A Man For All Seasons

I found this 1967 Best Picture winner a stirring film. It is a costume drama set in 16th century England that is very serious indeed. But it is not stuffy even as it is in earnest. It is about something we all aspire to be: a person being true to himself and what he believes. It is inspiring to see a man hold firm to his principles in a world where so many are saying “Why? What does it matter? It’s just a little oath.” But he will not. In this day and age I find it extremely refreshing.

We see our main subject, Sir Thomas Moore, at the start of the film receiving a royal notice from among the highest of offices in the country. The cardinal of England sends a message which we follow to Moore's estate. Moore has a vibrant household, his own court, a loving wife and doting daughter, a great house and servants. He is a man of means and influence and is also a man of great faith. He gathers his wife and daughter for prayer before he heeds the call to the cardinal to discuss the future of England.

There is a supplicating young man, Sir Rich, anxious to serve in his court but Moore sees him as too eager and offers him the advice to become a teacher instead. He warns him to turn away from the pursuit of money, notoriety, and influence. Rich (aptly named) is confused at this advice. Later when confronted with the choice to work for Moore's rival, a corrupt clerk of the church, he almost follows this advice. but bitterness gets the best of him, and the attraction of power and money. Rich threatens his lack of loyalty. Moore knew this all along and turns him away despite the threat.

The setup is this: King Hentry VIII is married to Catherine, his brother's widow, who is barren and therefore there is no heir to the dynasty. Henry is having an affair with Anne Bolyn and wants to divorce his wife to marry her, which is against the teachings of the church. Having already gotten special dispensation from the pope to marry Catherine, Henry needs someone like Thomas, a trusted and faithful believer, to stand on his side in seeking the divorce. Moore, always careful never to declare any statement against the king and the proposition, will not provide his support, even when the king names him Chancellor to England specifically for that purpose.

Moore is one of those guys that you say you want when you would prefer a leader who doesn’t want to lead. He warns against power, bribery, and corruption. He is careful with is tongue, always speaking facts and letting others come to their own conclusions. He is loved and trusted. He is the one man the king seeks approval from and the one man in the country who will not give it. Even when an oath is required to support King Henry as head of the new Church of England, at risk of being named a traitor.

Visually, the film puts Thomas Moore and his old friend Rich on inverse paths. As Thomas's position is lessened which each new appeal that he acquiesce, his home becomes threadbare, servantless, and then he winds up in prison, each cell getting more dark and dank. And he is anxious for his family, but at peace with himself. On the contrary, each time we see Rich he has a nicer coat and a bit more power, and is always looking nervously over his shoulder for the next command from the clerk to find something to sully Moore's name to the public.

The great climax is just like Peter testifying before Rome when Moore is brought before a trial at the highest court of the land. He performs admirably - he was trained as a lawyer, after all - defending himself against the baseless accusations. He declares that Truth is not changed by the vote of the people or the decree of a king. Rich is brought in and we see the contrast between two men - one who held his word and his faith as a part himself, and the other that let it go at every offer.

Malcom X

As I started watching Spike Lee’s 1992 biographical film Malcolm X on TCM this week I recalled that I once wrote a paper on Malcom X at a fairly young age in school—could’ve been elementary school, could’ve been middle school. The only thing I remembered was that I did the paper and little else besides that he was a civil rights thought leader and that the general impression I got was that he was a bit militant. In this case my ignorance made the film more compelling as Lee’s film quickly pulled me in and blew away any expectations I had.

The key to this film, for me, was the intensity in which Malcolm approaches each period of his life. Starting as a cocksure criminal, to his full-bore prison humbling and conversion, to his staunch and righteous leadership among his Muslim brotherhood, it is in the final stage of his life that the intensity starts to settle and transform to acceptance, openness, and humility. Each stage portrayed is built on a foundation carefully laid by Lee and his co-writer Arnold Perl. It provides the audience an understanding of Malcom’s character development, showcasing his strengths but not shying away from his blindspots.

Even knowing a few overarching details about his life, each change in his character, including and especially how he started his adulthood as a hustler, is a surprise. In each era of his journey he runs up against a wall and is willing to completely throw away his old self in order to adapt a system that makes more sense than the last. In the first, his street life is a reaction to the trauma of his younger years. He learns to just focus on himself. He is skilled and can get lots of women, alcohol, and drugs. Then in prison he abandons that by adapting a worldview that tells him how the world has been conspiring against him and his brothers who he must build up through the teachings of a great and admirable man. Finally, he sees the flaw in following man at all, and for abandoning that for a higher center of focus, he is rejected by his own people and slain.

It’s powerfully told with some stylistic flares from early-90’s Spike Lee that bring you to the edge of your seat where other biographical epics of this scale would induce a yawn. These include low-angled, tilted ultra close-ups; vibrant long-shots highlighting Harlem and other settings; remix of archival footage; the opening intro and closing coda; and flashes of visceral, mind’s eye, psychological imagery, not to mention time period juxtaposition, like the flashback shot of him and his father both with their guns in hand protecting their families and fleeing their burning homes. At the same time, Lee also gets all the majestic, grandstanding, autobiographical mainstays just right, i.e. rousing speeches, dramatic touch points, and accompanying symphonic score. The shifts in tone are at times fluid, at times abrupt, but never off-key.

I think the most beautiful sequence is Malcom’s pilgrimage to Mecca and subsequent evolution. To see this great man continue to grow and evolve into a constantly better version of himself is an inspiring example. There were views expressed through the film which I couldn't reconcile with my own thoughts and what the film itself seemed to be saying and I was drawn to keep watching to try and understand. They often made sense from Malcom’s life experience at the time but many were controversial even to other African Americans. But the film didn’t shy away from these, nor did it really denounce any, and this brought his character into clearer view by the end of his life. As he dies he is still a man in a point of transition.

Regarding the acting, Denzel is one of our greatest actors of our time and here proves that over and over again. In so many roles, he plies the audience with a charm that can turn on a dime from being endearing and playful to powerfully striking and serious. You lose him in the character more and more as the film progresses. Looking back at the Oscars for 1993, although I haven't seen all the performances nominated for best actor, his is one of two still considered today and certainly the most remembered. It seems a mistake in hindsight to not have given the statue to him.

The last thing I’ll mention is the power of Angela Bassett and the portrayal of Betty & Malcom’s romance. She is powerful, sweet, and loyal. While they did take a couple of liberties in aspects of their home life, his widow served as a consultant on the film. You can feel the heat of their love, based in their love of God, and it is an anchor.

Although the film is quite long at three and a quarter hours, it is compelling and a rewarding watch. It's rated PG-13 for language and would be a great civics lesson for any teenager.