A Comparison Between The Film and Play Versions of A Man For All Seasons
.... It was a very small part so it didn’t really have an affect on the movie and I didn’t really notice. I myself wouldn’t take that part out but it didn’t matter that he did. This leads into the next question, do I agree with the director’s choice to leave out the common man? I don’t agree with the director’s choice to leave out the common man because, first of all, there’s nothing to gain by taking that part out. And Thomas More and the common man do talk in some parts of the play so taking that part out even though it’s a small part is still not a good idea. For example, when Moore has lost all respect from the people in Chelsea and he can’t get a boat, and needs to walk home. If in the movie, he could talk to the common man and have some dialog there to help explain why he couldn’t get a boat that would help clarify that particular part. The other change that the director, Fred Zimmerman made that had a huge impact on the movie was they left the role of Chapuys out. Chapuys had a pretty considerable role in the book and leaving him out had a noticeable effect in the movie. I don’t believe it was justified because Chapuys had a decent size role in the book, and taking him out really didn’t make any sense. Though I didn’t really notice his absence I still think it would have been better to keep Chapuys role in the movie. The setting, costumes, colour, music were really good in the movie and really helped create the appropriate feel of the movie for that time period. The costumes were r...