This Season Tickets About us Support Us Survive and Thrive Join Us Education Discounts

A Man for All Seasons

Media Reviews

Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Strong portrayals enliven powerful story of integrity
04/03/2009
Grade: A

‘A Man for All Seasons’ explores moral choice

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

What’s the value of compromise? Of principle? What if a rigid personal code —- sometimes confused with morality —- destroys everything and everyone you love? Is Hell really the worst place out there?

The moral of A Man for All Seasons —- an outstanding production running through April 12 at Theatre in the Square in Marietta —- is delivered by the Common Man directly to the audience:

“It isn’t difficult to keep alive, friends —- just don’t make trouble. Or if you must make trouble, make the sort of trouble that’s expected.”

Robert Bolt’s 1960 play (as well as two Hollywood versions) is on the life and execution of Sir Thomas More, sainted by the Catholic Church for refusing to condone the divorce of King Henry VIII. It’s as much costume drama as courtroom thriller, with the infallibly logical More jousting points of law —- winning all of them —- yet getting snared in political traps.

Bolt sprinkles advice on compromise throughout the play, as when a boatman (Chris Ensweiler, who’s also the Common Man) navigates downstream: “The river is silting up, but there’s a channel in the middle that’s getting deeper.”

As Thomas More, John Ammerman underplays the only public figure in 1530s England who won’t go with the flow. Here he’s an everyman, a bureaucrat, the banality of goodness. Believably, he’s a decent husband and loving father. Ammerman’s articulated but not-quite-British accent steers him away from aristocratic airs. It all makes for an inscrutably compelling portrayal.

David Kronawitter is smarmy and perfect as More’s opposite, the opportunist Master Rich, whose corruption leads to power and, by his own standards at least, a successful life.

More’s wife and daughter are also neatly cast —- Holly Stevenson and Cara Mantella —- a combination of headstrong, supportive and fearful.

True to the script, Brik Berkes makes Henry VIII an adolescent in a man’s body, a bit of a brat with a crown atop his head. As More’s prosecutor, Thomas Cromwell, Harrison Long isn’t in league with the others. You can see the seams in his acting.

Even in Robert J. Farley’s direction, though, the play remains dry and loaded with talking points, sometimes weighed down by them. Still, Bolt’s sober exploration of ideas —- how one should live life

and the social and political risks of those decisions —- makes for a rewarding night out. It’s a lot to chew on.

With a cast of 11, A Man For All Seasons is the biggest show of the season for Theatre in the Square. As the economy continues to slip away, it’s likely to be one of the biggest it will manage for the foreseeable future. See it while you can.

8 p.m. Tuesdays through Saturdays. 2:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Sundays. 10:30 a.m. March 25 and 2:30 p.m. April 8. $22-$33. Theatre in the Square, 11 Whitlock Ave., Marietta. 770-422-8369; www.theatreinthesquare.com

Atlanta Theatre Buzz:
THE UNCOMMON MAN
04/03/2009
Grade: A+

As "The Common Man," Chris Ensweiler takes the stage of Theatre in the Square to tell us that "The Sixteenth Century is the Century of the Common Man. Like all the other centuries." And then he proceeds to tell us of one of the most uncommon men to ever enter the political arena. Sir Thomas More was, in the view of playwright Robert Bolt, a man who put conscience ahead of state - he would have been able to understand our contemporary debates regarding separation of church and state, for, as A Man for All Seasons shows us, he was willing to go to the block rather than betray his own principles. Can you imagine any contemporary politician (or pundit) who would do the same?

Theatre in the Square has mounted a marvelously designed and performed spectacle, one that uses theatrical razzle-dazzle to tell its simple story. This production shows us a panoply of characters who are seduced by the dazzle, who find theatricality in everyday interactions. And at its center is a thoroughly grounded and honest man whose feet are planted more in the earth than on the stage, yet who plays a central role in one of the major turning points of post-medieval history. John Ammerman gives an outstanding performance as More, showing us a man who lives on the cusp of sanctimony, a humorous and self-deprecating moralist who nevertheless shows us the steel behind the sanctimony, the honesty behind conscience. He repeatedly pronounces faith in his king and in the safety of the law, even when that king uses the law against him.

It is 1530, and the British monarchy is in crisis. Henry VIII has no heir. The civil wars of the Plantagenet and Tudor successions are recent enough that everyone fears another outbreak. Yet Queen Catherine is less likely to produce a son with each passing year. If the pope will grant the king a divorce, he can marry his latest young (and presumably fertile) paramour, Anne Boleyn. But the pope, a corrupt puppet of Spain, will not budge. So, Henry and his parliament break from Rome and form the Church of England. Henry's chancellor, Sir Thomas More, recognizes all the secular implications of the action, recognizes the corruption and politicization of the Pope, even recognizes Anne Boleyn as the Queen and her children as the heirs to the throne. But he remains stubbornly silent on Parliament's ability to take the road it has taken, on the legality of "over-ruling" the Pope in such an ecclesiastical matter. And, because of his popular reputation for honesty, the King will do whatever it takes to break that silence.

This is a dense and vivid play, one I have seen produced several times, and one which never fails to move me. It is filled with clever (and often poetic) dialog, with logic and rhetoric that would shame any debate club, with suspense and reversal and simple statements of love and loyalty, and with one of the most compelling courtroom scenes ever written for the stage. Since I'm not an historian, I cannot vouch for its accuracy - other sources show us the darker side of More's strict adherence to conscience. In "The Tudors," for example (admittedly a bastion of sleazy inaccuracy), he is painted as a fanatical heretic-hunter/killer. Indeed, the same certainty so canonized here in Bolt's play can very easily be understood to lead to a sociopathic disdain for any who disagree. Here, though, Mr. Ammerman and Mr. Bolt are creating a compelling figure, a victim of the currents of history who remains above the pragmatic compromises of his friends and fellows.

The set (by Jonathan Williamson) is a beautifully conceived pseudo-Tudor structure that can transform from palace to prison with a shift in light. Indeed, much of the play is performed in shadow, the dark recesses just out of reach of candlelight, as indeed much of the political maneuvering is practiced and hidden. But More himself remains in the light, remains open and understandable and admirable. The costuming here is top-notch - most of the characters are dressed as they are in paintings I've seen of them. The costumes are detailed and extravagant and character-specific and designer Jeannie Crawford deserves every bit of praise that will surely be coming her way.

The supporting cast is marvelous - Mr. Ensweiler's "Common Man" shifts from role to role, but remains our guide, our connection to the complexities of the story. Brik Berkes gives one of his best performances ever as the flamboyantly masculine Henry VIII, still youthful and fit, still every inch the King. Holly Stevenson's Alice More is all flinty affection and James Donadio's Spanish Ambassador all oily maneuvering. If Harrison Long's Cromwell comes off at the start as too much the Melodrama Villain, that may be more the result of his always black costume, always sinister goatee. David Kronawitter's Richard Rich is a much more compelling "villain" - we see his descent, his seduction, his regret at the violence he has done to More and himself. In smaller roles, Peter Thomasson, Cara Mantella, and Rich Remedios all acquit themselves well.

But this is first and foremost More's story, Ammerman's play. I liked him from his first entrance to his last. He makes More an uncommon hero who is grounded by a commonality most of aspire to and can never hope to achieve. His journey forces us to ask those difficult questions - what do I believe with enough passion that I would go to my death rather than to betray that belief? I certainly do not wish to face the same tests of character, the same damned-if-I-do, dead-if-I-don't dilemma.

If you'll forgive yet another personal digression, it's easy to say that since I do not myself believe in eternal damnation (or, for that matter, any afterlife) that I could easily make the same sort of character compromises that More's family and friends tempt him to. But, then, why, at my wedding, did I jump through so many semantic hoops so I could give my wife her priestly wedding without swearing to anything I didn't believe myself? Maybe, because, eternal damnation or not, our words and actions have very real consequences to those we love, to ourselves and to the rest of our lives. This play, this production makes clear that it's the commitment, the honesty that is important, and I find that worthy of praise, the perfect antidote to the moral compromise that characterized last week's Tent Meeting.

I suppose I have taken the Common Man's final words to heart. "If we should bump into one another, recognize me." "A Man for All Seasons" shows us an uncommon man, one with a belief-system as far removed from mine as his epoch is from mine. Yet, I recognize him. I identify with him. I aspire to his courage, his commitment.

And I was happy to "bump into" this production of this play that brilliantly brings him into focus. I urge you to recognize it!

Back to Performance