The whole tone of the film is excellent. From the opening scenes of couriers dashing from Wolsey to More, backdrops of pre-Renaissance England fill the screen, from the magnificent but appropriate un-ornate manor houses and parliamentary scenes (the set of Westminster Hall, a building in which I once worked) to the costuming and music, period in style and instrumentation. The director Fred Zimmermann resisted the urge to provide orchestral music as a background; indeed, through much of the film, there is no music at all, as the drama itself carries the weight of the narrative and atmosphere. The cinematographer, Ted Moore, as well as the director received Academy Awards for their work.

This is an actor's film, the force of the drama being driven by their performances. Exceptional acting by John Hurt, Leo McKern, Nigel Davenport and Robert Shaw enhance lead actor Paul Scofield's Oscar-winning portrayal. Scofield presents the intellectual More as a character of supreme integrity (following Bolt's play perfectly), an integrity hard to maintain in the shifting sands of Henry VIII's drive to break with Rome to secure a divorce. More, as chancellor of England after Wolsey (portrayed in a slightly-more-than-cameo appearance by an effective but declining Orson Welles), was charged with maintaining both peace with the King and his faithfulness to the church, of which he was an acknowledged intellectual leader throughout Europe. In the end, the church won out -- as More said at his execution, 'I remain the King's good subject, but God's first.'

Hurt and McKern portray Richard Rich and Thomas Cromwell, schemers and social climbers of which royal courts are always full. Nigel Davenport as the friend who becomes an enemy, himself turned by the political tides, is also effective, but the best role beyond Scofield's is that Robert Shaw, who portrays the 'lion of England', Henry VIII, capricious and volatile, far too taken with his own sense of purpose and without many courageous enough to stand against him.

The roles of More's wife Alice (Wendy Hiller) and daughter Meg (Susannah York) are admirably played. Alice as the illiterate yet intelligent wife of More is concerned for the family's well-being; Meg as the educated daughter (More's experimental school practiced, generations ahead of its time, gender equality in education) almost steals the scene from Shaw at one point. Hiller's performance as More's companion up to the scene in the Tower is strongly portrayed, and she does not lose her character in the face of so many other powerful figures.

Rare in film-making today, the full force of the plot develops upon the device of Qui tacet consentit - silence implies consent. More relied on the legal idea that, so long as he did not speak out against the king, his silence implied consent and he was safe. However, as Cromwell (correctly) argued, More's silence was not meaningless, nor was it taken as consent by any who knew him. On this one point, More's integrity falters, for he was intelligent enough to know that the truth was different from the legal fiction; however, this was also the position he maintained regarding Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn.

This is not a feel-good movie; indeed, the final narration makes one wonder rather at the idea of justice in the world. Yet it is a meaningful and stunning film, and one deserving of viewing by all.

With a determined, yet not brash or unseemly stance against Henry VIII (Robert Shaw, in all his young glory), More creates a devastating question for the viewer: how long do our principles remain dear to us. To discomfort? To imprisonment? To death?

Perhaps one of the most endearing qualities of More's character is that he does not waver. It is a quality that is only universal in the sense that it is respected by all men and possessed by very few.

In the end, perhaps the only validation More is given is the dignity of his death, his detractors exposed as dishonest, biased men. Is that enough? Certainly More was able to change little of history by the manner of his death. It did not stop the divorce OR the Anglican church. Perhaps the only prize integrity has is itself. Certainly More himself believed a much higher reward awaited him. After watching this movie, regardless of religion, you will find yourself hoping he was right.

People still disagree about Robert Bolt's characterization of More in the play and then in the film for which Bolt received an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay. I agree with others who insist that More was less noble than Bolt suggests. No one, however, disputes the fact that More courageously accepted decapitation rather than compromise his religious faith. Cynics suggest that More was already a dead man...and knew it. He had an estate to protect and family obligations to accommodate. I am unqualified to speculate or even comment further on More's motives even as I marvel at his survival skills when drawn into "the lion's court."

Paul Scofield received and deserved his Academy Award for best actor in a leading role. The film and director Fred Zimmermann also received Academy Awards. The cast is exceptionally talented, especially Nigel Davenport (Duke of Norfolk), Wendy Hiller (Alice Cromwell), John Hurt (Richard Rich), Leo McKern (Thomas Cromwell), Vanessa Redgrave (Ann Boleyn), Robert Shaw (Henry VIII), Orson Welles (Cardinal Wolsey), and Susannah York (Margaret More). Unlike many stage productions later filmed, this one derives substantial benefit from Ted Moore's cinematography, especially the exteriors shot throughout and beyond royal residences. Moore also received an Academy Award for his work.

Those with an especially keen interest may wish to examine The Last Letters of Thomas More as well as several solid biographies of him by Peter Ackroyd, J.A. Guy, Richard Marius, and Gerard B. Wegemer.

Zinnemann's adaptaion of the Robert Boltman play was done on a low budget, and whilst it takes artistic license slightly further, the film remains a historical masterpiece. Paul Schofield as More is magnificent, combining a stoical adherence to truth on the one hand, with a dry wit on the other, and this is an accuracy of depiction that could not have been drawn from the words of the script. Robert Shaw as Henry is also fantastic, showing the viewer both the very personal side of the monarch, when he is disappointed at More's non-attendence at the wedding to Anne Boleyn; and the aggression of a lion as he shouts (in full hearing of all party guests) - "I ask you, do they take me for a simpleton?" The swift change from an amiable friend to a dominating absolute monarch is brilliantly played by Shaw, and though it is a marked contrast to the plain More, the performances are equally great.

In October 2000, John Paul II made Thomas More the Patron of politicians (he was already the unofficial patron of Catholic lawyers in the UK). Both positions indicate what a great man he was. A scholar of great learning, a man of letters, a liberal in an autocratic age. His character was perhaps best displayed as his end, in his words to the executioner - "Pluck up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office; my neck is very short; take heed therefore thou strike not awry, for saving of thine honesty." The combination of humor and greatness, even in the face of death, povide a role model for all.

If you enjoy the film, read the play and 'The Life of Sir Thomas More' by William Roper, his nephew. Although it bears relation to a specific incident, this popular poem of the time is a fitting epitaph for this great man -
When More some time had Chancellor been
No more suits did remain.
The like will never more be seen,
Till More be there again.

It's an acting lesson, headed by the great Paul Scofield who not only captures the essence of Sir Thomas Moore, but who does so with superb economy of motion; he hardly makes a gesture thoughout the entire film--- Duse would have loved it.

How does he do it? Well, as I said, it's an acting lesson. Suffice it to say he rightly deserved winning the Oscar.

Robert Bolt's brilliant play is a study of contrasts with a mystery at the heart of the theme: Was Moore a Saint who is now in Heaven with The Blessed, or was he a fool who could have died in his bed at a ripe old age after a lifetime of domestic felicity and the highest honors his country could bestow upon him?

If there is no God, or if you believe that the conflict between The Anglican and Catholic Churches to be of no paramount importance, is your integrity still worth losing your head on the chopping block?

Hmm. . .

Magnificent in every respect.