Speaking of English saints (or would-be saints, as in the case of Newman, below)…In today’s NYtimes, reviewer Ben Brantley broaches the unspeakable:
Is it heresy to whisper that the sainted Thomas More is a bit of a bore? Even Frank Langella, an actor who can be counted on to put the pepper in mashed-potato parts, doesn’t find much variety in the monolithic goodness of the title character of “A Man for All Seasons,” Robert Bolt’s 1960 biodrama about More’s road to martyrdom during the reign of Henry VIII.
I haven’t read the play since high school, and catch the Scofield film in bits and pieces here and there on cable. But my sense is that Brantley may be right–about the play, not More. (Or Langella, a reason to see the play whatever its merits.) Certainly, the play’s timing is pretty good, coming in the midst of a campaign in which conscience and religious freedom have dominated many discussions.
Does anyone with a better memory or judgment than mine have a better take on the play, or the martyr Thomas?
posted October 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Why not rent the movie version of the play (with Paul Scofield) and see for yourself? Thomas More is one of our few married–and English– saints; that’s of interest right there. As depicted by Bolt he’s also quite witty and until the end, keeps looking for a loophole in Henry’s edict that will let him sign and not violate his conscience. More’s writings are opaque and perhaps boring, but I sure would have liked to have a mutton chop or two with him.