Is the original Robert Bolt play still available to buy (in published form i mean)? There is some excellent dialogue in the film version of the play (a confrontation between More and the Duke of Norfolk being one example), and I was wondering how closely the film follows the play. Shamefully, I`ve never read it.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
Yes you can get it. I bought my copy at Waterstones. I suppose the main difference is that the play has the character of the Common Man and the film doesn't (which is a pity imo) Which confrontation are you referring to btw?
The King's good servant but God's first
Thanks Tudor Lady!
The confrontation (more of a quarrel really) that i`m referring to, is where More tells Norfolk "the nobility of England would have snored through the sermon on the Mount, but you`ll labour like scholars over a bulldog`s pedigree....somewhere back along your pedigree a bitch got over the wall" and Norfolk tries to girly slap Thomas. Besides the trial, its` my favourite scene.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
Aye I like that scene, it's in the play though it's water spaniels Norfolk and his cronies are breeding, don't know why they felt the need to change that! There were things in the play left out in the film maybe it would have made it too long? I don't know.
The King's good servant but God's first
The book form of the play is available from Vintage International (at least in the U.S.) -- Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, Inc., New York. It's a paperback -- 1990. Of course, as is customary, the script version for play production is somewhat different. I don't remember where we got our scripts from when we produced the play, but I think I'm safe in suggesting Samuel French Co. You could buy a "perusal copy" from them anytime probably.
shareIt's pretty readily available. I bought a copy at Barnes and Noble a few years back for about $15.
The movie's reasonably faithful to the play, but they excise two major characters: the Common Man, a narrator who plays various minor parts and comments on the action, and the Spanish Ambassador Chapuys, who tries to woo More into openly siding with the Church against Henry. Plus there's some "opening up" of the story and compression of specific scenes and elements, that's to be expected in a film adaptation of a play. Overall, not too much to complain about, and I really doubt the Common Man would have worked well in a film.
"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?"
Yes. The screenplay was also written by Bolt but for a cinematic presentation, naturally. The Common Man, Matthew, is less a Greek Chorus than he is in the play and is, therefore, a much smaller part.
The Charlton Heston TV version, with Heston as More and Vanessa Redgrave as More's wife, is closer to the play -- more like a filmed version of a stage production.
In which the sadly missed Roy Kinnear stole every scene he was in!
The King's Good Servant but God's first
I'd be interested in seeing the '88 version but it seems nearly-impossible to find. If it's just a filmed play perhaps I'm better off skipping it.
"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?"
I got my copy (VHS) on ebay. It's quite good though not a patch on the 1966 film.
The King's Good Servant but God's first
[deleted]
TudorLady,
Hurray! I've found you again! Just got a copy of "The Tudors", the 1st Season. Looking forward to seeing it. Thought of you immediately, of course, to get a comment or two before I begin watching tomorrow nite. May I impose? . . .
Thanks, in advance
P.S. -- You too, austendw -- if your antennae are up.
"Do you think two Tudors are enough!"
Hi cwente2!
Ok, "The Tudors"......Wee bit difficult to know where to start!
I am reminded of the comment by the historian John Guy when he spoke of 'Hollywood under the Tudors' (granted he was speaking of AMFAS but I would say the comment applies far more to this series)
The actor who plays King Henry was a strange choice. Just about believable as the young, handsome king, but as the series went on it became more difficult to remember who he was supposed to be.
If you're a stickler for historical accuracy, you may be disappointed, although having said that there were a lot of things that were correct.
I loved the portrayal of Thomas More (not that I'm biased of course!) and there were some really good performances throughout.
There were a lot of - how shall I put this - 'steamy scenes'. I may be accused of being a prude (in fact I have been on the Tudors board!) but for me these went a bit far, we all have imaginations after all! Put it this way, I wouldn't care to watch with my mother or my kids!
Hope I haven't put you off! As I say there was much that they got right, great acting (watch out for Ambassador Chapuys) and some really poignant scenes.
Hope you enjoy and the inaccuracies don't put you off too much!
TL
The King's Good Servant but God's first
I don't have a VCR so that's out. I'd be very interested to see Heston play More though.
"Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?"
yes, another cool play of that ilk is 'becket' by jean anouilh; the version translated by frederic raphael.
Season's Greetings!