View Full Version : How accurate?

02-16-2006, 11:05 AM
"A Man for all Seasons." The film/play.

Henry, Thomas, the Church, Cromwell. It's beautifully written. Did that corruption and honor actually battle that way? Someway like that?

In anycase, about as good as English gets, this side of ol' Will.

02-16-2006, 06:27 PM

I can look on the film case to suss the author. It's one of those plays very much like Shakespeare. The English is rich like unsweetened chocolate. You have to take it in small bits, or it overwhelms you.

Speeches given to Cromwell, Sir Moore, occasionally Henry, all electric.

Was Henry such a swaggering boor, with a half-rate education? He comes off as a strong persona, without much behind it.

Moore, caught in a trap of strange friendship. A very honorable fellow, and there was his fault.

Was Cromwell a consumate villain?

02-16-2006, 08:11 PM
Henry had the best education available. His father, Henry VII, intended him to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury, until his older brother Arthur died.

Wild Dingo
02-16-2006, 08:31 PM
On the other hand Jack... who knows and who cares? I mean who really I mean REALLY gives a flying purple ducks puckered sphincter muscle what the old Brits where like?

Oh sure its history is pretty interesting but personally I kinda like the Brits just as they are... other than the whining of course but hey thats just the Brits and is acceptable... they cant play cricket rugby or soccer for shyte and have to import their players and coaches from... mmmm Aussie!! ;) And their "leader" is a whimpish git who shoulda been tossed on his arse the day they elected him (much as we shoulda done the same to our brown nosin wanker of a "leader") but we and they didnt so were stuck with them... still for the most part Poms are pretty good people as they are

But the present day Brits are okay just like they are the history ones well I personally wouldnt give you two bob for any of them coniving viscious mongrels most of them including the sheilas... why any would think of immortalizing them for any reason is beyond me

02-16-2006, 08:58 PM
They said things really well, which can't be said easily.

Wild Dingo
02-16-2006, 09:14 PM
Well perhaps perchance thou canst understand their words of froth an bubble buts to mineownself I must be true... they speaketh so much with a lisp that I findeth it impossible to take seriouthly anythin thine eyeth may readeth :D

02-16-2006, 09:31 PM
Go to your local library, or better hear it spoken. Spoken makes a lot of sense.

The language isn't frothy at all. It's direct. You'd think, given the circumstance, it would be frothy

Thomas Moore is opposed to Henry's marraige, because they are both churchmen, and Moore won't give that up. The reparte is very worth a listen. I can't write that well, but I know it's there.

[ 02-16-2006, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

Alan D. Hyde
02-16-2006, 10:01 PM
Google the play by name, Jack, and use author Robert Bolt's name, too.

The complete text of the play is on line, and of course it's very cleverly written--- Bolt had a wonderful way with words (he wrote the screenplay for Lawrence of Arabia, IIRC).

Not surprisingly, neither story, as he tells them, is wholly congruent with history--- sometimes, he's not even close (there's plenty of criticism of this on the web, too). But then, Shakespeare wrote some great plays out of Holinshead's Chronicles, which also contain much bad history...


[ 02-16-2006, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

02-17-2006, 06:42 AM
Thanks, Alan and ahp, and all.

If you let the words of "A Man For all Seasons" play over you, really wash, they are strong, and true. That we've, in our habits, come to prefer weaker is a failure of...of something I'll refrain from naming.

I know the failure is there.

[ 02-17-2006, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]