Undeserving Oscar's - A Man for All Seasons (1966) Discussion

[–] TudorLady 16 years ago

Anyone else have a feeling of deja vu?

reply

[–] MovieMania7 16 years ago

What do you mean?

"Ahhh!...and boom goes the dynamite."

reply

[–] TudorLady 16 years ago

Deja vu is French for already seen - like this post.

reply

[–] MovieMania7 16 years ago

I knew what Deja vu meant, but I wasn't sure what you were referring to! lol I'm sure you've seen this before because many agree. What do you think?

"Ahhh!...and boom goes the dynamite."

reply

[–] TudorLady 16 years ago

I think A Man for all Seasons was a wonderful film and Paul Scofield a very fine actor who gave a magnificent performance as Sir Thomas More. I will confess I haven't seen WAOVW as having read about it I don't think it would be my kind of film. I have seen Richard Burton in other things and he was an amazing actor.
I think what puzzles me is the fact that you seem obsessed by the Academy's decision. If you like a film why does it matter what anyone else thinks? I enjoyed the film Copying Beethoven which came out a couple of years ago and was absolutely trashed by the critics! As someone whose passions are Beethoven's music and Tudor history I welcome any opportunity to indulge both and if I don't like something I just don't watch it again! (Richard Burton made a very good Henry VIII in Anne of the Thousand Days!)
Why worry about a decision that was made so many years ago? Some people will no doubt agree with you, some won't. Some think Copying Beethoven was good, some think it was the biggest load of garbage they've ever seen! I don't care. Both Scofield and Burton are up there with the greats, let's enjoy the work of these two fine actors without feeling the need to compare them.

Well you did ask! Lol

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

We've heard this before. You're not changing anyone's mind by posting this over and over again.

One of the hallmarks of my style is subtext... and mise-en-SEEN!

reply

[–] MovieMania7 16 years ago

Don't comment if your just going to be a jacka*s.

"Ahhh!...and boom goes the dynamite."

reply

[–] ElMaruecan82 16 years ago

I've seen Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? last year and was amazed by the movie, and of course by Burton's performance, and i decided to watch A Man for All Seasons as the movie that robbed the Best Picture and Best Actor's oscar. But i loved the movie and i thought Scofield's performance was great and his character an incredible example of true morality and integrity.

Which comes to my conclusion, can't we just enjoy a movie on its own and stop compare it with another one nominated the same year ? Whenever you go to a message board, instead of some interesting discussions about the movie, its themes, its characters, you'll always find the same old discussions "Why 'The Greatest Show' won over 'High Noon'?","How could 'Citizen Kane' lose to 'How Green was my Valley'" and blah blah blah ...

It's true that the Oscars can give a great publicity to a movie, in a right or a wrong way, but the eternal geeky questions of "Why 'this' won the oscar instead of 'that'"is kind of sterile because there will always be unsatisfied people.

"I'm as mad as hell and i'm not gonna take it anymore!"

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

Which comes to my conclusion, can't we just enjoy a movie on its own and stop compare it with another one nominated the same year

Oh, so now the talking cheese is going to preach to us!

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

I'm sorry, who started this thread?

Oh, so now the talking cheese is going to preach to us!

reply

[–] RageAgainstSomeone 16 years ago

MovieMania7, come on, there's no need to be a pussy, you stated your opinion(I think it's a stupid one)now you have to expect other people opinion even if you don't like it.

It's been over 40 years sense they announce the winner of Best Picture of 1966, here some advice for you OP: GET OVER IT! My god, Good chance you weren't even born yet.

If there's one thing I know,it's how to drive when I'm stoned.

reply

[–] deeveed 16 years ago

This film has been around for 41 years and people still have the opportunity to see it while others get lost in the detritus of deteriorating celluloid! It hasn't aged nor has its topic and confrontations. Besides being "A Man For All Seasons it can be considered "A Film For All Time".

reply

[–] deeveed 16 years ago

whoa..I got to add 2 more years..make that 43!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TudorLady 16 years ago

"Detritus of deteriorating celluloid" what a wonderful phrase, nothing like a bit of alliteration for making a point :)

The King's good servant but God's first

reply

[–] cwente2 16 years ago

"Detritus of deteriorating celluloid"! Yeah, I like that one too.

reply

[–] deeveed 16 years ago

heh heh see what happens when you've been reading Shakespeare?....;-)....

reply

[–] MovieMania7 15 years ago

Just stop! Burton was the best that year. End of story.

"Ahhh!...and boom goes the dynamite."

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

"End of story" and yet you need to create an entirely new thread devoted to it?

"If you can’t say something good about someone, sit right here by me."

reply

[–] agentwhim 15 years ago

So... just as a matter of interest, why do you keep starting threads with the same subject?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

Here's something to give some perspective on actors and acting. These are Dick Cavett's comments from his work "Another Bit of Burton":

"I hate all "most" questions (who was your most interesting guest? etc as if there could be a clear winner, as in the 100 yeard dash). So I wince when the remembered,sophomoric voice in my head is my own: "Mr. (Richard) Burton who is your and let's hope I don't say "most" favorite actor? the great triumvirate (Gielgud,Olivier, Richardson) were all alive so everyone expected him to pick from that immortal trio, but no. I'm reasonably confident that I worded it, "Do you have a personal favorite?". "Yes, he said. "Paul Scofield". He was not alone in that. Many, lucky enough to have seen the superb Scofield in his great variety of stage roles,agree. Alas, I saw him tread the boards only once in "A Man For All Seasons". And, of course in the film (maybe the least disputed Oscar in history). How I would love to have done a show with him. But this explosive -onstage-actor was shy of such things, shunned them, and preferred to go from the stage door straight to his country home in Sussex, where he loved to wander the moors in solitude. Still talking of Scofield, Burton said, "Any decent actor of 20 can play 80. But to play 40 at 20. Good God! Sheerest genius".

What I would've given to walk those moors with Scofield.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Burton was clearly in awe of Scofield, I remember he made a comment to the affect that of the ten greatest moments in theatre history, Scofield has three (forgive me if I miscounted).

On the other hand I do recall Charlton Heston (who played More a great many times himself on stage and screen) being, not dismissive, but critical of Scofield's performance, inferring Scofield put too much of himself into his portrayal of More.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] TudorLady 15 years ago

I wish you hadn't told me that. I hadn't expected to like Heston's portrayal of More but I thought he did a good job. Scofield on the other hand WAS Thomas More. Don't think Heston did himself any favours by expressing that.

The King's good servant but God's first

reply

[–] cwente2 15 years ago

To add a little balance to Heston's criticism: Heston and Orson Welles went together to see a production of "King Lear" with Scofield in the title part. Scofield's characterization was roundly criticized. (Shakespeare is not Scofield's forte', as great an actor as he was -- which, buy the way, Heston has acknowledged more than once.) Welles was outraged at Scofield's "idea" of the part - he was "loud" about it in a restaurant - which Heston explains in his book, "In the Arena". The upshot, as Heston continues in his book, is "that actors take all this more seriously than the rest of you do."

Heston's criticism of Scofield as More is consistent with the idea that all actors bring a part of themselves into their roles. Heston had done the part many times and simply felt that the "astringency" Scofield brought to the part was more Scofield than More (he thought it a marvelous characterization nevertheless). An artistic difference of opinion on how a part should be played. It's the kind of thing actors do ALL the time. I know. Don't take it for more than it is. Heston also said -- "Scofield is one of the outstanding actors of his generation."

reply

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

Interesting comment from Heston on putting the self into a part. So I figure that when he did say Ben-Hur he didn't pour "Heston" as such into it but some other human amalgam, right? But what could that be? I don't know. What else can he infuse into a character other than his 'self', his "Heston". Perhaps acting like somebody else who he envisions characterizes More or Ben? In a way, I think it's all smoke and mirrors on the stage or in film. We see 'Heston' playing More. I think his 'self' is there whether he likes it or not. It's akin to trying to separate the 'white' from the 'rice'..;-)....

reply

[–] TudorLady 15 years ago

"Welles was outraged at Scofield's "idea" of the part..."

I have always felt that Orson Welles (fine actor though he undoubtably was) was completely wrong for the part of Cardinal Wolsey. Leaving aside the way he pronounced BO-lyn, which always makes me wince, he just didn't convince as the scheming, manipulative Wolsey. I know that the TV series, 'The Tudors' is hopelessly inaccurate in many ways but I thought Sam Neil's portrayal was much more how I imagined the real Wolsey.

The King's good servant but God's first

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I didn't much like Welles at first but he grew on me in subsequent viewings. I find it interesting though that most of the negative reviews of Man that I've read single out Welles as the one good thing.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] cwente2 15 years ago

I must have expressed myself poorly. I think Heston was saying every actor puts a little of himself into a part -- including Heston. As an actor myself, I can confirm that. Impossible not to really. Heston's research left him feeling that More was an amiable man, friendly, with a good humored outlook much of the time. If I read Heston's comments correctly, he thought Scofield's characterization lacked enough of the friendliness -- so to speak. It's all a question of artistic judgement . . . and very subjective, as we see in these posts.

Frankly, I can think of no performance, however lauded, by any actor on stage or screen which hasn't in some way been commented upon by another member of the cast (or crew) with the friendly -- "Yeah, he was good, but . . . it would have been even better had he..." The agony and the joy of acting! The guy walks off the set with a Tony in his hand and overhears the wardrobe mistress whisper to a techie -- "I saw that show and . . . he wasn't all THAT great!" That's the way it is.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I remember reading of Welles' criticism of Scofield's Lear in the Heston book, though it's been awhile. I also note that Donald Wolfit disliked Scofield as Lear, although that may have been for personal reasons. It's worth noting perhaps that the RSC voted Scofield the Best Lear of the 20th Century though, for what it's worth.

I remember reading an interview with Heston in Turner's biography of Bolt which seemed far more critical of Scofield than just that he didn't play the part the way I thought it should be played. I don't have the book on my person right this moment.

Interestingly enough, I remember reading a biography of Scofield which was extremely dismissive of Bolt's play. I'd have to check it out again to recall but they characterized Scofield's More as a "great performance in a bad play", or some-such.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

You know I have Heston's book (actually it's signed by him in the store where i bought the book) and I'm going to get to those pages everyones' noted.
So we have some actors here! Great! I commend you all. I could never be an actor. I'm soooooo 'protective'! of my self!! Freud would have some fun with that! If I had to play Hamlet I wouldn't know what to do with myself. I'd probably break a leg.....;-)...

reply

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

And I'd just like to ask everybody would Olivier have been a good More and did he comment on Scofield's portrayal of such a complex character? In my opinion, I'd think he would have the "gravitas" and his pschology of the character would be interesting to "see".

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Olivier would have been interesting but he would have been a distinctly different More than what we're used to. He was a lot more of an outgoing and assertive actor than Scofield and that's part of the reason why Bolt passed over him for the film version.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I haven't done any acting since freshman year. I miss it a lot, but my schedule's jam-packed as it is.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

We'e going to have to produce something for you. Acting is like a trade you gotta be using it or you get stale...;-)....

And regarding Olivier..I watched Richard III. I liked his performance but for some reason I prefer the treatments of Shakespeare that Branagh has done. I'd think performance of Shakespeare has changed through the years, correct?

reply

[–] cwente2 15 years ago

Don't mean to butt in, but the "performance of Shakespeare" changes not chronologically but from actor to actor, film to film and, on the stage, even from night to night. One of the beauties of the "Bard"! His characters are not monoliths (though they generally possess one eradicable fault motivating the outcome), but empty vessels for each actor to fill with his own proportion of "self". Why actors love him, and playwrights hate him. Remember, unlike most of today's dramas, especially dramas recorded on film, it's the TEXT in Shakespeare that most counts for the actor. Something that Brando had to learn (and quite well he did) when he played Anthony in "Julius Caesar" in '53. The "perfect and universal humanity" Shakespeare brought to each of his characters, in comedy or tragedy, is the stuff from which each actor can fashion and display, based on his skill level, his own perspective of the man (or woman) he's trying to bring to life. . . Lear the toughest, I believe, of all. As Heston and others have said -- "When you're old enough to play Lear, you're no longer strong enough." Why, I'm sure, Scofield and just about everyone else never got a rave review doing it.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Very true. There's also the less elegant words of the Reduced Shakespeare Company: "When an actor is old enough to play Lear, you spend much of the time worrying if they'll drop dead on stage"

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] cwente2 15 years ago

Thanks. Yes!

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I think Olivier went for a more "faithful", theatrical adaptation of Shakespeare whereas Branagh wanted a more clear-cut mass audience/cinematic version for his films. Hence the casting of big stars (often ill-advisedly) in his Much Ado and Hamlet.

"It's a joke. We'll laugh about it in the car."

reply

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

Re: Playing Lear...

You know I'm thinking maybe those giving the reviews are 35 and under, eh???
Takes one to know one I say and could give those lear players a break!..;-)....

And Shakespeare....As I look on his work and notice all the books and tomes written about him I find it incredible to see how his genius permeates through his plays especially on so many levels, psychological, cultural, physical, etc etc. As the Beatles said, "It's all too much!". Either he was a great thinker that packed so much stuff into his head and it comes out in the characters in his plays or his unconscious operated like no human ever did. It's like he "covers all the bases". I'd think actots could get intimidated with their character portrayals if they place Shakespeare so high. It should give them solace though that like his characters he was human albeit a very interesting one and that's enough to give them confidence in nailing his characters.

reply

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 15 years ago

I agree Burton should have beaten out Scofield.

However, A Man for All Seasons deserved its Best Picture over Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

But both are absolutely excellent movies, it's too bad they went up against each other in the same year.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I also think Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles was very worthy.

"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"

reply

[–] clutchcargoguy 15 years ago

Well, I really doubt 'biggest travesty'... it is a great film, and a higly honored one by other people who understand film. As far as all the criticism of Scofield winning over Burton... yes, Burton had a much showier role, but quieter, more 'internal' performances are equally deserving. To all those who for some reason bash The Academy for 'choosing' the film or the performance (no one or group sits and 'chooses' one over the other... it's an open vote among thousands with the highest number of votes winning) Oscar was not the only group awarding Scofield that year. The NYT Film Critics, National Board of Review, and Golden Globe also all went to Scofield. National Society of Film Critics went with Michael Caine in Alfie. Burton won none of the major film awards for this film as I recall. My personal opinion is that the Academy had, by 1966, seen Burton do these dark, moody, angry, sarcastic roles before (as brilliant as he was)and it may have worked against him. Scofield was new, considered 'literary and high-end', and exactly the kind of 'noble' part that appeals to so many so often.

reply

[–] princesstinymeat 10 years ago

Undeserving Oscars

reply

[–] aleach26 9 years ago

Alec Guinness, the first choice, might have been better as Wolsey?

reply

[–] seahawk3133 9 years ago

The Oscar committee missed badly most of the 60's in picking Best Picture.

From 1961-1968 - only In The Heat of the Night & A sound of Music were deserving. (I have not seen Tom Jones yet)...The rest were either really weak or pretty lousy movies

reply

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 9 years ago

I did like the film and it is not a bad winner, but Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf to me is the better movie and Richard Burton was better than Scofield and should have won. I wonder if Virgnia Woolf having so many unlikable characters and AMFAS having such a noble, heroic one at the center played a factor.

I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

reply