MovieChat Forums > The Lion in Winter (1968) Discussion > BECKET versus LION IN WINTER

BECKET versus LION IN WINTER

posted 11 years ago by PrometheusTree64
24 replies | jump to latest

Peter O'Toole plays Henry in both movies, and one might consider LION to be a sequel of sorts to BECKET (although Eleanor of Aquitaine is presented in a much less impressive fashion in BECKET).

For me, both films are stirring, sublime, incapable of being topped.

I've always appreciated the wit, self-conscious at times, of LION IN WINTER. And the scathing, ruthless flavor of the dialogue has caused some to dismiss it unfairly as dreck. Yes, O'Toole and Hepburn played it for all it was worth and more, but the secondary cast of LION was well-served by the script and vice versa.

That's not bad writing.

What's interesting is my delayed reaction to BECKET. My tastes and cinematic instincts have changed little since I was quite young, and my opinions don't tend to vary by terribly much over time...

But I have to make an exception with BECKET.

I'd always heard how brilliant the film was, and yet for many years, I admittedly didn't "get" it. I once found it drab and dry and snail-paced and terribly difficult to wade thru it until -- voila! -- a few short years ago I slipped in an old VHS of the film my parents owned (and with which I would abscond) and BECKET suddenly worked for me. Totally. Finally, I got it.

What changed?

But whatever it was, BECKET's alchemy of conjuring incantation and elegantly bleak ambience hit me, albeit belatedly, as I unexpectedly tapped into its Halloween frequency and now understood it... What a bewitching, pure film it is. Like a séance.

Strange.

BECKET is art. LION is artsy-fartsy fun (which isn't a bad thing) fabulously played on all levels.

And I just can't disparage either film.

--

Non-sequiturs are delicious.

[–] M_Valdemar 11 years ago

Becket

[–] ronfirv 11 years ago

I very much enjoyed both films but my preference, if my arm is twisted, remains Lion in Winter.

You may wish to read the book by Shelley Mydans, 'Thomas'. A wonderful insight into Becket and Henry.

[–] M_Valdemar 11 years ago

Thank you for the advice, and I will definately read it.

[–] ronfirv 11 years ago

Yes, do. I have had my copy over 30 years so hope it will be in print, but guess if not, a library will have it or will source a copy for you.
The events running up to "that murder" ideally covered. It is faction but entirely credible, and very well written.

Edit - used copies are available on amazon.uk for less than £3:00!

[–] BooksArsenal 11 years ago

I can't imagine one of these films without the other.

Becket is the first part, and Lion in Winter the second, of a fantastic cinematic duo.

It's like they bookend each other. The continuity of O'Toole as Henry in both films is wonderful.

[–] molarmaven59 11 years ago

Becket---hands down!

[–] movie_nazi 11 years ago

I'm currently at the crossroads you were at with Becket where you just didn't get it. Sure it's a fine film and well acted but it just doesn't have the brilliant writing The Lion in Winter has. I've often described The Lion in Winter as a modern day Shakespeare with it's vast number of quotable lines. I haven't found Becket to be that way although I do admit I haven't seen it as much as TLIW.

My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

Yeah, it took me a few decades.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

[–] hachmom-1 10 years ago

I like Becket but I think Lion the superior play and film, Partly because Henry (who in my mind was right about the primacy of the state over the church) comes off as a spoiled brat compared to that virtuous martyr Becket. I think Lion is more historically true to and certainly Eleanor.

It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Agree your comment on Becket - didn't deserve his bloody end but what a superior, self-righteous, sanctimonious man he was, to the point of insufferability. Henry too had no need to wear sack cloth and have himself flogged.

[–] syntinen 10 years ago

I don't know that he didn't deserve it; he certainly brought it on himself by being obnoxious not only to Henry but to everybody else who might otherwise have buffered Henry's displeasure.

Also, have you noticed that the principle he actually died for was that criminal clerics should be untouchable by the law of the land, and that this is precisely the principle that - as sordid revelations over the last decade or so have amply shown - the Catholic and Anglican churches were following in their policy of shielding priests from the law who had committed not merely abusive but seriously criminal acts against children? As more and more evidence came to light of this having been a conscious and consistent policy, I thought I could almost hear Henry spinning in his grave at Fontevraud, roaring 'What did I tell you? Criminous clerks should be handed over to the civil authority! Nothing else works!!!!'

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Have enjoyed your post syntinen.

Yet here we are over 800 years on, and still debating with some mainstream Churches about the laws of our lands. Truly, they seem dinosaurs and arrogant ones.

Henry spinning? Like a top!

Btw, have you read Thomas by Shelley Mydans? Very readable.

[–] silverwhistle 10 years ago

Agreed!
If the Church wanted to be taken seriously on this issue, a fitting symbolic gesture would be to de-canonise the odious prig. However, I don't think they tend to do this – only demoting cults in cases where the characters don't seem to have existed, and even then, it's not done consistently.

For me, the classic Becket moment is the visible herd of bugs streaming across the cathedral floor as his body cooled… If they'd had sellotape in the 12C, someone could have made a fortune: "Genuine first and second-class relic in one! One of the Archbishop's – ahem! – pets, filled with his blood!"

A kiss on the hand may be quite continental,
But Arkenstones are a girl's best friend…

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Yet still today Thomas is viewed by many as a martyr and the injured party - why?
Isn't it past time he was shown as the ghastly man and priest he was?
Talk about spin lasting through the centuries!

[–] silverwhistle 10 years ago

Because once someone gets 'St' stuck in front of their name, the sheep stop asking questions.

I saw this in a mediæval history tutorial when I was in Junior Honours. It was my fellow tutee's turn to present his essay, on one of the 12C papal schisms. Our tutor took him apart, because he had not examined the politics of, or questioned at all Bernard of Clairvaux's interventions in the proceedings – quite simply, because Bernie was 'a saint'. The student was a hardline Catholic, and it was, quite simply, outside his mindset that you were allowed to interrogate the political actions of someone who had been canonised. (The tutor himself was a Catholic, but – quite rightly – set that to one side when it came to doing his job properly.)

It covers more recent cases, too – the dodgy record of the founder of Opus Dei, and (in a more tragic case) a young woman canonised in 20C whose 'visions' seem actually to have been psychotic episodes caused by trauma from incestuous abuse in childhood. The pointers are there in her early biography and quoted words, but no-one dare join the dots to what is glaringly obvious.

A kiss on the hand may be quite continental,
But Arkenstones are a girl's best friend…

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Totally agree. Your first sentence sums up many in that religious community ideally.
I could say more but wouldn't want to offend the devout amongst us, as I am more and more cynical on religion as I advance through the years, and I am not yet old.
Suffice to say, I find nothing saintly in Thomas and can only assume Henry performed his over the top acts of penance as he feared the masses turning against his throne, whipped up by 'these troublesome priests'. A moment of uncharacteristic weakness?
As we say now, Henry has had a bad Press on this one.

[–] rrb 10 years ago

...the dodgy record of...a young woman canonised in 20C whose 'visions' seem actually to have been psychotic episodes...

LOL when I read this! I'm a member of the Catholic community by means of my upbringing, but have to shake my head at these Vatican shenanigans (Vatanigans?)

You neglect to mention the two most prominent, and dodgy, recent canonizations: Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. A liberal and a conservative, sainted jointly to quell objections from either bloc. The requirement for sainthood of three documented miracles performed was waived to shoehorn these highly political canonization through. What nonsense! Even Congressional Republicans would be embarrassed.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PrometheusTree64 9 years ago

Wondered what that meant... lol

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

i prefer the lion in Winter, it is more amusing.

[–] PrometheusTree64 9 years ago

WINTER can be easier to watch. I have to be in the right zone for BECKET.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

[–] Swill_Merchant 8 years ago

I don't care much for Becket. The homoeroticism is handled clumsily; it's both overt and yet not honest enough. Richard Burton's performance is solid - he creates a marvellously subdued interior for his character, while Peter O'Toole practically chokes on the scenery. A better director would have dialed him down several hundred notches. The film has few points to make, but it belabors those few to the point of tedium.

With The Lion In Winter, there's much more going on subtextually and psychologically.

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 4 years ago

Lion In Winter but I thought Becket was good

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

"Lion in Winter" by far!

The fact is, I can't judge "Beckett" on an artistic level alone, because I know too much about Beckett himself. The Beckett of the movie was actually a better person when he was Henry's boon companion, at that point he was someone who'd save some poor girl from being raped, later he fought to keep church employees out of jail when they'd committed crimes like... rape. Watching Burton use all his abilities to make Beckett seem genuinely saintly and sympathetic is a bit like watching that play we saw in Bravos, you know, when Arya sees the play about Good King Joffrey and his tragic assassination?

So "Lion in Winter" doesn't piss me off by trying to make unsympathetic people unsympathetic - they're ALL assholes and they own it! It's great fun to watch, and frankly, I think that's why some people dismiss it unfairly - they think that if something is really fun then it can't be great. Don't get me started on the critical/awards prejudice against comedies and other enjoyable films, because being enjoyable is a wonderful and totally underappreciated in certain quarters. Yes, the film is fast, witty, suspenseful, and features big stars being big stars, as well as being intelligent and pretty historically accurate by Hollywood standards, but why should that make in an inferior film to something that's as deadly serious as Beckett!