MovieChat Forums > Becket (1964) Discussion > I'm ambivalent about this film

I'm ambivalent about this film

posted 17 years ago by Hancock_the_Superb
7 replies | jump to latest

I blind-bought this movie at a Wal-Mart last May when me and my friends went to see "Pirates 3". My motivations for watching it were its similarities (at least superficial ones) to "A Man for All Seasons", one of my favorite plays and movies, and the starring of Peter O'Toole, one of my favorite actors.

The first time I watched this movie, I couldn't really get into it. The dialogue seemed stilted and the film as a whole did not really interest me.

The second time I watched it, I focused on other things, like the sets and costumes, and the acting. And I loved it. I've only watched it once since then and it reinforced my feelings from the second movie.

However... I read the play of it, and it was absolutely awful. It was a horrendous "new" translation of the original script. The dialogue was completely and utterly ridiculous, and Henry and Beckett seemed like modern-day teenagers rather than a King and his Archbishop. When Henry says in the opening scene with the Bishops, "Show me the money!"... you know you have problems.

I think the dialogue in the film is just moderately better. The script seems to be trying to hard to be significant and generally comes across as way too modern for the 12th Century. I feel the same way about "The Lion in Winter", which treats Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine as if they were a squabbling couple in modern-day Chicago. It's not just "I can relate to it" modernity, it's just modernity in and of itself. "A Man for All Seasons" has some speeches, particularly by Thomas More, that come across as overtly theatrical, but even in the most extreme examples it seems to come naturally from the character, rather than from the playwright thinking "What can I write that will go on the IMDB quotes page?"

I like the movie primarily for its marvellous production values, and brilliant lead performances by Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. But I will always be bothered by the screenplay and dialogue. That's just me though, feel free to disagree.

Well yes, a splat today, but tomorrow - who knows, or dares to dream?

[–] LeofricsBeloved 16 years ago

Hi Hancock, I remember you from the Lawrence of Arabia boards. What happened to the old posts there? There were some good discussions there. *sigh*

I do agree with you on most points. Personally, I only enjoyed the extraordinary, historical performances of some of the greatest actors who ever lived - Hepburn, O'Toole, Burton, Scofield.

There is hardly any historical film that isn't on some level a fantasy film as well, where the writers project contemporary issues and values onto the historical characters. I think you are right that they are misplacing our modernity into A Lion in Winter, but these films are showcases for these fine actors to perform primarily in the Shakespearean tradition - to recite divine, philosophical dialogue in torment.

For me, watching Peter O'Toole writhing in torment over unrequited love in Becket was worth the 2 hours. Vintage Peter O'Toole. ;)

Do you know where I'm going? Anton Chigurh No Country for Old Men

[–] Tolmides 16 years ago

That's interesting. I agree that the dialogue did sometimes feel stilted, but I thought it did a good job of not imposing modern values onto the film. The treatment of women in it would be outrageous today, but the film doesn't impose any judgement on it.

Of course, you can't overlook the historical innacuracies, but that's a different thing to the feel of it.

[–] stephen-morton 15 years ago

I agree with the OP. Excellent old-style acting is hindered by stilted dialogue.

One place which sounded really anachronistic to me was when the young monk (Brother John?) talks about being sand in a machine and then about a well-oiled machine. They certainly had machinery of some types in the 12th-century, but this seems to imply machines of iron with interlocking gears and just seems like a totally modern expression.

Otherwise, I was annoyed by the way Becket told us at the beginning how he didn't really love anything and needed to find his honor, then wondered aloud what would happen when he finally found it. It's a classic case of telling instead of showing. The greatest movies are able to convey things with subtlety instead of obviousness.

[–] deeveed 15 years ago

Interesting take...

You know for me I find the film is really a complete exposition of character studies and primarily showing the relationship through time of Becket and the king who wrestle with their demons by wrestling emotionally with each other.
How far does friendship go when it touches on who you are, who you believe you are? What does it say about your 'core' values? In a way "Becket" also explores these themes that exist in that other film AMFAS. Another aspect that's so great to see is the aspect of power and how it's wielded in the film. For my money, the scenes where Henry is asking for money from the archbishops are so engrossing and riveting to watch and that's due I think to the fine script. It's a great battle. O'Toole also adds a great comic touch in his enunciation of some lines. He certainly was perceptive in playing a king. Becket...it may not be the greatest film in the world but it's one that we're richer for to have in the vaults... PS..AMFAS is my fav film.....;-)....

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deeveed 12 years ago

oh boy della you are harsh!...;-)....can you note your favorite historical costume drama?

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin22 12 years ago

I enjoyed the Dialogue in this film very well, it's as quotable as any other Epic. Lion in Winter is a little Melodramatic for my tastes.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"