MovieChat Forums > Becket (1964) Discussion > Henry was in the right!

Henry was in the right!

posted 16 years ago by heckles
18 replies | jump to latest

Being old enough to remember 1964, I can tell you the Catholic Church was gaga over this movie at the time. A man who is a moral conscience to the King to start with, and then finds a new Master who is more demanding...and more satisfying to serve.

And it's a very good movie, particularly if you can't hear Richard Burton's rolling Welsh accent enough, and enjoy watching him act before he started in on his series of humorless, self-loathing characters in movies with bad scripts. In contrast, Burton's character here finds real inner peace before his death.

The thing is, what splits Becket and the King? A priest is accused of molesting a subject. Becket wants him tried by an eccesiastical court, the King by his own magistrates.

Considering the sex scandal that has enviscerated the U.S. Church, especially the revelations of Church wrist-slapping of guilty priests, who can doubt that King Henry was in the right? No one today would advocate clerical immunity to civil authorities.

[–] SeanJoyce 16 years ago

You're right....it's what helps make the film so ambiguous.

However, the disagreement itself is irrelevant. We're expected to admire Becket not on the grounds of his stance, but by the strength and resolve of his convictions; he stands dutifully by what he believes, and refuses to compromise.

Our decision on who to "side" with is supposed to be made easier by their personalities. Becket is devout, pious, and loyal, who begged not to be thrust in his position. Henry, by contrast, is loud, pompous, and brash, who tried using his best friend for his own gain.

Still, Henry's "love" for Becket and his painful confliction easily makes him the more complicated and intriguing figure. I suppose at the time it was made, it was easier to embrace Becket, but the passing of time and the state the church is in today makes things much more ambivalent.

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

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

he stands dutifully by what he believes, and refuses to compromise.

Not entirely; when he and Henry meet on the beach in France, he agrees to nine of the King's minor conditions, but not the most important one.

[–] deeveed 16 years ago

Fien points raised SamDash...

As far as "embracing" Henry today, I'd really wonder how much "embracing" he'd get notwithstanding the state of the Church today. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they embraced Henry since the clue resides in how we've managed to bungle our economic affairs. I'd argue that there wasn't too much moral squint with all the pecuniary interest and it led individuals down paths that have turned out not very good for the populace. Where was a Becket when we needed him?....;-)...

[–] TorontoJediMaster 16 years ago

I thought about that myself in rewatching the film.

The question is, if the priest in question had been remanded over to Church authorities, would they have actually punished him and removed him from a position where he could reoffend, or would they have simply shuttled him around to other parishes?

[–] aciolino 16 years ago

A simplistic arguement has ensued from an equally simplistic statement.

"Henry was right."

Well, if it were simply a matter of who should try the Knight for Murder, then yes, he was right. Perhaps. Maybe.

But was this Henry's intention? Was this his real motive, what he really sought.

No, I say, no, and no again.

Henry's goal was to obtain absolute rule over as large a Kingdom as he could muster. Absolute.

To aid him in this cause he would have murdered the Knight himself and knelt before the Pope, if need be.

Please.

Some grown-ups wanted.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin22 13 years ago

"Henry's goal was to obtain absolute rule over as large a Kingdom as he could muster. Absolute."-And even that is more right then allowing England to submit to a foreign Tyrant, the Pope, which is why people side with Elizabeth I even though she was no saint.

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

[–] Otter (24464) 8 years ago

Actually Henry's goal was to bring The Rule Of Law to England, and he enacted tremendous legal reforms during his reign - giving power to juries and setting up local courts to administer justice instead of requiring all disputes to be brought to the king. Beckett stood in his way, because he was thinking in terms of power politics and cared more about protecting the church's perogatives than administering justice or protecting the weak.

Henry was right and Beckett was wrong on this issue. And if Beckett was following his conscience, well, sometimes a well-intentioned person's conscience is wrong.

[–] BeEarnest 15 years ago

The conflict between church and state over primacy and supremacy
during the middle ages was a complex legal and theological one.
During centuries great minds and armies battled over it.

In its core lies the question about
which party originally received the right to rule by god and
then passed it on to the other.

That question is the base of Henries and Beckets conflict,
not that individual case of the specific priest or any question of morality.

[–] k-mann 13 years ago

The thing is, what splits Becket and the King? A priest is accused of molesting a subject. Becket wants him tried by an eccesiastical court, the King by his own magistrates.

Considering the sex scandal that has enviscerated the U.S. Church, especially the revelations of Church wrist-slapping of guilty priests, who can doubt that King Henry was in the right? No one today would advocate clerical immunity to civil authorities.

I don’t think you know how it went back then. First, a monk or a priest would be convicted by the Church and defrocked, sometimes leaving him without any funds. Then, he could be subsequently convicted by a secular court. The same with a knight. He could be tried by both courts. What Henry II wanted was total control, not just to ‘catch pedofiles.’ Henry II wanted that state to have total control over everything. He started the process that eventually resulted in Henry VIII.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin22 13 years ago

I'm not fan of State control, but anyone would prefer their own State to a foreign one, which the Catholic Church is.

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

[–] molarmaven59 13 years ago

Dear k-mann:

You hit the nail on the head!

Correct.

[–] deeveed 13 years ago

Henry II wanted that state to have total control over everything. He started the process that eventually resulted in Henry VIII.

And when we bring in Henry VIII, we can see how different his prelate, Wolsey, was compared to Becket. Two eras and two different approaches by men with apparently much different philosophies when dealing with affairs of state. Wolsey stands as more Machiavellian in fitting his behavior to Henry's whims. Henry II had a good man but he refused to countenance Becket's obstructionist political stances which came from beliefs deep within his inner core. I can only think Henry II had King Alfred's mindset of guarding the efficacy and early existence of the "English" State at all costs from supposed enemies within and without. But when he allegedly asked who will "rid him of the priest" I don't think he realized it at the time that later on he'd be an architect of Dover Castle. It's there that he made a statement of royal power in light of the reaction to Becket's martyrdom.

[–] scion9 12 years ago

I don't really see how Henry II could be considered a precursor to Henry VIII. Historically Henry II was in 'the right', because historically the Church in Becket's day was malfeasant.

The conflict in the movie is about a specific instance, but in reality there were many such instances where frocked monks were committing crimes (and I mean mundane crimes like banditry) and then getting wrist slapped, and shielded from secular prosecution.

The Crown Imperial, Royal Supremacy, et cetera were inventions of the Tudors, and I don't see where Henry II ever laid out any such claim, or was the kind of political dynamo or philosopher to have laid out such a claim.

I don't think that the Catholic doctrine that James used to justify Royal Supremacy for example was even present in the 12th century as it was with the considerably more 'mature' monarchy of the Tudor's.

12th century feudalism was considerably more realpolitik than it would become in the next few hundred years.

[–] Otter (24464) 7 years ago

At the time, one man in six worked for the church, and as such was immune from prosecution by the civil authorities. And we're not just talking priests and monks here, but regular schmucks who dug graves or farmed lands that belonged to the church, they could and did commit serious crimes and were immune from prosecution, if they committed a rape or theft they might face no legal consequences, because the church was notoriously lax about such things.

Which left Henry with a nation divided, in terms of the legal system. Nearly 20% of the population was immune from normal prosecution, while the rest faced extremely harsh justice. It was an unfair and uneorjable system and Henry was correct in wanting to change it. As I said earlier he was a major reformer who established justice by courts and juries rather than the whim of nobles or the king, and he was right and Beckett was wrong, wrong, wrong.

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

Becket was a traitor.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

AND he was morally wrong!

He just wanted to make sure the church had as much power as possible, he didn't give a rat's ass about justice or stopping crime.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]