Ben-Hur (2016)

Whilst it's only been six years since the story of Ben-Hur was last on our screens, it's been 57 years since it was playing in cinemas, so, given the huge success of that 1959 version - itself a remake of a remake - it was only a matter of time before someone adapted it for the big screen once again. After all, two scenes in particular have resulted in some spectacular set-pieces in previous adaptations without either the 1959 or the earlier 1925 version receiving such acclaim that no-one dares to to touch the source material again. In fact, as the shortest of the non-animated Ben-Hur adaptations, this version seems to pretty much revolve around these two set pieces.

The episode for which Ben-Hur is now best known is the chariot race scene and that seems to have become the driving force (if you'll pardon the pun) behind many adaptations - early stage versions of the story had horses running on rollers, the first film adaptation way back in 1907, was little more than footage of a chariot race, and a recent "stage" version hired out the O2 arena in order to be able to have the race do laps around the auditorium.

Here, once again, the chariot race dominates. The film opens on the starting line, with Judah (Jack Huston) and Messala (Toby Kebbell) taunting each other through gritted teeth. The film then goes into flashback mode, which is a nice little device, but does rather highlight the film's emphasis on the chariot race. This is further underlined when the it turns out that the point in time to which they go back is Judah and Messala racing horses eight years before. Then the two were on far friendlier terms - Messala had been adopted into Judah's family and the two very much see themselves as brothers, even if Messala occasionally points out that he is not really part of the family when it suits him.

Indeed, as the opening scenes unfold it emerges that one of the ways in which it suited him to be not-a-part-of-the-family is his love for Judah's sister Tirzah (Sofia Black-D'Elia). The film draws this out a little more than other adaptations - it's Judah and Tirzah's mother's objections to their attachment that drive Messala off to join the army. In one way this works well: it renders Tirzah a far more rounded and interesting character than in the 1959 version (true of all 3 female leads). Yet that brings with it a few complications as well. How did Tirzah feel whilst he was away? Did she write to him regularly in the same way her brother did?

When Messala returns as a tribune he is far more concerned with his reunion with Judah than with his former love, but this is never really commented on. Perhaps we are meant to see his intimacy with Tirzah as the kind of youthful infatuation that this hard-hearted, career-driven soldier no longer has any time for. And of course, when Pilate is attacked by an injured zealot recovering in the Hur house, there's little reference to their previous tenderness. When Judah is sentenced to the galleys and told his mother and sister are being executed, for a moment I wondered if the more interesting story on a human level might be that of Tirzah rather than Judah. If only she also could have raced a chariot...

But of course the camera chooses to follow Judah, who by now is symbolically tied to a yoke and falls at the feet of Jesus. This, in fact, is Judah's second encounter with the man from Nazareth, though both take place in Jerusalem. Shortly before Messala's return, Judah and his slave-turned-wife, Esther encountered Jesus in the marketplace. For some reason he'd set up a carpentry stall there, although the main thing he seemed to be building is a soap-box from which to preach his message of love. Then Judah shruged it off. He's not exactly an atheist - he had joined in with his family's generic, sort of Jewish, religious festival a few nights earlier, for example - but he didn't have much time for Jesus's calls to love his enemies ("If he’s already decided my path, how am I better off than a slave?").

Yet now Judah is flat on his face on the road to the slave port and Jesus is pulling off a Jedi mind trick in order to give him a sip of water. This has always been a pivotal moment in Judah's story, and here it flashes back to him time and again, but it also proves pivotal for Esther (Nazanin Boniadi). Whilst Judah is away she joins Jesus'movement (apparently two years before it even starts) and does good works amongst the poor. In contrast to Judah' mother and Tirzah, Esther is rather poorly sketched, despite having more screen time than either of them. Despite her desire to do good works she doesn't, for example, seem to have made any in roads into tracking the fate of her in laws, nor does she seem overly perturbed by her father's death. And ultimately despite spending half a decade following Jesus, she doesn't really have anything compelling to say about him.

All of which leads us to the film's other set piece - the sea battle - and it's by far the film's most successful scene, defly combining horror, tension and excitement. The bravest, and most successful, decision that director Timur Bekmambetov makes is to leave his camera below deck for the entire fifteen minute sequence. This nicely captures the claustrophobia of the environment but it also allows the audience to share the slaves' disorientating experience - their knowledge of what is happening is fragmented and limited to the few words they overhear from above deck and what they can glance through the oar holes. They know they are in a battle, but it's a shock when they get rammed in the side by an enemy vessel. And whilst the way Judah somehow manages to free himself from the wreckage seems a little questionable, it actually improves upon the implausibility of the novel and subsequent adaptations on this point, even if it's a little convenient that he washes up on shore just a short distance away from a chariot racing expert/horse owner (Morgan Freeman).

It's here that the movie makes quite a sizeable leap which results in Judah landing himself in his much desired a grudge match. The chariot race itself is exciting, even if the odd pan of the crowd is let down by some bad CGI. Again the camera stays close to the action. Whilst it doesn't surpass its predecessors there's some good work here, particularly the pacing, which is so critical to a scene like this, and some impressive camera angles.

Another plus point is Pilate's presence at this "circus". There are some tenuous links between Pilate and the arena in Caesarea, which did host chariot racing during his governorship. What is particularly good is that the Pilate we encounter here is the kind of crude bloodthirsty thug that history suggests, rather than the mild-mannered philosopher of so many Jesus films. Pilate (Borgen's Pilou Asbæk) struggles to contain his excitement as the race progresses, blood is spilt and the bodies pile up. This isn't a man who would worry himself about executing a would-be messiah. (As a Borgen fan, it's also interesting watching Asbæk playing the top dog, rather than the pitt-bull like press secretary serving a middle of the road prime minister).

Where the chariot scene does let itself down a bit, is the sight of Freeman's character Ilderim scurrying around shouting advice to his rider as he swishes by. It's unclear if this is because the filmmakers realised they hadn't given Judah long enough to become a credible charioteer, or because they want to remind the people at home about all the things that are about to prove dangerous in just a lap or two's time. Either way the idea that as Judah thundered past he would catch a single word of Ilderim's advice - over the roar of the crowd - is laughable and detracts from what is otherwise a decent action scene.

The other problem with the scene is something that is so typical of all the films in general, and indeed all of the biblical films that Roma Downey and Mark Burnett have produced; their tendency to ramp everything up to the point of crassness. So Judah can't just win the race, he has to win his first ever race, against Rome's greatest and unbeaten champion, despite getting knocked out of his chariot and dragged along the floor for half a lap and managing just to cross the line before his chariot crashes and his horses all die. Some of that is drawn from the novel, but time and again the pair's productions push things far further than their source material, draining them of any subtlety and ensuring absolutely everyone in the audience is totally and completely aware of their point. Does Pilate need to have a brush with death near the start of the film? Get a zealot to shoot him with an arrow! Is Morgan Freeman good as dispensing wisdom? Have him offer a life lesson at every conceivable moment! Is this a tale of learning to forgive? Have Judah and Messala have a big hug and ride off into the sunset! Would more talented writers have stopped this repeated two-phase question/statement pattern I'm employing? No, do it more!...etc. etc.

That said some of the usual weaknesses in Downey and Burnett's work do seem at least a little reined-in here, not least the level of violence which, for once, feels more or less in keeping with the source material. And I quite liked the handful of places at the start if the film where Judah is challenged about the fact that his rosy world view is at least partially dependent on his privileged position of wealth and power. When Judah gives Jesus the question above about "how am I better off than a slave?" Jesus comes right back at him with "Why don't you ask her?", the "her" in question being Judah's former-slave turned wife, Esther. Another time whilst citing what has happened to the fields his father owned as evidence of injustice he is asked, rather pointedly, "and who owned the fields before your father?" Then there's the zealot who tells Judah "You confuse peace with freedom”.

This tendency to bring original and contemporary sounding dialogue into the film works rather well for the most part. After all Lew Wallace was hardly Shakespeare and the novel's prose is often leaden and turgid. The new dialogue often places Judah squarely in the middle between two more extreme and violent parties vying for control of Judea. It's unfortunate that the writing in the latter part of the film isn't as strong at the earlier part such that this, too, ends up also being a bit crass.

And what of the portrayal of Jesus? In the run up to the film's release I have heard people say both that the film minimises the role of Jesus and that enhances it and curiously both perspectives are true. Given the film's condensed run-time the material needed considerable abridgement, and to that end excising the nativity and that oh-so-convenient reappearance of Balthasar years later, is a wise move. I also quite liked the brief shot of Gethsemane, which I don't recall from the previous adaptations, though it is in the novel.

That said I've already highlighted a couple of areas where the portrayal of Jesus didn't really work for me, and though Judah undergoes a profound transformation at the foot of the cross, there's precious little indication as to what is occurring. As with other Downey/Burnett produced Bible films, I come away wondering what it was they were trying to say about Jesus. Is it simply that marketplace message of love for your enemies? Perhaps that in itself is actually enough.

I think, though, that there are two reasons why the crucifixion scene didn't do much for me. The first is actually a fault of the novel: I've always found the healing of Judah's mother and sister a bit too convenient. Not only does the Bible fail to mention any healing miracles occurring during the crucifixion, but it's such a lame plot device. And speaking of lame why do Judah's mother and sister get healed whilst his 'brother' remains an amputee?

But the other reason is that Jack Huston's performance as Judah is rather lacklustre. Whilst the filmmakers would have struggled to find a more similarly surnamed leading actor, Huston lacks Heston's intensity. There's a few lines in the film that suggest that Messala is struggling to emerge from his grandfather's shadow. Whilst Huston did some good work in Boardwalk Empire there's little here to suggest he is going to lose the 'grandson of John Huston' tag anytime soon.

Fortunately, for much of the film Huston isn't required to do a great deal because the chariot race and, most notably, the sea-battle are two great set pieces. These, combined with the film's natural sense of urgency and rhythm, mean that, ultimately, watching the film is more like spending the day at the chariot racing than spending life in the galleys.

Book Review: Bigger than Ben-HurThe Book, its Adaptations, & their Audiences

Bigger than Ben-Hur: The Book, its Adaptations, & their Audiences
Edited by Barbara Ryan & Milette Shamir

Syracuse University Press
269 pages
ISBN 978-0815634034 (Paperback)

With the latest cinematic version of in cinemas at the moment, readers might be interested to read Barbara Ryan & Milette Shamir's "Bigger than Ben-Hur: The Book, its Adaptations, & their Audiences, which looks at the forerunners to the latest version, from the book, through stage plays to some of the other filmed versions, including Fred Niblo's 1925 silent movie and the, now more famous, 1959 adaptation, directed by William Wyler. (See all my Ben-Hur related posts)

There's a good range of experts here from Ancient World in film scholars such as Jon Solomon, whose work will be familiar to many readers here, through to historians such as Eran Shalev. As Ryan and Shamir put it in their introduction "They offer insights to students of popular Christianity and Judaism; to scholars of reading, reception and fandom; to those who investigate the a United States' sense of the Middle East and of Zionism; to researchers who probe the intersection of education and entertainment on stage and on screen; to chroniclers of ways of imaging Jesus Christ, femme fatales, and masculine performance" (p.2) Certainly it's interesting reading scholars from different pools coming together to offer their own insights on different facets of the phenomenon that is all things Ben-Hur.

The book's subtitle suggests a two or three fold division between the book and its adaptations (and their audiences) but in fact things are much more fluid than that. Whilst Eran Shalev in the book's first main chapter, "Ben-Hur's and America's Rome: From Virtuous Republic to Tyrannous Empire" restricts herself to the book, some of its forerunners and the changes in cultural context in the century or so before the books release, other chapters are content to switch from talking about the book to talking about one of the stage or screen adaptations. Despite Milette Shamir's "Ben-Hur's Mother: Narrative Time, Nostalgia, and Progress in the Protestant Historical Romance" being only the second chapter it ends with a coda reflecting on how the subsequent 1925 and 1959 film adaptations built on the book's portrayals of women as discussed in the rest of the chapter (pp.50-51).

Not dissimilarly whilst the primary thrust of the first four chapters is to explore key issues relating to the book, both chapters three ("Retelling and Untelling the Christmas story: Ben-Hur, Uncle Midas, and the Sunday-School Movement" by Jefferson J. A. Gatrall) and four ("Holy Lands, Restoration, and Zionism in Ben-Hur" by Hilton Obenzinger) touch on screen adaptations. Obenzinger offers some interesting observations on Wylers mise en scène in the 1959 film and Gatrall discusses the portrayals of Jesus in the 1925, 1959 and 2010 versions (pp.71-72).

Indeed whilst various essays mention the 2010 Television adaptation in passing (pp.xi,14 and 181) Gatrall is the only one to offer any brief analysis of it. This is something of a strange omission, not least given that the book has ended up as a part of the "Television and Popular Culture" series. Whilst the 2010 adaptation ultimately reached only a limited audience, it would have been nice to see some more, in depth analysis of it.

The impression left by this omission is that diverse and developing Ben-Hur tradition ground to a halt shortly after 1959, rather than being something that continues to evolve. Similarly the 1988 animated version and the recent arena adaptation (p.14), complete with it's own chariot race round the venue's massive internal space, are important continuity markers in this developing tradition but are again, largely overlooked. This is particularly disappointing given Ryan and Shamir's excellent observation in their introduction that "As each Ben-Hur builds on the last, and strives to top it, the results move ever further from Wallace's years of study toward treating his fiction as an historical narrative to rework." (p.14). It certainly raises the question of how this is true for the biblical epic genre in general and the distance between adapting the text and seeking to outdo previous epic movie for size and spectacle grows and grows.

Whilst more recent film adaptations of biblical narratives might, at first, appear a far cry from the book's next chapter ("In the Service of Christianity: Ben-Hur and the 'Redemption' of the American Theatre, 1899-1929" by Howard Miller), it could hardly be more relevant. Miller details the extensive marketing strategy utilised by the stage-show's producers Marc Klaw and Abraham Erlanger in order to promote their film to the widest possible audience. Klaw and Erlanger realised that the key to making a strong return on what was a hefty financial investment was to entice the devout Protestant / Evangelical population to overcome their principled objections to the theatre as a whole.

Miller's account will resonate with anyone who has watched the marketing of faith-based films from The Passion of the Christ through to Timur Bekmambetov's latest cinematic adaptation of Ben-Hur (2016). The tactics used, reassurances provided, endorsements given and success achieved are eerily familiar and whilst no film has since come close to reproducing the success of The Passion, it seems that much of the tickets sales the various biblical films have achieved in the intervening period, has been due, in part to production companies employing these tactics.

Chapters six to nine, then, deal with the film adaptations, though as with the first four chapters there's a good degree of discussion around the other, preceding, works. What's strangely absent, though is any substantial discussion of Kalem's 1907 film adaptation. Again a few of the chapters mention it in passing, it was after all a landmark case that cast it's shadow across all subsequent adaptations in general, but the collection of essays would feel more complete had there been a chapter on some aspect of this ill-fasted production. For example, Ryan and Shamir's introduction references Ted Hovet Jr.'s paper on "The Case of Kalem's Ben-Hur (1907)" (pp. 12-13). Whilst it may not have been possible to reproduce this particular essay, some analysis of the case and its enduring impact would have been most welcome.

The four chapters begin instead with couple of essays on the 1925 film. In "June Matthis's Ben-Hur: A Tale of Corporate Change and the Decline of Woman's Influence in Hollywood", Thomas J. Slater details the way the movie's original producer and screenwriter, June Matthis, became a scapegoat (p.119) for the struggling production having been given an "impossible task". Matthis had previously enjoyed great success and her successor on Ben-Hur was given a far greater budget with which to create a profitable film. For Slater Matthis's tale is a microcosm of a wider trend that was happening in Hollywood at the time where the numbers of women in significant and influential positions declined substantially.

It's a very interesting chapter, not least because Matthis struggled to find work at the same level from then onwards, despite the fact "the number of her productions and critical successes easily matched those of almost any male director of her era" (p.110). Indeed many today are surprised when they learn of the far greater levels of equality in the film industry in the first two decades of the twentieth century. My only quibble would be that as interesting as Slater's observations are, ultimately they are about a different film, that is a film that is not Niblo's 1925 Ben-Hur, but another film that, sadly, never got made.

In contrast, Richard Walsh's "Getting Judas Right: The 1925 Ben-Hur as Jesus Film and Biblical Epic" focuses squarely on the final adaptation. Walsh points out the similarity between the two names Judah and Judas - effectively "English versions of the same Hebrew name" (p.125). Walsh's point is that Niblo's film "'gets Judas right' by offering an empathetic, modern account of Judah/Judas" (p.136).

The key similarity between the Judas of most Jesus films and the Judah of Niblo's film is the way Judas is often portrayed as a revolutionary trying to raise an army to overthrow Rome. A similar subplot features in both Wallace's novel and Niblo's 1925 adaptation (though not in Wyler's). The pivotal contrast however is that whereas in the Jesus films judas carries on trying to force Jesus' hand, in Ben-Hur (1925) Judah submits his rebellion to the will of Jesus and halts the revolt. The chapter also contains a table comparing the novel, Klaw and Erlanger's play and both film adaptations (p.128-131).

The following chapter is Ryan's own "Take Up The White Man's Burden: Race and Resistance to Ben-Hur". Ryan investigates the ways in which a John Buchan's 1941 novel "Sick Heart River" resists "Ben-Hur" as well demonstrating that "some Christians have trouble seeing Jesus as Jewish (p.143). Rather than being about either film in particular it focuses on the time between Niblo and Wyler's versions

Whilst it raises some interesting points it does not, even by its own admission, "offer irrefutable evidence" of the link between the two novels (p.143). Personally I'd go further, far from being "irrefutable" the link seems rather tenuous, and very little evidence for it is offered. This isn't to say the hypothesis isn't interesting and it's good to have a chapter chronicling some of the dissent to Wallace's novel in contrast to overall positive reception by the Christian community.

This leaves the only essay primarily about the 1959 adaptation, which will, of course, be the first access point to the 'Ben-Hur tradition' Ina Rae Hark's "The Erotics of the Galley Slave: Male Desire and Christian Sacrifice in the 1959 a Film Version of Ben-Hur". This offers a closer inspection of Wyler's film, in particular how it makes Judah "an erotic spectacle and attracts the desiring gazes of other men in the film" (p.178). In doing so, Hark observes how doing this is effectively "deflecting Christ's eroticism" (p.166) as well as delineating the complex network of "fathers and sons" that the story presents"

So much has been said about Wyler's film, not least in the volume in question, that it's good to have an essay that covers the film in detail, but from a specific angle, albeit one that is mentioned at several other points in the book. As Wyler expert Neil Sinyard points out in the foreword, the film's "homoerotic subtext" overcomes the problem inherent in the novel of how to "explain the motivation behind Messala's malicious treatment of his firmer close friend" (p.xv).

As someone approaching the subject from the discipline of film rather than literature it would also have been good to have heard a little more from Sinyard whose recent book "A Wonderful Heart: The Films of William Wyler" (2013) is amongst those seeking to rehabilitate the reputation of as one of the finest American directors. He offers some great insights here.

The tenth chapter, David Mayer's "Challenging a Default Ben-Hur: A Wish List" hopes to persuade future adaptations to rehabilitate several aspects of the novel that all of the previous screen adaptations have overlooked. The first is to ask for a bigger focus on the investment skills of Simonides and Malluch whose wise investments mean that towards the end of the novel Judah Ben-Hur has become one of the richest men in the Roman Empire. The other main area Mayer puts on his wish list is the character of Ira, the "adventuress" who is absent from screen productions ("deliberately pushed aside" p.186). This daughter of the wise man Balthasar contrast strongly with the three other female principals, Judah's mother, sister and wife (Esther) and their seemingly infallible purity.

Finally Jon Solomon's quirky, yet illuminating "Coda: A Timeline of Ben-Hur Companies, a Brands and Products" forces home the extent to which the name Ben-Hur has far outgrown the significance of Wallace's fairly unremarkable novel. As well providing a little light relief it also amply illustrates the breadth of the impact the novel has had from its initial publication in 1880 to the present day. There's also an additional list of various aspects of Ben-Hur paraphernalia and places that gave been named after it on page 4. Evidence indeed that the 'Ben-Hur tradition' has truly become far, far "bigger than Ben-Hur".

Ryan and Shamir have pulled together an interesting collections of essays, which will particularly appeal to those who have already studied some more introductory literature on the book or its various adaptations. Overall it's good that they don't spend long retreading basic analysis, particularly given that space is always at a premium. Whilst above I've suggested certain aspects that perhaps ought to have been covered by this volume, I do concede that space is nearly always limited. And the two editors manage to strike a good balance between avoiding tedious repetition from essay to essay, but managing to give the impression of collaboration and cross-fertilisation of ideas from the impressive range of disciplines represented by this enjoyable book.

Ben Hur (1925) with Live Orchestra Comes to Birmingham

In addition to watching and writing a lot about Bible films, I'm also a big fan of silent movies, so when the two come together I'm always pretty interested. And when the two come together for one night only, with a live symphony orchestra it's like your birthday has come early. Unless it actually is your birthday. I which case you get to take your family along for the ride too.

The event is happening at Birmingham's Symphony Hall this Friday, 13th May. There's a good range seat prices and younger viewers are only £5 a piece.

I've not seen this, 1925, version of Ben Hur in it's entirety since the very early days of this blog in 2006. You can read my thoughts on it here, and a more detailed review of it from Movies Silently.

Incidentally, fans of the various incarnations of Ben Hur might be interested in Barbara Ryan and Milette Shamir's book "Bigger than Ben Hur: The Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences" which I will be reviewing shortly.

Ben Hur (1959)

Ben Hur is that rarest of Bible films - one that was both commercially and critically successful. The winner of an unprecedented 11 Oscars and still 13th in the list highest grossing films at the US box office (when adjusted for inflation) it's achievements are on a par with its eye-popping sets and its humongous 4 hour running time. And yet whilst many think of it as the best of all the Bible films, there are many who argue it's not even the greatest adaptation of General Lew Wallace's 1880 novel.

That honour arguably goes to Fred Niblo's 1925 silent version of the film which had in it's crew a certain William Wyler. Wyler quickly progressed from his role as assistant director to directing a few short films so that by the time the first talking pictures came about Wyer was a full director in his own right. His experience on Niblo's epic stayed with him though and following his big 50s successes with (two of my favourite films) Roman Holiday and Big Country he returned to Wallace's most famous novel.

Many of the elements in Big Country find their way into Ben Hur - the two feuding men locked into a destructive cycle of revenge; the epic scale of the film, replete with their deserts and dusty landscapes; and, of course, the casting of Charlton Heston. By this point Heston already had turned in his career defining role in another epic remake The Ten Commandments (1956).Both characters have the same moral compass even if Judah Ben Hur is thrown a little off course by his desire for revenge. It makes Ben Hur a more interesting character than Heston's rather one dimension Moses. The darkest moment is just as a beaten Messala is awaiting Ben Hur's visit before he dies (pictured above). Heston's frame stands menacingly in the iron door blocking out the light like the angel of death come for a prisoner. The music underscores the darkness of the moment, for both men. Yet, even so one of the film's weaknesses is that seems so much harder for the audience to see in Heston's face the sort of seething thirst for revenge that so many of the characters in the film seem compelled to comment upon.

It's a thirst of a different nature however that provides so many of the film's pivotal moments. Having (accidentally) almost assassinated the new governor of his home city of Jerusalem Judah finds himself slave trailing through the desert. He arrives at Nazareth almost dead with dehydration and is only saved when a mysterious member of the village defies Judah's captors and gives him a cup of water. Then after escaping from a sinking Roman ship on which he had been a galley slave he finds himself trapped on the open sea his thirst only made worse by the dangerously undrinkable water that surrounds him. Later trekking back to Jerusalem from Rome, where he has made a free man, he takes a moment to bask in the shade and refresh himself and meets shortly before meeting chariot racing enthusiast Sheik Ilderim. And finally, having found that seeing his sworn enemy die in a chariot race did not ease his thirst for revenge he finds himself on a road in Jerusalem moved by compassion to offer that same, mysterious stranger a cup of water when it is his turn to need water.

Wallace's book was subtitled "A Tale of the Christ" and whilst all three of its cinematic adaptations have trimmed down the pseudo-biblical material, it is still very much an integral part of the film. Here the film starts with a nativity sequence even before the opening credits. Whilst Jesus makes various appearances throughout the film, this sequence is as much about Balthasar as it is about the newborn in the manger. The magus meets Judah at several points in the latter part of the film as he seeks to answer the question about who that special baby grew up to be. Not dissimilarly Jesus also makes fleeting appearances as the aforementioned compassionate stranger and then as a preacher at a suspiciously high-altitude gathering, though as Judah turns away we never hear his actual words.

But it's at the end of the film where Jesus begins to dominate proceedings, even despite already being in captivity. During Judah's absence his sister and mother have contracted leprosy and are hiding away, near death, in a colony. The stories of Jesus, combined with Judah's own desperation, lead him to carry his sister into the centre of Jerusalem where the people recoil in horror. Despite Jesus' impending crucifixion

For all their good intentions these final few scenes are rather problematic. Firstly the film's dramatic tension rapidly begins to dissipate. Despite it's nearly four hour running time it's only in these moments that the film begins to drag. Secondly whilst the authors of various gospels, especially Matthew's, try to highlight the importance of Jesus' death by furnishing it with various supernatural events, none of it really seems consistent with the type of healing event which happens to Judah's sister and mother here and so typified Jesus' early ministry. Thirdly whilst the film itself clearly links the healing of Judah's family to Jesus, it's not at all clear why any of the characters within the story would do the same. The Christ of this story has only been helpful, kind and rather charismatic. There's no real mention of his miraculous healings.

I concede that these are fairly minor nitpicks and thankfully they don't detract from the magnificent fare elsewhere in the film. The chariot scene rightly stands out as one of the greatest ever scenes in the movies (and my seven year old loved seeing how it had been appropriated by the makers of The Phantom Menace). It bides its time before setting the two leads head to head, by which time the villainous Messala has already shown ample evidence of what he is capable of and Judah has already shown his mettle. The stunts push right up to the boundary of believability without ever leaping over them and Messala's comeuppance is so all encompassing that is generates the right degree of compassion despite of his previous villainy. Almost as good is the boat battle which forms the high point of the first part of the film.

Yet for all the impressive sets, costumes and stunts, it's the intimate humanity which gives Ben Hur its beating heart - the pain of betrayal, the determination to survive, the hope of justice, the fickleness of victory and the anger of loss. For the most part Wyler knew precisely how to use the action to bring these emotions to the fore in a way that stressed the similarities between his protagonists and his audiences so that he could use the extraordinary to shine light on the ordinary.

Jesus in Ben Hur 2010

As I mentioned in yesterday's review of Ben Hur, the 2010 version gives much more attention to Jesus' words than the famous 1959 version. I wanted to explore this a bit more fully than seemed appropriate in the review, so I decided to turn it into a separate post.

The clearest instance of this stronger focus on Jesus' teaching occurs as Judah rides towards Jerusalem. As he is approaches the city, there on the hill we see a man (clearly Jesus) teaching a smallish gathering of listeners (as pictured above), including Judah's former fiancé, Esther. Despite the thundering hooves of Judah's horse we are able to hear the following words, most of which are taken from the Sermon on the Mount:

...and yet forgive them? Once? Seven times? No not once, not seven times, but seventy times seven. (Matt 18:21-22)

We’ve heard it said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". I say to you, do not fight those that wish to harm you. If someone hits your left cheek, offer them the right. If they ask for your tunic, give them your cloak as well. If they say walk this mile with me walk two miles. (Matt 5:38-42).

As you’ve heard it said, "you should love your neighbour and hate your enemy". But I say to you "love your enemies, and bless those who curse you". (Matt 5:43-44).

The camera then follows Judah Ben Hur into the city, and then it cuts to Esther who has returned from the sermon. She now live with Judah's former employee David, who mocks Jesus' seemingly-well-known teaching.

David - "Blessed are the weak. The poor shall inherit the earth."
Esther - "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Matt 5:3-10)

This final exchange obviously isn't Jesus talking himself, and includes a deliberate mis-quote, but its inclusion is also important. Going back to the earlier quote from David Wyler this is a great example of "spirituality...[but not] relating it to a specific religion": if you want to see God, all you must do is be pure in heart. Thus it's when Judah lays aside his revenge, forgives Messala and is reconciled to Esther that he sees God as portrayed by the white flash of light. And it's that same flash of light, not a miracle directly related to the cross, which heals his mother and sister.

The misquote is also interesting because it's an English pun, based on an assumed similarity between meekness and weakness. I'm not sure it would have worked in Aramaic.

The words that we actually hear Jesus speak obviously have a very direct bearing on the major themes of the film, revenge and forgiveness. This is also reflected in the phrase we hear Jesus say twice - "Forgive them for they don't know what they are doing". This occurs once at the start of the film (as Judah looks like he is about to be crucified) and once at the end (as Jesus is about to be crucified). It's taken from Luke 23:34, but, significantly, it drops the word Father from the start. The film is not about our need to be forgiven by God, but about the importance of us forgiving one another. Having this phrase repeated does raise the question of what would have happened if Judah had heeded Jesus' advice first time around. Certainly most of his troubles would have remained, and perhaps Messala would still be alive, but it's also possible, as the 1959 version suggests more strongly, that without his drive for revenge he may never have been reunited with his mother, sister and wife.

Ben Hur (2010)

It's been over 50 years since William Wyler's version of Ben Hur galloped to a record-breaking 11 Oscars and earned itself a special place in our affections. Whilst Lew Wallace's novel had been translated into various other art forms (an arena play, a cartoon, a video game and a theme park among them), no-one had dared to remake it for all this time. But given filmmakers' current obsession with recycling old material, and the half century that has passed since our most successful film a consortium of TV channels decided it was time to dust off this particular chariot and take it out for another spin.

Given the accolades poured on the original, it's no surprise that this version does not quite keep shoulder to shoulder with Charlton Heston, nibbling away at his wheels with is hub caps. That said, and against all expectations, the new version is a surprisingly competent effort. Whilst there's the occasional nod to Wyler's film, the 2010 version is content to do it's own thing and at time this works really effectively. Take, for example, the famous chariot scene. Wyler's version, with it's enormous amphitheatre packed to the rafters with an ecstatic crowd, may have been referenced by productions as diverse as The Simpsons and The Phantom Menace, but is pure fantasy from a historical point of view. Here the venue is far less impressive - it's more open plan so that the crowd is far smaller and just stand nervously around the edge of the track - but it feels more realistic. Interestingly it's more reminiscent of the pod race in The Phantom Menace than Wyler's version, which both films draw on.

In contrast to the other versions of the film, the story starts with Judah Ben Hur and a Harry Potter-esque Messala racing carts as teenagers. Messala is the illegitimate son of a Roman senator who has lived with the Ben Hurs since the death of his mother. We're introduced to a stick catching game which predictably reappears throughout the film - the adult Ben Hur always catches it, whereas the adult Messala always drops it, accompanied by a slow-motion shot of it thudding onto the ground. But suddenly Messala's father calls him to Rome, leaving both boys devastated.

Cut to eight years later and Messala's father has arranged for his son to be given the garrison commander position in Jerusalem. Judah now looks like a cross between Charlton Heston and Robert Webb and runs his dead father's business, trying to toe a fine line between the Jewish zealots that work for him and the Romans he relies on to keep his business going. It feels like some kind of metaphor Tony Blair's third way politics, but I doubt that's what the filmmakers had in mind.

Messala's first official task is to arrange Pontius Pilate's entry into the city. He fails to get Judah to inform on his zealot colleague, but nevertheless takes the governor on a more circuitous route through the city, rather than smuggle him in through the back door. Pilate is quickly shown to be incompetent and melodramatic. We first see him struggling to get onto his horse, and then when the tile slips from Judah's roof he scrabbles around feebly rather than brushing it off like a soldier. Pilate is incensed. Messala disgraced. Judah arrested. Pilate sends Judah to be crucified, and on his way to the cross a stranger tells him "forgive them, for they know not what they do".

It soon turns out however that Messala has disobeyed his commander and deferred Judah's sentence to life as galley slave. The ship Judah rows on is owned by prominent Roman Quintus Arrius (Ray Winstone) who is impressed at Judah's suggestion to make the ship more efficient. On a whim, Quintus unchains Judah one evening so that when the ship is sunk a few hours later Judah is able to rescue him. The two return to Rome where Quintus locks horns with Messala's father, Senator Marcellus Agrippa, for the attention of Emperor Tiberius (Ben Cross), who already thinks himself divine. When Quintus credits his survival to "the will of the gods", Tiberius smirks. "We do amuse ourselves in a most peculiar fashion".

Whilst Marcellus is manoeuvring to get Pilate replaced by his son Messala, Quintus is setting things up for Judah. He orders Judah to sleep with Marcellus' slave Athene, gets him pardoned and freed, makes him his heir and then promptly and conveniently dies leaving Judah as a very rich man. All of which suggests that this version of Ben Hur draws on Gladiator and the TV series Rome as much as the William Wyler classic.Part two starts back in Judea with Esther, who had previously been betrothed to Judah, listening to Jesus (Julian Casey) preach. His talk is taking place on a small hill, but the excerpts we hear leave no doubt that this is meant to be the Sermon on the Mount.¹ Meanwhile, Judah has returned to Rome seeking revenge on Messala, meeting Pontius Pilate and buying back his old house. Judah's first conversation with Pilate is significant not only because it mentions the local chariot race, but also because of a supposedly off the cuff mention of a Jewish trouble maker.

I've never actually read Wallace's novel, though a copy sits in a box at home somewhere, so I shan't go into too great a detail as to which parts of the book have been omitted. One aspect that was missing however was the presence, or lack of, of Balthasar, one of the magi who visited Jesus after he was born. In the book Balthasar befriends Judah, and it is he who is Judah's doorway to Jesus. But in this version not only is the nativity scene at the start of the film omitted (perhaps because it was so well satirised in Life of Brian, but also Balthasar's presence later on.

Indeed much of the later part of the book is abbreviated. Judah buys back his old house, is gradually reunited with his former acquaintances and wins the aforementioned chariot race, with Messala dying from injuries sustained in the race. There's a sub-plot with one of Judah's former employees attempting to marry Esther, and Judah carries on with Athene. He witnesses Jesus' triumphal entry and subsequent crucifixion, is converted and reunited with his mother and sister and is reunited with Esther. Nevertheless, given all that has gone before everything gets resolved in an overly cheery manner that feels out of step with the rest of the film.

The latter stages of the story are, of course where the narrative focuses in on Jesus and his teaching. I remember back in 2008 hearing producer David Wyler saying both that they wanted "to look at the spirituality within the piece rather than directly relating it to a specific religion" and that it would be based more on the original novel. That seemed like something of a contradiction, but this is actually a fair assessment. In many ways this version of the story has more focus on Jesus than any of the three previous film versions. Rather than Jesus simply passing Judah some water, he instead urges forgiveness.The start of episode two gives a good deal of the heart of Jesus' teaching. This teaching clearly influences Esther and she quotes Jesus several times, again specifically with regard to forgiveness. Then there's a discussion between Pilate and his aide about Jesus' trial. (It's unfortunate that the blame is placed on the Jewish authorities, rather than the Romans, but then I suppose that Pilate might wish to blame someone else). Judah's meeting with Jesus on the road to the cross remains, and, as in 1959, echoes their earlier meeting. But Jesus' admonishment to "forgive them" has a double meaning. It's not just about the soldiers that are crucifying him, but about Judah's attitude to Messala. But the scenes with Jesus on the cross - so critical in the 1959 film - are reduced to a shot of the cross a long way in the distance. And whereas that version saw Judah's mother and sister being healed during, and by implication because of, Jesus' crucifixion, this version can certainly be taken as suggesting the miracle happened some time later, and was perhaps at least as much to do with the reconciliation between Judah and his childhood friend.

So whereas earlier takes on the story had their focus on Jesus, the focus here is more on a critical part of his teaching. The emphasis is primarily on the power of forgiveness itself, rather than the power of the cross. In other words, Wyler was right, Ben Hur (2010) is about forgiveness (the spirituality), rather than about the one in whom, (according to Christianity - a specific religion) forgiveness finds its greatest expression. 1959 closing shot was of tree crosses on a hill: 2010 zoomed out from a close up of the fully reconciled Judah and Esther across a busy marketplace.

That shouldn't be taken as a criticism necessarily. Indeed given the differences between the audiences of the two films, this later version is, in many ways far bolder.

There are however a few moments where the script lets things down. Firstly, and perhaps as should be expected for a Roman-Christian Epic, the dialogue is often overwrought. When Judah sleeps with Athene for the first time she purrs "I did not expect to get virginity along with virility". It's not helped by actress Lucía Jiménez delivering this and other lines as if she's saying "Monsieur! With these Ferrero Rocher's you are really spoiling us". That said there are also some some very clever double meanings, such as when Quintus, unaware that Athene has just poisoned him, says he will be "leaving this accursed place, so, make haste".

Secondly, there's a handful of lazy shortcuts, which would seem unlikely in real life. Why for example, does Ben Hur leave it so late to ask anyone about the fate of his mother and sister. And why does he leave his friend to die with his foot chained to the sinking galley rather than just cut it off? Is it likely that Quintus would be completely unaware of the Hur family given that his son lived with them? We find out that Pilate's regime is more compassionate than even the gospels allow. When Simonides is crucified the day before the Sabbath (a weekly occurrence) he is not enabled to die quickly by having his legs broken, but taken down and allowed to live (albeit with a disability). Likewise, Pilate doesn't just release one prisoner for the Passover, but all of them.

The one thing that mitigates all this is that the plot is well paced, the story is engaging and the film is gripping - even though its outcome is known in advance. There's a chance that Ben Hur might be better than I expected purely because my expectations were so low. Certainly it doesn't match either the 1925 or the 1959 film adaptations. Nevertheless it's entertaining, contains some meaningful shots and whilst its focus on forgiveness may differ from previous adaptations, it's more effective at conveying the freedom that forgiveness can bring.

1 - I may detail these later, but I made these notes - 70 x 7, eye for an eye, turn the other cheek, tunic/cloak, walk 2 miles, love your enemies, beatitudes.

A Few Reviews for Ben Hur

I've been hoping for some sort of blog post about CBC's new miniseries Ben Hur from Peter Chattaway or Tyler Williams, but sadly nothing has been posted up yet. Furthermore, very few reviews seem to have been posted anywhere else either. The only newspaper reviews I managed to find (in an admittedly brief search) was a preview article from The Globe and the Mail and one from the St. Catherines Standard. Aside from that I could find only one mention of it on a blog from The Legion of Decency (Incidentally there's something decidedly ironic about how those last two reviews relate to the titles of their publication).

In brief, 'The Globe' thinks it "comes across as a hoity-toity Brit drama", 'The Standard' found that lead actor Joseph Morgan looked "too much like Gavin Crawford of CBC's This Hour Has 22 Minutes" and found the overall programme to be "all right, but just all right", whereas 'The Legion of Decency' called it "crap" and "unwatchable drek". Perhaps not the reviews the filmmakers were hoping for. The Programme concludes this coming Sunday (11th April) on CBC at 8 p.m ET/PT.

A Few Last Minute Bits on Ben Hur

So it turns out I was wrong about there being no Ben Hur this weekend. CBC has no posted a preview video for those in Canada, and Peter Chattaway has linked to two articles interviewing some of the actors. I imagine that Peter will post his thoughts on part 1, which airs tonight, fairly soon.

The Logical Next Step for Ben Hur

First there was a book, then a stageshow and a film, then a courtcase, a film and another film. Now, all of a sudden there's a mini-series, an arena show, a radio play, a video game. Where else has Lew Wallace's Ben Hur to go? Why a theme park of course.

According to IMDB this is already on the way.

Whilst I imagine the sea battle ride and the chariot ride will be great fun, I can't imagine the queues will be too long for the weeks-long trek across the desert, and the crucifixion ride might attract the odd complaint. I imagine that attendance will cost a little more than a cold cup of water though.

Ben Hur, Ben Hur, Ben Hur

What is it with Ben Hur at the moment? Firstly, following the première of the live show on Thursday last week, there have been a few reviews, most notably from The Guardian who have produced a glut of articles about the production.

Their main review gives it a paltry 2 stars out of 5, but there's also a review on their theatre blog called "Ben Hur Live: Big Ideas Add Up To A Big Yawn". On top of that there's another preview article on it from their Mark Epsiner, and then yesterday, racing commentator Graham Goode added another view. Oh, and Friday's Guardian featured "What to Say About... Ben Hur Live at the O2 Arena" which also sums up the reviews from Liam Steel in the Independent, Nick Curtis of the London Evening Standard and the Times', Benedict Nightingale. And just as The Guardian's Michael Billington gave this only two stars, so to does The Daily Telegraph's Charles Spencer. There's also a review come press round up at The Stage.

Aside from the goings on at the former Millennium Dome, Lew Wallace's novel is also popping up in various other places. I've already made various posts on the Ben Hur mini-series which is coming to the end of filming, but I got word last week from German Jesus films expert Thomas Langkau that the series will air on the German TV station Pro7 at Easter.

Lastly, Juliette Harrisson has also posted some classical thoughts on the 1959 movie adaptation of Wallace's novel.

More on Ben Hur Première

Following on from yesterday's post about the live version of "Ben Hur", The Guardian website has a video feature about the show. The $14 million production premières tonight and has gained a fair bit of media attention. The Guardian's video talks to some of the key members of the production team including creator Franz Abraham, who talks very passionately about his show. There's also some footage (presumably from some of the rehearsals).

I still find it difficult to imagine what it will be like to watch. I imagine the audience will be so far away that it will be totally different to watching theatre, and so I can understand director Philip McKinley's description of it as an "operatic sports event".

I'm hoping it runs long enough for the ticket price to come down a bit, as I am certainly intrigued. Even if they don't, Abraham talks about being ruined if this fails to come off, so hopefully it will run long enough for it not to be a total disaster for him, even if it doesn't run for 50 years.

Casting and Blog for Ben Hur

Filming for the Ben Hur mini-series started last week in Ouarzazete, Morocco, utilising the museum there for the interior scenes of the Governor's Palace.

Meanwhile, The Hollywood Reporter has revealed the names of the pricipal actors involved in the production. Joseph Morgan (Master and Commander takes the title role, opposite Stephen Campbell Moore as Messala. The film's biggest name looks to be Ray Winstone who plays the Roman who adopts him, Quintus Arrius. The cast will also include Emily VanCamp (Esther), Kristen Kruek (Judah's sister Tirzah), Hugh Bonneville (Pontius Pilate), Alex Kingston, Lucia Jimenez, Miguel Angel Munoz, Marc Warren, Art Malik and James Faulkner (Marcellus).

The producer of the series, Simon Vaughan, has started a blog charting the progress of filming, and there are already a good number of on set photos of the cast and crew, including the above of Morgan and director Steven Shill.

Ben Hur on BBC Radio 7

Only just found out about this, but BBC Radio 7 has just finished broadcasting a four part narration of Ben Hur. Michael Gambon is one of those involved, so that, at least, suggests it should be good.

It's one of a number of things Radio 7 has put on recently that I seem to have only caught when they were all but over - the original "Knowing Me, Knowing You" with Alan Partridge has also just been repeated. Thankfully, the whole series is still available on iPlayer, although part 1 will turn into a pumpkin at noon today, with a new episode expiring every day this week up to Thursday. I'm never sure with iPlayer what is actually available outside of the UK, so apologies if you are and you can't access it.

The series runs for 4 hours in total making it roughly the same length as the famous 1959 film version of it.

Ben Hur on the London Stage

Various news outlets (BBC, The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Telegraph) are reporting that Ben Hur is to be brought back to the stage. As Peter Chattaway points out"Long before it became three precedent-setting movies...Ben-Hur was dramatized for the stage". It was in fact a Broadway smash, featuring live horses running on a treadmill for the chariot scenes.

The new production will take place next year in the O2 stadium in London (formerly known as the Millennium Dome), and will feature over 400 performers and 100 animals, and, according to The Telegraph, it will be pretty spectacular.

Combining light, sound, water, wind and pyrotechnic effects, the show will be performed in the round as if in a Roman amphitheatre.

The centrepiece will be the chariot race in which five teams of four horses will race round the track at up to 35mph.

I'm hoping to go an see it, but we'll have to see what's happening nearer the time. I wonder whether it will open before or after the forthcoming Ben Hur TV series.

By the way, the above photo is taken from the original Broadway stage production, which is discussed at some length in the extras for the four-disc DVD release of the film.

Ben Hur: Mini-series Update

I must admit that Peter Chattaway is generally far better at discovering the latest Bible film news than I am, and he posted a number of different items over the weekend.

For now, I'll just deal with the news regarding the new TV miniseries of Ben Hur which plays at next week's MIPCOM. Production company Alchemy have released some posters and flyers, whose taglines have caused some comment. The main poster is the one on the right. It's clearly been heavily influenced by the publicity for 300, and the tagline suggests this may also be true of the script. Whereas the 1925 version of this story had the subtitle "A Tale of the Christ", the TV series has opted for "Rome made him a slave. Revenge set him free." It's not just a different angle, but the whole premise of the original story was that the desire for revenge was a more powerful master than the Romans had ever been.

However, the one of the left is from a selection of flyers and posters, and it's tagline is "An epic tale of revenge and redemption", which would have fitted General Wallace's work, and its three film adaptations. It remains to be seen whether this new version will still hinge around Ben Hur's encounters with Jesus, or whether the source of his redemption will be something else.

Edit: Alchemy just posted an updated version of their website and the Ben Hur pages feature a few production photos and the following description:

Based on the classic novel by Lew Wallace, BEN HUR tells the story of a young man whose best friend betrays him, sending him into exile, slavery, and near certain death. Through his skill as a chariot driver, Ben Hur triumphs over his enemies and eventually finds peace through forgiveness.

Ben Hur to be Re-made for TV

Just four days after the death of Charlton Heston, Alchemy TV has announced that it is remaking one of his best known works. Ben Hur has, been filmed three times before, as well as being released as a cartoon voiced by Heston, but now according to Variety it's to be made into TV mini-series as well.

Personally I find the timing of this annoucement somewhat distasteful - an unnerving keenness to prize the horse whip from Heston's cold dead hands, but in fairness, producer David Wyler has dedicated the film to both Heston and his father. Wyler's father is, as you may have guessed, the great William Wyler who both directed the 1959 version and worked on the 1925 production.

Wyler also states that the new film will feature a younger Ben Hur, and that he wants the film to "look at the spirituality within the piece rather than directly relating it to a specific religion". At the same time he intends that the series will be more in line with Lew Wallace's original novel than its predecessors.

There's a bit more on this over at FilmChat including some footage from the 1907 version.

Charlton Heston (1923-2008)

I was sorry to hear of the death of the great Charlton Heston on Saturday. I can still remember, as a boy, rushing back home from playing football in the park in order to watch The Ten Commandments on TV one New Year's Day. As an actor he was champion of the historical epic in general and the Bible Film in particular. People often discuss whose face they picture when they think of Jesus, but when it comes to Moses there's no question: it's Heston.

It was undoubtedly DeMille who made Heston a star, giving him his big break in The Greatest Show on Earth and making him a household name with The Ten Commandments. Today Heston's performance seems a little dated in places, but overall it's still as monumental as it was 50 years ago. As with the film in general, it always seems to play better than I remember it.

Three years later Heston won an Oscar for his role in another Bible Film, of sorts, Ben Hur pictured in this blog's header image). The film won a record number of Oscars, but it was Heston's performance, along with the chariot race scene that really captured the attention. Heston's portrayal captured the inner battle between Ben Hur's heroism and his bitterness.Then in 1965 he turned in a brief role in The Greatest Story Ever Told. The standard complaint about this film was its parade of A-list stars making cameos, not least John Wayne's climatic moment as a centurion. In fairness Heston's performance was no better. It was the only feature film to star both actors.

Heston made numerous other historical films, El Cid, Big Country, The Agony and the Ecstasy, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra and The Three Musketeers to name just a few. He often joked that his face belonged to another century, but in reality it was as much his charisma and nobility. Michel Mourlet first noted his "eagle's profile" with his "imperious arch of eyebrows", and in that way he embodied America¹.

He had plenty of choice roles in the modern era as well. In 1958 he was cast as a Mexican detective in A Touch of Evil and he became one of the few actors to get to choose their director. Chuck chose well, and Orson Welles got to make what is perhaps his second greatest film.

In later life he also ended up fronting a series of documentaries - "Charlton Heston Presents - The Bible" and voicing an animated version of Ben Hur, as well as turning in a handful of smaller roles. Reading stories and obituaries from various news outlets reminded me of one that I had temporarily forgotten - his hilarious cameo in Wayne's World 2.Predictably there are also mentions of his work as head of the NRA. Whilst I disagree with his politics I'm deeply saddened by the vitriol of some of the comments on the BBC website. They seem to forget / are unaware that not only do the majority of Americans favour the right to own a gun, but they also live in a household that actually does.

For Heston, however, this was simply part of his life long fight for civil rights as embodied in his presence at civil rights protests in the early sixties. It's rare for someone cross party agendas in such an extreme way. Rarer still for it to be done in a way that seems to exhibit such logic. As I said disagree, but, it has to be said most respectfully.

It was Heston's role with the NRA that gained him his last memorable screen role - as the bad guy in Bowling for Coumbine (2002). Director Michael Moore put in a lot of hours in the editing room, and Heston came out of it looking pretty bad. Shortly afterwards, however, he announced that he was suffering from Alzheimer's and his apparent discombobulation during Moore's interview suddenly made sense.Following his announcement he retired from public life and it seemed increasingly likely that the next news story about him would be the announcement of his death that came yesterday. Even before he reached 84 he had boasted that he had lived enough for two lives, and one wouldn't be surprised if his arrival at the pearly gates leads one or two of the inmates to exclaim "it's Moses!"

=======

There are a few other pieces on Heston at the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph and The Independent.

1 - Michel Mourlet, "In Defence of Violence" in "Stardom: Industry of Desire" Gledhill (ed). (1991)

Ron Reed on The Big Fisherman, Barabbas and Ben Hur

My friend Ron Reed has just posted reviews of three biblical epics - The Big Fisherman, Barabbas and Ben Hur. Ron has a great way with words and has the benefit of having seen The Big Fisherman which I've never had the chance to see. It would have to be good to be an improvement on Barabbas. Ben Hur may have a larger number of Oscars, but Barabbas is the superior film in my opinion.

Speaking of reviews by friends of mine, Peter Chattaway has also had his third article on Evan Almighty published.

FilmChat: Depictions of Mary in the Ben-Hur movies

Speaking of Film Chat, Peter has also done an in depth analysis of the depictions of Mary in the Ben-Hur movies. There are screen grabs a plenty, and a couple of very interesting points about how Mary, like Jesus is almost absent in the second film. I have a hunch that Peter will be posting a number of similar articles to this one over the next few months.

Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)

I finally found time to see this for the first time last night. Life has been so hectic recently, and we've both been so tired, that we've been unable to watch any film over about 2 hours (except, somewhat bizarrely for the tedious King Kong).

There are a few comments below on the original version of this story the 1907 Ben Hur , but at 15 minutes it is really only highlights from the story, rather than the story itself.

Firstly, the restorers of this film have done a great job. Most of the silent films I have watched have been poor VHS copies, accompanied by a dull organ soundtrack, which only serves to emphasise the time that has elapsed since the film was first produced. The soundtrack here is overall very good, the use of sound effects correlating to the story (e.g. the beating of the galley slaves' drum, trumpets in processions) is excellent. The one scene where it didn't really work for me was the chariot scene, but other than that it was excellent.

In addition to this, the film was one of the first to use colour footage. The earliest films introduced artificial colour for example The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ has coloured in the film stock on specific items in the shot, in specific scenes. Another technique used in that film and also others such as From the Manger to the Cross is the use of colour filters. It wasn't until the twenties that the first 2-strip technicolour technology started to be used. Cecil B. DeMille used the technique sparingly in both his 1923 version of The Ten Commandments and his 1927 The King of Kings. Sadly, I only have these films on VHS and the un-re-mastered colour looks very weak indeed. Here, the colour was shockingly vivid when it was used. Although, like the above DeMille's films, the vast majority of the film is in black and white, colour film was used far more frequently in this film - and noticeably for the scenes featuring Jesus. Conversely, for the sentencing of Jesus and his walk to the cross the film reverts to black and white as if to highlight the event's somberness.

I've read before that this film is far more Christian than than the 1959 version readers will be most familiar with. I think this is largely true - in addition to the use of colour for Jesus' scenes, there are far more scenes from his life, and the relevant gospel is cited on the intertitles when appropriate. In addition (Spoilers), the scene where Judah's mother and sister are healed takes place on the road to the cross, rather than at a distance during the crucifixion. Hence in this version this is clearly Jesus working a miracle, rather than some supernatural working from a less specific God.

The episodes from the Jesus story which are included are as follows:

Journey to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-7)
Birth of Jesus (Luke :1-7)
Shepherds (Luke 2:8-20)
Magi (Matt 2:1-12)
Cold cup of water (Matt 10:42) [to Ben Hur]
Pool of Siloam (John 9:1-7 tho' more like John 5:1-7)
Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7)
Woman in Adultery (John 8:1-11)
Triumphal Entry
Last Supper
Final trial before Pilate
Road to the Cross
Soldiers Cast Lots (Luke 23:34)
Earthquake as Jesus dies (Matt 27:51)

A few other points I'd like to make.

Firstly,this film was quite innovative in terms of use of the camera, certainly for a biblical film. So the star from the east shines in the shape of a Christian cross; and after Jesus dies, and the earth shakes we see people walking round Jerusalem in fast motion. The camera work is at it's most impressive during the chariot race with the shots taken from the floor being particularly striking. In terms of thematic significance, we see an early God shot, which only heightens the impressive sets. As it arrives almost as soon as the post-epilogue story begins, it acts to alert us to the way God is overseeing the whole story.

Secondly, given the controversy over The Passion of the Christ, it's noticeable how this film deals with some of the potential anti-Semitic elements of the story. So at the start Judah wears a skull cap to emphasise our hero's Jewishness. The three wise man, in this version tell us where they come from, and rather than being simply "the east" as Matthew's gospel tells us, they are from 3 different continents - one is a Greek, one is an Egyptian and one is a Hindu - racially diverse as well as geographically. Finally it was very noticeable that when Pilate blames "the mob" for Jesus's death, the mob identifies itself as being from many nations - so avoiding placing the blame on "the Jews" alone.

Thirdly, the character of Joseph is notable both for his age (both compared to Mary and in general), and what seems to be his appearance in the cup of water scene. Shades of the Jesus mini-series (1999), the only other film I can recall which shows Joseph once Jesus is an adult, where Joseph's death is the catalyst for the start of Jesus' ministry.

There were a few of low point for me however. One is the scene between Judah, Simonides, Esther and Masala's Egyptian mistress which really dragged, particularly as I knew the chariot scene was up next. I also couldn't help but be distracted during the sea battle scene, knowing that some of the extras actually did die during it's filming. Also distracting was the last supper scene. Unfortunately all the creativity for the scene went into working out how to hide Jesus's face, and as a result we're left with a very dull reproduction of Da Vinci's painting, which strangely had a sort of cartoonish feel to it.

Lastly the ending line seemed like a bit of a let down. I haven't read the book (which I suspect those of you who have will have already guessed), but I would be surprised if the closing line in this film is taken from the book given that it has a rather Bultmann-esque ring to it.

Overall though, it's an incredibly impressive film. Amongst the crew members for the film was one William Wyler, who went on to direct the record-breaking 1959 version. It's clear watching this film that it was highly influential on Wyler. Both films, for example, combine an epic scope with intimacy between the characters. Many scenes in the later scenes are derived from this film, such as the chariot race (which Wyler worked on), although no doubt some of this is due to the common source material.

Director - Fred Niblo; Judah Ben Hur - Ramon Novarro; Messala - Francis X. Bushman; Screenplay by June Mathis based on Lew Wallace's novel.
More credits from IMDB