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

This or 'A Man for All Seasons'

posted 16 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.

[–] vanguard59 14 years ago

jdlugosinski: While I will say you are entitled to your opinion, "Becket" was a more literate film. better acting, as Mr. Paul Scoffield was a bit stiff though I like young Henry, by Robert Shaw,

"Becket" just read better, Both Thomasses have loved GOD rather than serve their kings as English Chancellor. Why Did darling Henry VIII Destroy Becket's tomb? Because it served as a symbol of the Church winning over the Monarchy.

There was a greater sense of tradgey and allienation in "Becket", Henry II hated or tollerated his arranged marriage due to Ellinor's wealth. Hated his sons tollerated his mother and felt betrayed by Becket---
Whom was a Norman. A film major error.

[–] fullmoon7461-908-439866 14 years ago

have to say i love both films--- and "Beckett" does have it's innacuracies... and "Murder in the Cathedral" is just another take on the same story.. 'Beckett'is more about the relationship between Henry and Thomas -- and you do have to throw "The Lion in Winter" in just for fun and seeing Peter O'Toole play two very different versions of Henry II --- great films, they don't make them like this anymore... take a look at the water-down version of "Pillars of the Earth", too much explaining too much over the top stuff.. pity as it was a great book, as far a storytelling goes... Wish that "World Without End' would have continued at the same point.. ah but i digress....

Good, well-written historical dramas are hard to find... and AMFAS and Beckett are great ones.. and even Lion in Winter, which doesn't try too hard to be accurate is good fun!!!

throw in the BBC The Six Wives of Henry the VIII and it's all good!

[–] vanguard59 14 years ago

Dear fullmoon7461-908-439866:

What I liked about the "Six Wives of Henry VIII", was for once the costumes were 99% accurate.

Showtimes "The Tudors", is a Renfaire mismash. Makes my teeth itch!

[–] fullmoon7461-908-439866 14 years ago

ah yes... even though the Tudor period is one of my favorite periods of history, I haven't watched "The Tudors" something about it just doesn't seem right...I like my historical innacuracy when it's over the top.. like Spartacus:Blood and Sand!!!

love that you said "it makes my teeth itch" great phrase

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lousvr 14 years ago

Com'on.. Paul Scofield is a level above these two.
When Scofield played More, i bought it.. when O'Toole & Burton play there respective characters, I see O'toole & burton hamming it up..

[–] happyguy99993 13 years ago

A Man for All Seasons... because some of the editing in Becket was atrocious. Its narrative seemed to be a tad more focused as well.

I'm not going there to die. I'm going to find out if I'm really alive.

[–] deeveed 13 years ago

Two absolutely great films of moral courage. For me to top one or the other I just can't do it. I'd have to say that there's a bit more comedy in Becket. That century didn't look so dull!

And I'd think we should watch them both for their arguably separate approaches:

Becket: How a man of principle handles its confluence with the bonds and expectations of friendship

A Man For All Seasons: How a man of principle handles its confluence with his own integral and personal psychology

And I'll say this. Mr. Zinneman's film deserves the blu-ray treatment too...
AMFAS is unfortunately left out there.

[–] Hythlodaeus 12 years ago

Yes! I kept comparing the two also.

I'd say A Man for All Seasons is infinitely better, however, I enjoyed them both.

I would watch a bad movie if Richard Burton was in it - there's a saying in Europe - something like, it takes a great actor to make a great movie and in the US it's it takes a great movie to make a great actor.

Burton is a great actor who makes whatever movie he's in.

I liked O'Toole from Lawrence of Arabia but he almost got on my nerves there - he definitely got on my nerves in Becket.

I am just not yet impressed with O'Toole.

What hump?

[–] Benedict_Cumberbatch 12 years ago

I prefer "Becket" to "A Man for All Seasons" (which needs a rewatch, to be honest)... and "The Lion in Winter" over both, if I had to choose!

"The fundamental things apply, as time goes by."

[–] MrEdnablackadder 11 years ago

I prefer "A Man For All Seasons". It has more dynamic direction and, while I think Anouilh's play just got the key elements of the Becket-Henry relationship (which was enough to make it work anyway), Robert Bolt seemed to better reconstruct More's historical context under every point of view and every character portrayal was a winning one. I also think that AMFAS has an even more glorious supporting ensemble (Wendy Hiller, Susannah York, Robert Shaw, Leo McKern, Orson Welles etc..) and better direction by Zinnemann.

The performances of O'Toole, Burton and Scofield are all on the same level, though.

[–] sacrednerve 10 years ago

I'm a big fan of both. I think AMFAS has better production values (score, production design, etc.) but Becket has a better screenplay and the untouchable performance by O'Toole. Granted, AMFAS could stand a fresh viewing.

___
http://i.imgur.com/NFBOAcA.gif

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

depends on the weather.

🌴"I'm not making art, I'm making sushi." Masaharu Morimoto🌴