A Bulwark conversation about A Man for All Seasons treats the film as a meditation on conscience, law, and the temptation of power, while drawing contemporary parallels to political figures who abandoned stated principles under Trump.
Watch on YouTube ›Get the market thesis, key claims, assets, contradictions, and follow-up questions from any financial video — then unlock a version personalized to your portfolio, watchlist, and favorite speakers.
Mona Charen and Sunonny Bunch discuss the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons, its production background, and why it became a touchstone for conservative thinkers. They emphasize Robert Bolt’s writing, Fred Zinnemann’s direction, and Paul Scofield’s restrained performance as Thomas More. The conversation frames the movie as a serious, argument-driven historical drama about conscience, law, religious conviction, and resistance to arbitrary power. A major theme is why the film resonated with conservatives: More’s refusal to bend before Henry VIII is presented as a model of individual integrity and principled resistance. Charen and Bunch connect that to modern political behavior, especially describing some conservatives as having become “Richard Rich” types once Trump arrived—abandoning prior moral commitments for status, access, or power. …
No near-term market setup is present; the immediate actionable content is a political-moral analogy about who holds principles when power becomes available.
The medium-term narrative is that public figures who claim principle may keep being judged by whether they trade it for access and influence; the film serves as a template for that scrutiny.
The long-run implication is structural rather than tactical: institutions, law, and conscience are portrayed as the only durable checks on arbitrary power, and that lesson remains portable across eras.
A Man for All Seasons won six Academy Awards and was a major critical success.
Bunch describes it as an enormous awards-season success and says it won six Oscars, including Best Picture.
The film resonates because it is a movie of arguments and ideas, not just plot.
They explicitly praise its dialogue-heavy structure and say it rewards rewatching to catch the arguments better.
Conservatives adopted the film as a touchstone because it dramatizes conscience, character, and standing apart from the crowd.
Charen says conservative thinkers and judges repeatedly quoted it, and that it embodied the idea of eternal truths and individual character.
Can you set the scene in terms of the background of what kind of a movie A Man for All Seasons was — it won like six Academy Awards, tell us about the producer and director?
Sunonny explains that A Man for All Seasons was written by Robert Bolt, first staged in 1961, adapted as a film in 1966 directed by Fred Zinneman (known for High Noon). It won six Oscars including Best Picture. Bolt also wrote Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia. Zinneman's reputation fell out of favor with critics like Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, who dismissed him as making 'anti-movies.'
What do you make of the fact that this movie became a touchstone for conservative thinkers like Bill Bennett and Antonin Scalia?
Sunonny finds it interesting and suggests it would be useful to set the stage of the historical conflict for viewers who may not have seen the movie. He asks Mona to do that since English history is not his area of expertise.
Does A Man for All Seasons also reflect the blacklist/McCarthy era context?
The guest agrees, noting that the play was about a man refusing to name names under pressure, and the host adds that Bolt himself was a man of the left writing about the McCarthy era—paying tribute to those who maintained integrity and refused to cooperate under pressure to name names.
Unlock the full claims, asset map, scores, related transcripts, follow-up questions, and AI chat — shaped around your portfolio, watchlist, favorite speakers, and risks.
