Homosexual Themes - SPOILERS - Becket (1964) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Colkitto 17 years ago

Well, Peter O'Toole has certainly noticed it. Listen to the DVD commentary - he discusses the subtext at some length.

Incidentally, I've heard (possibly on that commentary, indeed) that the "obsession" line is the only one in the film not written by Anouilh, but added by the director. Although I've read the play (I'd love to see it live) I don't remember it well enough to know if that's true.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] littlewing1957 16 years ago

I only caught the last 40 minutes of the film, and I think there must have been more there than just friendship. I've read that Henry loved Beckett above all others. I doubt if they would have had a sexual relationship, however.

Everybody should be working on an afghan - Juliet Mills

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nazgul_no_5 16 years ago

Well, to follow this up, in the "sequal" to Becket, the movie The Lion in Winter, where O'Toole reprises his role as Henry, Louis's son (also named Louis) reveals that he himself had a homosexual relationship with Henry's son Richard. When he first reveals this information, he tells Henry "I've learned how much fathers live in sons," and then goes on to speak of his relationship with Richard. So this would also seem to point to Henry and Thomas having a relationship that exceeded friendship, exceeded just pure love, which may have been sexual in nature as well as loving.

reply

[–] Drake_Clawfang 16 years ago

I didn't catch any homosexual themes. Yes, Henry says over and over he "loves" Beckett, but back in those days, as my English class has taught me, love meant something more along the lines of loyalty and devotion, not sexual attraction. As for Henry's obsession with Thomas, it makes perfect sense to me - he rose him up to Noble, to Chancellor, to Archbishop, and was his best friend, and Thomas turned on him.

I certainly see how one could find homosexual undertones, when the film is taken out of context, but once you take a closer look at the period in which the film takes place, I think you'll find there's nothing of the sort.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage.

reply

[–] edughi 16 years ago

I think that's a pretty conservative reading on it. It goes well beyond the use of the word "love"- its the outright obsession between the two men. I felt the obsession of Richard's for Becket's was totally romantic, because of the amount of passionate love and hatred he had for him, acting like a jilted lover.

I think perhaps the actual story has none of that subtext, but the way that the actors play the scenes, it seems rife with it, to me.

reply

[–] kathykato 16 years ago

Both Becket and Henry clearly loved to be with the women, though--they were frequently in the company of "wentches." I think Henry's obsession with Becket was platonic--Henry had many "wentches" to fulfill his sexual needs, but only one best friend in Becket.

reply

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 16 years ago

Agreed. They definitely loved each other, but there are many kinds of love - romantic and sexual is only one. Peter O'Toole points this out repeatedly on the DVD commentary, you'll notice - it doesn't matter whether there's a homosexual (as opposed to homosocial) component to their relationship.

Mr. Rusk. You're not wearing your tie!

reply

[–] arcturus6 14 years ago

I agree with this analogy. I think sometimes we take the word "love" too much to imply a sexual thing when it could be nothing of a sort. I think in this instant, Henry's "love" for Beckett would be more like that of a brother or very close friend with whom he had shared a good portion of his life, but not sexual. As the author suggested, "homosexual undertones" could be seen when the film is taken out of context.

reply

[–] Errington_92 14 years ago

In my opinion the homosexual tone of the film was a one way street coming from Henry but there can be various interpretations of the extent of their relationship. Henry was a complex character, he acted spiteful towards Becket when he turned to the Church yet reacted with rage when ever anyone insulted Becket. When his wife insulted Becket after his arrest, Henry angerly shouted back that Becket is "a thousand times better" than her. This line can suggest that Henry had affection of a homosexual nature for Becket but it could be that Henry if anything still respected Becket in terms of his bravery. Its all up to the viewers choice if they feel homosexuality is a part of the theme.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[–] xdayton 14 years ago

I'm watching the film on TCM now, the first time I've seen it in many years.

The gist of this thread is misguided: Most posters are debating the notion of sexuality in the 12th Century. What we should be looking at is the expression of homosexuality in the 1960s, on film.

The intimation of a romantic love (with or without sex) is most certainly in this movie, but as was the case in nearly all 1960s films of the genre, this is, indeed, a love that dare not speak its name. The subtext remains coded and hinted. Notice how the "sex" scenes with women are always in the context of the men either sharing the woman or offering to share her. The emotional connection is between two men; the woman is merely a conduit. Something to bring the men closer together. In one scene, Henry actually kicks a woman out of Becket's bed and pronounces that he is going to sleep there tonight.

That is NOT to suggest that the two men had sex. This was a 1960s movie, and such things weren't done. But the subtext is there, for anyone not blind or homophobic enough to see it.

In a way, this entire film merely continues the theme & style of "Ben Hur," in particular the relationship between Charlton Heston's Ben Hur and Stephen Boyd's Messala, as written (and often explained) by Gore Vidal.

reply

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

You make some interesting points, however:

"Most posters are debating the notion of sexuality in the 12th Century. What we should be looking at is the expression of homosexuality in the 1960s, on film."

Oh? Why? I mean, they're different though related topics. It seems to me both are fair game on a board such as this.

"This was a 1960s movie, and such things weren't done."

Well, they were. This picture is an example. Certainly, such relationships were disguised but, then, so were a lot of heterosexual relationships, especially regarding the "details". But, not so disguised that intelligent people such as yourself couldn't understand the dynamics of what was going on. "The Children's Hour" ('61) was pretty unambiguous about homosexuality and it was released three years earlier than this one. Remember, too, films of the 60s and before, as well as some more contemporary films, were made for general audiences (ie., families) primarily. "Tom Jones" ('63), for example, was rife with sex, but it was so deftly presented as to be a film a youngster could enjoy despite missing "the" point.

"Homophobia" (Whatever that means exactly. It means different things to different people it seems.) is an entirely seperate moral and/or political issue related, but not necessarily germane, to this thread. A little like the homosexual issue Gore Vidal has connected with "Ben-Hur" ('59). Vidal's allusions to a gay background are so obtuse and, I might add, so inconsequential to the story (as they also were in the novel), that it makes no substantial difference whether or not they'd been included at all.

I suppose "misguided" is in the eye of the beholder.

reply

[–] dyxywytch 16 years ago

King Henry II was apparently an early believer in "bros before hoes"

"Eat your cereal with a fork and do your homework in the dark."

reply

[–] iusurvivor2001 16 years ago

You know what...I wouldn't even call the homosexual aspects of this film to be subtext...it seems to me to just be text...

and that's okay...it's a pretty good movie

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mobocracy 15 years ago

Undercurrent? I'd call it a leitmotiv. The film starts with Henry removing his clothes and throwing himself over Becket's sarcophagus. The opening scene with them together wenching has them sharing the same woman, which opens up the issue of homosexuality directly.

It just seems in every scene there's a very obvious homosexual theme.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rodin_indi 15 years ago

I think Henry felt that way towards Becket, and the feeling was not reciprocated, that was one reason of his agony and torment. Remember the scene when he sees Becket with another woman? He has no interest in her and yet he takes her away from him. Near the end of the movie how he cries in an unbearable pain.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TudorLady 15 years ago

In the 16th century, Thomas More had a very close friendship with Erasmus. More referred to Erasmus as "my dear darling" and Erasmus called Thomas "sweetest Thomas". This was not unusual for two male friends. I think too much is being read into Henry and Becket's friendship which was close but always stormy. Henry II was very unpredictible in his mood swings. It has been suggested that he was possibly even manic depressive. When Henry made Becket Archbishop of Canterbury Becket chose to take the position seriously and transformed himself from a pleasure-loving courtier into a serious, simply-dressed cleric.
The king and his archbishop's friendship was put under strain when it became clear that Becket would now stand up for the church in its disagreements with the king. Henry saw this as the worst kind of treachery, hence "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"? (or words to that effect!)

Apart from anything else, homosexuality was a grievous sin.

The King's Good Servant but God's first

reply

[–] nataloff-1 15 years ago

It's important not to learn history from a movie, as great as this one is. We are talking about an era when men, in particular, could be randy and no one would judge them as harshly as the homophobic church has since promulgated. Besides, a king makes his own rules. For instance, in "The Lion in Winter," in which writer James Goldman continues the story of Henry II (as did Peter O'Toole), he had the regent confess to his lover, Alais, that in his time he had known, among other bed partners, sheep and little boys. Male bonding was venerated in past centuries and, while it may have involved sex, it didn't involve guilt or stigmatizing. In the context of "Becket" I'd pay more attention to the Archbishop's interest in Brother John than his past relationship with Henry, and even to how he managed to win safe conduct from Louis of France. Shelly Mydans' excellent "Thomas" (Doubleday, 1965) and Alison Weir's "Eleanor of Aquitane" (Ballantine Books, 2000) expound knowledgeably on this.

reply

[–] Zoomlenz 15 years ago

I agree that one shouldn't take this, or any movie, as an accurate historical source. And trying to project our notions of being gay and/or engaging in homosexual acts onto people who lived close to a 1000 years ago is sheer folly.

That said, the movie is modern story even if it is told through historical characters. And it seems to me that the movie clearly establishes a "romantic" love between and the King and Beckett. And there is the source of Beckett's conflict -- the incompatibility of his love/fidelity/service for Henry and for God. Note his confession shortly after his coronation. "I placed my love elsewhere."

I'm especially taken by the use of rings. When Henry makes Beckett his Chancellor, he gives him a ring with his seal. When Beckett becomes Archbishop, he gets a second ring representing the Church, "his bride." Rings are a symbol of marriage. The rings are perfect images of Beckett's struggle -- he's pledged himself to two loves. And his choice between them is made clear which he gives Henry's ring back to the King. Henry exclaims "You are mine!" and "I loved you but you didn't love me."

Whether the young king and Beckett had sex is rather immaterial to the movie. The film is about the struggle between the strongest emotional forces in life -- love, friendship, sex and god -- and the suggestion that they are the source of all human conflict -- personal and political. This is a very modern, post-Fruedian view of life. It makes for a compelling movie, but is probably less valuable as historical analysis.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vega-37 13 years ago

Kat 1979, what a post! You got it just right.

reply

[–] Poisoned_Dragon1964 14 years ago

From The Lion in Winter:

Henry: "Let's have a tally of the bedspreads you've spread out on."
Eleanor: "Thomas Becket's."
Henry: "That's a lie."
Eleanor: "I know."

What truth is it that they both knew, that made Eleanor's suggestion so improbable that neither of them took it seriously?

Something that hasn't yet been mentioned on this thread is the suggestion of a relationship between Becket and Bro. John, who evidently came to worship him.

The replies here generally mimic those of other boards when the topic comes up - "I didn't catch any homosexual themes," "This was not unusual for two male friends. I think too much is being read into Henry and Becket's friendship..." "homosexuality was a grievous sin." Although I must note that the number of posters here who acknowledge the subtext greatly outnumbers the number who deny it, unlike, say, on a board concerning Sherlock Holmes and Watson, Alexander the Great, or Achilles and Patroclus, etc.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

"I confessed to you my Hatred not my Love. For the good of England you'll help me destroy him, but don't you dare insult him to my face"

This is one of many quotes I see my self paraphrasing in my Lesbian Vampire novel.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin22 13 years ago

A more interesting Lion in Winter reference is when Eleanor references Becket in the same category as Rosemund.

Holmes and Alexander are more well known figures today, so more likely to rile up the reactionary.

What's interesting is how Becket and Henry II's history mirrors Henry VIII and Thomas Moore. "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again".

Has anyone every speculated about Hamlet and Horatio? I wonder how The Dork Lord would react to that?

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

reply