Likewise, the movie, Becket’s, focus on dramatizing the feud between Thomas Becket and Henry II. This movie was made in the 1960s which saw a rise in historical period dramas like, Lion in Winter, Anne of a Thousand Days, Mary Queen of Scots etc. The performances of the leads, Peter O' Toole and Richard Burton, are excellent, although sometimes overacted as was typical of that era in film. However, this movie was based on Jean Anouilh's play Becket, meaning they decided to keep Anouilh’s version of Thomas Becket as a Saxon. Becket was not a Saxon and the playwright himself knew that, but only after he had finished his play. To Anouilh, reading a 19th-century text on Becket that portrayed him as a Saxon was a brilliant way to bring his own experiences
…show more content…
He allows Henry to them things like "pig" or "it". For example, there is one scene where Henry wants to bed Becket's paramour Gwen. Becket had previously owed Henry a "favor" when Henry allowed Becket to keep a Saxon girl that he fancied (which Becket had no intention of actually sleeping with and heroically let her stay with her father). Gwen asked Becket if he would take her back, if the King her away. Becket replies in the negative and she responds by saying "we both belong to a conquered race". This is just one of many instances that this type of language is used. In the second scene of the movie, there is clunky exposition where Becket claims that "When you Normans invaded England, you seized our Saxon land, burned our Saxon homes, and raped our Saxon sisters." This is clearly reminiscent of Nazism in occupied France. Also, the Normans are portrayed as barbarians who love nothing more than to rape and pillage (despite their claims to being a superior race). Some of the Norman barons are distinctly disappointed when Becket denies giving them permission "sack the village" or "slaughter the lot" of the French village. At first, Becket represents the compliance of the Vichy government under Nazi occupation. However, after Henry appoints him as Archbishop of Canterbury his loyalties shift to the Church and by extension his own "race" of …show more content…
Dan Jones’ account tells a factual story in a manner that modern audiences would find interesting. After watching this documentary they will have a good idea of who Henry, Eleanor, Young Henry, Richard, and Becket are and their motivations. By taking the reader to these historical sites, showing the stained glass windows, documents, and frescos depicting various these movements in history, the audience got to see actively experience history. Also, the audience will have a rudimentary understanding of medieval politics, propaganda and the divide between Church and the Monarchy. Whereas, Beckett’s best message is its worst history. Anouilh’s ability to put his experience in occupied France, into the medieval England is fascinating and effective in its own way. The relationship between Becket and Henry is also engaging to watch. I would say that both are worth a watch for these reasons. If you can forgive Becket for claiming that Thomas Becket brought the fork to England 400 years too
He allows Henry to them things like "pig" or "it". For example, there is one scene where Henry wants to bed Becket's paramour Gwen. Becket had previously owed Henry a "favor" when Henry allowed Becket to keep a Saxon girl that he fancied (which Becket had no intention of actually sleeping with and heroically let her stay with her father). Gwen asked Becket if he would take her back, if the King her away. Becket replies in the negative and she responds by saying "we both belong to a conquered race". This is just one of many instances that this type of language is used. In the second scene of the movie, there is clunky exposition where Becket claims that "When you Normans invaded England, you seized our Saxon land, burned our Saxon homes, and raped our Saxon sisters." This is clearly reminiscent of Nazism in occupied France. Also, the Normans are portrayed as barbarians who love nothing more than to rape and pillage (despite their claims to being a superior race). Some of the Norman barons are distinctly disappointed when Becket denies giving them permission "sack the village" or "slaughter the lot" of the French village. At first, Becket represents the compliance of the Vichy government under Nazi occupation. However, after Henry appoints him as Archbishop of Canterbury his loyalties shift to the Church and by extension his own "race" of …show more content…
Dan Jones’ account tells a factual story in a manner that modern audiences would find interesting. After watching this documentary they will have a good idea of who Henry, Eleanor, Young Henry, Richard, and Becket are and their motivations. By taking the reader to these historical sites, showing the stained glass windows, documents, and frescos depicting various these movements in history, the audience got to see actively experience history. Also, the audience will have a rudimentary understanding of medieval politics, propaganda and the divide between Church and the Monarchy. Whereas, Beckett’s best message is its worst history. Anouilh’s ability to put his experience in occupied France, into the medieval England is fascinating and effective in its own way. The relationship between Becket and Henry is also engaging to watch. I would say that both are worth a watch for these reasons. If you can forgive Becket for claiming that Thomas Becket brought the fork to England 400 years too