I absolutely love Henry's hedonistic excesses in this movie, and think the piety of Becket is kind of lame in comparison. The acting of course is great from both men, but I think this was almost meant as an elevation of the godliness of the archbishop, whereas I think the king is really awesome.
Is anyone else conflicted?
You know to be a king is "awesome" as you put it and I know O'Toole nailed his character down. O'Toole certainly played him shrewd and wily and he was always on to his "Saxon". Henry certainly wasn't king for nothing. He had to be a lion to run with the wolves in that country at the time.
shareYeah, the king was obviously sadistic and immoral, but Becket never really convinced me that his position was the right one. Why shouldn't priests be tried in civil courts? They certainly are today. They should have made the morally high position stronger and more understandable. A little more historical context might have been nice.
shareWhen you note "the right one" on position, I'm not sure wahte excactly you mean?
Both Henry and Becket were masters when it came to politics and power and each knew each other very well. We can see that in their relationship where they parry each and put in some personal slashes at times. Even before he was made archbishop, they had that kind of relationship. I think Henry really though Becket would always be "his man" but it never played out like that. Becket came to realize that being archbishop he had a higher duty and didn't acquiesce to Henry's power plays.
I mean, I'm all for the separation of church and state, and I believe church leaders have a duty to God that is higher than their duty to the country/government. However, I am a Protestant, not a Catholic, living in a modern country where there have been a recent glut of religious leaders who have been convicted of hypocritically consorting with prostitutes, molesting young boys, etc. I believe these men would be treated the same under the justice system as anyone else, and I believe the church should support that system.
The movie depicts a time when the Catholic church was all there was and Thomas Becket was defending a legal/ecumenical system against the encroachment of the state. I can appreciate his integrity and honor at this point, but I don't really agree with the ultimate position. To make me, a modern moviegoer, appreciate the film, it ought to be explained why this practice is a good one and why the king's rejection of it is bad. This could probably be done with some historical context about the worldly power of the church over the last couple centuries and how this protects the church from being taken over by secular leaders, but it was not done, and I was left feeling a little ambivalent toward Becket and his cause.
And the "Higher Authority" would as well, the "Church" as the Catholicism defines it has no basis for existing under the New Testament.
"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"
I thought it effectively, if entertainingly, showed the danger of abuse of power by an autocrat. I did not, however, find Becket’s sudden transformation into a spiritual person at all convincing and thought the prerogatives of the Church he was fighting to preserve unwarranted. The institutions of the state and church were both flawed.
share