Movie – Becket (1964)

Movie – Becket

Score : 7/10 

Year : 1964

Director:  Peter Glenville

Cinematography:  Geoffrey Unsworth

Music: Lawrence Rosenthal

Country: UK & USA

Language: English (some Welsh, and some Latin)

Duration: 2h28 

Writers: Jean Anouilh (Play) ; Edward Anhalt (screenplay) 
Full cast (IMDB) 

1066 (AD), King Henry II of England, names Thomas Becket, his close friend, against his own will, to two important positions. The first is the position of Lord Chancellor, at the King's side. For the second, based on Becket's referrals to the Honor Of God (the subtitle of the original play), the King names him as Archbishop of Canterbury to replace the one he'd been at conflict with. Becket fulfills his duties to the King in his first position, but the second, as a clergy, becomes increasingly complicated, as he finds himself at odds with his religious duties... 



This movie adapts really well the 1959 play by French author Anouilh ; dialogues are often verbatim I recall only a couple scenes that from the written form which didn't make it to the visual, but it works really well despite this. 

Burton & O'Toole's portrayals are spot-on, intense and believable. 

Historicity :

Becket really existed, but Anouilh based his play on a 19th century book he found in a Parisian street merchant's stall. He made a change of nationalities for Becket and the King, as a dramatic licence, based on this book. Just before production, he was told of this inaccuracy, but he kept it for his plot's needs. 

There are a few other historical errors in this film, and his original play, pertaining to a few traits of Becket's, as well as King Hengry's relationships both with his wife and his mother, which are totally erroneous (he much depended on his mother's advice in real life, and his wife was very educated and never rebuked him in public as depicted here). 
Also, they actually had 8 children, 5 sons & 3 daughters. One of these sons, William, died before the events of this film, but the 3 daughters aren't shown and not even mentioned here.  

There are a few additions in this movie, that aren't as historically true as the play, but both depict enough differences with reality to be loosely based on it. 

Historical goofs aside, this movie adapts the play almost flawlessly. Being a 1964 production, it has minimal blood, and the debauchery discussed in writing is shown at its absolute minimal form on-screen ; some dialogues are crude and there are cringe-worthy aspects of sexuality, as the King went to brothels and set his wills on young girls which we have come to disprove socially. The movie doesn't over-exploit the situation, leaving most of it only in dialogues. 

There is a lot of comedic relief in the blasphemous dialogues, and the pace is quite good. 

There is one short scene with a feast that I didn't watch, when the court is presented with the then-new fork, and a short scene with the King, Becket and a cohorte going on a hunting expedition, but no hunting is actually shown. In fact, these two get separated from them and we only see them carrying their hunting-hawks. 

Cinematography and music are alright but don't shine for me - but considering the limited sets, one cannot expect much scenery. 

Starring: Peter O'toole, Richard Burton, John Gielgud, et al. (see IMDB link at top)

My Review of the play.