The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Podcast on "A Man for All Seasons"
A little something for law students and lawyers
For our 1Ls at St. John's this year, my colleague Marc DeGirolami and I recorded a Legal Spirits podcast on the 1966 film, "A Man for All Seasons." The film, an adaptation of Robert Bolt's play, tells the story of Sir Thomas More's conflict with King Henry VIII over papal supremacy. It's an anachronistic portrayal. Bolt depicts More as a classical liberal who is dying for individual conscience--"What matters to me is not whether it's true or not but that I believe it to be true, or rather, not that I believe it, but that I believe it"--when in fact More was a Catholic martyr. And the film is a little too earnest at times, though it has a great cast, including Paul Scofield, Wendy Hiller, John Hurt, Orson Wells, and Leo McKern, who steals the show as More's nemesis, Thomas Cromwell.
The film and the story it reflects are especially appropriate for lawyers, even the non-theist kind. Marc and I use the film to explore topics such as the lawyer's obligation to submerge his own beliefs to advance his client's goals, the legal system's dependence on the sort of people who administer it, and the ultimate unreliability of law in a totalitarian state. Listen in!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“When all the laws are flat, where will you hide?”
To modern audiences the most accessible character is the Duke of Norfolk, More’s friend who urges him to just go along. “I’m no scholar . . . I don’t know if the marriage is legal or not!”
Is "accessible" really the word you mean ? I'm sure the Duke of Norfolk is very much the sort that would be congenial company over drink. But to me "accessible to modern audiences" has more of a ring of - recognisable as the sort of character you could easily bump into these days.
In which case surely Richard Rich is the most "accessible" - you could barely stroll down the street in DC without encountering a Richard Rich every twenty paces.
Well most of us are not in DC.
I meant to say he’s the guy most of us can identify with. Most of us just want to get along and get to tomorrow in one piece. Even if it’s (like Sgt. Schultz) “I see nothing!! Nothhhhinnngg!”
Cf. (from a recent post by David Kopel, quoting CNN): "[S]ources have told CNN that the [four] justices on the right did not believe they could depend on a fifth vote from Roberts [to invalidate a law that violates the Second Amendment]."
More certainly wasn't a classical liberal advocate of individual conscience. Hardly any existed in his day, and he could bawl for the faggot and the stake with the best of them. He just backed the wrong horse, and thought lawyerish subtleties could save him.
True.
He was both a martyr and a martyr-maker.
“We have to be careful how we use More. More was not a tolerant person.” — a recent Catholic Cardinal
More - "I have one question to ask the witness.
(to Richard Rich) -That's a chain of office you are wearing. May I see it? The red dragon. What's this?"
Cromwell - "Sir Richard is appointed Attorney-General for Wales".
More - "For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!"
Ha! a good line
Looking forward to the Netflix adaptation with a black female More and an ethnically and gender diverse cast. Since he's evil King Henry can be one of those pudgy yet still diminutive white guys who like to wear thick rimmed glasses and have their mouth hanging open and have somehow explosively multiplied since the 2010s.
OK, Amos.
I'll give it to you. That's funny.
Ha yes it is
For contrast review the films with Cromwell as the main character, from Hilary Mantel's novels.
Reviewed at First Things:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/08/the-mirrors-and-the-smoke
More, like most of the English people, had a preference for the religion in which he was raised. Unlike most of the English people, his preference was so strong he preferred death to apostasy.
Were there in fact any pro-religious-freedom people who disputed with them?
I know that his main adversaries did not disagree with the principle of persecution - they simply thought that persecution should be carried out in the name of uprooting tradition and establishing innovations, rather than defending tradition and resisting innovations.
Better choices for law-related movies:
The Verdict
...And Justice For All
Animal House
I'm no expert, but I do know that if you want to declare the leaders of the Church heretics, maybe Protestantism is more your speed.