Robert Bolt (1924–1995)

A Man for All Seasons is hands-down my favorite play ever. It is even one of those plays that reads as well in book form as it does not the stage (or screen, the movie's amazing). Telling the story Sir Thomas More and his doomed attempt to serve his country and his conscience at the same time, the play uncovers some of the darker corners of the human psyche, from the psychopathic evil of Cromwell to the weak but ambitious Richard Rich (who memorably sells his soul for Wales) to the entitled show more demands of King Henry, it is all set out on display for the reader. The use of the Everyman character also allows the less privileged to get their two cents in. More himself comes out as a saint, but a modern one, fit for the times. A light to the darkness of the 1960s and today, who knows what is right and refused to bend for money, ambition, or even friendship's sake. I could quote lines from this play forever (but I won't), because you need to go out and read it yourself! Highly, highly recommended. show less

Yesterday I spent 30 minutes grouching to my husband about certain changes being discussed at work that clashed with something in my moral makeup. But, instead of letting that be the end (or the beginning) of the matter/habit, I took it to the manager at lunch. Why? Because it's almost impossible to read this story about More and not want to do something--in the right way-- about wrong things.

But not only that, More (as presented by Bolt) argues for authenticity. Not in the bold, in your show more face, take it or leave it way that is brandished about on social media, but in the silent, true to beliefs, humbly doing the best that you can way that is seen in the best of men*. He makes the emotional, militant, online petition-signing, meme-sharing, armchair activist** seem hollow, volatile, and unstable.

In an unrelated thought, I wonder if this play would have worked quite as well as it did without Paul Scofield. He created this role just as much as Bolt did, embodied him with strength, humor and certainty that few, I believe, could follow. He, and Dame Wendy Hiller, are the reasons I watch the film and will probably never, even if I have the chance, see a live revival of the production. He leaves impossible shoes to fill.

* See the nice guy at the gym on the elliptical on the end, Gordon B. Hinckley, Larry A Call, etc.
**See "Slacktivist." show less

Somehow, in my mind I had confused this play with "Murder in the Cathedral". Both dramas about important advisers to English kings who met a bad end. So, apart from any other reason, I'm glad that i have at last sorted out that the are two very different plays and two very different kings and principle characters. It's actually a beautifully crafted play with great character development. Though, maybe Thomas More, comes across as just a bit too saintly for a real person. I think he captures show more Henry rather well ...bluff, sporty, well aware of the demand on him to produce an heir. And Thomas...more or less self made, clever, gentle, prepared to think the best of everybody, but not prepared to compromise on his religious beliefs. I found it rather fascinating that, given the turmoil around the catholic church and the role of the pope and the politics surrounding Charles of Spain that Thomas couldn't find it in himself to compromise. It certainly would have been easy to do and easy to justify. So I guess, he had just bought, holus-bolus, the story of Jesus giving the keys to the church to Peter and by succession to the current pope. (Despite the fact that there had been more than one pope simultaneously and the orthodox church had long done away with the authority of the pope).
As far as the bible is concerned, you could pretty much take whatever line you wanted to defend. Either Henry marrying Catherine or having the marriage annulled ......could be justified from biblical verses. What I found especially fascinating was that Thomas More was apparently held in such high respect that when Thomas asks Henry.."Then why does Your Grace need my poor support?" Henry replies: "Because you are honest. What's more to the purpose, you're known to be honest". Not a bad reputation to have.
And he can't say that he wasn't warned by Henry..that he (Henry) "would have no opposition".
Over all I found the play quite captivating and fascinating. A great exposé of those tumultuous times.....as Common Man explains....of those most involved in his trials: Cromwell was found guilty of high treason and executed, Norfolk found guilty of high treason but the king died of syphilis one day before he coud sign the death warrant, and Thomas Cranmer was burned alive. And, of course, Sir Thomas More was executed. (Not a great time to be close to the throne). Five stars from me. show less

I was first introduced to the movie in history class when I was about thirteen or fourteen, and absolutely adored it; so I sought out the script of the stage play to read as well.

Normally, I am not enamoured by a script when it's merely written words on a page - they usually seem a flat and a dead thing, empty of life and spark. I need to see it enacted and brought to life on the stage or in a movie. Bolt's managed to create a work which succeeds in captivating me on the page alone.

I don't show more have a very visual imagination - I tend to see in word pictures and verbal associations - so the pared-down, minimalistic approach Bolt uses when it comes to description and place really appealed to me. More than that, though, was the dialogue, which is the real joy and heart of this play. It's energetic and engaging, a wonderful mix of intellectual argument and erudition and dry humour. The verbal sparring between More and his opponents was just a joy to read.

More's personality isn't perhaps exactly how I would have pictured him from reading his writings - he comes across as a little more human in the play, I think. A little less steadfastly earnest and pious; and I think the play is the better for it. Bolt knew how to balance historical realism and accuracy with artistic license to create something which is very much both of 16th century England, and which speaks to the timeless dilemma of trying to reconcile personal beliefs with reality.

The ending was... interesting, if highly cynical. Probably the part of it that I'll end up mulling over the most, because of how it impacts on the preceding text and on my own views.

It's a very short work - only a hundred pages in the small edition I have - and you don't really need to know much about the background; so what are you waiting for? Go read! show less