I think everyone’s caught up now, or is to close to being so.
The question of the heir is critical, but I think that’s more specific to another throughline. For the OS, More’s line to Roper is key: “We must just pray that when your head’s finished turning, your face is to the front again.”
Allegiances and loyalties, all centered around the question of Henry’s marriage to Anne, his divorce from Catherine, and religious legitimacy. I would describe the OS as “Bending to the Marriage.”
Thoughts?
Hi Brant,
After watching it I wrote this exact note to myself:
OS Throughline story is: “Ensuring everyone supports the King (in his divorce, new marriage to Anne Boleyn, as head of the Church, etc.)”
That seems pretty darn close to your summary. (I especially like your word “bending”!)
Yes I think that’s definitely along the same lines. Both describe a state of affairs in flux, which will be useful later in the discussion. And I merely stole “bend to the marriage” from More’s final declaration in the trial (I have to say, Bolt was quite the writer, as the dialogue just crackles throughout).
Additional thoughts, @Prish and @Rod? Does this sound like the right direction, or do you see it differently (regarding OS)?
The king has the right to dictate/demand the law? When the film started, the gargoyles at More’s home held proclamations in their paws, seeming to represent law. When Henry’s boat came up the Thames? and docked at More’s riverfront, those gargoyles were holding nothing. It seemed a visual setup of the story’s plotting.
@LunarDynasty, I think your points are closer to the actual OS than my initial assessment was.
I mentioned earlier that I am having trouble identifying the IC… Could it be a matter of several handoffs happening over the course of the story?
Does anyone have thoughts on the IC?
I have a lot of thoughts on the IC … not sure if that’s the next question we’re “supposed” to tackle but I’m sure it’s burning in everyone’s minds. I checked the Birdman analysis and that thread dealt with all 4 throughlines first so it’s probably okay. Brant, please rein us in if you think we will confuse matters by looking at IC now.
My original guesses for IC while watching were Cardinal Wolsey, King Henry, Meg?, and lastly Alice! (I guessed Alice because I was looking for a Change character, since More seems a great example of a Steadfast Resolve.) But now that the dust has settled I’m not so sure about Meg or Alice, I’m actually thinking the Duke of Norfolk is a much better candidate (though I still think there’s more than one IC). He seemed to shift his perspective under More’s influence, realizing that he had to act according to his own conscience (doing what he needed to protect his family even if it meant dooming his friend) just like More was. In fact, there’s a good “two sides of same coin” to be made there.
Wolsey also may have shifted his position (towards acting according to conscience) by nominating More as chancellor – although I’m not sure if multiple ICs are supposed to each Change? I guess this one wasn’t a clear Change, it could be growth toward Change.
Was Henry growing toward Change when he thought he saw More across the hall, and was ready to embrace his friend? I’m not sure.
I’m not sure how to sum up the IC throughline itself, with the possibility of multiple characters. RS might be easier?
This is tough!
As far as what we’re “supposed” to do…
During the online user group classes that are posted on YouTube, Chris generally starts out by getting the class to identify the 4 throughlines. Brant has clued us in to some good candidate material for the OS. Thomas More as the MC is a fairly obvious choice, so I think identifying the IC is exactly where we “should” be. Not that the methodology of Chris and the Users Group is the only approach. I just find it to be a good one.
For myself, I think Cardinal Wolsey, the Duke of Norfolk, and King Henry are the prime candidates for IC, and I really do suspect there may be some handing-off occurring which might qualify all 3 of them as the IC at different points in the story.
I agree and would add his daughter. I see Henry as the IC, with everyone else being his agent representatives, maybe knowingly.
I’m beginning to wonder if More is a change mc. The whole focus of the film is his remaining silent, until the end where Henry stopped using the law and bought someone’s lie to defeat More. That finally got him to speak, so might that not be Henry was steadfast and More change?
That’s very interesting, Prish. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Hmm…
More DOES seem (for the most part) to be very stubborn/steadfast in his resolve. But I see what you’re saying.
Others can offer their input on this matter, but I think for now I’m going to stick with More being a Steadfast MC. While he does cave in a bit and start opening his trap at the end, he ultimately does seem to keep his resolve, and pays the ultimate price for it.
I think this question (whether More is Change or Steadfast) goes to the heart of the story. I think his Steadfastness is implied in the title – he is the one constant in the changing Seasons, the one who sticks to his guns when everyone and everything else is spinning around him.
When he speaks out at the end, I see that as a final demonstration of his original position, of his Steadfast Resolve. He was silent because the needs of being mortal meant he had to be – he talks to his daughter Meg about this, remember? Saying that they must do their best not to become martyrs until the end at which time they can speak their minds. Here:
If he [God] suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping…
…then we may stand to our tackle as best we can.
And yes, Meg, then we can clamour like champions, if we have the spittle for it.
But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass.
Our natural business lies in escaping.
That was when she told him about the new Oath, and he wondered about the words, whether it might be possible to take it.
I see the MC Throughline as something like “Acting according to one’s conscience - even when this makes it impossible to avoid hurting your loved ones”.
We haven’t gotten to the domains yet, but I think this may put More in the Mind (Fixed Attitude) Class. He definitely seems like more of a Be-er rather than a Do-er, which would preclude him from residing in one of the external Classes.
I don’t see him as a Manipulation character. He doesn’t suffer because of his manners of thinking, but rather his fixed attitude and refusal to give in.
If someone has a different take on More’s throughline, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
If not, I think we should get back to discussing the IC, as we’re not going to be able to get much further without getting a good grip on who our IC(s) are.
Having More in Fixed Attitude would place our IC in Situation… which may give us some clues as to who the IC’s are. Brant’s excellent assessment of the OS, “Bending to the marriage.” would put the OS in Activity, perhaps with a Goal of Doing.
Feel free to agree/disagree… Right now I’m just trying to see how all the pieces fit together.
Didn’t More indicate a propensity to manipulate actions based on the words of the oath?
Tell me the words. An oath is made of words. It may be possible to take it…Listen, Meg. God made the angels to show him splendour. As he made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man he made to serve him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If he suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping…then we may stand to our tackle as best we can. And yes, Meg, then we can clamour like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping. If I can take this oath, I will.
Also, didn’t Thomas manipulate Norfolk to slug him and to walk away from their friendship to protect Norfolk, when Norfolk initially refused to ‘dump’ him? He seemed to give a long look and a sad, satisfied hint of a smile as Norfolk stomped off.
Then again, Henry was like a rhinoceros like fixed attitude, activity based and creating a situation. I’m perplexed how it all got used. What was the situation, overall story, mc, ic, or relationship?
I agree – I don’t think we should settle on the Types of the Throughlines until we can summarize the “story” of each one. We seem to have a good consensus for the OS story, and maybe one for the MC, but still need to work on the others.
Yeesh, I went to bed and you all had a party! (Other side of the globe here…) 
I was going to suggest moving quickly to IC anyway, considering Thomas More seems the shoe-in for MC. I think there’s only two scenes he doesn’t lead us into (Rich / Cromwell’s plotting and the wedding party).
We’ll definitely get to the Resolve and the Throughlines soon. Your discussions thus far mimic my own back-and-forth thoughts about where things lie in the storyform.
I think we have ‘Group’ Influence Character - a handful of players who add up to an opposing perspective. I agree with the general consensus above that Henry, Wolsey, and Norfolk are the likeliest members, but I don’t think it is necessarily limited to them.
I see the IC as “Henry VIII’s Regime.” Comprised of Henry, his administrators in the government, and the nobility, they are all concerned about the Tudor dynasty coming to an end. So I think the ‘agents of Henry’ analogy that @Prish used is accurate.
You can see that while this involves a fair amount of the cast, it does not encompass everyone. Roper, Alice, Margaret, and Rich (even though he gets entangled with court shenanigans) are not concerned about the dynasty. But in the beginning they pester More about “the divorce,” thus aligning them with the OS.
This brings us to the Relationship Story, and this is part of my reasoning in seeing the IC as a group perspective. I don’t think More’s relationship with Alice, Margaret, or Rich changes over the course of the story - but with his political superiors? With the government he once served? Definitely.
I think this is the heart of the story: The State and its Subject. It is a dissolving relationship, where the once most-trusted subject becomes “guilty” of treason.
Hi Brant, that all sounds great to me! I certainly didn’t see it that accurately before your post but it makes sense.
Your RS summary / title feels perfect.
I had a qualm about the “Henry VIII’s Regime” IC title since it sounds like it would include Cromwell. And I wasn’t sure I can see Cromwell as a valid IC representative, being so slimy that he seems to have no way to influence More, nor to be influenced himself. However, I can see that he applies other types of pressure to influence More – taking away his books, getting Meg and Alice to visit him and try to get him to give in, etc. So maybe he could count? Do you see Cromwell as being more affiliated with the OS or the IC?
I don’t think this question keeps us from moving forward though. I think the Throughline summaries so far are great! We can always worry about Cromwell later.
I think Cromwell’s involvement is an important indicator of the deteriorating relationship between More and Henry - the King stops interacting with More directly and uses others as his agents (or bullies).
But otherwise, yes Cromwell himself is a minor part of the Influence perspective at best. There is an important line he echoes that will be helpful in discussing Resolve, but he’s mostly an OS character - he talks less of Henry’s bloodline and more about enforcing lockstep with the marriage.
Any other thoughts on the Relationship Story?
But only “guilty” because someone lied. They spent a lot of time, investigation and prep to get him on something, and in the end they could only lie and railroad an innocent man. Now, that did get him to speak the treasonish whatever, since he was going to be executed, anyway. That should be an important something.
Oh absolutely. My point was not More’s actual guilt (or lack thereof) but rather that his relationship with the head of state changes so drastically – Henry once wanted his good opinion more than anyone else’s, but in the end he sends him to the chopping block.
Your thoughts about his final speech bring us to the next point of discussion: Main Character Resolve. Is Thomas More Change, or Steadfast?
We’ve already had some conversation in this thread about More’s last testimony, and there seems to be a question of how this affects his Resolve in the storyform. What do you all think?
As far as More’s resolve… I believe he is Steadfast. Being a Steadfast character doesn’t mean you don’t have moments of weakness, or question yourself.
He could have resolved the OS problem if he had just given in to the demands. I believe his decision to hold his ground (whilst finally letting his tongue fly) demonstrates fairly conclusively that he’s a Steadfast MC.