Review of Becket (1964) by Daniel K — 16 Feb 2009

I think the picture would have been far more entertaining and impressive in the hands of a director/producer that knew how to make it larger than life. It plays too much like an intimate stage play to demand much more than consideration of the fine performances from the leads.

There is little visual inventiveness or magnificence to the staging and the set design. I suspect the performances would have been more effectively framed by epic-scale surroundings and staging. Characters of this nature practically scream for spectacle.

I don't mean to imply that it is a poor film, but if a bit more effort had been put into its production it might be a more memorable picture. Both Burton and O'Toole give superb performances as usual.

O'Toole is very believable as the neurotic and needy aristocrat, while Burton portrays the stalwart, loyal, duty bound, and purpose driven assistant admirably. They are a powerful team. I've always imagined that Russell Crowe could play any Burton role and vice versa.

The picture does still look great on the screen, but it is the kind of set design and photography that appears a bit dated rather than classic (compare to something like Welle's Othello). I know why Bosley Crowther liked it, but I wasn't quite as impressed.