As a movie, I think 'Lion' is more entertaining.
But, if you judge the source material,'Becket' is a far better written play. Anouilh is most definitely an important author, while James Goldman, is, at the end of the day, a two bit writer.
I think that the secret of 'Lion's success are the performances: the actors deliver their lines in such a remarkable way that you don't pay attention to how awful the dialogue really is.
I can say that watching a performance of a recent stage production of "Lion" in London proved to me that I had a point. It was directed by Trevor Nunn, who doesn't appear to have done anything right in years, and starred Robert Lindsay and Joanna Lumley, who seemed to have just come out of a beauty salon instead of having spent several years in a prison. The actors delivered their lines with the kind of timing you'd expect in a sitcom: when Eleanor stated 'it's 1183 and we're barbarians, we have all knives!'; it just sounded like an annoying example of metareference (which it is btw), also considering that the actors then took a pause to allow the audience to laugh. Ditto for the 'What do you really want?' 'The Aquitaine' exchange. Lumley looked to be acting like in a Blackadder episode. Hepburn, on the other hand, gives you those lines so flashily and with so much dignity, that you're inclined to believe that the play is much more than it actually is.
'Becket' on the other hand has obviously much more depth, there's a better understanding of the ideology of the characters (despite Anouilh's historical errors) and their conflict.
I prefer the direction and atmosphere of 'Lion' though. Even the anachronistic Christmas tree that could have looked exteremely kitsch otherwise (it certainly did in the stage production I saw) had a more barbarian look and therefore you didn't mind it.
So, I think it's a tie if you compare them as movies, but "Becket" is easily the best play.
reply
share