 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.172.194.64
"A Man for All Seasons"
Mates,
It happens that only last evening I was thinking of a thread that I would call "quiet movies"- movies that didn't try and assult the senses with overly-rapid edits, constant fast-paced, loud background music, lots of gunfire, all in efforts to create a sense of artificial pace. There was a time when movies had atively pursued a kind of serenity- now too risky as the committees that design movies now insist on a continuous sense of panic to keep the attention-starved, over-stimulated public interested. The worst offenders of "loud movies" are the CG extravaganzes and the second "Batman" would be the top of my list of the bombastic, hysterically edited, artifical, pace-maker movies.
A lot of film noir actually are among the "quiet" ones- "Double Idemnity", "The Third Man", and how about Hitchcock's "The Trouble with Harry", but "A Man for All Seasons" was at the top of my list of these "quiet movies".
Paul Scofield presented an amazing sense of inner confidence and calm in the face of political upheaval. For those who don't know the story of "A Man for All Seasons", Scofield played Sir Thomas Moore, a confident of Henry VIII and who became Lord Chancellor, effectively the head of the advisory counciul tot eh King. Henry though was in the throas of changing wives- going through even more wives than Mickey Rooney- until he had a male heir and Henry eventually declared himself the head of the Church in England- which was a convenient way to seize Church property also. By being head of the church, n contrast to Atholoicism, divorce was possible and Henry could dump wives at will, rather constant appeals to the Pope for various dispensations and annulments. However, Sir Thomas- who I suppose would be categorised an ultra-conervative today- couldn't accept Henry's usurping the Pope's authority and refused to sign a loyalty oath- the penalty of which was beheading. A former protege of More's perjured himself in the trial and More was duly executed.
Besides the amazing, serene photography and long takes, "A Man for All Seasons" has throughout an almost breathless stillness. The quitness provides striking constrast to the political turmoil and the tensions in the Court of opposing Henry, who had the power to do whatever he wanted and of course, could imprison and execute "traitors" at will. -Haven't we seen our current President chomping at the bit for this power? But, as opposed to the weak-kneed liberals of the US today, More stood his ground in the face of prison and the probablity of a rigged trial that would end in execution. And, Scofield throughout showed a man of principle and honour that I think is almost impossible today- as he held to the lineage of Popes who were judged to have their spiritually authority continuously to Saint Peter, We see the rest of the synchophants crumbling to pressure while Scolfield loses everything, but remaining steadfast, calm, and confident that his cause was just and therefore justice would prevail. Of course, when the politics of personal, short term gains is in force- how this rings true to today- justice becomes the whim of the most powerful and More has only the satisfaction of holding to his beliefs, as solace to a trigic end of the innocent.
Much of the power of "A Man for All Seasons" is of course Scolfield who is aprobably in 90% of the frames, but the kind of inner serentiy he presented, and the calm courage of his convictions in this very quiet movie I find, after 40 years, to be heart-breakingly inspiring, and of wistful that we live in an age in which there seems to be no courage to justice, but only pandering to power.
I'm quite sad to hear of Scofield's death, I have strong memories of seeing him on the stage when I was 12 as the lead in Ben Johnson's "Volpone" (about 1605). And amazingly “Volpone” is a play which has a kind of opposite character to Thomas More, Volpone pretends to be dying and manipulates his relatives and friends by false promises of inheritance to see who is true to him- a bit like Henry imposing the loyalty oath on the Court- using wealth for to create power over th epeaol he wants to control and expose. Scofield as Volpone was mesmerising as a kinf of Machieavelli of family politics- his anger layered with bemusement as his successes in epsoing the pandering, greedy hypocrits around him. This play had a special qulity fro me , due to Scofield's presence. More than any other play I've seen,”Volpone” seemed strikingly personal, almost imitimate- with Scolfield "playing it just for me".
Cheers,
Bambi B
Other quiet movies, how about 'My Dinner with Andre', and 'Il Postino', both a couple that I like. Also, I like 'Sex, Lies and Videotape'. These are all newer 'quiet' movies.
that are simply told without elaborate editing, frenetic pacing, etc., what do you think of Ozu, in particular Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds?
Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds are must sees. I'd also recommend Late Spring. There's a multi disc set of "Late Ozu" that is well worth the watching. Ozu was one of the masters.
Larry I,
Unfortunately, I last saw Toyko Story probably 30 years ago and all I can remember is vaguely about the story- is it a detective who loses his gun and then goes to get it back?- but I could be completely wrong- and I don't really remember the atmosphere of the movie. I also don't remember ever seeing "Floating Weeds", but the title makes it sound very peaceful and I'll watch for it.
I'm always interested in Japanese films and one reasons is these are so often "quiet" movies or have particularily serent moments. With Japanese directors I very much like Kurosawa's use of silence- often in climatic battle scenes, there is carnage and action on the screen but no sound at all- and that technique really gives me the sensation of just paralysing panic- the sense of the ears being plugged up and everything has a detached, surreal quality. I had that same sensation when witnessing a traffic accident. Down in Topanga Canyon, I saw a motorcycle- with passenger- make a 2' deep indentation in the back of a Honda Civic with the rider flying over the car. Then a couple of seconds later, the passenger crawled into the centre of the road in a horrifying state of trauma. And, just like Kurosawa's breathless climaxs scenes, the whole thing is engraved on my memory in a slow motion movie without any sound! Also, I'm thinking of that in "Seven Samurai" silent moments- remember when the Samurai disguises himself as a monk, rushes a bandit/kidnapper in a barn, and we don't see what must've been fantastic sword work, but instead the bandit rushes out in slow motion- we wonder if the bandit won> , but thens he falls head-first to the dust -all in silence and we instantl;y know- without seeing- the Samurai is hot stuff! That was such a fantastic, quiet way to present a killing- and the modesty of the Samurai in his skill is demonstrated-reinforced by NOT showing the actual sword cut- he's confident enough he doesn't have to "show off". In "Ran" there are battle scenes with all the soldiers' war lords' flag flapping back and forth in the chaos. Of course, another very quiet movie is Kurosawa's "Dreams"- and in particular the "foxes wedding" sequence. I always thought that was such an elegant tale to include- that foxes have their weddings when there are Sun showers- raining with the Sun out at the same time. This so convincing visually and the kind of reverence for silence is very affecting. I never knew if that was a unique tale to Kurosawa or is that true to Japanese folklore? - Such a very intensely aesthetic- delicate - really really Japanese- set of images.
I also enjoy the atmospheric mood is set by rain in the opening scene of "Rashomon". Kurosawa always uses a lot of water images in every movie which further contribute to a sense of quiet- the big final battle in "Samurai" took place in the rain. Remember the wise pariarch of the village "The Granddad" lived in water mill, with the sound of th water and the pounding of the mill hammers in the background and the scenes of the stream that ran through one of the vilager's outbuildings?
Besides the water and rain, Kurosawa also uses wind to great effect- when there are changes about to happen, it becomes very windy.- I'm thinking of the windy scenes of "Jojimbo"- the one about the wandering Samurai (Mifune) coming into a town torn apart by rival gamblers' gangs- and then cleverly playing the rival sides off each other until their mutual destruction. Whenever there's a power shift happening in Jojimbo- it's very windy- the "winds of change" I guess,.. "Ran" had those windy battle scenes. I think some of those were filmed at the bottom of Fuji and the very even, gravelly, kind of blood red volcanic soil kicked up by wind gives a kind of dry, austere, desperate quality to those scenes.
"Tampico" had both quietness- rememeber the homeless fellows on the steps discussing fine wines- they'd found in the dunpsters behind ezpessive restaraunt's? and there was the stunned silence of the scene in which every executive orders whatever the boss orders- except the new kid who goes his own way- and then the loudness- remember the confrontation of the competing noodle stand chefs?
A movie that included a very good imitation of Japanese "quietness" was "Kill Bill Part 2: Remember the scene in which Our hero kills U-Ren Ushii (Check that spelling)- that is in a walled garden courtyard and in the falling snow? And, of course, she's weilding a Samurai sword of almost mythic qualities- a sword of purely rightoues vengeance- made by a master. The fight in the falling snow was a great touch- the contrast of the violence that had just taken place insie with the delicate, and of course snow also muffles sound. There was quite a lot of applique Japanese in the Kill Bill movies.
A good topic, as I think it's not possible to have too much quiet around . In days of war and uncertainty, serenity is the precious luxury, and fortunately there werw directors- mostly about 40 or 50 years ago that still knew how to do it. No, American 13 years olds- the onlt people in the country with any cash- their Ritualin-numbed minds need movies that are especially over-stimulating.
Cheers,
Bambi B
> a detective who loses his gun and then goes to get it back
that's Nora Inu, by Kurosawa.
Ozu is "The quiet master".
Also not to forget Kurosawa's humanistic masterpiece Ikiru.
A Man for All Seasons, what a largely forgotten gem. My only quibble would be that I think what sunk Thomas More was not his refusal to sign a loyalty oath per se, but what not signing a loyalty oath represented. Thomas More was obviously a very powerful religious and spiritual leader in England. He had political power, in large part, because of his relationship with Henry. But he also had strong religious power from Rome. I think that many people today who think that Rome holds strong influence over its flock probably are not aware that the influence was much stronger in Europe at that time. Henry could not likely create a Church of England with such a staunch supporter of Rome lurking in the shadows.
Henry needed More to sign an oath, but signing the oath would not assure Henry that More would not challenge his role as spiritual leader of England down the road. Mabye More knew that as long as he lived in England, his fate, somewhere, sometime, was sealed? After all, if you made Henry's list, what were your chances? I think that even had More signed a loyalty oath (which he refused to do), until More was gone, Henry would never have been confident that he had the minds and souls of his subjects.
of England were controlled by them.
Grins
Though Ann and the desire for an heir were the catalyst fersher. Henry was mightily POd at numerous clerics whom he considered obstructive. And he has an overwhelming sense of self entitlement, which made him covetous of the abbey's wealth long before he was baulked in his divorce.
It was hell to live through but turned out all right in the end - we got Elizabeth I outa that deal.
But lost Mary Queen of Scots :(
She may have got what she deserve!
She conspirate with the French.
Evidently the divine right of kings doesn't require tollerance, mercy, or true nobility.
Finding flaw, blaming and executing others over ones own fears and inadequacies is weakness and not at all regal.
Read Machiavel.
Neither a follower of Mefisto, be.
Do you trty to say that Machiavel = Devil?
No, but that we choose our poison.
Maybe the poison choose us.
Unless communism is so described. In his book, "Utopia," More dispenses with private property. Of course, such an intellect is hard to squeeze into the narrow definitions of our day.
"More might have chosen the literary device of describing an imaginary nation primarily as a vehicle for discussing controversial political matters freely. Some have speculated that More based his Utopia on monastic communalism, which is itself based on the Biblical communalism described in the Acts of the Apostles."
(from Wikipedia)
tinear,
Yes, in my view, More was an ultra-conservative in that he was a religious fundamentalist. His objections to Henry's usurping of Church authority from the Pope derived the idea that Popes were "descended" spiritually from St. Peter in an unbroken line and of course, he was admimant on Papal infallibility. You're correct that More makes statements against private property in "Utopia", in favour of the kind of "monastic communalism" you mention, but this was a detail in support of his ideal World as a complete marriage- without the possibility of divorce- of politics and religion. There would be some latitude of multiple religions, but atheists were a lower cateogry of citizen without most of the society's rights- including the communal food. Though More mentions positive aspects of Plato, "Utopian" politics were hierarchical as a meritocracy and not Classically Platonic nor democratic. His objections to property were based on the poverty of Christ- see Franciscans- and More was advocating that for the best possible world that the population as much as possible should emulate the life of Jesus.
If More were alive today in the US, he would almost surely be pro- divine right of rule, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-sex (premarital sex would be a crime), and especially anti-Church and State separation. More also doesn't make any protests against slavery and every household would have them. -Except for the unlimited greed, the current primacy of private property over life, and the promotion of war for profit- a perfect fundamentalist.
Chees,
Bambi B
..being a "conservative", in the sense that his actions, once pressed to take a stand, reveal a follower of principles that transcend the "prudent". Jesus was a radical in the best and dearest way, and His true followers do not readily endorse regimes either.
"Qui Tacet Consentire" (silence gives consent) -- my favorite exchange in the play/movie -- is a moment where the prosecutor's argument that More's refusal to affirm is denial, is layed waste. More thought that he could wiggle out of swearing an oath against the Vatican by saying nothing. Of course the English Court has already decided More's fate, but has no power over an uncomporomisingly transcendent and everlasting spirit/mind.
Quiescat in Pace, noble Scofield.
and to God what is Gods ( regardless of whose face is on the coin )
That is the drum Thomas More was marching to; regarding eternal principles as being of higher value than transient regimesGrins
Would a Thomas Moore born into a different time, culture, nation, education and set of circumstances be *surely likely* to hold such beliefs as you ascribe?
The modern Thomas More could not be the same man as his 16th century counterpart, much less the fabulist of "Utopia". He'd be...well - modern.
Nor BTW should one equate Catholic othodoxy in Henry's VIII's England with American Protestant Fundamentalist political activism in the 21st century.
(And while we're at it, let's just get this outa the way: Catholics aren't accurately described by modern usage of the term "fundamentalist" any more than are Lutherans or Episcopalians. The term applies even less for 15-16th century Catholic religionists. We now return to our regularly scheduled rant.)
Who knows what a "modern More" would think? He might be "conservative" but that hardly means he'd be a political Right Wing Ultra Conservative.
In truth the devout and ascetic More was a highly sophisticated man of his time: cagey lawyer, able statesman and brilliant intellectual. He was the biographer of Richard III and the one mainly responsible for our views of this monarch. (I confess to being a bit ticked at the sainted More over his handling of this one - his history was the source for Shakespeare's play. And yes, I know he was writing for the Tudors.)
Although there was no such concept at the time or for years yet to come, I fancy - based on his last words ("The king's good servant but God's first") - and his defense against his own "treason" that a modern More may have been quite a fan of the constitutional ban between church and state. The famously Catholic and famously conservative William F Buckley certainly was. US Catholics as a rule are.
Thomas More was the close friend and admirer of the radical Catholic theologian Erasmus. Let us not forget that a substantial amount of Catholic intellectual thought of the last fifty years was very much to the left. Given the scandals, cover-ups and conservatism of recent popes and bishops, it's easy to forget that there is still a lot of leftish debate still around. But modern Catholics, especially American Catholics, tend to be independent thinkers, however they wrestle their consciences in private. A modern More might have been buddies with Daniel Berrigan for all we know. Given his attraction to the monastic life and approval of communal living - he might've been a hippy. He could've even been John Kerry's mentor in the senate.
It doesn't seem a stretch to believe that a modern More would be anti-abortion, but as for anti-sex (he married twice!!), anti-gay, etc that's all an extreme speculative reach. And given his brilliant turn of mind, an American More would be a staunch defender of the constitution and thus - not having ever lived under a monarchy - would have no truck with the notion of divine right of kings. Be wary of extrapolating too much about even the renaissance More from a reading of Utopia.
(The other (facetious?) assertions regarding More and slavery, war etc are simply too outre to merit discussion here.)
The historical More may have been deeply religious, ascetic and non-materialistic, yet he played a long and active role in his city's and country's public life. He lived well enough though not lavishly, enjoyed his family and many friends. He was a vigorous participant in his nation's "representative" government under both Henrys, rising to the highest post in the land - Chancellor.
The central authority of the Church from St. Peter through the RC popes was a concept generally accepted by orthodox Catholics in Europe at the time, in theory if not in practice. The constant power/political wrangling between monarchs, power brokers and popes had caused much grief and struggle in that world. (The infallibility of the pope actually came much later.) A formerly most "catholic" king declaring himself the spiritual authority over the pope of the Roman Church within his kingdom was a bombshell of extraordinary proportion. The Church was in urgent need of reform without doubt, but as we all know, Henry's usurpation was not about spiritual matters but about getting an heir and getting his own way whilst grabbing the wealth of the English abbeys. No Martin Luther he.
More believed the choice was between losing his head and damning his soul - he was unique in being willing to die for a matter of concience. (Not I - I'd have sworn all the oaths, agreed to the succession, whatever to keep my feeble head.)
I'm probably more an admirer of Paul Scofield as More than the historical man himself. But had a modern More been so dedicated, honest, selfless, and true to his conscience in American political life as the sainted More was in his then he would be still a man for all seasons.
a
believe in TRADITIONAL Catholicism hardly is conservative or ultra-conservative.
In fact, the Church was and remains a liberalizing influence over the alternative religions. Until the abortion issue, Catholics were solidly Democratic voters.
Reagan's handlers were geniuses to find this issue and so well exploit it.
Anyhow, More is an interesting guy and Scofield portrayed him very well.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
