Why Do Kids Love this Movie? - A Man for All Seasons (1966) Discussion

[–] chuckie71-1 18 years ago

Perhaps because when we are children, we have the clearest notion of what is right and what is wrong.

My dad showed me this film when I was 14, and it made an indellible mark on me. I highly recommend showing it to your son.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 18 years ago

Well, I'm 25 now but when I first saw this film, I don't even remember how old I was, I was very young. Mt father loved this movie, it's his favorite actually! I've been hearing about it even before I was born, he probably told me the story/watched it when I was still in my mother's womb! Similar to kids who grew up listening to their parent's music, you learn to appreciate & enjoy it. I did! But perhaps I was brainwashed, it's still a great film though!

reply

[–] rfennessy 18 years ago

No vicky, you weren't being brainwashed! You were being brought up! And your conscience formed. I have loved this movie also since I was 12 or 13.

reply

[–] persistenceofvision 18 years ago

Saw this when I was 14 and thought it was brilliant. I guess I liked the idea of someone being prepared to go to their death over a matter of principle. And Scofield always seemed so perfectly poised all the time (except maybe at the trial) and the bad guys [King, Rich, Cromwell, Wolsey] were all so appalling - servile, ruthless, complacent, thick etc. [Someone said on a post above that when you're young you have a very clear-cut idea of what's right and wrong: I think that's totally true. A story about a guy who can't compromise is very appealing when you're young and have never had to.]

reply

[–] justoldbill 18 years ago

Young people are looking for a lot of things all at the same time. They're looking for role models they can emulate, they're looking for films with adult themes that are still palatable at their age, with good dialogue and pretty costumes and people who are otherwise only figures in books at school, and they're each trying to find an individual way of becoming the person they're going to be. In my day, it meant no longer wanting to be like Spin and Marty.

reply

[–] monvalleygeorge 18 years ago

I saw "A Man for All Seasons" when I was in eighth grade, in '67. I was profoundly moved. I think this film has added more to my life than any other I've ever seen. It is true that in childhood moral issues seem most crystal clear. I'm not a parent, but I can well imagine how fearful it must be when a child is brought face-to-face with a parent's, or teacher's, moral flaws and failures. As I left the theater I walked behind two ladies who were weeping.

My sister says this is a sad film. I don't see it that way, and I don't just say this as a Catholic. Thomas More lived and died by his convictions. He believed in something greater than any nation, the Faith of a unified (at least in the West) Christendom. He could not morally do other than he did.

Who in public life today would say, with More, with perfect sincerity,

Well...for my part I believe that when a statesman
abandons his own private conscience for the sake of
his public duty, he leads his country by a short
route to chaos.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 17 years ago

That is so true. The closest analogue I can think of is Colin Powell, who didn't support the Iraq War but didn't speak up because he was loyal to Bush - though I'm not sure whether or not that's admirable. If More were in Powell's place though, he probably would have resigned after the UN refused to support the invasion of Iraq.

"My dear Norfolk, this isn't Spain - this is England!"

reply

[–] kirby-37 12 years ago

I think they like the pageantry. Kids enjoy things like Royal weddings, tales of princes and princesses.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 18 years ago

I'm just about done reading the play, and I love it. I'm a seventeen year old, but then again I'm a big fan of movies that are written by Robert Bolt (see his work for David Lean), so maybe I'm not typical.

I've not seen the movie, but I will ASAP.

"Please don't underestimate me. Practically or morally, I'm not the man you take me for."

reply

[–] ektwn 16 years ago

Your quote - from Dr. Zhivago, spoken by Kamarovsky (Rod Steiger) - right?

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

Yes, but not anymore.

"The best of them won't come for money - they'll come for ME!" - Lawrence of Arabia

reply

[–] The_WB 18 years ago

Over the years, I have seen this movie several times. When I went to Law School, this movie was played at our orientation - since then, it has taken on a whole new meaning for me.

A "must see" for anyone and everyone.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cwente2 17 years ago

Well . . . a lot of the Saints were "quite thick". Including St. Peter. I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that a life pure as the driven snow has never been a requirement for Sainthood. Martyrdom can atone for breaking one or two house rules . . . can't it?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Nicely said.

reply

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

"Saints are the most fascinating human beings who have ever existed. They are as varied as St. Thomas More and the illiterate peasant girl St. Bernadette Soubirous. As Catholic philosopher von Balthasar said, "Only simple souls are interesting, complicated souls are boring." I think a fierce simplicity of soul is what all these vastly different saints had in common".

The other day I was looking through a book on St.Paul and really I think if there's a hierarchy of these "simple souls" I've got to put Paul up there.
I don't know if Paul was "complicated" but if he was he certainly channeled all that into a laser-like simplicity in his vocation where he was untiring in his trouble-filled journeys. And since I am not a saint, I'd love to have experienced his no doubt distinctive inner life for maybe a second and then get the feel of "saintliness". I'd think it would be a good experience for another mortal!

reply

[–] liberalmedia 17 years ago

A church I used to attend in Washington, D.C., put up a statue of St. Thomas More -- highly appropriate, given all the lawyers who worship there!

When I was a kid, I was fascinated by history, particularly British history, and of course by the time I was in my teens I had seen a series of films and TV series about various historical figures. And being Catholic, I even encountered discussion in school as to whether we'd be willing to die for Christ. It's not as though any of us had to confront that day-to-day, but examples like Thomas More were present in both church teaching and in popular culture, thanks to plays and films like AMFAS.

Stamp out silly threads! How many "so-and-so looks just like so-and-so" discussions do we need?

reply

[–] shainajosh 17 years ago

I'm 16 and just saw the movie. It's one of the greatest I've ever seen in both historical accuracy as well as acting and writing. I'm surprised I've never heard of it before. Many actors I've seen portraying characters in this time period are stiff and belt out lines without emotion. This movie was not only different, but astounding. I actually felt for every character involved--quite an accomplishment.
Though I would have liked this movie even if I had seen it when I was much younger, I doubt that my brother (who is 14) would like it. So, I can't speak for all kids in saying that they/we like it.

And yes, amazing dialogue.

Familiarity breeds contempt--and children - M.Twain

reply

[–] liberalmedia 17 years ago

I'm so glad you enjoyed it. Yes, there is an exploration of the motivations and contrasting approaches of the characters.

I hope someday you will check out 1968's The Lion in Winter, another of the superior historical dramas of that period of filmmaking. It's not giving away too much to say that you're on completely different moral ground there (a lot of very bad behavior), but the dialogue is crackling and the cast is great.

Stamp out silly threads! How many "so-and-so looks just like so-and-so" discussions do we need?

reply

[–] cwente2 17 years ago

Me, too. You may be interested in knowing that when the picture was released, it was one of the most critically acclaimed of the year. The play, featuring Paul Scofield as More, received a Tony Award (1962, I think) -- as did Scofield (not absolutely sure of this, but I think so). "Liberalmedia" is right. If you liked AMFAS, I'm sure you'll like "The Lion in Winter". Look for "Becket" (1964), as well. Peter O'Toole plays Henry II in both. Beautiful writing and wonderful performances in all.

BTW, Anthony Hopkins ("Hannibal the Cannibal" Lecter) gives a strong, youthful performance as Richard in "The Lion in Winter", and Katherine Hepburn shared an Oscar with Barbra Streisand for her portrayal of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

reply

[–] liberalmedia 17 years ago

Nice plug there, cwente2, and thanks for pointing out that Peter O'Toole played Henry II twice! Also, Becket deals with yet another Catholic saint, this time via a play by a Frenchman (Jean Anouilh).

Stamp out silly threads! How many "so-and-so looks just like so-and-so" discussions do we need?

reply

[–] shainajosh 17 years ago

Wow, I'll be sure to check these out if I get the chance. These all sound very interesting, it's a shame I doubt I'll see them unless I catch them on TCM or AMC channels on television.

Familiarity breeds contempt--and children - M.Twain

reply

[–] liberalmedia 17 years ago

Becket is being re-released in theaters in the States at the end of this month. IMDB should have listings. I expect it'll run in major cities, perhaps in art house theaters.

The earlier version of The Lion in Winter is out on DVD.

Stamp out silly threads! How many "so-and-so looks just like so-and-so" discussions do we need?

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

Sorry, but I loved A Man for All Seasons and disliked The Lion in Winter. Just my opinion though.

There may be honor among thieves, but there's NONE in politicians!

reply

[–] kaiachautauqua 17 years ago

AMDG

I watched it several times as a teenager, always with a group of friends. Everyone liked it, even those from non-Christian backgrounds. I had to admit that I was always as surprised as you are, Soccin. I had attributed a great part of my own love for the film to my own Catholic faith; so when an atheist friend and a Hindu friend both ended up loving St. Thomas More, it was completely unexpected.

reply

[–] [email protected] 16 years ago

The dialogue is almost sing-songy. I don't understand why any child would be attracted to it other than that, unless you include the typically cartoonish performance by Orson Welles.

reply

[–] shainajosh 16 years ago

I didn't get the sing-songy feeling at all, and Orson Welles' character's exit was dramatic in my opinion. *Shrugs* I liked it.

Familiarity breeds contempt--and children - M.Twain

reply

[–] jhb-4 16 years ago

Perhaps children have a bit more taste than you!

reply

[–] twilightstars 16 years ago

I'm sixteen, we watched it in school in a class that's normally pretty fun
and most of us got really bored.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] classicmoviecomedy 16 years ago

I had seen the film for the first time when I was about 15 or 16 and it left quite an impression on me. It's still one of my favorites on a number of levels, from the performances, Bolt's script, the interesting production design, and the direction of Fred Zinnemann (this would surely be my favorite Zinnemann film, even moreso than "High Noon", another great film about a moral dilemma).

____
View my films at: www.youtube.com/comedyfilm

reply

[–] Tolmides 16 years ago

Much as I'd like to agree with some of the above comments, I think the real reason is rather less interesting. Under 150 people under 18 have watched the film. With that kind of selection, the only ones watching it will be history buffs or film buffs. Both will find plenty to appreciate in this film. If it was a wider known film, it'd be more of a target for young kids to watch, and inevitably more would feel let down by it.

reply

[–] cwente2 16 years ago

No doubt.

reply

[–] TudorLady 16 years ago

My kids, two teenagers and one 20, always tease me about my devotion to St Thomas More. I don't think they have ever seen the whole film but have often wandered in to talk to me when I am watching it (or watching the drama-documentary I have about St Thomas). They have no real interest in politics apart from the keen sense of justice that many of their generation seem to share (and my son (16) is very into Scottish Nationalism!) However, the three of them have, on occasion said that if only today's politicians and lawyers were more like St Thomas, our country would be a better, fairer place in which to live. I hope that one day they will watch the film but I am glad that the lttle they have seen has made them think.

reply

[–] Killersnakes 16 years ago

I'm 17, and having watched the movie, I must say I disliked it, found it rather long and boring. I've read the play, and I prefer that over this movie.

reply

[–] deeveed 16 years ago

You know perhaps you just like the printed word over visual representations?
Just wondering if it happens to you with other movies of this type, i.e. driven more by dialogue and interpersonal conflict as opposed to out and out "action".

reply

[–] Cheesymite 16 years ago

Agreed.
I have to study this for VCE, well not this movie but the play.
After watching the movie and then the play and after reading the play I would have to say I prefer the play written and performed as opposed to the movie.
I think it was because of the lack of the common man because when we were studying it in detail it made sense when my teacher pointed out that he could have been the man for all seasons considering he was the one who survived in the end.

reply

[–] Killersnakes 16 years ago

Yeah I have to do this for VCE too. Is your context 'Whose Reality?'

reply

[–] Cheesymite 16 years ago

Nope, we're doing this as one of our texts. For context we're doing like Identity and Belonging.

reply

[–] Jane_Doe01 15 years ago

Kids are thoroughly irrational and unpredictable creatures. Rarely will they obey a single command you give them or sit quietly, but play a movie, any movie no matter the subject matter and little relevance it has to a child's experience, and they become the equivalent of possessed zombies. I haven't the faintest clue why they would be drawn to a movie like this even after the explanations given here. This scenario is a mind-boggling one, much like the 13 year-old self-professed fanatic of classic European film I recently encountered and all those "2001: A Space Odyssey" devotees. Granted, a lot of kids are major fakers simply seeking attention or approval, but you have to wonder why they become obsessed to any degree. Movies are long, often slow and decidedly non-interactive experiences...pretty much the opposite of what kids otherwise crave in life. A once in a while trip to theater or video store to catch the latest fluff project is one thing, but 12 year-old lovers of Fellini, Godard and biographical historical epics? When it's on a 2 hour moving picture its a "fascinating topic", when on a textbook it's "borrring' and a "waste of time".

Which brings us to those at the helm of these beings. What is up with parents who raise their crotchlings tirelessly on films (better yet, who have films raise their kids)? I mean I do know why it happens in that it's one of few things short of tranquilizers that sits them down, but you'd think more parents would want to encourage activity and socialization. A movie can't give a kid half of what they'd get from actually living, and in that respect there is no such thing as "important" movie viewing for them. At an age where they're barely able to think, movies are just an empty and idle diversion for kids. It's up to the adults in their lives in the meantime to do the teaching. Let them later on discover and appreciate serious film on their own terms, when they're better able to absorb and reflect on the content.
There will always be time for films, and they should never be forced on someone.

reply

[–] lizerooh 15 years ago

I saw this as a young teen for the first time and was profoundly moved by Sir Thomas More's integrity and steadfastness. The teen years are highly formative of lifelong character and I think teens crave a timeless role model. In More, they have this. I am a major history buff but even putting that aside, this is one of film's very best depictions of a person unwaveringly true to their character. That is what makes it such an attractive film to young viewers. We all wish for a world more black and white than shades of gray and rarely get it.

reply