I think it is a consequence of the playwright's agnosticism/atheism. His emphasis is so clearly on individual will and individual conscience (relying to some degree on a nominalistic misconception of the role of conscience) that he neglects so much of the sacramental reality. This is reflected in reviews and advertisements too, where the play is touted as "a man stands by his principles", "a man dies for his convictions" -- not "a man dies for his beliefs". Scofield (and others of the cast) as well as the actual writings of St. Thomas More bring a depth of spirituality that is not necessarily captured in Bolt's script. It is as if Bolt's scripts go as far as the understanding of Thomas Howard -- observing, and hearing, but not really comprehending what is going on before him. He knows Thomas More the lawyer, and Thomas More the statesman. He sees Thomas More the martyr and only understands him in the context of human reality, not in his proper stance toward the divine reality.
The Tudor Martyrs stood on the scaffold (or elsewhere) professing three things: the authority of the Pope, proper reverence for the monarch, and mostly importantly the integrity of the Eucharist. This latter point is what I see as missing in MFAS. We do not see the Carthusian martyrs, as More did, on their way to martyrdom. We hear of John Fisher very briefly, and never hear that he died only a little while before More. This this a play about the court more than it is a play about the martyrs.
At the same time, and particularly keeping in mind that it is the story of St. Thomas More as told and as understood by a modern secular writer, it is a remarkable movie. But I think it is remarkable in spite of its sparseness, and more because of the actors than because of the material given to them.
A Man for All Seasons is sparse? how so?
ReplyDeleteI think it is a consequence of the playwright's agnosticism/atheism. His emphasis is so clearly on individual will and individual conscience (relying to some degree on a nominalistic misconception of the role of conscience) that he neglects so much of the sacramental reality. This is reflected in reviews and advertisements too, where the play is touted as "a man stands by his principles", "a man dies for his convictions" -- not "a man dies for his beliefs". Scofield (and others of the cast) as well as the actual writings of St. Thomas More bring a depth of spirituality that is not necessarily captured in Bolt's script. It is as if Bolt's scripts go as far as the understanding of Thomas Howard -- observing, and hearing, but not really comprehending what is going on before him. He knows Thomas More the lawyer, and Thomas More the statesman. He sees Thomas More the martyr and only understands him in the context of human reality, not in his proper stance toward the divine reality.
ReplyDeleteThe Tudor Martyrs stood on the scaffold (or elsewhere) professing three things: the authority of the Pope, proper reverence for the monarch, and mostly importantly the integrity of the Eucharist. This latter point is what I see as missing in MFAS. We do not see the Carthusian martyrs, as More did, on their way to martyrdom. We hear of John Fisher very briefly, and never hear that he died only a little while before More. This this a play about the court more than it is a play about the martyrs.
At the same time, and particularly keeping in mind that it is the story of St. Thomas More as told and as understood by a modern secular writer, it is a remarkable movie. But I think it is remarkable in spite of its sparseness, and more because of the actors than because of the material given to them.
Well, I like it...it is one of my favorite movies. :P
ReplyDeleteAlas and alack! I didn't mean to attack it, honestly! I really enjoyed the movie, and (as indicated by the above) found it quite fascinating.
ReplyDeleteYeegs, I'm a tactless lout...
lol don't worry about it. :) Love you.
ReplyDelete