One can establish a loose connection between the two, even if that connection is O'Toole, so the two could be recognized as prequel/sequel.
O'Toole's characterizations of Henry II are testaments to his greatness as an actor. Some people accuse him of histrionics and overracting in either film, but personally, I feel he walks away with both of them (Becket no question, but The Lion in Winter is a bit more ambivalent.)
In Becket, O'Toole plays Henry as lively and robust, a young king who has not yet been subjected to life's woes and is bursting with arrogance. O'Toole's liveliness and wiriness are the perfect foil for the pious, devout Becket (a career high for Burton), and IMO he dominates every scene he's in.
The Henry of The Lion in Winter is a different animal, yet there's traces of the earlier king inherent in this interpretation. This time, Henry's seen all...he's weathered by life, but imbued with wisdom. He's more imposing here...virile, ferocious, and cunning, and he and Hepburn work brilliantly off one another.
The grandiosity and pompousness of the man is evident in both performances.
The fact that O'Toole was able to do either of them is miraculous, but the fact that they were separated by only 4 years is beyond remarkable. For my money, Becket is the much better film, as I just can't get that into The Lion in Winter.
The films make a fascinating pairing for O'Toole's Henry II alone, yet their also two of the more renowned middle age pieces, which provides another solid reasoning for a double feature. Still, I'm more prone to grouping Becket with A Man for All Seasons, as I feel the similarities are immense and hard to gloss over. But, disregarding my reservations with the '68 film, you can't go wrong with any of them.
Cheers.
"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino
reply
share
jnnfrbryc
16 years ago
I'd say the major difference between them lies not in the presentations of Henry which are only natural given that he is supposed to be much older in Lion in Winter. I actually think the main difference is in the representations of Eleanor. The Eleanor in Becket is petty and whining and not at all the great queen celebrated in history (I don't have anything against the actress who plays her, I think it's more a fault with the part) whereas in Lion in Winter she is this great imperious force of nature, equal to Henry in every way which is much more like the Eleanor of legend.
In Becket you get the feeling there was never any fondness between them, which admittedly would not have been unusual, but we know that in the beginning at least there was a very deep attraction between them and in Liion in Winter you get a sense of that and how it has been twisted and rotted over time by politics and ego.
Both movies are love stories in their own way but where in Becket it all ends badly, rather like a tempestuous affiar, in Lion in Winter the fighting and embittered couple are somewhat reconciled to each other. The three princes are oddly equivalent to the barons in their fractious capacity and while neither film ends exactly happily there is nevertheless a sense of continuity, ie Henry will continue after the death of Becket because he is the king and that is what the king does, so in Lion in Winter Henry and Eleanor will continue to fight because that is what they do, because the world can't stop turning just because the king needs to take a minute to coem to terms with the death of his best friend or the realization that he is still in love with his wife.
Of course not all of this is historically accurate but both of these films are more about the ideas and the characters than the accuracy and they probably wouldn't be as good if they were.
reply
share
angmc43
16 years ago
One major difference to the character of Henry II in both films is his relationship to the children. BECKET'S Henry hates his kids. He sees them as vultures to his throne, and not above being verbally and physically abusive to them, especially Henry the Young Prince (IMO this is my major turn-off for BECKET).
LION IN WINTER shows a Henry more closer to history. A loving-but-disappointed parent who spoiled his children, and is now suffering the harm he has done: all his children are power-hungry brats who want him dead.
I wish someone did a YouTube combination of two scenes from the films.
SCENE: LiW Richard giving his line to Henry II about Henry the Young Prince's tomb.
CUT TO: Scene of BECKET between the two Henrys ("Which one are you?/Henry III/NOT YET!")
CUT BACK TO: Closeup of LiW Henry II saying "I know. I've seen him."
reply
share
MrEdnablackadder
11 years ago
They're adaptations of two different plays from different authors. They only have the Henry character in common. Of course one can consider "Lion" the unofficial sequel of "Becket" if he wants, but I think the differences in the portrayal of Henry are just too big.
reply
share