The Tudors paints a much more detailed picture of Sir Thomas More. Yes, I realize that this film -Man for All Seasons- was made in 1966, and was just 2 hours long, but to really see the details of what made More who he was I recommend "The Tutors" -be prepared to spend more time in front of the tv screen, but it's worth it. Jeremy Northam is perfect in the role.
shareI would say not watch it instead, but watch it too. There were many sides to Thomas More, he was a very deep man. Jeremy Northam does give a very fine performance. I think he captures More's tender moments with his family very well. Also his relationship with Henry is explored in greater depth. A two hour film cannot go into the same detail. However AMFAS is a classic and an oscar winner and deservedly so. There are some fine moments of interaction between the characters and the trial scene (somewhat sketchily depicted in The Tudors) is gripping.
If you really do want to know about Thomas More and not just Tudor times in general then you have to see the film. Paul Scofield will always be Thomas More.
The King's good servant but God's first
I'm not the biggest fan of The Tudors - too much gratuitous/exploitative stuff for me - but I will agree that Jeremy Northam's portrayal of Sir Thomas More is much more detailed and nuanced.
"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."
Just asking..were there other film/theater productions beside this, AMFAS and Heston's TV work where More is portrayed as a character? I'd love to take a look at them.
shareAnne of the Thousand Days - William Squire.
"Some men will say we are traitors. Some will say we're patriots. Both will be wrong."
I was wtching Henry VIII with Ray Winstone the other day. Can't believe they omitted Thomas More entirely from that dramatisation.
But on topic, this play is too good to be overlooked. I'd watch both The Tudors and this.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
Winstone made a good Henry, certainly visually but I just could not blank out the cockney accent. Every time he said "Ainne" I winced. He was like a Tudor Phil Mitchell! Quite strange that Thomas didn't get a mention though, he was Henry's friend as well as his minister.
Waiting for my Mr Colin Firth Darcy
Hehe! You're right about the Cockney accent, like a gangster Henry VIII.
I just mentioned this dramatisation, as I was perplexed by the omission of Thomas More.
Atheism: a non-prophet organisation!
The story of More is a fascinating tale no matter who tells it, it is just pretty much impossible to screw up. I do think The Tudors handled it incredibly well, most of the show was trash, in the first season anyway, it really knuckled down and gained a greater level of respectability in the second year, but neither in that one, the season before, or the season after did they match the climax of the trials of Thomas More. That truly was one of the great episodes of television in many years, and all the wonderful build up work done across the past season and a half, the little scenes between Henry and the Sir Thomas, are what helped contribute to that. You can't get that in a movie. Northam was certainly wonderful, and if I'm being honest I much preferred the More-Henry relationship as portrayed with that large age gap, but what The Tudors never had, was a real burrowing into More's genius, rather just his goodness, their Cromwell was never as captivating a character, their writing was never as all encompassing, and for all Northam's fine work, they never had Paul f_cking Scofield.
_______
3http://tinyurl.com/37uu9kf