A Man for All Seasons (1966), directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Paul Scofield and Robert Shaw, recounts the events of the life of Sir Thomas More, a prominent Renaissance statesman and humanist in England. He becomes caught between his beliefs and his king as the Church of England secedes from the papacy due to King Henry VIII's desire to divorce his wife. Set in early 16th-century England, the film focuses on the events of Henry VIII's reformation and Thomas More's opposition to it. However, its broader historical context is during the late Renaissance and early Protestantism. England had long been an ardent supporter of Catholicism, but everything changed when Henry VIII made himself head of the Anglican Church. This proved to be one of the most important changes in the history of England, as it dictated the attitudes of the English people and their actions for centuries to come. An example of this is England's motivation to colonize the New World in the 17th century, to compete with the also expanding Catholic nations. This period was the defining hour of English history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The film is extremely informative for those who are uninformed about the time period. Teach the reasons why the English Church separated and what it did about it. It does not focus on the world's reaction to the separation, but shows England's reaction. It is extremely accurate in the details of the acts, for example the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and the First Act of Succession. Personally, I found it interesting to learn about the person Thomas More was, his beliefs and philosophies. To me he was best known as the author of Utopia; I was unaware of his involvement in the separation of England from the Catholic Church. I also found it interesting to learn about his trial and the beginnings of modern judicial law. One scene that struck me was when More was being interrogated by the king's three officers. He was questioned about his beliefs but refused to surrender. His manner and logic were intelligent and almost mocking towards those who tried to trick him into making a “confession” or statement of opposition. As a lawyer, More knew the law and knew what actions would deem him treasonous. When he said that Cromwell should be threatened with justice, and Cromwell said that he had been threatened with justice, More replied: "then I do not feel threatened." Based on my knowledge of the time, the film was historically accurate. I doubt that every event occurred exactly as in the film, if it occurred at all (e.g., the king's visit to More's house), but it's tiny and doesn't matter. It would be quite difficult to achieve perfect accuracy, especially if different English was spoken in the 16th century. As for the broader context, I think that's extremely accurate. Clothing, relationships, method of transportation, location, everything was accurate. The aim of the film was to bring to light the story of Thomas More, the humanitarian and Catholic philosopher of the Renaissance. The events of the separation of the Churches are well documented and known. The events themselves are rather boring and would not be worth making into a film; however, using them as a setting and context offers an interesting insight into people's thinking during that time, as the film focuses on Other. It also serves to bring More to the forefront of Renaissance humanists, as he is often forgotten in the shadow of artists such as Petrarch and Da Vinci. It also serves purpose.