A Man for All Seasons (1966), directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Paul Scofield and Robert Shaw, recounts the events in the life of Sir Thomas More, an important statesman and humanist of Renaissance England. He finds himself caught between his beliefs and his king as the Church of England separates 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 a staunch supporter of Catholicism, but that all changed when Henry VIII took over as head of the Anglican Church. This proved to be one of the most significant changes in English history, as it dictated the attitude of the English people and their actions for centuries to come. An example of this is England's drive to colonize the New World in the 17th century, in order to compete with the also expanding Catholic nations. This period was the decisive hour in English history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The film is extremely informative for those unfamiliar with the period. It teaches the reasons why the English Church separated and how it went about it. It does not focus on the world's reaction to separation, but shows England's own reaction. He is extremely precise in the details of acts, for example the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and the First Act of Succession. Personally, I found it interesting to learn more about the person Thomas More was, as well as his beliefs and philosophy. For me, he was better 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 the one in which More was being questioned by the king's three officers. He was questioned about his beliefs but refused to back down. His manner and logic were intelligent and almost mocking of 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 label him a traitor. When he said that Cromwell should threaten justice, and Cromwell said he was threatened with justice, More replied: "Then I do not feel threatened." Based on my knowledge at the time, the film was historically accurate. I doubt every event happened exactly as in the movie, if at all (e.g. the king's visit to More), but it is tiny and of no importance. It would be quite difficult to get perfect accuracy, especially when people in the 16th century spoke different English. As for the broader context, I think it's extremely accurate. The dress, the relationships, the transportation, the location, everything was accurate. The aim of the film was to highlight the story of Thomas More, the Catholic Renaissance humanitarian and philosopher. The events of the separation of the Churches are well documented and known. The events themselves are quite boring and should not be made into a film; however, using them as a setting and context gives an interesting insight into people's thinking at that time, as the film focuses on More. It is also to put More in the spotlight of the humanists of the Renaissance, because he is often forgotten in.