many years ago, but I rewatched it twice for this show, and I'm glad I did because there was definitely stuff that I caught a little better the second time around, listening to some of the arguments, because it is a movie of arguments. It is a movie of arguments and ideas. And that is, you know, that there. I understand that why and how that falls out of fashion from time to time, but it's. It is. It's a. It's a strikingly resonant picture, even still today.
- [05:49]
A
So Paul Schofield, I thought, was absolutely brilliant, slightly understated in the way he did it and. But brings that. That wonderful nobility of character into his face, into his gestures, just this little small things. When at the very beginning of the film, his servant Matthew has been trying to read the letter that he's been sent, right? He's obviously been turning the page. And then he hands it, obviously, to. He hands it to Moore and more notices and says, anything interesting, Matthew? And Matthew said, bless you, sir. I don't know. And he says, bless you, too, Matthew. I love that. Very understated. Just, you know, it's like, I know what you were up to. I understand you're a servant. You're going to do that kind of thing later on. There's another reference to this. When Richard Rich is trying to establish his own bona fides with Moore, he's asking to be employed. And. And he says, you know, well, Cromwell's been asking questions about you. And he says, asking questions of whom? And he says, well, him, for example, Matthew. And Moore just says, well, yeah, he would. I mean, he's my servant, of course he's asking, you know, and. And it's just. It's. It's so calm. It's so understated. There's such dignity about it. But I. So sunny. One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you about this movie is not just that it was my favorite movie and that, you know, I have always, throughout my whole life, gone back to it every few years to rewatch it, but because I noticed as I was coming up in the conservative world that this became a touchstone for lots and lots of conservative thinkers. I noticed it was being quoted all the time by people like Bill Bennett and Antonin Scalia. Scalia actually loved Moore so much that. And especially his depiction in this movie. And we can talk in a second about how the movie Moore is. And the play Moore is different from the historical one, but Scalia, when he had his official portrait done, had a picture of Moore in the background. You know, there was a list of national reviews, top conservative movies, and this was number one. And I don't know why they necessarily called it a conservative movie, but it was a movie that and a play that was all about the individual. It was all about the role of conscience and character. And I think that conservatives in particular conceived of themselves as being very, very concerned about character development and upholding certain eternal truths. Right. And that was one reason that this resonated so much with them. What do you make of that?
- [08:55]
B
Well, I think that's interesting. It might be useful just to set the stage of the conflict here for viewers who may not have. Who. Who may not have watched the movie. Sure. Mona, do you want to do that? Because I like English. History is not my area of expertise. I was an ancient history. I wrote Greek, Greek and Roman. I can. I can do. But this is. This is me. I'm catching up a little bit here as I was. As I was rewatching this and reading up about the period. But do you want to. Do you want to set the stage for folks with. Yes.
- [09:27]
A
So for. For people who haven't seen the film and don't know about. More so more who was later canonized. Actually, he's a saint in the Catholic Church, but In the early 1500s, he was for a time chancellor of England under Henry viii. Just at the time when Henry was attempting to split off the English church from Rome and. And declare himself the head of the Catholic Church, the head of the church in England and therefore denying the authority of the Pope in Rome. He was doing this because he wanted to rid himself of his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who, after having had only one live birth of her daughter Mary, who later became queen. She had no more children alive. And Henry was getting very nervous. After 20 years, I think he was married to her almost 20 years. But he was very worried that there would not be an heir because a woman was thought couldn't rule England. Ha ha. His. His second daughter Elizabeth went on to be the great. One of the greatest monarchs in English history. But anyway, he didn't know that he needed what he. He thought he needed a male heir. And so he wanted to div. Catherine and Marianne Boleyn his mistress. Well, she wasn't his mistress exactly. That's fraught topic and in many other movies, that relationship. But anyway, so the conflict is as follows. Henry has appointed Moore, who is a famous lawyer and humanist and friend of Erasmus and great intellectual European recognized around Europe. He wrote Utopia. He. He was a. He was a famous figure, kind of a Pre Enlightenment figure and he becomes Chancellor of England. But when it comes to the marriage, to dissolving the marriage to Catherine and agreeing to say that the Pope has no authority over the Church of England, Moore can't do that. And so the question is, will he be allowed to just withdraw from public life and just not oppose the king, or will he in the end be forced to take a position publicly? Because there's going to be an oath that he has to swear to saying that he approves, and everyone has to swear to this. And so that's the dramatic tension in the movie. And then, of course, there's the enemy in the form of Cromwell, Thomas Cromwell. Not Oliver, though, by the way, Oliver Cromwell was a descendant of Thomas and just about 150 years later. But, but so Thomas Cromwell is the minister who's attempting to, to, to be the nemesis to Moore. And, and that is, that is the conflict.
- [12:45]
B
I, it's, it's interesting to, to watch this because at the time when the, when the film came out, it was kind of, it was again, kind of like High Noon discussed in terms of, terms of the blacklist. There was some discussion of that. And, you know, the, the idea of, not of refusing, of, of staying silent as a defense against, you know, saying something that would be unpopular or would
- [13:14]
A
get you in trouble or refusing to name names.
- [13:16]
B
Right, Exactly.
- [13:18]
A
In the McCarthy hearings.
- [13:20]
B
Right. There's a scene in the film where one of the characters, the Duke, holds up a list of names. He's like, look at all these people who have signed. Why can't you just go with the tide and be one of us? And, you know, and he's like, no, I can't. I can't do that. I won't, I won't do that. But I also won't say that. I. It's a very lawyerly thing, which is interesting.
- [13:42]
A
Yes, it is.
- [13:43]
B
You know, it is, it is. It is because Moore was, of course, a famous lawyer. Why. So why do conservatives find it interesting? And it's funny, I was reading the, the, the copy of the play that you can buy has a preface written in 1960 by, by Bolt at the, at the front of it. So it's. This was before the, before the play was actually first performed. And it's, it's just interesting to hear him talk about this. Hear him or read him Write about this, this conflict. Here's what Bolt had to say. Religion and economy are abstractions which describe the way men live. Because men work, we may speak of an economy, not the other way around because men worship. We may speak of a religion, but not the other way around. And when an economy collides with a religion, it is living men who collide, nothing else. They collide with one another and within themselves. And, and I do think that this is, I mean, look, this is a key idea of conservatism, at least as I understand or understood it, which is the whole kind of standing athwart against history and saying, no, like, I will not just go along with everything that is happening. I will say that this is the way it should be. It may not be this way right now, but this is the way it should be. And this is what, this is how we should. We should do it. And I, it's. It is not a surprise then that this would, this would appeal, but it's also, it, it is also a movie about deep religious conviction, which we haven't, we like, right? We haven't really discussed. It is, it is very much a movie about Catholic dogma. And this idea of divorce is wrong. Divorce is wrong. And if the Pope will sign off on it, fine. But if he's not going to sign off on it, you can't just split away and schism from the Church and do it because you want to. But also swearing an oath is swearing to God. Swearing. If I am swearing an oath, I am saying to God, this is the truth and I will be judged for it. And if you believe the thing you're saying, as Moore makes tells the Duke at one point, I do not begrudge you going to heaven for saying the thing that you believe to be true.
- [15:56]
A
I've got it right here. I.