MovieChat Forums > Becket (1964) Discussion > This or 'A Man for All Seasons'

This or 'A Man for All Seasons'

posted 15 years ago by jdlugosinski
31 replies | jump to latest

I watched "Becket" for the first name this week, and thought it was great. However, I could not keep from drawing comparisons between this and "A Man for All Seasons" (same kind of theme...king has friend, friend follows own sense of ethics and convictions, king gets pissed, friend is killed.)

While AMFAS didn't develop the relationship between king and friend like "Becket", I feel that AMFAS did a better job in expressing the tragedy of More's death. Somehow, Thomas Becket's death didn't really move me as much...he seemed to realize at the end that he was paying for his inability to love, etc.

Anyway, two great films...but I think I would reach for AMFAS for future viewings instead.

[–] SeanJoyce 15 years ago

I'm guilty of often comparing the two.

True, the two differ in their principal focus, but that's not to say that the similarities aren't obvious and abundant.

For me, the answer is easily Becket. It's easy to marvel at More's strength and resolve, which Scofield tackles effortlessly and gracefully, but it's the Freudian dynamics of the relationship between Becket and his king that I find most involving. And though Burton's laurels are well received, O'Toole gives a performance that belongs in the pantheon reserved for a select few that can be labeled genius.

I appreciate each film's alternate approach, but I'm resolute in my opinion.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] SeisCinemaSeis 15 years ago

Though one. Both are great movies boasting wonderful performances by legendary actors.

Probably I'd have chosen Becket over AMFAS if the first didn't contain serious historical inaccuracies. Since both movies are historical dramas, I have to say that AMFAS is the best of the two films.

What are those historical inaccuracies? 1st of all the historical Becket wasn't Saxon but Norman just like Henry II (Something QUITE important for the movie plot). Becket AKA Thomas à Bequet, wasn't fluent at all in english just like most normans, from Guillaume le Conquereur (William the Conqueror) to Richard Cœur de Lion (Richard the Lionheart). Becket's mother tongue (as Henry) was french and like most nobles at the time he was also fluent in latin, probably he only knew some basic english, old-english BTW.

AMFAS is historically more correct, most of the speeches by St. Thomas More are his very own words as they were written during the infamous trial against him.

Anyway both are great movies and that's what really matters.

[–] thesaluki55 15 years ago

Two of my favorite movies of all time, but perhaps the fact there are two absolutely world class performances in Becket as opposed to AMFAS's one, Becket is a hair ahead.

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

One thing I noticed in the two great films is that dialogue drives the film from scene to scene. These films have great writing and you can see and hear it in the characters as they react to each other. If anybody can note a modern day equivalent in film please let me know!

[–] stephen-morton 15 years ago

A Man For All Seasons.

I just finished watching both of them this week, and they're both great stories. But AMFAS seemed to really have great meaning for all times with its powerful speeches on the nature of conscience and law. Becket seemed to be more about these two characters.

I also felt Becket was good but not great. Despite the fact they had two of the best actors ever giving terrific performances, they felt the need to explain all their feelings in excruciating detail in the dialogue. THe film had no subtlety. I can appreciate old-style acting and speechmaking, but by telling us exactly what the characters' emotions and motivations are, the audience does not get to discover this through the course of the plot/performances. AMFAS's dialogue was just better.

[–] lostto 15 years ago

On first seeing the word "dialogue" in your reply, I immediately thought "Lion in Winter", before reading the full post. If ever there were a film dialogue-driven, that has got to be one of the best....its that film's singular best feature, and the entire basis of it being so great. There is little plot or storyline. Though it does develope its interesting characters, you wouldn't say its a character study. Its the sharp, incisive, brilliant repartee (especially between Henry and Eleanor)that makes the film such a pleasure to watch.

[–] BeEarnest 15 years ago

There is a common denominator between Lion in Winter and this movie
in the person of the king... ahmm.. O'Toole ;)

While I personally value Lion in Winter higher than both Becket and AMFAS,
Becket beats AMFAS in the duel for my favour by a good margin.

If I had to give a reason for this, then that I rarely have the urge to rescreen AMFAS,
whereas Becket draws my attention now and then.

Comparing those two to Lion in Winter is difficult,
its simply in its own class and
the combination of marvelous dialogues as well as the dream cast
make it one of the best movies of all time.

One has to give credit to the play its based on though...
I still have to get a copy of it and compare ;)

[–] TudorLady 15 years ago

A man for all Seasons. Because Thomas More is my patron saint and I wish there were more people like him in public office. (MPs expenses scandals spring to mind)

The King's good servant but God's first

[–] acmilan03c1 14 years ago

A Man for All Seasons

[–] tsauden 14 years ago

Murder in the Cathedral is, in its heady way, superior to both.

[–] Parks 13 years ago

I have also gained inspiration from this story. However as usual reality spoils it a little - while the real More's devotion to his faith was admirable it also allowed him to send those whose beliefs did not match his to death at the stake and torture on the rack.

This is also something to be kept in mind when comparing the historical accuracy of Beckett with AMFAS. In fact both films bend the facts to make for a more compelling tale. I see nothing wrong with this, and it is to be expected whenever artists attempt to make drama from history. Besides, history-buffs can always discern the facts for themselves.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vexata 14 years ago

I love both films but AMFAS has to get my vote as the more entertaining of the two if for nothing else but the terrific character performances by Leo McKern, John Hurt, Nigel Davenport, Orson Welles and of course Robert Shaw as Henry VII.

As for relationships between kings and friends, Henry II seemed to have a genuine close relationship with Becket, whereas you were only close to Henry VII
insofar as you could be useful to him. Henry VII had thousands of people executed simply for disagreeing with him, Thomas More included. I don't think
there was any real close relationship there to develop.

[–] paladin0110 14 years ago

Both good films, yet both Saints died for entirely different reasons. One died for Christ(Becket) and the other died because he wouldn't worship the king and not Christ. True More had a family that lost all rights to the estates that were later forfeit to the Crown.Henry did that a lot just to fatten his pocketbook. Becket had no property;all he had was the Honor of God. If you could truly love that idea, you would love both equally well, because neither would sacrifice their honor or that of God's to expedite man's innate selfishness.

[–] TudorLady 14 years ago

Actually Thomas More's family did not lose all rights. Thomas knew what was coming and ever the clever lawyer he made sure that his daughter Margaret and her husband were able to keep their house on the edge of the estate.

The King's Good Servant but God's first

[–] Helpfan65 13 years ago

AMFAS is by far the more superior film of the two on just about every level. First and foremost, it is historically accurate, the theme it deals with is on a completely different level and the direction/production/acting blows Becket out of the water.

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

AMFAS is by far the more superior film of the two on just about every level. First and foremost, it is historically accurate, the theme it deals with is on a completely different level and the direction/production/acting blows Becket out of the water.

Agreed.

When Scofield played More, i bought it.. when O'Toole & Burton play there respective characters, I see O'toole & burton hamming it up..

+1

I liked this one too but AMFAS is superior in every way.

Direction, acting, music, photography, art direction, costumes, etc.

[–] TheLittleSongbird 13 years ago

While I think A Man for All Seasons is the better film in its emotional core and writing, Becket is still very, very good and elevated by two superb performances.

"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)