No one seems to be mentioning something else the 1959 version had - a bit of leavening humor, thanks to High Griffith's charming performance as the Arab sheik, who absolutely adores his four white horses, and has named them after stars - Aldebaran, Rigel, Antares...I forget the fourth. I think Griffith also won a Oscar. In the new version I also missed the whole plot element of Judah saving the life of the Roman commander and becoming his adopted son (re-named Arrius) - which definitely sets him up to return to Jerusalem in style. And Pontius Pilate's wise counsel to Judah after the race: "A long life, young Arrius, and the good sense to live it."
2
Foremost among the elements that lifted the 1959 film above the "kitschy" was its two-hour symphonic (even operatic) musical score by the master composer Miklos Rozsa, who had completed a brilliant violin concerto for Jascha Heifetz a few years earlier. Most movie reviewers ignore the music, and I often wonder if that is why they fail to "get" certain kinds of films. The remake has a lot of listless background music and some generic pounding during the race (which shouldn't need music and didn't have any in 1959). At the close our ears are assaulted by some pop diva singing words I couldn't even understand. Perhaps that was a mercy.
5
The so-called "weepy religiosity" of the 1959 version needs to be considered in its cultural and historical context. The religious apotheosis of that version comes when Judah, having turned his hatred from the vanquished Messala to Rome itself, witnesses Jesus' crucifixion and thereby experiences "the sword being taken out of my hand." In the context of the ever-present fear of nuclear annihilation, still-fresh memories of World War II and the Holocaust, and the blood-stained establishment of the State of Israel (whose colors Judah anachronistically wears in the chariot race), this would have to have been an especially poignant and cathartic moment for audiences in 1959. It's also notable that, in contrast to Wallace's novel and the 1925 film, director William Wyler (himself a Jew) and the screenwriters (whether Christopher Fry, Gore Vidal, or both in this instance I can't recall) decided not to portray Ben-Hur and his family as explicitly converting to Christianity in the aftermath of the leper-healing miracle. It's the "young rabbi's" message of peace and renewal that's most important in the 1959 movie.
About the 2016 remake: as Balthazar says at Jesus' crucifixion in the 1959 film, "I have lived too long."
About the 2016 remake: as Balthazar says at Jesus' crucifixion in the 1959 film, "I have lived too long."
7
Respectfully, perhaps you ought to start writing NYT movie reviews?
2
The people who did this remake are idiots. And, umm, "kitschy"? Come on Steve, don't blow out a kidney working too hard. "Pillow Talk" was kitschy, or anything starring Tony Randall before 1968. "Ben-Hur" is a classic movie aged to Saturday afternoon perfection:
*Gore Vidal telling Stephen Boyd to play Messala as in love with Judah?
*The honest, deep look of shame upon the Roman guard's face when he looks Jesus in the eyes and then turns away without whipping Judah?
*"In his eagerness to save you, your God has also saved the Roman fleet."
*Oh my god, they have leprosy!
*The absolute beauty of Altair, Antares, Aldebaran and Rigel?
That's a glorious day spent with popcorn, instead of doing whatever it is that you're supposed to be doing.
*Gore Vidal telling Stephen Boyd to play Messala as in love with Judah?
*The honest, deep look of shame upon the Roman guard's face when he looks Jesus in the eyes and then turns away without whipping Judah?
*"In his eagerness to save you, your God has also saved the Roman fleet."
*Oh my god, they have leprosy!
*The absolute beauty of Altair, Antares, Aldebaran and Rigel?
That's a glorious day spent with popcorn, instead of doing whatever it is that you're supposed to be doing.
6
I certainly hope the ASPCA was on the scene for this movie. Pretty awful, violent stuff for these poor animals who, unlike the maudlin actors, had no choice but to participate.
1
Believe it or not, I expect that all of the disasters we saw befalling the beautiful horses were CGI creations. The ASPCA was on the scene, and the final credits claim that "No animals were harmed in the making of this film."
2
1959 Ben-Hur also had the all-time best film Nativity. Great music, too.
2
"the kitschy 1959 sword-and-sandals epic that ... elevated Charlton Heston to Hollywood sainthood"
Could Mr. Holden possibly be forgetting a small, low budget, unpublicized sleeper Chuck made three years earlier? A little item called "The Ten Commandments" in which he played (ahem) Moses? The role that got him the role in "Ben Hur"? I think a minor Hollywood figure named Cecil B. DeMille was involved in it too.
Are even the older, more experienced NYT critics under orders to dumb it down?
Could Mr. Holden possibly be forgetting a small, low budget, unpublicized sleeper Chuck made three years earlier? A little item called "The Ten Commandments" in which he played (ahem) Moses? The role that got him the role in "Ben Hur"? I think a minor Hollywood figure named Cecil B. DeMille was involved in it too.
Are even the older, more experienced NYT critics under orders to dumb it down?
23
I wish I could remember which Hollywood mogul said it, but the gist is there is no limit to the number of people who will not buy tickets to something they don't want to see.
6
The great impresario Sol Hurok once said regarding ticket sales: "if the people won't come there's nothing you can so to stop them."
8
To me, Morgan Freeman looks like Morgan Freeman, with dreadlocks.
8
The 1959 "Ben-Hur" is my favorite film of all time (https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/benhur.htm ). It was the first "intimate epic" that never buried the characters' inner struggles, despite its spectacular grand scale. Heston's performance---even his silent moments and expressions---was worth Oscar gold. This "Tale of the Christ" has always been a parallel story of Judah and Jesus (though director Wyler never clobbers us over the head with religiosity; even an atheist can revel in its spiritual message). And ultimately, it is about redemption; Judah goes from an optimistic, wealthy man to a galley slave bent on vengeance, and finally to a healed man (and that is the true miracle depicted, the curing of Judah's mother and sister's leprosy a physical symbol of a larger spiritual redemption, when Judah says he felt Jesus's words to "'forgive them' . . . take the sword out of my hands"). The film deserved every one of its 11 Oscars, a record tied twice but never beaten. Wyler's brilliant direction and use of symbolism (e.g., take notice of Ben-Hur & Messala aiming their spears where the beams "cross", or Pilate's crowning of Judah after the chariot race as the people's "one true god", or the use of water-& blood-as a cleansing agent) are unparalleled. From its acting, cinematography & editing to Rozsa's greatest film score, it is a crowning achievement. It redefined a genre and stood the test of time. So much for "kitsch." I'll wait for the DVD of the 2016 remake.
10
Very much enjoyed your original review, Matthew (a rejoinder to those "charred epistles"), and glad to see your enthusiasm for the film hasn't wained. It's been my favourite film now for around 55 years and probably will always be. I won't be seeing the new version even on DVD or Foxtel--what's the point? It's not going to be bettered, not with today's cynical attitudes and over-reliance on CGI and choppy 3 second editing. Maybe if you could bring Wyler and Fry back from the dead...just maybe...
Anyway, just wanted to let you know how much your review increased my appreciation of both the film's subtleties and its greatness.
Anyway, just wanted to let you know how much your review increased my appreciation of both the film's subtleties and its greatness.
1
All right. This has no relation to your movie review. I heard Dolly Parton's I Will Always Love You on radio and was reminded of Houston's train wreck version, and googled the subject. You opined that the latter's version was significantly superior.
Really?
Which has emotive quality? Which is not "I'll sing as loudly and powerfully as I can with no regard for subtlety"?
Who wrote it?
Which brings you closer to tears?
Do you still think the same? Remarkable, if so.
Really?
Which has emotive quality? Which is not "I'll sing as loudly and powerfully as I can with no regard for subtlety"?
Who wrote it?
Which brings you closer to tears?
Do you still think the same? Remarkable, if so.
4
What is next - is America waiting for the Scientologists' version starring Tom Cruise in the title role?
4
Ten Commandments (1956) - kitschy.
Ben Hur (1959) - elegant and inspirational
Ben Hur (1959) - elegant and inspirational
3
As to Mr. Holden's "weepy religiosity," he seems more interested in the sexual aspect of the former Ben Hur than with actually reviewing the film. I thought the review was fairly close to disgusting in its contempt for the honest storytelling of the original and the message of atonement in Christ's blood. That blood, flowing with the rain and onto the earth, is considered by many one of the most effective symbology of the Christian message. Mr. Holden takes one of the few major release reviews he's allowed and turns it into a travesty. Sure, Stephen, both movies were strictly about sexual innuendos, weren't they? And the only evidence of a 'thick fog of piety," is the fog in your head. May you continue to be assigned the lesser films so I have an excuse to skip them entirely. Or we could call it a made on the cheap film by a made on the cheap reviewer. Yea, that'll do.
9
"the honest storytelling of the original and the message of atonement in Christ's blood. That blood, flowing with the rain and onto the earth, is considered by many one of the most effective symbology of the Christian message."
How does one achieve honest storytelling about a fictional character? The blood rain is a nice touch — really scares the rubes!
How does one achieve honest storytelling about a fictional character? The blood rain is a nice touch — really scares the rubes!
10
Marc, you've got it right. "kitschy,"Weepy religiosity" Are you serious Holden?
Speaking, as we are, of remakes, can anyone think of a remake that surpasses the original?
I can't.
Stu?
p.
I can't.
Stu?
p.
4
Right off the top of my head:
1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers - The 50's original deserves it's classic status and, in my personal opinion, the remake surpasses it.
1959 Ben-Hur - The 1925 film holds up quite well, but there is no question that this version surpasses it.
1941 John Huston's classic The Maltese Falcon was the 3rd filming of the book. It was first filmed in 1931 and a 1936 version starred Bette Davis)
1951 Scrooge w/ Alastair Sim was superior to earlier versions and some subsequent versions hold up well against this 1951 film.
David Lean's Oliver Twist and Great Expectations were clearly superior to previous film versions and 1968's Oliver! holds up well against Lean's version.
Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet certainly holds it's own with Olivier's earlier film
Hitchcock's remake of his own classic The Man Who Knew Too Much is the equal if not superior to the original
Many great musical films were preceded by great dramatic versions The King and I/Anna and the King of Siam, My Fair Lady/Pygmalion, A Star is Born 1954/A Star is Born 1937
1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers - The 50's original deserves it's classic status and, in my personal opinion, the remake surpasses it.
1959 Ben-Hur - The 1925 film holds up quite well, but there is no question that this version surpasses it.
1941 John Huston's classic The Maltese Falcon was the 3rd filming of the book. It was first filmed in 1931 and a 1936 version starred Bette Davis)
1951 Scrooge w/ Alastair Sim was superior to earlier versions and some subsequent versions hold up well against this 1951 film.
David Lean's Oliver Twist and Great Expectations were clearly superior to previous film versions and 1968's Oliver! holds up well against Lean's version.
Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet certainly holds it's own with Olivier's earlier film
Hitchcock's remake of his own classic The Man Who Knew Too Much is the equal if not superior to the original
Many great musical films were preceded by great dramatic versions The King and I/Anna and the King of Siam, My Fair Lady/Pygmalion, A Star is Born 1954/A Star is Born 1937
10
John Carpenters The Thing and David Cronenbergs The Fly!
4
Yes. Heston's Ben Hur was better than the silents before it.
1
Violent movies are the Coliseums of the modern age.
And the masses yearn for an Emperor (Trump).
And the masses yearn for an Emperor (Trump).
18
Not a bad analogy at all Newfie.
1
Several thoughts:
I believe I read once that director Wyler told Stephen Boyd to act like he is in love with Judah but not to tell Heston. This made Heston uncomfortable, which suited Wyler's interpretation of the dynamic between them.
Also, silent movies are much more open in expressing male friendship without implying overt gay behavior. It seems our great grandfathers weren't as frightened by the idea of affectionate behavior between friends as our grandfathers were.
The chariot race from the 1959 movie was inspired by the violent thrills of the Novarro chariot race, which included an actual accident in the filming. Snippets of the accident ended up in the final film, which is excellent. The 1925 chariot race was blatantly imitated in the 1959 film.
It is hard to imagine this story ("A Tale of the Christ") with much of the Christian theme stripped out of it, but that isn't the point. Comparing this flick with the book when the story has already gone through several transmogrifications is a major stretch, beginning with the obvious: a movie is not a book, but especially after a couple of regenerations. The makers of this movie had their eye firmly on the success of the legendary 1959 version.
Finally, Jack Huston seems to me to be a better actor than many give him credit for, but imagining Judah going through what he goes through without being a macho dude, is miscasting. He's wearing a cocktail dress to survive galley slavery. Inappropriate for the occasion.
I believe I read once that director Wyler told Stephen Boyd to act like he is in love with Judah but not to tell Heston. This made Heston uncomfortable, which suited Wyler's interpretation of the dynamic between them.
Also, silent movies are much more open in expressing male friendship without implying overt gay behavior. It seems our great grandfathers weren't as frightened by the idea of affectionate behavior between friends as our grandfathers were.
The chariot race from the 1959 movie was inspired by the violent thrills of the Novarro chariot race, which included an actual accident in the filming. Snippets of the accident ended up in the final film, which is excellent. The 1925 chariot race was blatantly imitated in the 1959 film.
It is hard to imagine this story ("A Tale of the Christ") with much of the Christian theme stripped out of it, but that isn't the point. Comparing this flick with the book when the story has already gone through several transmogrifications is a major stretch, beginning with the obvious: a movie is not a book, but especially after a couple of regenerations. The makers of this movie had their eye firmly on the success of the legendary 1959 version.
Finally, Jack Huston seems to me to be a better actor than many give him credit for, but imagining Judah going through what he goes through without being a macho dude, is miscasting. He's wearing a cocktail dress to survive galley slavery. Inappropriate for the occasion.
7
"I believe I read once that director Wyler told Stephen Boyd to act like he is in love with Judah but not to tell Heston. This made Heston uncomfortable, which suited Wyler's interpretation of the dynamic between them."
The story is that (gay) Gore Vidal suggested this interpretation of the scene. Both Heston and Wyler later denied it, but it does seem that Boyd decided to play it that way. However, it also looks like Heston is playing it that way too. The truth is, the obvious warmth between them can be interpreted in different ways, and a gay subtext is not necessary at all. Does every affectionate look or gesture between two men have to mean something gay? Maybe they just like each other.
The story is that (gay) Gore Vidal suggested this interpretation of the scene. Both Heston and Wyler later denied it, but it does seem that Boyd decided to play it that way. However, it also looks like Heston is playing it that way too. The truth is, the obvious warmth between them can be interpreted in different ways, and a gay subtext is not necessary at all. Does every affectionate look or gesture between two men have to mean something gay? Maybe they just like each other.
4
What next? A remake of "Casablanca" starring Zac Efron & Anna Kendrick? How about "Gone With the Wind" with Bradley Cooper & Jennifer Lawrence? Or maybe "Citizen Kane" with Leo DiCaprio?
Enough!!!!
Enough!!!!
27
"Or maybe "Citizen Kane" with Leo DiCaprio?"
I just felt a chill as if someone was walking over my grave.
I just felt a chill as if someone was walking over my grave.
5
YES to all of those (with a healthy dose of today's universal tonic, sarcasm)! Not one movie this year has been compelling enough to see first-run.
1
The 1959 version was one of the first movies I ever saw, and I just saw it again on video. 3/4 of it is a very expensive Sunday school pageant, with hilariously clunky dialogue (exquisitely parodied in the Cohen Bros film "Hail Caesar") The Chariot sequence, however, is amazing, more so because Heston himself is actually driving the chariot around the arena. (Although the more dangerous stunts were doubled). Seeing CGI could never compare to the thrill of knowing that this really happened and was filmed live.
5
A Goldilocks version of Ben Hur would add just enough piety and manliness to this version for a just-right mix of porridge, while, of course, pleasing no one with its middle-of-the-hippodrome appeal. Oh, well, the movie race is not always won by the swiftest one, but, sometimes, by the one with the most artistry.
1
I saw Ben-Hur during its original release. It was and is one of the most exciting films I have ever seen. To Stephen Holden it was "kitschy". If to attempt to copy a masterpiece in order to appeal to the degraded taste of a contemporary audience is not kitsch, I don't know what kitsch is.
8
The word "kitschy" in this review grated. I do not think the reviewer knows what it means. The 1959 move was certainly not kitschy. It was quality acting and yes, the score, which I still have on LP, was glorious.
5
Have you see the 1959 version? If not, please watch it:)
2
Almost every reference in this review to the 1959 version is condescending or holds it, on some level, at arm's length. But I find discomfort with this kind of aspiration all too common in reviews. I think it is the reviewer's insecurity. It's easy to handle the chariot race. Harder, though, to be too close to a movie that deals favorably with heroism or faith.
2
The obsession in Hollywood to remake certain movies is in my opinion
a stupid idea. Then again if there is a chance for some money to be made.
The 1959 Ben Hur was an excellent movie. Charlton Heston fit the
role perfectly and the rest of the cast for the most part was spot on. I always
felt that the movie was a man's journey from turning angry and seeking revenge to finally forgiving and accepting. The emphasis was not on violence but on the journey of a Jewish man during the time of Roman occupation. The Roman admiral played so well by Jack Hawkins said it perfectly, "how do get an idea out of a man's head". The admiral was of course making a reference to the young rabbi, Jesus . The 1959 movie
had drama, spectacle and atmosphere. It also had a glorious soundtrack.
I will not waste my time & money on this version. Perhaps if FX runs it
next year I will watch it. As it was with the remake of The Ten Commandments classic movies should be left alone. I shudder to think
what the studios would do with Casablanca. I also wonder if Mr. Heston
were still with us what his opinion would be of the remake. The religious
undertones of the 1959 movie did not bother me at all. It was woven into
and throughout the movie as part of the story. This also calls attention to the superb screen adaptation of Governor Lew Wallace's novel. Ben Hur
earned the Oscars it was awarded but this 2016 version will soon be
in the DVD bargain bin within a few months.
a stupid idea. Then again if there is a chance for some money to be made.
The 1959 Ben Hur was an excellent movie. Charlton Heston fit the
role perfectly and the rest of the cast for the most part was spot on. I always
felt that the movie was a man's journey from turning angry and seeking revenge to finally forgiving and accepting. The emphasis was not on violence but on the journey of a Jewish man during the time of Roman occupation. The Roman admiral played so well by Jack Hawkins said it perfectly, "how do get an idea out of a man's head". The admiral was of course making a reference to the young rabbi, Jesus . The 1959 movie
had drama, spectacle and atmosphere. It also had a glorious soundtrack.
I will not waste my time & money on this version. Perhaps if FX runs it
next year I will watch it. As it was with the remake of The Ten Commandments classic movies should be left alone. I shudder to think
what the studios would do with Casablanca. I also wonder if Mr. Heston
were still with us what his opinion would be of the remake. The religious
undertones of the 1959 movie did not bother me at all. It was woven into
and throughout the movie as part of the story. This also calls attention to the superb screen adaptation of Governor Lew Wallace's novel. Ben Hur
earned the Oscars it was awarded but this 2016 version will soon be
in the DVD bargain bin within a few months.
4
I love your analogy...I think you are spot on. I saw the 1959 movie as a kid, when my parent took me into Manhattan. At the time, I think you had to get reserved tickets....but I remember, visually, loving the film. I was very young, but old enough to understand what I was watching. And Jewish, so I knew who the good guys were and the bad guys were. And to this day, I still watch it when it is on TCM. I still get something out of the film, each time I watch it. But, I do like your take on it. About where Jack Hawkins is coming from. Yes, Ben, does have a lot of anger in him, and even after Mesalla gets in the most horrific way, it still does not get him peace.... I am in total agreement to let great movies "be". Stop with the remakes already. This movie won 11 Oscars and directed by a genus. Willian Wyler. Who do these Hollywood hot shots think they are???? Jerks who make millions. Live in mansions and think they know it all. I think you are right, they will try and make Casablanca next, the morons. And they will do with an all black cast. That is Hollywood for you now. Have to be PC. Look what they did to poor Ellen Degeneres this past week....Maybe on the Hollywood roster they will redux Westside Story..I think that got 11 Oscars also. And why not Gone with the Wind, while they are at it????
"Everything fine in America......... remakes all the time in America." thank god "We'll always have Paris," and crass remakes, well "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
As a kid our spice cabinet included a variety of Ben-Her spice tins that had a charioteer on the label. I also saw the Charlton Heston movie, but whenever I see the name Ben-Her I think of cinnamon, nutmeg, not the sweaty, dusty epic film. After seeing this article about the remake, I began to wonder about what happened to the spice company. The Google machine says that McCormick acquired the Los Angeles based Ben-Her Spice, Coffee and Tea Company in 1953, and the spice tins with the charioteer on them have become collector’s items. I will probably see the film, not because of the earlier movie, but because of my memory of the spice tins.
4
If you're more interested in spice maybe you'd better see "Dune" again instead. :)
2
Charlton Heston as Ben Hur made a monumental impression on my young masculine psyche. His physicality alone was eye popping. He was a macho good guy with a commanding voice wrapped in butter. Stephen Boyd couldn't have been more perfect with his sexy growl and evil masculinity. BEN HUR was a true "blockbuster", the real deal - exciting visuals with a spiritually inspiring story. I just can't bring myself to see a new version. It would be a sacrilegious reminder of how the corporate blockbusters of today don't cut the mustard.
12
I am going to agree with you 100%!!! I actually think Jack Huston is a terrific actor. I thought he was brilliant in Broad Walk Empire. But when I heard there was a redux on on Ben Hur? I kind of questioned that. Why fix something that ain't broken? I mean, that movie won 11 Oscars. Directed by a film genius. William Wyler. My parents took me to see the movie as a kid. And I was mesmerized by it. Did I hv a crush on Stephen Boyd. What did I know about gays at the time:) Boy was he hot...And Charlton Heston was just perfect for the role. The cinematography was superb. The crucification scene..very surreal..the colors. The chariot scene..come on...they did not hv computers back then.... When I heard they were re-making the role, I just said to myself, why??? They play the movie on TCM all the time. Better to release the movie on the big screen for the youngsters to see it. I agree, totally miscast. Morgan Freeman as the Arab who owns the white stallions who trains Ben? No, I don't think so. And what is with the dred locks? I do not think that was the style at that time. I have a feeling the movie will be a flop. Too bad, because I like Jack Huston a lot and would like to see him get a break in a good movie that suits him.
3
While it took Marion Morrison half a career to become John Wayne, Charlton Heston became the life long personification of Ben Hur in just one movie.
1
Totally indicative of this current crop of Hollywood 'actors and actresses,' always lacking gravitas, physicality, and the very conspicuous absence of a very necessary visceral approach to a not only communicatively but also physically demanding role. No surprises here since this level of mediocrity among the 24-38 yo crowd is the norm among this generation of Hollywierd "artists."
8
Wow! There's a whole lot of bigotry, ageism and bitterness wrapped up in your comment. I'm in my 60's now. I well remember all the disparaging things said by bitter old folks regarding us when we were young and I find it depressing that so many of my generation have forgotten that and now, in their own bitter, self-satisfied old age, feel free to disparage a new generation of young people. Today's young people are a product of the world old folks made so if you want to blame someone I suggest you find a good mirror and cuss yourself out.
2
Jim youŕe analytic simplicity in attempting to minimize my personal opinion based rant demonstrates you're inability to accept that this all started with your generation opening the door to not only free spiritedness but also an acceptance of borderline anarchist view of life! Are you kidding me guy, seriously?! Your generation brought us both Timothy Leary and the Black Panther Party, a dichotomy that was both necessary and defiant of the old norms. But when I look at the films, television movies and shows, plays, literature really was produced by quality artists! Name one actor in this movie that is a young Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, and the like?! And this is precisely what I'm talking about when I choose the caliber of talent in that aforementioned age bracket. Seems like you're trying to stone throw at your own glass house dude.
I'm a young person, and I don't think it's ageist to call a spade a spade. Many of the current crop of actors and actresses stink when compared to the legends of the silver screen. Hollywood seems to have forgotten that movie making is a business, and the movies have to be entertaining if you want people to pay to see them.
1959 Ben Hur - caviar
2016 Ben Hur - tripe
1959 Ben Hur - caviar
2016 Ben Hur - tripe
1
The 1959 chariot race -- created without CGI -- was and still is spectacular. No one could have improved on it very much. The melodrama of the rest of the film, with its heaving score and brooding looks, still carries its original emotional punch even in today's cynical age. I'm not sure what the filmmakers hoped to achieve by remaking this movie. I can only hope that it encourages young people who have not seen it to seek out the Charlton Heston version.
4
I remember thinking several years ago, on the day I read that BEN-HUR was being remade, one thing: Why? There truly are movies that stand the test of time and the 1959 classic is one of them...even the 1925 silent version is still incredibly watchable. In an age where CGI can just about render anything imaginable, it leave's one slack-jawed to go back to the chariot races in both previous versions and realize: There. Were. No. Computers.
10
Exactly! And Heston did most of the chariot race himself!
"And Heston did most of the chariot race himself!"
And stunt-doubled for the horse, too!
And stunt-doubled for the horse, too!
1
My seven word review of the film: 'Ben-Hur? Been done - to perfection in 1959.'
7
Russell Crowe? No, this called for Dwayne Johnson. And not that I dislike Morgan Freeman, but really-you would think there are no other black actors out there He shows up in so many movies he must be the richest man in Hollywood. That wig is hilarious.
3
I think it's Samuel L. Jackson who holds the record as the Black actor who will appear in anything for the money.
Have you seen "Snakes On A Plane"?
Have you seen "Snakes On A Plane"?
3
Stephen, I'm going to take issue with your dismissal of the 1959 film as "kitschy" or a display of "weepy religiosity". The films of its director William Wyler usually displayed a deep humanism with spiritual themes (e.g., The Best Years of Our Lives"). He could portray such themes without any hint of insincerity. Even Heston, who rarely displayed genuine acting talent, did his best work for Wyler. I've never read the original Ben Hur novel, but I'm cautious about adapting a work to the screen while departing too much from the source's essential themes.
8
Good for you!!!
"I've never read the original Ben Hur novel, but I'm cautious about adapting a work to the screen while departing too much from the source's essential themes."
In that case it's better you didn't read the novel because the '59 screenplay departs from it considerably, and for the better. The novel is clumsy, taking 60 pages to introduce its main characters and not introducing the character of Esther until the second half. It deals with the naval battle and chariot race in a few pages while filling whole chapters with dead wood, specifically from the "Grove of Daphne". It's not a great novel, but contains the kernel of a great story, which the makers of the '59 version were able to tease out. That's one of the film's great contributions, re-arranging a clumsy novel and coming up with superior drama.
In that case it's better you didn't read the novel because the '59 screenplay departs from it considerably, and for the better. The novel is clumsy, taking 60 pages to introduce its main characters and not introducing the character of Esther until the second half. It deals with the naval battle and chariot race in a few pages while filling whole chapters with dead wood, specifically from the "Grove of Daphne". It's not a great novel, but contains the kernel of a great story, which the makers of the '59 version were able to tease out. That's one of the film's great contributions, re-arranging a clumsy novel and coming up with superior drama.
1
FYI: The 1959 Charlton Heston film is NOT "the original." It was the third film version of this story and was itself a remake of a remake.
5
It's hard to believe that Hollywood, which presumably knows something about movies, wouldn't realize from the get-go that this was one very, very bad idea.
7
The list of movies that make you slap your head and moan 'what were they thinking?!?' is very long. And a great many of the titles on it are some kind of remake, 'reboot', homage, adaptation of a TV show, etc. This is just one more example of people who make their living by churning out 'product' getting hold of the rights to the work of people who actually had some creative chops, and heaping on 'action', special effects, beefcake, cheesecake, etc. on the assumption that on opening weekend there's a substantial audience who will go to see almost anything with those ingredients, and especially overseas, where the audience mostly knows little or no English and cares even less about plot, characterisation, in fact anything but lots of 'action' and beefcake/cheesecake.
1
The good news is that two hours have been cut off the running time of this iteration, presumably from the "weepy religiosity" which even I found strained when I saw it theatrically at age ten. That having been said, it sounds as if this iteration has fallen from the Classics Illustrated mode to the straight-up comic book mode, so I plan to give it a miss altogether.
BTW, my pick for best Charlton Heston film was Major Dundee, the director's cut of which was a much better flawed film than the 1959 Ben Hur. The only reasonably solid performance I remember from the 1959 epic was by Jack Hawkins, and I his talents were much better demonstrated in the film version of The Cruel Sea.
BTW, my pick for best Charlton Heston film was Major Dundee, the director's cut of which was a much better flawed film than the 1959 Ben Hur. The only reasonably solid performance I remember from the 1959 epic was by Jack Hawkins, and I his talents were much better demonstrated in the film version of The Cruel Sea.
4
I have no interest in seeing this unnecessary film, but for reasons that pass understanding, I'm intrigued by the fact that the last names of the actors who played Ben-Hur in '59 and in the 2016 version differ by a single vowel. If this outs me as being a bit odd, so be it.
4
That is funny.
NYT always has to insert the far reaching LGBT agenda into even the most obviously Christian influenced movies.
7
As many comments note, the homoerotic subtext has always been there. 'Eros' does not always translate into 'sex', though; we seem to have lost the ability to appreciate the larger context of 'eros'.
14
Haha..I think you are right. I did not know Gore Vidal had anything to do with the writing in the 1959 movie. Gore was gay. But there were gay undertones in Spartacus too. So perhaps there may hv been. I never picked it up and I hv watched the movie a zillion times. I had a mad crush on Stephen Boyd and he was as straight as an arrow....Gore Vidal, in his fantasy, probably wanted to hv some underlying wish that there was something going on. I think Gore was an atheist. But, they all hv their price, don't they? This was a religious movie. He did not hv to take the gig to help writing it..yet he did....And, yes, leave it to the liberal NYT, to put something like that in to go off topic.
Um, it was "inserted," as you put it, when Vidal wrote the script. Pretty much a matter of record at this point. Also,,I don't know if you know this, but there were actual gay people around in the 50s, too.
7
The trailer for this new 'Ben-Hur' showed enough of the movie for me to prove that it can't hold a candle to either MGM's silent 1925 extravaganza or the company's unforgettable 1959 remake, an unparalleled classic. Highbrow film critics have disparaged the '59 William Wyler- directed 'Ben' for nearly half a century, and Times reviewer Mr. Holden refers to the multiple Oscar winner as 'kitschy'. But 'Ben-Hur' remains one of the great epic films and Wyler elevated the movie to something way beyond the typical 'sword and sandal' genre that was a movie staple from the early teens up to the mid 1960's. If 'Ben-Hur' seems a dinosaur now, its story of revenge, its rather simple Bible Story trappings and melodrama are a welcome respite from many of the cynical trappings so common in today's films. in any case, the film's gifted director managed to tell a whopping good story. The film's cinematography, sets, costumes, and action sequences (the chariot race is mind boggling to watch, even now) are exemplary. The music score by Miklos Rozsa is a masterpiece. The new 'Ben- Hur' may have some saving graces. I don't know. I haven't seen it. But Big Ben from 1959 will never be equalled.
12
I am in total agreement with you. I watch the 1959 one on TCM all the time. I never get tired of watching it. I hv even watched the silent one too, which is great. And from reading the posts on this, it seems we are all in agreement that we are all fans of the 1959 version and hv no desire to see the new one. I do think Russell Crowe would hv made a better Ben Hur, altho I do like Jack Huston a lot. He was brilliant in Broad Walk Empire. I just don't think this was the role for him....which is a shame. I think he is one talented actor.
1
Lynn,
'Ben-Hur' was a huge event movie back in 1959, and I vividly remember seeing it during its Road Show release in Hartford, Ct. with my father. Moviegoing was a very different experience in the first half of the 20th Century and up until the late 60s, early 70s. Since then the mall cineplexes and the digital/internet age has drastically changed how movies are filmed, presented and shown. Times goes on, technology evolves but for me the magic of movies and moviegoing was far more thrilling years ago. The movie palaces, the huge darkened theaters and the light from the projector beaming onto the big screen, those days are gone. At least 'Ben-Hur' and other classics are preserved to see again and again in the latest home video formats, though truth to tell I wonder how many people of the younger generations can even sit through a lengthy film such as 'Ben'. The older films basically followed a classic style of storytelling, editing etc. Not that there aren't good films being made today. But it's just not the same.
Thanks for your reply! Nice to know there are people who like the older films!
'Ben-Hur' was a huge event movie back in 1959, and I vividly remember seeing it during its Road Show release in Hartford, Ct. with my father. Moviegoing was a very different experience in the first half of the 20th Century and up until the late 60s, early 70s. Since then the mall cineplexes and the digital/internet age has drastically changed how movies are filmed, presented and shown. Times goes on, technology evolves but for me the magic of movies and moviegoing was far more thrilling years ago. The movie palaces, the huge darkened theaters and the light from the projector beaming onto the big screen, those days are gone. At least 'Ben-Hur' and other classics are preserved to see again and again in the latest home video formats, though truth to tell I wonder how many people of the younger generations can even sit through a lengthy film such as 'Ben'. The older films basically followed a classic style of storytelling, editing etc. Not that there aren't good films being made today. But it's just not the same.
Thanks for your reply! Nice to know there are people who like the older films!
Does Morgan Freeman and his standard one-note performances have to be in every other movie that Hollywood makes? He has a voice with a great timber to it, but that's about it. Sometimes he stands and smiles slightly and other times he stands and frowns slightly. Thaaaaaat's about it.
22
His possibly best part ever played was in Driving Miss Daisy. Probably because he worked with a real actor, Jessica Tandy.
4
It's one note, but it's a really great note. Certainly preferable to the earlier version, were his character was played by a bug-eyed Welshman in blackface. (Hugh Griffith, I think his name was.)
3
Spike Lee (whose most recent film, Chi-Raq, is on DVD for those who want to watch a really good, tough-minded movie) has spoken of a Hollywood stereotype he calls the 'magical Negro'. This character is humble but full of hard-earned wisdom, and his role is to lead the white characters to spiritual and moral insight. See, e.g., The Legend of Bagger Vance. Freeman, who can act when he's given the chance, is a natural for this role, in part due to his voice. He's played it in Miss Daisy, Se7en, Bruce Almighty, and several other movies. He can do it in his sleep (and evidently K Henderson feels if he did we wouldn't know the difference). A similar Yoda-ish stereotype is sometimes applied to the developmentally disabled - the presumption that God somehow has favoured them with insight or sweetness of character to make up for their intellectual shortfall. (Stephen King's resorted to it at least twice.) Both 'magical' stereotypes are insulting. As far as I know, Lee's the only one who's ever called out the 'negro' one, and I have yet to see any critic examine the 'developmentally disabled' one.
6
Johnny Quid on a chariot. Had potential.
1
In a way, today's remakes of the classics only confirms what Norma Desmond - the diva of Hollywood at its most once - latched out at the world: "I am big! It's the pictures that got small." Gone is the quasi religious under and over tones that made these stories great! Jesus and his apostles always make for a great show! In Ben-Hur, you need Jesus to be there, you need the suffering mother and sister, leapers in all their decomposition, a story of religious conversion, a wonderful score that still plays in my mind every time I look at greatness... Ben-Hur was big, the 1925 version got it and the 1959 version completed it! Today's movies can't recreate this... As Gladiator palled in front of The Decline of the Roman Empire, I just hope this film won't be as bad as is implied. I will watch it at some point and hope that it elevates me at about the same level as Smokey and the Bandit did a couple of days ago.
7
Actually Jesus was only barely there in the 1959 film- he spoke only a few words and his face was never shown. Apparently, this time out his role is a bit larger.
4
Thanks for accurately comparing 'Gladiator' as very inferior to ''The Decline of the Roman Empire'. The Decline of the Roman Empire was very literate with few special affects, whereas Gladiator was the opposite.
I disagree with you regarding the 1959 version of Ben Hur being made better by the presence of Jesus and by Ben Hur's mother and sister being attracted to Christianity. I always considered those parts with being flawed and boring.
I saw the 1959 Ben Hur, when it was new, in the theater (along with a lesser film and cartoon). I was about 9 at the time, and greatly enjoyed it, but the Jesus parts just dragged on if the viewer wasn't Christian. However it is my favorite Charlton Heston film, and I suspect the special affects still work.
I was impressed enough by the 1959 film, that I took out a copy of Lew Wallace's book from the library and read it when I was 10 or 11. I enjoyed the book, but the Jesus parts were boring there too.
I certainly won't go to a theater to watch the new Ben Hur. I 'll try to watch it on TV, and perhaps will enjoy it. This new film, minimizing the Christian element will make it easier for me for me to watch it without glazed eyes.
I disagree with you regarding the 1959 version of Ben Hur being made better by the presence of Jesus and by Ben Hur's mother and sister being attracted to Christianity. I always considered those parts with being flawed and boring.
I saw the 1959 Ben Hur, when it was new, in the theater (along with a lesser film and cartoon). I was about 9 at the time, and greatly enjoyed it, but the Jesus parts just dragged on if the viewer wasn't Christian. However it is my favorite Charlton Heston film, and I suspect the special affects still work.
I was impressed enough by the 1959 film, that I took out a copy of Lew Wallace's book from the library and read it when I was 10 or 11. I enjoyed the book, but the Jesus parts were boring there too.
I certainly won't go to a theater to watch the new Ben Hur. I 'll try to watch it on TV, and perhaps will enjoy it. This new film, minimizing the Christian element will make it easier for me for me to watch it without glazed eyes.
2
“leapers (sic) in all their decomposition”
Patients with Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy) don’t “decompose.”
In the movie they showed them with unraveling bandages and they kept their faces hidden. We still have a “colony” over here in Molokai’i in the Hawai’ian Islands...more as a place that is like home. But folks with Hansen’s are seen on all islands, taking the bus, walking through Honolulu.
Hansen’s is not easily spread AND easily treatable with antibiotics. Takes 2-10 years to contract it, usually in a close household. Once antibiotics are started the patient isn’t contagious. About 95% of the world’s population is UNABLE to even contract Hansen’s.
The bacteria that is responsible is a mycobacterium, similar to the bacteria that causes tuberculosis.
We see patients’ missing fingers or toes but NOT from “decomposing?” The nerve endings, blood vessels are affected and as with diabetes ulcers can develop, which can lead to gangrene, and amputation of ends of fingers and toes.
I saw these folks at The Queen’s medical clinics. The people of Hawai’i are good, tolerant folks; I’ve never seen a local person move away from or fail to engage such patients in conversation in the waiting rooms.
Though curable it can be chronic causing skin lesions that never fully heal.
Though I am a lapsed Catholic and now an atheist I can say with pride that Father Damien who gave his life for this “Lepers’ Colony” was canonized as a saint in 2009. One very brave man-quite the story!
Patients with Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy) don’t “decompose.”
In the movie they showed them with unraveling bandages and they kept their faces hidden. We still have a “colony” over here in Molokai’i in the Hawai’ian Islands...more as a place that is like home. But folks with Hansen’s are seen on all islands, taking the bus, walking through Honolulu.
Hansen’s is not easily spread AND easily treatable with antibiotics. Takes 2-10 years to contract it, usually in a close household. Once antibiotics are started the patient isn’t contagious. About 95% of the world’s population is UNABLE to even contract Hansen’s.
The bacteria that is responsible is a mycobacterium, similar to the bacteria that causes tuberculosis.
We see patients’ missing fingers or toes but NOT from “decomposing?” The nerve endings, blood vessels are affected and as with diabetes ulcers can develop, which can lead to gangrene, and amputation of ends of fingers and toes.
I saw these folks at The Queen’s medical clinics. The people of Hawai’i are good, tolerant folks; I’ve never seen a local person move away from or fail to engage such patients in conversation in the waiting rooms.
Though curable it can be chronic causing skin lesions that never fully heal.
Though I am a lapsed Catholic and now an atheist I can say with pride that Father Damien who gave his life for this “Lepers’ Colony” was canonized as a saint in 2009. One very brave man-quite the story!
3
Holden is being all too kind in holding back epithets here. This remake is beyond horrible, and I am still kicking myself for shelling out 12 bucks for it, though the seating was comfortable.
13
I have TBI and severe PTSD.
I went to one PG-13 movie in a theatre this year, and the trailer for this “Ben-Hur” movie was shown.
I left the theater before the trailer was finished...Judah Ben-Hur’s mother and sister are dragged off to be crucified. (As I remember from the Charlton Heston version they were put in a dungeon and somehow developed Hansen’s Disease--Leprosy.)
Then I saw a few seconds of the chariot scene--bodies being dragged, chariots flying sideways--panicked horses screaming and trying to escape up into the crowd and thought “That’s Enough!” and left. Didn’t even stay for the $15 movie.
I don’t understand the need for “R” rated movies! As an ER doc I certainly had to face enough real horror of two year olds with gun shot head wounds, teenagers, well..people of all ages and sexes violently raped and beaten.
I don’t get it? Does most of the American public somehow NEED such graphic sex & violence?
I still have nightmares from being in the 44th Medical Brigade in Vietnam.
I tried to watch the streaming Mr. Robot on TV which won Best Drama, Best Actor and was “treated to” women getting their throats slashed and thrown in the trunks of cars, violent sex, sexual perversion, drug dealing, then watching a young man go through drug withdrawal...and I was barely into Season 1!
We can’t just have a show about black hats and computer hacking?
Reading George Packer’s “The Unwinding and Inner History of The New America” is terrifying enough.
I don’t get it.
I went to one PG-13 movie in a theatre this year, and the trailer for this “Ben-Hur” movie was shown.
I left the theater before the trailer was finished...Judah Ben-Hur’s mother and sister are dragged off to be crucified. (As I remember from the Charlton Heston version they were put in a dungeon and somehow developed Hansen’s Disease--Leprosy.)
Then I saw a few seconds of the chariot scene--bodies being dragged, chariots flying sideways--panicked horses screaming and trying to escape up into the crowd and thought “That’s Enough!” and left. Didn’t even stay for the $15 movie.
I don’t understand the need for “R” rated movies! As an ER doc I certainly had to face enough real horror of two year olds with gun shot head wounds, teenagers, well..people of all ages and sexes violently raped and beaten.
I don’t get it? Does most of the American public somehow NEED such graphic sex & violence?
I still have nightmares from being in the 44th Medical Brigade in Vietnam.
I tried to watch the streaming Mr. Robot on TV which won Best Drama, Best Actor and was “treated to” women getting their throats slashed and thrown in the trunks of cars, violent sex, sexual perversion, drug dealing, then watching a young man go through drug withdrawal...and I was barely into Season 1!
We can’t just have a show about black hats and computer hacking?
Reading George Packer’s “The Unwinding and Inner History of The New America” is terrifying enough.
I don’t get it.
78
'Does most of the American public somehow NEED such graphic sex & violence?'
Two thoughts.
1. As Stephen Pinker notes in his book about violence,'Better Angels of Our Nature', if anything our entertainment has become less violent. We no longer make public executions a picnic outing; cockfighting, dogfighting, and blood sports continue, but are increasingly stigmatized; the horses in Ben-Hur are undoubtedly CGI (I hope!), whereas Hollywood used routinely to employ tripwires etc.
2. The notorious Dr Frederic Wertham, in 'Seduction of the Innocent', made some good points. (As one of the few who's actually read it, I note Wertham was a progressive; his primary \ focus was on 'crime' and graphic horror comics, not superheroes; he denounced the abundant racist stereotypes of '40s-'50s comics.) Wertham noted that violence is like an addiction; you must keep upping the dosage to get the same thrill. Or if you eat a steady diet of 5-alarm chili, your taste buds become dulled to subtler flavours.
So, yes. CGI; methadone for violence junkies.
Ben-Hur's producers have evidently framed the story to compete with Suicide Squad. Framing it as a pious Christian entertainment for the evangelical market would probably not have toned it down - consider the popularity of Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' among that crowd.
Two thoughts.
1. As Stephen Pinker notes in his book about violence,'Better Angels of Our Nature', if anything our entertainment has become less violent. We no longer make public executions a picnic outing; cockfighting, dogfighting, and blood sports continue, but are increasingly stigmatized; the horses in Ben-Hur are undoubtedly CGI (I hope!), whereas Hollywood used routinely to employ tripwires etc.
2. The notorious Dr Frederic Wertham, in 'Seduction of the Innocent', made some good points. (As one of the few who's actually read it, I note Wertham was a progressive; his primary \ focus was on 'crime' and graphic horror comics, not superheroes; he denounced the abundant racist stereotypes of '40s-'50s comics.) Wertham noted that violence is like an addiction; you must keep upping the dosage to get the same thrill. Or if you eat a steady diet of 5-alarm chili, your taste buds become dulled to subtler flavours.
So, yes. CGI; methadone for violence junkies.
Ben-Hur's producers have evidently framed the story to compete with Suicide Squad. Framing it as a pious Christian entertainment for the evangelical market would probably not have toned it down - consider the popularity of Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' among that crowd.
1
It is true that graphic violence seems inescapable in what passes for entertainment.
But what disturbs me beyond that is the use of animals in perilous and stressful situations during filming. The humans involved have given their consent -- the animals are at the mercy of their trainers and the filmmakers. Several horses were killed and others severely injured in the making of the original Ben-Hur. It sickens me to read about the chariot race in the new version. Those "no animals were harmed" disclaimers? Don't believe them.
But what disturbs me beyond that is the use of animals in perilous and stressful situations during filming. The humans involved have given their consent -- the animals are at the mercy of their trainers and the filmmakers. Several horses were killed and others severely injured in the making of the original Ben-Hur. It sickens me to read about the chariot race in the new version. Those "no animals were harmed" disclaimers? Don't believe them.
2
Exactly why we end up watching old movies like "Babe", "Shaun The Sheep", "Red River", "O Brother Where Art Thou', etc, etc. A viewer is left relaxed, satisfied, bemused, thoughtful. Not horrified, terrified, disgusted.
Movie makers are making more and more movies strictly for teen-aged boys, when the reality is that teen-aged boys don't watch movies any more. They watch YouTube and play PokemonGo or Call of Duty.
Movie makers are making more and more movies strictly for teen-aged boys, when the reality is that teen-aged boys don't watch movies any more. They watch YouTube and play PokemonGo or Call of Duty.
1
The book is an exciting read. It's author, once Governor of the New Mexico territory, led a fascinating life.
6
Mr. Holden seems to have very mixed feelings about the transcendent; he sneeringly refers to the "weepy religiosity" of previous BHs, but laments the lack of redemptive "moral grandeur" in this one. Maybe the religiosity of the '59 BH was "weepy" because its moral grandeur made one weep? I loved the trailer for this remake, but sounds like I'll stick with the glorious '59 version, and will have my box of Kleenex at the ready.
7
I always remembered the (Times synopsis?) remark about the 1959 film "Loved Ben, hated Hur"!
10
That must have been a reference to lead actress Haya Harareet, an Israeli who seemed to be delivering her lines phonetically.
10
Yes, they seem to have later thought they made a mistake in that case by even casting her.
1
That sounds like a line George S Kaufman would have written.
1
I give the movie five bags of popcorn and two sodas.
3
You're a wealthy man, elfton.
5
Another remake .... argh.
15
While it would spoil the plot line, it would be nice if the next time this movie is remade the writers would cut the "galley slave" scenes.
Roman warships were rowed by free men who had volunteered for naval service.
Sending people to the galleys as punishment and chaining them to their benches are Christian innovations, although the Ottoman Turks did it, too.
Roman warships were rowed by free men who had volunteered for naval service.
Sending people to the galleys as punishment and chaining them to their benches are Christian innovations, although the Ottoman Turks did it, too.
21
Its a current movie, which is enough to warn off anyone expecting to be surprised or entertained, full of idiotically pretty people and lame special effects.
10
Although I think some people make much too much of the homoerotic subtext it's there in the 1925 version as well. Although in that film it's reversed and it is Ramon Novarro's Ben-Hur who seems enamored of an oblivious Messala. My own interpretation watching both films is that they weren't lovers, but shared a strong friendship and emotional bond that only one of them may have desired, consciously or not, to be something more.
3
You seem confused as to what Ben-Hur was, is, or is meant to be. You do not address the objectives of the novel, or the cinematographic foundations established by the 1926 version. The 1959 version with Charlton Heston is extraordinary, but you insist on belittling it, and then you denigrate the new one because it eschews the aspirations of historical and moral grandeur of its predecessor, for the sake of contemporary violence worship. It seems that something in you refuses to face the story and its cinematographic potentials or realizations squarely on the merits. The Times should find someone else without prejudices to review this movie.
20
No one is without prejudice. To live is to make choices.
Wow. I'm awed by such Socratic wisdom.
Any more pearls where that one came from? :)
Any more pearls where that one came from? :)
1
Having the red the book by General Lew Wallace and seen the both the silent with Ramon Navarro and the later film with Charlton Heston I'm not sure I can purge my mind of the original intent of Wallace.
Wallace was a Union Civil was general and an Atheist. Setting out on a mission to disprove the existence of the Christ he eventually became convinced of the truth of Christ and was converted to Christianity.
The earlier films were very true to the book and this seems to have thrown the book away.
Calling it Ben Hur is a rather dishonest and cheap way way to make some money off of the title character's name but the character could have had any name if the intent was to produce another sword and sandals picture about empire, tyranny and revenge.
I cant see spending my money to see it.
Wallace was a Union Civil was general and an Atheist. Setting out on a mission to disprove the existence of the Christ he eventually became convinced of the truth of Christ and was converted to Christianity.
The earlier films were very true to the book and this seems to have thrown the book away.
Calling it Ben Hur is a rather dishonest and cheap way way to make some money off of the title character's name but the character could have had any name if the intent was to produce another sword and sandals picture about empire, tyranny and revenge.
I cant see spending my money to see it.
14
The so-called "weepy religiosity" and "thick fog of piety" of the famous, now classic version are what endeared it to me and millions. Just change the contemptuous characterization to "heartfelt awe at genuine holiness" and you have one reason for its classic status.
16
An overlooked subplot of the novel is that Judah, after coming into his own with wealth and status, makes plans to raise an army to go to war with Jesus against Roman rule, ironically not fully understanding what it is that Jesus is preaching. For some reason this is never touched on in the adaptations.
12
Actually, that is a sub-plot in the 1925 silent version.
2
An implicit hint of that subplot does remain in the 1959 version. After Judah returns to Jerusalem from Rome, his loyal slave Simonides, now left paraplegic from Roman torture, tells him the Romans were unable to force him to reveal where he had hidden the Ben-Hur fortune and suggests that it should be used to fund a Jewish rebellion. Later, after he has avenged Messala in the chariot race, Judah finds that his hatred has not been quieted, and it has turned from the dead Messala to Rome itself. When he gives Quintus Arrius' family signet ring to Pilate to return to Arrius, Pilate tells him that he has become too dangerous and warns him to leave Judea. The clear implication is that Ben-Hur, having found his thirst for vengeance unsatisfied, is about to foment rebellion.
1
I have 't seen this film, but I find it interesting and maddening that yet again a reviewer faults the casting of a more delicately built, less 'macho' man as the hero, as if such people were the only ones capable of leadership or feats of physical daring-do, etc. In reviews of Kingdom of Heaven several years ago, Russell Crowe was also named in some reviews as the "appropriate" actor to play the male lead, instead of Orlando Bloom. I personally get sick of Russell Crowe as the stereotype for such roles, not to mention the fact that he's too old to fit into the story line - and Orlando Bloom did an excellent job presenting a different kind of leader - this guy probably does too. Delicacy (or whatever you want to call it) can serve as part of the hero's persona, as it did in the Kingdom of Heaven case, making his heroism come across as hopeful and dynamic rather than inevitable and rote.
6
Uh, the actual book of Hen Hur, does go on and on about how strong and macho Ben Hur is. Sorry...
9
Sorry. Gotta go with Russell Crowe!
1
When I heard about a Ben-Hur remake, I thought the makers must be out of their minds. This review confirms that view. Another remake I will refuse to see.
35
Shame on them for portraying violence from a violent time in history,a PETA approved race with driverless chariots would be much more acceptable.Who knew the Eisenhower era audience flocked to the original to see fleeting homoerotica.Sometimes a movie is just a movie Mr.Holden,grab the popcorn leave the agenda.
4
There's a scene in Spartacus with Tony Curtis as Laurence Olivier's body slave bathing him. The conversation was cut and restored later. Clams and Mussels were used to suggest bisexuality and a proposition from Olivier to Curtis. Curtis runs away shortly after that scene.
Black listed writers working under pseudonyms were just another way to thumb the nose at the people who'd banned them.
Black listed writers working under pseudonyms were just another way to thumb the nose at the people who'd banned them.
10
Oysters and snails, NYhuguenot. That scene was a hoot.
Believe me, Phelan, Eisenhower audiences knew exactly what they were seeing. As a small girl, I watched Ben-Hur with my uninhibited mother. She snickered every time Jack Hawkins locked eyes with Charleton Heston. Dead son, indeed.
Believe me, Phelan, Eisenhower audiences knew exactly what they were seeing. As a small girl, I watched Ben-Hur with my uninhibited mother. She snickered every time Jack Hawkins locked eyes with Charleton Heston. Dead son, indeed.
Thanks for the correction. I either don't remember stuff or I remember it differently anymore.
Something feels especially wrong about remaking a classic. Not only does it feel sacrilegious in that it violates the respect people have for the original, but it also ruins the story for a new generation. Most people in my generation have never seen the 1959 Ben-Hur. It's sad to think that this could be their first and only encounter with that story, especially given what this review suggests about the remake's lack of gravity.
25
I hear thundering feet avoiding this spectacle
47
No desire at all to see this.
Will remind me of "my- cold-dead-hand "Heston.
Will remind me of "my- cold-dead-hand "Heston.
3
I remember watching the original ben-hur as a child in an old-fashioned, velvet-curtained theater that has long since been demolished. I was very young and my mother expected me to fall asleep, not watch with rapt attention, humming along when the intermission played, imagining what I'd see when the movie started again. the original might have been "kitschy" and it definitely bore a thick veneer of religiosity (it was "a novel of the Christ," though, wasn't it?), but I remember its magic. it was a film. this is just a movie. some things should simply be left alone. this is one of them.
43
It seems nuts to make a film like this. You have a wide screen surround sound classic with the best actors of the day. How can any substitute hope to measure up? And the guy who played the assassin in Boardwalk Empire as Judah Ben Hur? Puhleeze.....
15
Perhaps any actors who think about appearing in future versions of "Ben-Hur" should follow the advice of Paul Newman who was considered for the role in the 1959 version. According to Gore Vidal, Newman, who had appeared in a previous biblical epoch "The Silver Chalice," turned the role down saying "I'm not making any more movies where I have to wear a cocktail dress."
38
Ho-hum. Why don't they start making big musicals again, a la Fred & Ginger or Busby Berkeley again to cheer us up? But alas, how can you regurgitate genius?
20
Why don't they make a decent romantic movie?
15
Berkely had to mount real cameras to get the kaleidoscope scenes. Today they just use CGI to do it digitally. Special effects have become so boring anymore because now we know how they did it.
3
Nothing could ever beat the over-the-top original for me. I spent many happy hours as an impressionable 14-year old watching the epic anytime it happened to be on television, thrilling over the drama of the galley, crying at the horror of the leper colony, and was moved so deeply by the "weepy religiosity" that it was a factor in my conversion to evangelical Christianity. 40 years later, my beliefs now run more towards indifferent heathenism, but the original Ben Hur remains in my mind as a masterpiece of gothic storytelling. I will not be seeing the remake; I cannot stand to have those childhood memories and emotions tarnished!
34
To me Charlton Heston is Ben-Hur. I can't imagine anyone else doing that role. No body can make a perfect movie like 1959 Ben-Hur.
20
No mention of the 1959 homoerotic scene of the ship's captain's lustful devouring of Judah in the galleys, watching -- drooling practically -- as the tempo is increased and the sweaty Judah only becomes stronger. Judah rescues this captain, saves him from death, and is loved -- adored by him. Oh my.
12
I think you've just told us more about yourself than you did about that scene. Quintus Arrius was pushing the galley slaves to their limit to see what they would be capable of in battle. His interest in Ben-Hur was that he reminded him of his dead son. I just watched the film a few days ago and your interpretation of that scene is, I think, a rather individual one.
However, you might enjoy the same scene in the 1925 silent version. There is nothing particularly homoerotic in that scene about the characters and their actions, but there is that well muscled slave inexplicably strapped to the wall behind the drummer in all of his pre-code full back view naked glory.
However, you might enjoy the same scene in the 1925 silent version. There is nothing particularly homoerotic in that scene about the characters and their actions, but there is that well muscled slave inexplicably strapped to the wall behind the drummer in all of his pre-code full back view naked glory.
13
"His interest in Ben-Hur was that he reminded him of his dead son. "
No, only ostensibly -- his actual expressions in the scene say differently.
There is a gross sadistic vibe (the whipping) in there too and neither of you mention that part...it is an unpleasant scene all around.
No, only ostensibly -- his actual expressions in the scene say differently.
There is a gross sadistic vibe (the whipping) in there too and neither of you mention that part...it is an unpleasant scene all around.
1
How right you are. I forgot. Sadism and sexual desire are certainly not mutually exclusive.
3
I guess $100M qualifies as "on the cheap" these days.
5
Unhappily, you're correct. A movie of this size, set at the dawn of the Christian era, should probably cost about five times what was spent on this one. But digital effects come cheaper than building real sets and good actors and good directors cost more money than anyone here was willing to pay. Can you recognize anyone in this cast apart from Morgan Freeman?
5
This is a very peculiar review. Mr. Holden faults the earlier versions of Ben-Hur for their "weepy religiosity" and for "camouflaging their brutality under a thick fog of piety" and then goes on to complain about the new film for its having essentially dropped all pretenses of religion and moral grandeur. So what exactly was he hoping to see? This looks to me like a truncated movie spectacle (it's about 95 minutes shorter than William Wyler's film) made on the cheap for easy profit by a pair of hucksters (Mark Burnett and his wife, Roma Downey) who've spent decades making lousy movies for undiscriminating "faith-based" audiences. (A pretty good film about Jesus called Last Days in the Desert came and went in a heartbeat earlier this year, minus the Burnett/Downey imprimatur.) I may be surprised when I inevitably see this one but, even so, I have no idea what Mr. Holden thought of it.
43
"I have no idea what Mr. Holden thought of it."
I don't think he liked it.
I don't think he liked it.
54
Great review! Very articulate decription.
Its clear that Mr. Holden expected the characters in the 21st century to have homoerotic relationships, and for the film to have more "gayness" over all - his word not mine. Its also clear that he has no idea whats contained in "Ben-Hur, A Tale of the Christ," ( the novel all these movies were adapted from).
5