1966: A Man for All Seasons

Screenplay by Robert Bolt
Adapted from the play A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt

Sir Thomas More is loyal to King Henry VIII, but he is also loyal to God and the Church. When the king appoints himself head of the new Church of England because the Pope won't grant him a divorce, he demands Sir Thomas's support. Sir Thomas refuses to lie, but he is loath to speak out against his king, so he remains silent. But sometimes silence speaks louder than words.

Given that the play and screenplay were written by the same person, it should come as little surprise that they were very similar. A few lines were added, eliminated, or changed slightly, but not in any drastic way. I only really noticed two significant changes. One was the omission of the diplomat Chapuys from the film. His main purpose in the play is to emphasize Spain's influence over the Pope, helping to explain why Henry is having so much trouble getting his first marriage (to a Spanish princess) declared invalid. In the film, the refusal to annul the marriage is basically just portrayed as a matter of principal rather than of politics, whereas the play makes it clear that both were significant factors. I assume the reason for this change was to place more of the focus on Sir Thomas. Since he didn't really care about Spain, this was essentially irrelevant to his story, though in the play, Chapuys initially takes More's silence as support for his cause.

The second major change is a perfect example of one of the differences between stage and screen. The play is essentially narrated by a character known as The Common Man, who does not exist in the movie. The Common Man frequently breaks the fourth wall, and often changes costume to become several different minor characters: Sir Thomas More's steward, a boatman, a jailer, etc. This works well on stage, where the audience anticipates more suspension of disbelief than from the screen, but would probably seem confusing or even silly in a movie. Consequently, some of the Common Man's more important lines are given to other characters in dialogue, and each of his other roles are given to different actors (i.e., the steward is played by a different actor than the boatman, etc.). The film adds the character of the steward's wife, who is in one scene and has no lines, to give him an excuse to say part of what was originally a monologue to the audience. If you hadn't read or seen the play, none of these things would feel out of place in the film, so it was well adapted.

I find it interesting that this film won this award so soon after Becket because, apart from taking place four centuries apart, the premises are remarkably similar. In both, a King Henry of England has a disagreement with the Church, appoints someone to a position of power whom he believes will support him, only to find that person on the Church's side. However, Becket very clearly and openly opposes the king, and expects to be martyred for it. Sir Thomas More, on the other hand, believes his silence will keep him safe from death (historical spoiler alert: it doesn't). Still, the similarities are rather striking, especially knowing that two years after A Man for All Seasons, the winner of this award was once again about King Henry II, the same king from Becket, and was also based on a play. But in between was a contemporary story about racial tensions in Mississippi, so stay tuned for In the Heat of the Night, based on the novel by John Ball.