A Man for All Seasons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbZfh-5QsAw

My blunt response for 1966’s A Man for All Seasons is that it’s a great movie. The Academy voters seemed to agree with me back then because it was the Best Picture winner at the Academy Awards that year. The movie appealed to me because of a variety of reasons. I love the history background, and I learned some things about a time period I’m not too familiar with. Quite frankly, not many people know much about the events during the 15th and 16th centuries, and the topic of this movie is a major event. The film is about a man named Sir Thomas More who died because he believed in his principles on how to live a Catholic life, and unfortunately those principles clashed with the ideas of England’s ruling figure, King Henry VIII. I also loved the performances in the film, especially from Paul Scofield who delivered an immense, emotional performance as More. Like all films trying to recapture the time period, I loved the look of the film. They seemed to have caught the basic grasp of what England looked like in the 1500’s. Finally, the themes are worth watching this movie. It shows that a person should not be afraid to speak their beliefs, even if that results in persecution. The theme has always existed in reality and even more so in today’s world with political beliefs, racial beliefs, and even sexual beliefs.

To delve into the historical background of the movie is the same as describing the plot of the film so here goes. Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) is a very popular figure in England. The chancellor has a loving family which includes his wife, Alice (Wendy Hiller) and his daughter, Margaret (Susannah York). His king, King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) is determined to break from the Roman Catholic Church because he wants to divorce his wife and remarry a different woman. More disagrees with the king’s decision, and he respectfully resigns his chancellor post in hopes to live his life out as a private citizen. But the King has other ideas, and he wants a public announcement from More saying he agrees with the King. But More refuses, and his silence may be his biggest punishment of all.  But also his silence shows that it can sometimes be louder than words.

Fred Zinnemann’s feature has excellent performances all across the board. In researching the making of the film, I discovered that the director, Zinnemann had to fight to get Paul Scofield to play Sir Thomas More. The producers originally feared he wasn’t a big enough name for the general audience. It is a good thing they changed their mind because Scofield delivered the performance of the decade, and he had previous acting experience as the chancellor. He originally played More in plays at London’s West End and on Broadway, earning him the Tony Award. Scofield went on to win an Academy Award for his portrayal of More. I enjoyed Robert Shaw’s colorful performance as King Henry VIII. Some people say he overacts at time by screaming. It’s true that Shaw screamed often in his limited screentime, but that was how the King acted in real life. Wendy Hiller does a fine job as More’s loving wife who is also suffering due to her husband’s silence. This film also opened the eyes of the pubic to John Hurt, who was an unknown at the time. Hurt played Rich, an assistant of Thomas More but later on double-crossed him. Orson Welles delivers a brief, but good performance as Cardinal Wolsey, the head cardinal of England.

I really enjoyed watching the film and see all these fine performances take shape. The second half of the film is emotional. Those who knows their history knows that More was executed for his beliefs. His execution doesn’t take place on the screen, but the persecution More faces due to his silence is heartbreaking. Back then, people were not given the freedom of speech or expression as we are lucky to have it today. More never objected to the king’s actions. He just never said a word and he paid the price. In a sense, he was seen as a martyr. He could be one of the main influences on why humans today have the right to speak their mind.

As a biography film, I am happy the film only explained the final seven years of More’s life. I love biography films, but usually they tell the story from birth to death. But if a biography can focus on only a main event or two, the story is more flavorful and the filmmakers do not have to rush telling their story in the constrained time limit. This film is a good example as it struck more of an emotional chord as it singled out the event from the life of More that lead to his downfall, but led to influence of the future. We are never told of the chancellor’s duties or how he got married or what his childhood was like. Quite frankly, we do not need to know.

A Man for All Seasons is an excellent film for all the reasons I have mentioned in the review. The movie is more of a character-driven film thanks to the snappy screenplay adaptation by Robert Bolt, so do not expect much in the way of action. The screenplay is dialogue-driven, and I loved the words or in some cases, no words at all. It delivered a fresh breath of air to More and it informed modern audiences what happened 500 years ago and why it’s important to know what happen. It’s full of wonderful performances, especially the much-heralded performance of Scofield. The movie looks great, sounds great, and is just overall a great movie. Remember, never be afraid to speak your beliefs. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and that is what Sir Thomas More told the world in 1530.

“More is a man of an angel’s wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness, and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometimes of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons.

-Robert Whittington (1520)

My Grade: A

Fantastic Voyage

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to travel in the human body? Have you ever thought what the human body would like on the inside? If so, then Fantastic Voyage might just be the film for you. The film is a really fascinating look at what the filmmakers perceived the human body to look like in the 1960’s. But on the whole, this movie is a wonderful, original science-fiction film ripe with some unique ideas. I really loved the premise of the film. I found the idea of humans being shrunk so they can explore the inside of the human body and stop disease is a very cool and rather unique idea (at least at the film’s release date).

While I found this to be an enjoyable film on the whole, I was not particularly fond of the visual effects. Believe it or not, the film actually won an Oscar for the visual effects. But 49 years after the film’s release, they look very outdated and sometimes downright lame. When first released, the film was heralded for its groundbreaking visuals, which I can understand. Despite me not liking the visuals too much, I do like how the filmmakers imagined the human body. It was quite interesting to see the blood cells or the hair linings and I was particularly interested how they created the heart and brain and it was really cool. I did like the score and the sound effects better than the visual effects. It’s interesting because the music composed for the film were essentially sound effects. I would originally be annoyed, but the music actually works very well for the film in that context.

So what is this film all about? In addition to being a learning experience about the human body, the film is also another one with a “Cold War” theme. Obviously, we were in a middle of an arms race with the Soviet Union at the time of release and I believe that was an influence on the plot. In the movie, both nations had the formula for miniaturizing humans. However, a human could only be miniaturized for a short amount of time. There is this scientist named Jan Benes, who found the secret for keeping humans miniaturized for an indefinite time period. With such secret information, that means people working for the Soviets could be after Benes. Benes escapes from them with the help of a CIA agent named Grant (Stephen Boyd). However, their convoy is attacked on the transfer and Benes is struck in the head, causing a life-threatening blood clot in the brain. Grant is now added to a task force led by Dr. Michaels (Donald Pleasance) to be miniaturized and to stop the blood clot by traveling inside Benes’s body. Now they only have an hour to complete the task before they grow big and destroy Benes because of that.

As for performances, it seemed like everyone had a fun time starring in the movie. Stephen Boyd, known mostly for being Ben Hur’s rival in 1959’s Ben-Hur, does a rather good job in the lead role as Grant. He was the man from the outside learning valuable information for the first time, just like the rest of us audience. I also enjoyed the performance of Donald Pleasance who portrayed the team leader of the expedition, Dr. Michaels. His character seemed pretty menacing at times, but he also provided a good amount of scientific information which proved to be interesting. However, not all characters I found particularly enjoyable. There was only one woman in the film and that was the character of Cora played by Raquel Welch. Cora is the main assistant of Dr. Michaels. She is supposedly one of the main character of the films, but she doesn’t act the part. Welch’s performance is not bad per se, but her character has no personality. It seemed to me her character was just added to the film to be eye candy, and not to provide any depth. I was rather disappointed in that. This is probably the biggest issue I had with the film, other than the outdated visual effects which I can appreciate though.

Fantastic Voyage, directed by Richard Fleischer, is a very entertaining movie and it can be quite a learning experience. Despite it being a fictional movie, I learned some things about the human body. There is no doubt this sci-fi film is campy like other similar films of the time period, but I had a very fun time watching it. I had my issues with the visual effects, but they are colorful and they do bring the screen to life in portraying different sections of the body. I really liked how the film is also interested in turning some of the human parts into “bad guys.” What I mean is that there are some sections of the human body they might want to stay away from. Outdated visual effects and a disappointing female lead are what kept me from calling this a great film. But I was very entertained and in that point, the movie succeeded.

My Grade: B+

Doctor Zhivago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvIL_A0UsJk

The 1940’s to the 1960’s was the era that was famous for the production of numerous epics, famous for its lavish production design, colorful performances, and a story that can be told on a large canvas usually with some sort of historical background. Unfortunately, the era of epics began to die down around the release of this movie, Doctor Zhivago in 1965. In fact, many film scholars call this film the “last great epic of this era.” That is not entirely true as films similar as Doctor Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur springs up every once in awhile. But there is no denying, that epics began to die off as the Hollywood studios began to change the content into more of a modern America cinema.

Ironically, Doctor Zhivago was the first epic I have watched from this era and it was the film that brought my attention to these popular films. For the most part, I very much enjoyed it. It took place in a historical period I am interested in-the Russian Revolution that took place in 1917. The film used this revolution as a source to tell a great story. In the past, critics have been vocal in their points that the film fails to talk about the history with too much detail. But that is precisely the point. The film effectively uses the history as a background in order to tell the main story-the sweeping romance story. I am usually not the one to enjoy a romance film, but this film is beautiful, both literally and figuratively. The film features beautiful cinematography and the landscapes are gorgeous which is not surprising because the film is directed by the great David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai), and he is precise when it comes to art direction. It’s a known fact that the film was made in locations such as Spain and Canada because Russia was off-limits because of obvious reasons (Cold War, the source of the story, etc).

Based off the bestseller 1958 novel by Boris Pasternak, this film is about love at the height of turmoil in Russia. The movie begins with a stern Soviet officer, Yevgraf (Alec Guinness) describing some events to this worker girl, who may be related to the people told in the officer’s story. Here is how the particular story goes. Lara (Julie Christie) is romantically attached to a man named Pasha (Tom Courtenay), one of the Revolution’s leaders. She cannot keep up with his demands for the revolution. Also, her mother and herself were being victimized by this scoundrel named Komarovsky (Rod Steiger) who is a very political man. As Lara goes to shoot Komarovsky at a party in an act of revenge, that is where she meets the true love of her life, Zhivago (Omar Sharif), who happens to be happily married to his wife, Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin). Nonetheless, Zhivago falls in love with Lara. That inspires Zhivago to write poetry, mainly about his love of Lara. Meanwhile, all of this is happening during the events of the Russian Revolution where there is lots of blood and violence as the Russian peasants plan to overthrow the Russian monarchy.

One of the film’s strengths is the masterful performances from all the actors involved. Omar Sharif was seen in Lean’s previous effort, but now he is a star thanks to his career-best performance as Zhivago. It is amazing what Sharif was able to as the title character. He was able to give his character a soul. Julie Christie put herself on the map in her marvelous turn as Lara. She gave her character depth and created a believable portrait of a woman who fell madly in love. Despite the strong lead performances, don’t count out the supporting performances which may be even better than the lead ones. I loved Rod Steiger’s performance as the rascal, Komarovsky. He really seemed to make his character soulless. We get a good performance from Alec Guinness, as the Soviet officer who narrates the story and he also happens to be the half-brother of Zhivago. I loved Tom Courtenay’s performance as Pasha, the man devoted to a new Russia. Finally, I thought Geraldine Chaplin was okay as Tonya, but I felt Tonya was the only offbeat character in the film. She knew what was going on between Lara and her husband, but she takes that romance way too well to give such a believable performance. There is no way she could have been that understanding in reality.

As mentioned earlier in my review, this film was based off a novel by Boris Pasternak. It was a very well-received novel that stood for a defiance of the Soviet Union. In fact, the pages had to be smuggled out of the country in order for the story to be published. Of course, it was banned in the Soviet Union and so was the movie. The movie wasn’t screened to the public until the early 1990’s, almost 30 years after the film’s release!

In addition to the sweeping shots of beautiful landscapes, this film features a magnificent score by Maurice Jarre. When first released, there were people who hated the main theme known as “Lara’s Theme.” It’s a beautiful theme, but I believe it wasn’t well-liked at first because it played constantly over the course of the 200-minute long film and the repetition can gradually become annoying, depending on who the audience is. But the fact remains is that it’s one of the best themes and most well-known themes of any film in history.

David Lean directed this film and it’s clear that this is not his greater effort. Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai are masterpieces. Doctor Zhivago will just have to settle on being a great film. The visuals, the score, and the performances are perfect, but the story has some issues. The film is a bit clunky at times and there are moments where the romance goes to far. I would have loved to see more of the history added into the film, but I’m not too upset because the way it was used as a background to the story was excellent. I also wonder about the end shot, and so apparently have many others. I wasn’t too sure if it fit into the context of the movie and if it was meant to be some symbol. But watch the film, and you can make the decision yourself. Not a masterpiece, but it’s very close in being so. Featuring breath-taking cinematography, fine performances, and a sweeping romantic story, Doctor Zhivago is another film of David Lean’s to add to your collection.

My Grade: A-