Movies
Movie Commentary - Becket
by Jimmy Hopper
As noted in the bulletin this morning, we are providing a forum on the Riverblog to discuss our current Movie Night movie, Becket. The suggestions below are just that, suggestions, and everyone is free to discuss any ideas as comments. Please join in with your thoughts on the important issues raised by this movie.
One of the great questions of medieval Europe was that of the power of the church as opposed to the power of the throne. There was never a question of which was predominate in spiritual matters, but as the Church increased in secular power, essentially being the biggest landowner and capitalist in England; this conflict between church and state became more pronounced and nuanced.
As a way to improve his odds in this game, Henry II gave Thomas Becket, his friend and already Chancellor of the Land, the role of Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the English Church. Becket, to Henry’s surprise and even shock, took his position as Archbishop most seriously, and precipitated the dramatic events portrayed in this film.
Listed below are some potential discussion questions relating to the movie. We welcome your discussion and comments.
• Henry and Thomas Becket were, in history as well as in this film, great friends and companions if not perhaps great carousers together. In fact, Becket has been described as a “buddy movie gone bad.” Is Henry’s despair, anger and remorse believable as portrayed? Does Becket display any of the same emotions, or is his new allegiance total?
• There is a secondary plot of racism in the Saxon-Norman conflict in the movie. This was not a part of the historical story of Becket since he was, in actuality, a middle class Norman instead of a Saxon peasant. Does this side plot add to the movie? Does it detract from it? Is it even a factor in either Becket’s decision, Henry’s anger, or in the resulting events of the “rebellion?”
• The principle that was behind the Church/state feud was investiture, the right of the church to appoint their own officials and make the rules that the Church will operate under. The criminal punishment case was only a manifestation of this principle. Is there any lingering examples of this type of argument today, both from the secular and sacred side? Consider tax codes and church property rights as well as the as Christian education, vouchers, etc.
• Paul writes that “The king does not bear the sword for nothing.” Becket held clergy to a different standard than the King’s justice. Is there any sense in which this discrepancy could ever be a viable option? Was it then?
• Peter’s statement to the Sanhedrin was that “he must obey God rather than man” when he was told to stop speaking the truth about Christ. Martin Luther would make the same type of statement some four centuries later. Is this the ground Becket stakes out to make his stand, or are other factors involved?
• Church involvement is state affairs is a big issue in America today. Does Becket address this in any way or are the issues too different. Are there areas in which the Church should have more than an individual involvement in state affairs?
• There is a historical question as to whether Henry intended the “murder in the cathedral.” What do you think based strictly on the movie?
Posted by Jimmy Hopper at August 5, 2007 04:50 PM
One of my favorite quotes in the movie occurs when Becket is in his “retreat” at the St. Martin Abbey. He says something like “intimacy with God can come at such a cheap price being among the cows and swine of the stables.” His point being that it was relatively easy (even though a spartan lifestyle) to sequester oneself to achieve “closeness” with God. But it is much harder to attain this “feeling” when one is in the thick of things being salt and light in a complicated world. It never quite feels mystically wonderful. The gash across the chest from a hostile sword is quite different from the gooseflesh tingles in a quiet cloister.
I’d like to weigh in on the issue of historical accuracy. I happen to be in the process of reading an abridged version of Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples, which I am very much enjoying, by the way.
Churchill’s description of Henry II (aka Henry Plantagenet) is quite different from the movie’s portrayal of him. Churchill describes Henry as “bull-necked”, whereas in the film he seemed thin, frail - almost delicate.
Similarly, the relationship between Henry and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, was not portrayed exactly as Churchill described. Eleanor had been married to the King of France, Louis VII, and was divorced from him by the pope, only to marry Henry two months later. She was 30 at the time, and Henry was 19. So, when, in the movie, she stated that she had given him the “flower of her youth”, that was, if anything, backwards.
I understand the need for dramatic license, but I’m just not sure that it served any real point. All of the weakness portrayed in Henry’s character in the movie, including the estrangement from his wife, seemed to be used to create agony at the personal betrayal of his friend, Thomas Becket. Frankly, I found the whole betrayal thing completely overplayed, and a little freaky in a man-crush sort of way.
I thought all of it took away from the central conflict in the movie, the clash of church and crown. It also made Thomas into something of the reluctant hero, whose motives suddenly became purely the protection of the church after his installation as archbishop. According to Churchill, after the coronation of young prince Henry by the Archbishop of York, Becket excommunicated everyone who had taken part in that coronation ceremony. I’m not so sure that isn’t just pure old political payback.
I think that the movie, while generally entertaining, unnecessarily diminishes the real conflict for the dramatic personal storyline.
Clay, I agree on some of the historical inaccuracies. I had mentioned in the suggestions for discussion that the ethnic Norman/Saxon conflict was fabricated and that Thomas was a Norman, although not nobility. The movie is based on a French play by Jean Anouilh rather than on strict history. The biggest problem I had with the history was Eleanor of Aquitane, who was a self satisfied shrew in the movie but was one of the most interesting women of history; brilliant, artistic, a renowned beauty. Their problems had to do with Henry’s philandering more than anything else.
I had forgotten the additional excommunications but I could see that being payback by Becket as doing it was obviously payback by Henry. The movie compressed it all, making the “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” happen on the same day that Henry decided on the coronation, so it technically “never happened” in the movie.
The Church/state comflict is the big thing and in truth, Henry has the Bible on his side. The king “doesn’t bear the sword for nothing” and if you “do well, you have nothing to fear.” Or to put it another way, if a priest rapes a young girl, he should face justice from civil authorities. Where the action took place in the movie was that Becket believed he was upholding God’s honor by standing for established church procedure and he did so in the face of both the king and a former friend who appointed him, albeit for his own purposes.
The Churchill seies is GREAT!
It entertains me each time I watch it. One thing that stood out to me that hadn’t before is what Becket said about God and love. When Henry asked Becket if he loved God more, Becket never said he loved GOD, but the HONOR of God. (I know that’s likely Hollywood’s line, it was just the two of them on the shore) But that isn’t really the heart of a true Christian. Still loved the movie. :o)