“Becket” showcases a brilliant Burton and O’Toole|More than 40 years after a dazzling first run that earned a dozen Academy Award nominations, “Becket” is back on the big screen.
A fluke of scheduling fate has made a newly restored 35-millimeter print of this 1964 film, co-starring a 39-year-old Richard Burton and a 32-year-old Peter O’Toole, available as now- 74 O’Toole is once again in the spotlight after he was nominated for a best-actor Oscar for his role in “Venus.” (Forest Whitaker ended up winning at February’s Oscars.)
In a year when the big winners were “My Fair Lady” and “Mary Poppins,” the only award “Becket” took was for Edward Anhalt’s adaptation of Jean Anouilh’s Tony-winning play.
While peripheral elements of “Becket” do show their age, the core of the film’s appeal remains incandescent, and that is the on-screen collaboration between Burton and O’Toole, two of the English-speaking world’s greatest actors working in the vibrant prime of their careers.
In part this collaboration is so successful because the subject matter is compelling and, frankly, so far from what any studio would put into production today. Set in 12th-century England and based on the historical record, “Becket” involves not only questions of honor and loyalty but also a savage split between best friends, one of whom happens to be England’s king, over the conflicting rights of church and state.
Directed by Peter Glenville, “Becket” opens with King Henry II (O’Toole) making a pilgrimage to Thomas à Becket’s tomb. We soon learn that this man (Burton) had been the king”s closest confidant, his companion in the “drinking and wenching” that took up a good part of his life. What pushed them apart is the business of the rest of the film.
While major stars thrust together on screen often end up undercutting each other, one of the pleasures of “Becket” is how easily and generously these two commanding actors play off each other, each allowing the other the space to make the most of their individual roles.
It is Burton’s brooding Becket, a character who seems to have more emotional potential than his friend, who initially attracts us most, and it is bracing to see a reminder of how fine an actor Burton was before his reputation got all wound up with his relationship with Elizabeth Taylor.
But it is O’Toole’s Henry, his follow-up to “Lawrence of Arabia,” that finally turns out to be the role of the film. He is a tricky and elusive character we shouldn’t like but do, a satyr in royal robes who makes the arrogance of power surprisingly appealing.
To see “Venus” and “Becket,” is instructive in a way that the opportunity to see both films theatrically only enhances.
Inevitably, now that he is noticeably frail, there is an aspect of power that O’Toole doesn’t attempt anymore.
On the other hand, so much of what makes this man one of the great film actors of his time – his great bone structure, grace of movement and alive eyes – is as visible in “Venus” as in “Becket.” And his age gives more emphasis to a wistfulness about his persona that was apparent in the earlier film but considerably less obvious. No one, then or now, does this kind of evanescent, bittersweet regret better than Peter O’Toole.
—————————————-
“Becket”
NOT RATED|2 hours, 28 minutes|HISTORICAL DRAMA|Directed by Peter Glenville; written by Edward Anhalt and Jean Anouilh; based on the play by Anouilh; photography by Geoffrey Unsworth; starring Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, John Gielgud, Donald Wolfit, Martita Hunt |Opens today at the Starz FilmCenter.
