[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Critique And Review Of Two Movies
I'm not particularly partial to chronological films, as so many are negating, unimaginatively played and directed. "A Man For All Seasons" succeeded in all areas. A very effectual, at times flowing script, inconspicuous but embellishing direction, well lighting, photography, costumes and, above all, very well acting by an impressive ensemble. Henry VIII played by Robert Shaw, wants to divorce his wife, and seeks the approval of the nobility.
Sir Thomas More played by Paul Scofield, is a man of principle, and is thus placed in a complex position, should he stand up for his principles, risking the wrath of a corrupt King fond of executing people for treason? Or should he bow to the seemingly inexorable corruption of Henry VIII, who has no qualms about bending the law to suit his own needs? Paul Scofield gives an outstanding performance; so extraordinary it is that such a noble, purely good character has been portrayed as evocatively.
Scofield delivers a number of extraordinary dialogue brilliantly, judging every intonation and nuance correctly. The quiet composure and resonance of his character more than convinces. The other players lend ample support. Robert Shaw gives a brilliant rendition of Henry VIII, portraying him as a passionate, energetic and restless man of whims, stubborn yet artistic.
The two actors immaculately judge the scene in the garden with more, with Shaw portraying Henry's changeable, forthright, restless and jovial sides to a tee. John Hurt impresses in quite an important role as Mr. Richard Rich, while his master Leo McKern is an impressively dishonorable Cromwell. Orson Welles is great in his admittedly small role, offering a portrayal of Wolsey as a hawk-like realist, mumbling decadence. Susannah York is suitably radiant in a role that is a little two-dimensional....
