Frank Langella receives mixed critical reaction for 'A Man for All Seasons'

Frank Langella, who won a Tony award and near-universal critical huzzahs for his last Broadway appearance in "Frost/Nixon," has returned to the stage as Sir Thomas More in the revival of Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons," which opened yesterday at the American Airlines Theatre. But the reception for the actor this time around has been noticeably less effusive.

The New York Times' Ben Brantley wrote that Langella "is inarguably a Great Presence in the respectful revival." But the critic said that the actor, "who can be counted on to put the pepper in mashed-potato parts, doesn’t find much variety in the monolithic goodness of the title character." Like many critics, Brantley faulted the Doug Hughes-directed production for being overly tasteful and rather preachy.

John Simon of Bloomberg complained that Langella's portrayal of More glorified the actor more than the character. The critic wrote: "Langella enacts him showily: much more loudly, more slowly and ponderously, in American English, and with self-serving ostentation."

Variety's David Rooney wrote that Langella's performance "is sufficiently commanding to overcome the role's limited dimension." He added that the actor's physical transformation during the second half of the play "is shattering." But Rooney criticized Bolt's play for its "windy preachiness" and noted that the "production gets bogged down in ponderousness during the long first act."

Michael Kuchwara of the Associated Press praised Langella for his "strong, even mesmerizing physical presence" and for his "fluid, mellifluous voice" that is perfect for his character's moral arguments. Still, he said the production "can't quite shake a sermonlike feeling."

The Washington Post's Peter Marks criticized Langella for sometimes falling back "on counsel from Ye Olde Handbook of Dependable Mannerisms."  He added that the actor's performance contributes to the feeling of "A Man for All Seasons" as "overly worshipful, even fusty."

— David Ng

Photo credit: Joan Marcus / Associated Press

Comments

[Laura Kelley]

They have to stop casting elderly actors inthe role of Sir Thomas and cast a younger actor. Reread the history. Thomas was at the top of his game with everything to lose when he entered the conflict with Henry. This should be played by a man in his late 30s or 40s or possibly even the younger 50s by US standards of working senority.

I am pleased that the play has been revived - disappointed that it was done in NY instead of London or some other less cynical city - and hope that people will continue to try to produce it - because it tells a wonderful story of a man holding close to his beliefs despite the tremendous political pressure of the state.