Well that sums up all youtube comments. Two guys arguing that they know more about Thomas More, whilst neither is capable of correctly spelling his name. Edifying and encouraging.
An absolute masterclass in acting from Scofield and McKern. Scofield’s More ranks with Peck’s Finch and Burton’s Beckett as truly inspiring, showing what true character and the cost of having it entails. Principles are only truly principals when you hold to them when it is inconvenient and even life threatening;
This film is in my top 2. I have been watching it over 40 years...and it just gets better. Scofield is amazing. Thank goodness they had brains enough to put his performance on film .
Word order doesn't matter as much as conjugation in Latin. And presumably you were taught in law school that under the common law silence does not equal consent (contrary to the mad ravings of 'freemen on the land'). In civil/church law it may do under some circumstances, but this was the fundamental weakness of More's position; he was tried for offences against statute under the rules of common law. The requirements of the statute was clear.
Yes, you are correct. He was when he wrote "Man for All Seasons", but he later became a Catholic. And he eventually wrote the screenplay for "The Mission".
I had the fortune of meeting Paul Schofield & his wife in 2002 when I lived in Italy. He was extremely kind . I was a complete nervous wreck. I informed him & his wife that he's a " GENIUS " He gave me a wonderful handshake & a gargantuan Tip.
It means that if you do not speak, your slience indicates that you consent to what is being said. That you agree with it. His argument was, when he was "silent" about the proclamation, he argued that under law, he "approved" it.
Your life lies in your own hands Thomas, as it always has. Is that so my Lord? Then I'll keep a good grip on it. The world can construe according to its wits. This court must construe according to the law. Guy so based my computer keeps freezing. it can't process these levels of awesomeness
@stevevandien I think YOU'RE the one that has wires crossed, with all respect. This film is A Man for all Seasons and focuses on Sir Thomas More and his refusal to bow to King Henry VIII's desire to break from the Catholic Church so he could re-marry. The figure prosecuting him in this scene IS Thomas Cromwell (played by Leo McKern) but the film itself ISN'T Cromwell.
I really like this film even though I am from different religion, and in our religion divorce is legal. What I like about this man is who he stood for what he believed ...
@kevinastraw It is the speech of a man of morality. "I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duty they lead their country by a short route to chaos." You have utterly missed the point of this entire film.
Wow, I guess that YOU TOLD HIM! Hey, in the TH-cam comments section, there are **NO PERSONAL OPINIONS ALLOWED** (unless they agree with your own?)...lol
Henry the Eighth- a truly awful King. I am a royalist but this demonstrates that democracy and especially the law should be paramount over the desires and personal weakness of dictators and kings.
King Herod had john the Baptist beheaded because of his denouncing the king could not have his brother's wife. Herodias asked for his head!!!!! Ana Boleyn convinced Henry viii of " the Divine right of King to rule"!!!!! and to be head of the church in his realm!!!!Mark 6:14-29
Correct me if I'm mistaken but didn't Sir Thomas More burn a few people at the stake? I'm not fully sure of the validity of that since it was shown in The Tudors.
Yes he did, since like most Catholics of his time; Protestants were looked upon as human beings but as Heretics. Also you can check that one out on IMDb Man for all seasons goofs, it has more details too.
Were this movie made today, it would have far grander costumes, to the point of absurdity. Furnishings and decoration again to the point of absurdity. A focus not on character and story, but on sex and explosions. Some movies should not, must not, be re-made. They stand as tributes to those who put their lives on the line to make them. This is one of those.
I know Sir Thomas Moore was (and still is) an admired man. I know the quote about him being a 'Man for all Seasons' and I've acted in a production of the play (though not as Moore) so I've done a lot of reading both of biographies favourable to the man and those not so favourable. I have no doubt he was principled, honest, intelligent and admired. However, & here is where we obviously part way, his religious beliefs made him a zealot in my book and he certainly did have people burned alive.
At one point in the play More says to Norfolk, "What matters is not that it's true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it." (the second "I" is emphasised). That speech denies the possibiity of any argument counter to what More believed. It is the speech of an egotist.
So More was defending marriage, because the king divorced his current wife to marry a younger more fertile wife and continue the succession of the throne. Divorce was a big no-no at the time so this was shocking. Right? Because it really doesn't make sense and isn't so compelling, considering how antiquitated the idea of "defending marriage" is. Especially: reviling divorce like it's some evil thing.
Divorce is an evil. Christ Himself taught that divorce is to be abhorred becauee what God has brought together, no man may bring apart. Not only that, but in order to 'divorce' his wife, King Henry VIII declared that he, not the Pope, was the supreme head of the Church in England.
@pedrohqb Most of them were burned because they wanted to read the Bible in ENGLISH, which was the only language they could read and understand. So, Mr Pedro, unless you read and speak fluent latin, you would've been burned to death as a heretic by the man you hold up as a hero of the Catholic faith.
@hammertapping Interesting that you should refer to ME as ignorant when you clearly haven't even scratched the surface of this brilliant, complex zealot of a man. Do some research on Sir Thomas Moore and at least have the good grace to admit that he was far from the stainless hero you wish him to be. People are very rarely 'black and white' and Moore is a fine example of a man that had many admirable qualities as well as some less than pleasant ones, mainly fuelled by his religious beliefs.
This film is beautiful; superbly directed, well-written (from the very fine play) and sublimely acted. HOWEVER it paints an entirely false picture of Sir Thomas More. He was a horrendous religious zealot of a man who had thousands of innocent people burned alive because he considered them 'heretics'. The suggestion that he was a man to be admired is, I'm afraid, a misguided one.
More only approved of three executions, he did not technically have anyone executed. He was a judge of the Star courts. Those courts could not pronounce death sentences.
@tvdd1973 They were truly heretic. Put your liberal position of cowardness to other people, sincerely. I agree with all points of St. Thomas More, as a defensor of Faith, and as real Catholic.
Well that sums up all youtube comments. Two guys arguing that they know more about Thomas More, whilst neither is capable of correctly spelling his name. Edifying and encouraging.
Spelling in medieval and early modern England was very flexible and in no way prescribed.
He was in no way related to Roger Moore.
@@allybally0021"ppppolllm. ku
The art of film making and acting at its very best.
This is what modern film makers should aspire to.
Modern film makers are the most mindlessly bereft of talent nincompoops this planet has ever seen or will ever have the misfortune of seeing.
An absolute masterclass in acting from Scofield and McKern. Scofield’s More ranks with Peck’s Finch and Burton’s Beckett as truly inspiring, showing what true character and the cost of having it entails. Principles are only truly principals when you hold to them when it is inconvenient and even life threatening;
Amen!!!, truer words!!!
Burton and Otoole switched roles. That was good but this better
😊😊
This film is in my top 2. I have been watching it over 40 years...and it just gets better. Scofield is amazing. Thank goodness they had brains enough to put his performance on film .
What is the other one? My personal favourite is Venom but this is close as well
@@Blibetyblabla Morbius
I had to watch this movie in class today in my Political Science class and it was so awesome that I had to come back to it
His prayer was so meaningful and example that we must all take note of!
God obviously didn't take note of it.
@@AXE668He didn’t pray not to be executed. He prayed for his mind to be clear.
Brilliant; one of my favourite film court scenes. Rumpole of the Bailey a little before his prime, and Sir Paul at the peak of it!
"Qui tacit consentire videtur" is how we are taught it in law schools.
Exact english of this adage please...
@@everettamador9885 Silence means consent.
Literally, one who keeps silent indicates consent
Word order doesn't matter as much as conjugation in Latin. And presumably you were taught in law school that under the common law silence does not equal consent (contrary to the mad ravings of 'freemen on the land'). In civil/church law it may do under some circumstances, but this was the fundamental weakness of More's position; he was tried for offences against statute under the rules of common law. The requirements of the statute was clear.
Yes, you are correct. He was when he wrote "Man for All Seasons", but he later became a Catholic. And he eventually wrote the screenplay for "The Mission".
Don't you just love it when every thing is done right ?
I had the fortune of meeting Paul Schofield & his wife in 2002 when I lived in Italy.
He was extremely kind .
I was a complete nervous wreck.
I informed him & his wife that he's a " GENIUS "
He gave me a wonderful handshake & a gargantuan Tip.
@@giannimaximilian.bennett6124 I had the **EXTREME** good fortune of meeting the great Pee Wee Herman and...JUST KIDDING!!...lol
@@CLASSICALFAN100 He was extremely kind to me
In Cromwell’s example of threatening More, the magistrates’ silence betokened consent. Hoist on his own petard!
His name is spelt More
@@mikeellis6077thanks. Corrected.
One of the all time great movies
A kangaroo court if ever there was one. St. Thomas More pray for us!
It means that if you do not speak, your slience indicates that you consent to what is being said. That you agree with it.
His argument was, when he was "silent" about the proclamation, he argued that under law, he "approved" it.
Cromwell's Hatred for Moore was very mortal...
More
He got his comeuppance...wonder what he was thinking when his treacherous head was being hacked off...
St . Thomas is my favourite....
Your life lies in your own hands Thomas, as it always has.
Is that so my Lord? Then I'll keep a good grip on it.
The world can construe according to its wits.
This court must construe according to the law.
Guy so based my computer keeps freezing.
it can't process these levels of awesomeness
this is helping me with my essay, thanks for posting!
how did your essay go?
@@juanjuan5698 thanks for asking, I have no idea, it was 9 years ago partner
Do you know now? I’m also curious
This is how the WORLD TREATS THOSE WHO TELL THE TRUTH AND STAND.
Oh man, the second I heard Richard Rich's name called, my heart just sank. I just knew More was dead on the spot.
@kevinastraw Then this is truly a tribute to a great actor and a great writer.
@stevevandien I think YOU'RE the one that has wires crossed, with all respect. This film is A Man for all Seasons and focuses on Sir Thomas More and his refusal to bow to King Henry VIII's desire to break from the Catholic Church so he could re-marry. The figure prosecuting him in this scene IS Thomas Cromwell (played by Leo McKern) but the film itself ISN'T Cromwell.
This movie should be screened in EVERY classroom and especially Law Schools
Wow. Nothing else. Just "wow"
"Defender of the Faith"
john the Baptist of the 16th century!!!!!
Silence,this was some courtroom
but Thomas wasn't backing down
not after that prayer😊..1966
@Milordvega so what does that it mean? they have to have the consent of his silence. i don't get it.
Ha anyone else noticed the judges are all wearing Snuggies? (matching colors too, how adorable)
I really like this film even though I am from different religion, and in our religion divorce is legal. What I like about this man is who he stood for what he believed ...
Saint Thomas Moore, pray for us. one of the true Champions of God Most High.
His name is spelt More
this movie is nice, and the man was great, but in many ways. he was also a great persecutor of Martin Luther and the protestants.
Pls can you tell me where did you read that?
Courts construe by Law than assumption?
St Thomas More, pray for the Philippines as the people struggle against the proposed divorce bill
That's why Robert Bolt wrote the play I believe.
@kevinastraw It is the speech of a man of morality. "I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duty they lead their country by a short route to chaos." You have utterly missed the point of this entire film.
Wow, I guess that YOU TOLD HIM! Hey, in the TH-cam comments section, there are **NO PERSONAL OPINIONS ALLOWED** (unless they agree with your own?)...lol
Henry the Eighth- a truly awful King.
I am a royalist but this demonstrates that democracy and especially the law should be paramount over the desires and personal weakness of dictators and kings.
Where's part 2?
I just realized the first ~minute is one take.
@UKKid 'More' is the correct spelling.
King Herod had john the Baptist beheaded because of his denouncing the king could not have his brother's wife. Herodias asked for his head!!!!! Ana Boleyn convinced Henry viii of " the Divine right of King to rule"!!!!! and to be head of the church in his realm!!!!Mark 6:14-29
Reminds me of my divorce sham fiasco.
This film is about the only good thing I can attribute to Henry VIII.
🤔
@EuropeAwakening and don't forget the soundtrack...
This is the genuine article, as opposed to the revisionist rubbish of Wolf Hall and Hilary Mantel’s shoddy hit job
What a weird shot at 3:29.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but didn't Sir Thomas More burn a few people at the stake? I'm not fully sure of the validity of that since it was shown in The Tudors.
Yes he did, since like most Catholics of his time; Protestants were looked upon as human beings but as Heretics. Also you can check that one out on IMDb Man for all seasons goofs, it has more details too.
Were this movie made today, it would have far grander costumes, to the point of absurdity. Furnishings and decoration again to the point of absurdity.
A focus not on character and story, but on sex and explosions.
Some movies should not, must not, be re-made.
They stand as tributes to those who put their lives on the line to make them.
This is one of those.
I know Sir Thomas Moore was (and still is) an admired man. I know the quote about him being a 'Man for all Seasons' and I've acted in a production of the play (though not as Moore) so I've done a lot of reading both of biographies favourable to the man and those not so favourable. I have no doubt he was principled, honest, intelligent and admired. However, & here is where we obviously part way, his religious beliefs made him a zealot in my book and he certainly did have people burned alive.
The name is More not Moore
Affirmative
At one point in the play More says to Norfolk, "What matters is not that it's true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it." (the second "I" is emphasised). That speech denies the possibiity of any argument counter to what More believed. It is the speech of an egotist.
anyone got any helpfull essay tips???
So More was defending marriage, because the king divorced his current wife to marry a younger more fertile wife and continue the succession of the throne. Divorce was a big no-no at the time so this was shocking.
Right?
Because it really doesn't make sense and isn't so compelling, considering how antiquitated the idea of "defending marriage" is. Especially: reviling divorce like it's some evil thing.
Divorce is an evil. Christ Himself taught that divorce is to be abhorred becauee what God has brought together, no man may bring apart. Not only that, but in order to 'divorce' his wife, King Henry VIII declared that he, not the Pope, was the supreme head of the Church in England.
@@brittoncain5090tell that to the bride who discovers he’s married to an abuser.
@@thegreatselkie6009 So was Jesus wrong when He condemned divorce?
@@brittoncain5090 yes. It’s no one else’s business. Jesus was a good man BUT still a man.
@@brittoncain5090 and wth is “condensed” marriage?
what religion are you?
MYOB...lol
Affirmation
@tvdd1973 No, they were burned because they were heretics. And there were translations of the Bible before in common languages. German, for example.
Communion
Thomas Morus
No you would not. You'd have Daniel Day Lewis and Kenneth Branagh. We're not that vulgar yet!
Scottish justice under the SNP!
Mark 7:20-23,
@pedrohqb Most of them were burned because they wanted to read the Bible in ENGLISH, which was the only language they could read and understand. So, Mr Pedro, unless you read and speak fluent latin, you would've been burned to death as a heretic by the man you hold up as a hero of the Catholic faith.
No. They wanted to PURPOSELY mistranslated the Bible. Big difference.
Confirmation
5:02
@hammertapping Interesting that you should refer to ME as ignorant when you clearly haven't even scratched the surface of this brilliant, complex zealot of a man. Do some research on Sir Thomas Moore and at least have the good grace to admit that he was far from the stainless hero you wish him to be. People are very rarely 'black and white' and Moore is a fine example of a man that had many admirable qualities as well as some less than pleasant ones, mainly fuelled by his religious beliefs.
The name is More not Moore
This film is beautiful; superbly directed, well-written (from the very fine play) and sublimely acted. HOWEVER it paints an entirely false picture of Sir Thomas More. He was a horrendous religious zealot of a man who had thousands of innocent people burned alive because he considered them 'heretics'. The suggestion that he was a man to be admired is, I'm afraid, a misguided one.
By thousands you mean 3
Oh, hush...
More only approved of three executions, he did not technically have anyone executed. He was a judge of the Star courts. Those courts could not pronounce death sentences.
Sorry, I meant "star chamber" courts.
@tvdd1973 They were truly heretic. Put your liberal position of cowardness to other people, sincerely. I agree with all points of St. Thomas More, as a defensor of Faith, and as real Catholic.