reds v man for all seasons essays

reds 'v' man for all seasons essays Both A Man for all Seasons and Reds were aimed at Hollywood audiences and meant to appeal; to the general public, they include elements of character that are intended to please the audience (after all they needed to make money to pay for their making an estimated 45 million dollars in Reds case). In addition, some truths are left out of both, to make the film more concise and for the audiences enjoyment. This however, does not detract from the fact that they both offer accurate accounts of their relevant topics and do in fact both provide good representations of the past in film. In terms of characterisation, Thomas More (from A Man For All Seasons) is fairly accurate: according to Marius, More was witty, devout, principled, courageous and faithful unto death; Paul Schofield (More) conveys all of these attributes successfully (even humour in places). The story of Thomas More is one of a martyr, who died for his principles and stood strong in the face of corruption and the king, this is what the audience witness as they watch A Man For All Seasons, Fred Zinnemann (the Oscar winning director) successfully portrays the tyrannical Henry VIII reluctantly forcing More into execution through acts of parliament (the doctrine, confirming Mores acceptance of Henrys annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Arragon, which More refused to sign). However in terms of historical representation there are some truths, which are missing from Zinnemanns account, and in fact some that have been altered. For example, the infamous Richard Riche was not as malicious in him testimony against More as the film would have the viewer believe, and he actually played a much lesser role in history than in the film and his role was a lot less clear cut; what was conveyed was that he was a man striving to make himself and would no doubt have furthered his quest for power, influence and parliamentary position, ...