MovieChat Forums > The Reckoning (2004) Discussion > Three Questions

Three Questions

posted 19 years ago by BoyScoutKevin
6 replies | jump to latest

As this site is usually a good place to ask questions about a film, here are three that came to mind, when I saw the film for the first time on Showtime.

(1) Was Thomas Wells strangled from behind, or was he facing his attacker, when he was strangled?

(2) How come (and this from Nicholas [Bettany]) how come Brother Simon (Bremner) knew that young Thomas had the bubonic plaque, but Lord De Guise (Cassel) did not know? Especially as, it is most likely, Brother Simon spent less time with young Thomas, before his death, then De Guise did?

(3)We know that Thomas Wells was lured from the woods by Brother Simon (Bremner), and what did he get out of all this, to someplace beside the woods, where Thomas, was then violated, robbed, and murdered; therefore, besides for purposes of plot, what reason was there to redress a stiff, that was stiff, tote that same stiff stiff back to the woods, and dump him where he could be found, as it would only point the finger of suspicion back at his murderer, especially as the last four victims just disappeared without a trace?

[–] BoyScoutKevin 19 years ago

I'll answer my own question. If you read the novel, "Morality Play" by Barry Unsworth, upon which this film is based, you'll find an answer for the first two questions and the first half of the third question. The novel also provides a possible answer for the second half of the third question, though that answer still doesn't make alot of sense.

[–] SeekerDarkSight 19 years ago

Well I have no answer for #3 and find myself wondering the same thing...

As for why Brother Simon and Nicholas both knew more about the plaque and how it effected people, and could tell is someone had it or not, that I can speak to and it is a simple matter of historical referance. Monk were the first responders so to speak, in those days. Not only where they men of God but they were also doctors(or rather healers). And as they delt first had with the poor that died of the plaque they trained in such matters and would read materials written by other monk on the topic.

Also as to why De Guise would know nothing of it, plain and simple the plaque ran ramped through the poor, but not so much the rich. Thus he would have less first hand experiance with it then a monk (case in points Nicholas or Simon).

You see another referance to this in the movie in the Digging up of the body scene. Although the Kings Justice know of the plague and show fear of it, they do not actually know if it is safe or not to be near the body.

Hope that helps explain that a bit.

[–] BoyScoutKevin 19 years ago

Thank-you, SeekerDarkSight. Your answers go along way to answering my questions. I have found it also helps to read the book, upon which the film is based, for the answers to any questions raised by the film. I hoped you enjoyed the movie as much as I did. Thank-you again, SeekerDarkSight.

[–] ye_river_xiv 19 years ago

I dunno. Seeker, your answers sound good, but I don't think they'd hold up to history. Of course, no medieval movie would...

The plague was commonly known as bubonic plague, because it created "buboes," What the heck is a bubo? Well, in the course of the disease, the lymph nodes begin to swell. These form hard lumps under the armpits, which the King's Justice discovered. They also form hard lumps near the groin.

Since the plague wiped out about a third of the population (Including King Edward III's daughter)most everyone should know at least that the lumps were a sign of the disease. Even in those days, the Rich would be considered well educated, and would have a lot more time to talk with the priests and monks about diseases, and other problems. Many cities instituted Quarrantines to try to stop the plague, and placing tapestries over windows became very popular, because the plague was thought to be a wind-borne illness.

Nicholas asks the Priest "What did you tell him? Certainly not the truth..." implying that Simon Damien may have come up with some other explanation for the swelling in the arms.

This book... How long is it? I've only seen the movie.

[–] BoyScoutKevin 19 years ago

It is not a long book. Only 206 pages. (IMHO) it is worth checking out. Some parts of the book, I found better than the film. Some parts of the film, I found better than the book. Some parts of the book and film are equal.

[–] ye_river_xiv 19 years ago

Hmm, yes. I'll have to start looking at the book versions of certain films. I thought this film was pretty good (A lot better than the usual hollywood tripe) Even though there was a major budget problem. The book, as a whole is probably a little better (Since there's no production budget problems)