Josh's Blind Buys: Watching The Unseen Collection (1 Viewer)

[bujaki]

I am so glad you found Dreams to be an experience to be savo(u)red. I saw it on its release and it has, as you stated, retained its power. Depressing? Bah, humbug! It's just plain gorgeous to the eye and so stimulating. Kurosawa and color...you have just entered another realm...so much for you to discover. It's a pity that you'll probably never see his only 70mm production, Dersu Uzala, in a decent transfer. It was breathtakingly beautiful.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I agree, depressing isn't the right word. But it's definitely heavy. It's like a dream that stays with you the next day. It is many things, but light entertainment isn't one of them. But it's an incredible work. I'd love to see other filmmakers tackle the same format if they had the dreams to back it up.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There are seven or eight segments(dreams) over the course of the film. Apparently these were dreams of Kuroswa himself that were profound, and left an impression. I never found it to be depressing, but there is one part that is quite like a nightmare. Unsettling. Overall I would rather label it mysterious, and thought provoking. The last segment is pure joy. a screencap from the first dream below:

Bryan, I just wanted to say thanks again for pushing me in the right direction on Dreams - this might've sat in the pile for ages, I didn't have much enthusiasm for watching the disc until your posts about, and it turned out that I really enjoyed and was moved by the film. Thanks!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

#75 - Ben-Hur (1959)
Viewed on: April 15th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Warner)

I got Ben-Hur in a Blu-ray combo pack with The Ten Commandments (1956 version) - The Ten Commandments is a favorite film of mine, and it turned out to be cheaper to buy this combo pack than it was to buy the BD of Commandments on its own. I've had this sitting on my shelf for about two years, but I decided that in the spirit of this blind buy thread, that I should give Ben-Hur a try this year instead of rewatching Ten Commandments for the umpteenth time. I knew of the film by its reputation, and I had seen the chariot race sequence before (both during a middle school Latin class and a college film class), but the bulk of the film was a mystery to me. My wife asked me on her way to bed last night what I was going to watch, and the conversation went something like this:

Josh: "Ben-Hur. Seems like a good night for it. Plus, if I don't do it now, it could take me until next year to be motivated to watch it again. Ever seen it?"
Mrs. Josh: "No, just the chariot race part."
Josh: "Same. Do you know what it's about?"
Mrs. Josh: "Nope. Do you?"
Josh: "No idea."

Isn't that crazy? I had heard about the movie for so long that I never stopped to consider how little I actually knew about it. I knew that it had the chariot race, that it won 11 Academy Awards (a record that has been tied but never broken), that it was another Charlton Heston biblical epic, that it had been a remake of a silent film, that it was one of a handful of films shot in a 2.76:1 aspect ratio. I knew all of those things, but I couldn't answer a simple question about what the movie was about. To summarize a very long movie very quickly, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince in Judea, a conquered land ruled by Rome, specifically by Judah's childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd). Messala wants Judah to turn on his people, the Jews, in favor of the Romans, but Judah refuses. After an accident during a parade for the new governor almost results in injury, Messala uses this as an excuse to send Judah into slavery and his mother and sister to prison. While serving onboard a military ship as a rower, Judah befriends a Roman Consul (Jack Hawkins) who eventually frees Judah and adopts him as a son, restoring Judah's wealth and social status. Judah learns about chariot racing, and soon becomes known for his victories. But Judah is determined to get revenge against Messala, and leaves Rome for Judea. Along the way, he meets an Arab sheik (Hugh Griffith), who wants Judah's help in an upcoming race. Judah is initially disinterested, but when he finds out that the opponent in the race will be Messala, he accepts the opportunity. There's obviously more to it than that, but that's certainly more than I knew going in.

Now here's the part I've been dreading writing all day: I didn't love the movie. I certainly didn't hate it, and I don't regret seeing it, but I'm not sure that this is a film I'll ever need to see a second time. To begin with, the film feels every bit of its four hour length. That's a huge difference between this and The Ten Commandments; to me, Commandments just flies by, and feels at least an hour shorter than it actually is. But everything in Ben-Hur seems stretched out as long as possible. And it's not as if the longer choices necessarily seem better, they just seem.. longer. Shots begin earlier and end later than necessary. Dialogue exchanges that could have conveyed the point in a sentence turn into paragraphs. Redundant scenes follow when they're not needed. And granted, watching a movie at home that was shot in 70mm and made for exhibition on an ultrawide 2.76:1 screen is never going to match the original experience - but then again, I watch the ultimate "need to see it in a theater movie" ("2001: A Space Odyssey") at home and I do just fine with that, so I suspect that my impression of the film wouldn't be that different on a bigger screen. The chariot race sequence is worthy of every bit of praise its gotten over the years; it remains utterly spectacular to this day, and is the film's high point. On the other hand, the sea battle in the first half was very underwhelming by comparison. The use of miniatures is so obvious, and its especially glaring considering how realistic the chariot race is. I enjoyed the performances from the supporting players, especially Jack Hawkins and Hugh Griffith. George Relph (Tiberius) and Frank Thring (Pontius Pilate) are also great in smaller roles. I thought Stephen Boyd, as Messala, did the best he could with a pretty one-dimensional role. I was unimpressed by most of Charlton Heston's performance here; I think he's much better in Ten Commandments. Here, he seems wooden, and I felt very detached from his performance, and therefore, the character. He has a notable physical presence, but overall, I wasn't really able to connect with his performance. But I don't want it to seem that I hated the movie; I didn't. But it also didn't stir a lot of emotion or passion in me while watching. There was a notable exception to that - there's a scene earlier in the film, when Judah is first condemned to slavery, and he's being marched along and the vicious guard has commanded that he be given no water. After collapsing on the ground, someone brings him water - he's so thirsty that we don't see who, and at first we assume its one of the slave women who follow the men with the water. But as we get to see a wider shot, we realize that it's actually Jesus Christ (whose face we never see). It's a quiet moment that uses the power of that imagery in such an effective manner. Later, towards the end of the film, when Jesus is being marched to his crucifixion, he collapses, and its Judah who tries to bring Jesus water, a nice callback to the earlier scene. Those quick moments use the backdrop of the awesome spectacle to present us with the most intimate of scenes. For both the characters onscreen, as well as the audience, everything in the background seems to fade away for a moment. These quiet, intimate moments make a better case against the tyranny of Rome and for the power of love and forgiveness than the film's larger spectacles do.

(I'm going to go hide in the corner now and hope y'all don't crucify me for writing that on Easter!)

The transfer on the Warner Blu-ray is great. I did not observe any instances of damage or debris. The lossless audio, presented as a DTS-HD MA 5.1 track, was livelier than I expected. Dialogue is perfectly clear and effects take up the whole soundstage. English subtitles are also available. This two disc version includes the film split over two discs (with the intermission serving as the disc change point), with a commentary track and an isolated score track. I would agree with the assessment offered earlier in this thread that the disc, while very good on its own, isn't quite as miraculous as The Ten Commandments disc - though I wonder if that has more to do with limitations in the camera lenses and film stocks of the time rather than being the fault of the transfer. Ben-Hur certainly looks great. It's just that if you've seen The Ten Commandments or Spartacus, you've seen better.

Ben-Hur was a film that rarely moved me, but one that I can still appreciate for its achievements. It features one of the greatest action sequences of all time, a sequence that will be just as amazing a hundred years from now as it was back in 1959. But the film's overall length seems excessive for the story being told, the leading performance by Heston didn't captivate me as some of his others have, and the sea battle was such a letdown in comparison to the chariot race. Though I accept that I'm fated to be in the minority with these views, I was more impressed by the film's production values than the storytelling itself.

 

[BobO'Link]

Well said. While I like the film very much it does seem overly long and gives one the feeling something's missing in spite of the length.

I find it interesting that you mention how long the film feels in comparison to The Ten Commandments. I'm always looking at the clock waiting for the disc change while watching Ben Hur. It almost always catches me off-guard with The Ten Commandments. Interestingly, the films are roughly the same length on disc with The Ten Commandments being the longer of the two by 7 minutes.

It's also interesting that the director, William Wyler, strongly disliked the widescreen format. He commented that "Nothing is out of the picture, and you can't fill it. You either have a lot of empty space, or you have two people talking and a flock of others surrounding them who have nothing to do with the scene. Your eye just wanders out of curiosity." In spite of that he used the entire frame, including depth of field, to make scenes more dynamic and interesting and often gave the actors free reign to move within that depth of space.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Exactly! I was doing the same thing too, and every time I checked the clock, less time had elapsed than I had expected. In general, the more I check the clock, the less fun I'm having. I'm certainly not an expert of biblical films, but I'd rate Ten Commandments so much higher than Ben-Hur.

I'm not sure how true this is but I recall hearing that Kirk Douglas wanted the lead in Ben-Hur but was turned down for being too old, and that served as motivation to do Spartacus. I know Douglas was something like 5-8 years older, but comparing Ben-Hur to Spartacus, the two actors seem to be about the same age. Maybe Douglas looks younger and Heston looks older. Whatever the inspiration, I'm glad Douglas made Spartacus!

 

[RMajidi]

#75 - Ben-Hur (1959)
Viewed on: April 15th, 2017
Viewing Format: Blu-ray (Warner)

I got Ben-Hur in a Blu-ray combo pack with The Ten Commandments (1956 version) - The Ten Commandments is a favorite film of mine, and it turned out to be cheaper to buy this combo pack than it was to buy the BD of Commandments on its own. I've had this sitting on my shelf for about two years, but I decided that in the spirit of this blind buy thread, that I should give Ben-Hur a try this year instead of rewatching Ten Commandments for the umpteenth time. I knew of the film by its reputation, and I had seen the chariot race sequence before (both during a middle school Latin class and a college film class), but the bulk of the film was a mystery to me. My wife asked me on her way to bed last night what I was going to watch, and the conversation went something like this:

Josh: "Ben-Hur. Seems like a good night for it. Plus, if I don't do it now, it could take me until next year to be motivated to watch it again. Ever seen it?"
Mrs. Josh: "No, just the chariot race part."
Josh: "Same. Do you know what it's about?"
Mrs. Josh: "Nope. Do you?"
Josh: "No idea."

Isn't that crazy? I had heard about the movie for so long that I never stopped to consider how little I actually knew about it. I knew that it had the chariot race, that it won 11 Academy Awards (a record that has been tied but never broken), that it was another Charlton Heston biblical epic, that it had been a remake of a silent film, that it was one of a handful of films shot in a 2.76:1 aspect ratio. I knew all of those things, but I couldn't answer a simple question about what the movie was about. To summarize a very long movie very quickly, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince in Judea, a conquered land ruled by Rome, specifically by Judah's childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd). Messala wants Judah to turn on his people, the Jews, in favor of the Romans, but Judah refuses. After an accident during a parade for the new governor almost results in injury, Messala uses this as an excuse to send Judah into slavery and his mother and sister to prison. While serving onboard a military ship as a rower, Judah befriends a Roman Consul (Jack Hawkins) who eventually frees Judah and adopts him as a son, restoring Judah's wealth and social status. Judah learns about chariot racing, and soon becomes known for his victories. But Judah is determined to get revenge against Messala, and leaves Rome for Judea. Along the way, he meets an Arab sheik (Hugh Griffith), who wants Judah's help in an upcoming race. Judah is initially disinterested, but when he finds out that the opponent in the race will be Messala, he accepts the opportunity. There's obviously more to it than that, but that's certainly more than I knew going in.

Now here's the part I've been dreading writing all day: I didn't love the movie. I certainly didn't hate it, and I don't regret seeing it, but I'm not sure that this is a film I'll ever need to see a second time. To begin with, the film feels every bit of its four hour length. That's a huge difference between this and The Ten Commandments; to me, Commandments just flies by, and feels at least an hour shorter than it actually is. But everything in Ben-Hur seems stretched out as long as possible. And it's not as if the longer choices necessarily seem better, they just seem.. longer. Shots begin earlier and end later than necessary. Dialogue exchanges that could have conveyed the point in a sentence turn into paragraphs. Redundant scenes follow when they're not needed. And granted, watching a movie at home that was shot in 70mm and made for exhibition on an ultrawide 2.76:1 screen is never going to match the original experience - but then again, I watch the ultimate "need to see it in a theater movie" ("2001: A Space Odyssey") at home and I do just fine with that, so I suspect that my impression of the film wouldn't be that different on a bigger screen. The chariot race sequence is worthy of every bit of praise its gotten over the years; it remains utterly spectacular to this day, and is the film's high point. On the other hand, the sea battle in the first half was very underwhelming by comparison. The use of miniatures is so obvious, and its especially glaring considering how realistic the chariot race is. I enjoyed the performances from the supporting players, especially Jack Hawkins and Hugh Griffith. George Relph (Tiberius) and Frank Thring (Pontius Pilate) are also great in smaller roles. I thought Stephen Boyd, as Messala, did the best he could with a pretty one-dimensional role. I was unimpressed by most of Charlton Heston's performance here; I think he's much better in Ten Commandments. Here, he seems wooden, and I felt very detached from his performance, and therefore, the character. He has a notable physical presence, but overall, I wasn't really able to connect with his performance. But I don't want it to seem that I hated the movie; I didn't. But it also didn't stir a lot of emotion or passion in me while watching. There was a notable exception to that - there's a scene earlier in the film, when Judah is first condemned to slavery, and he's being marched along and the vicious guard has commanded that he be given no water. After collapsing on the ground, someone brings him water - he's so thirsty that we don't see who, and at first we assume its one of the slave women who follow the men with the water. But as we get to see a wider shot, we realize that it's actually Jesus Christ (whose face we never see). It's a quiet moment that uses the power of that imagery in such an effective manner. Later, towards the end of the film, when Jesus is being marched to his crucifixion, he collapses, and its Judah who tries to bring Jesus water, a nice callback to the earlier scene. Those quick moments use the backdrop of the awesome spectacle to present us with the most intimate of scenes. For both the characters onscreen, as well as the audience, everything in the background seems to fade away for a moment. These quiet, intimate moments make a better case against the tyranny of Rome and for the power of love and forgiveness than the film's larger spectacles do.

(I'm going to go hide in the corner now and hope y'all don't crucify me for writing that on Easter!)

The transfer on the Warner Blu-ray is great. I did not observe any instances of damage or debris. The lossless audio, presented as a DTS-HD MA 5.1 track, was livelier than I expected. Dialogue is perfectly clear and effects take up the whole soundstage. English subtitles are also available. This two disc version includes the film split over two discs (with the intermission serving as the disc change point), with a commentary track and an isolated score track. I would agree with the assessment offered earlier in this thread that the disc, while very good on its own, isn't quite as miraculous as The Ten Commandments disc - though I wonder if that has more to do with limitations in the camera lenses and film stocks of the time rather than being the fault of the transfer. Ben-Hur certainly looks great. It's just that if you've seen The Ten Commandments or Spartacus, you've seen better.

Ben-Hur was a film that rarely moved me, but one that I can still appreciate for its achievements. It features one of the greatest action sequences of all time, a sequence that will be just as amazing a hundred years from now as it was back in 1959. But the film's overall length seems excessive for the story being told, the leading performance by Heston didn't captivate me as some of his others have, and the sea battle was such a letdown in comparison to the chariot race. Though I accept that I'm fated to be in the minority with these views, I was more impressed by the film's production values than the storytelling itself.

Josh, you've essentially spoken for my views of Ben-Hur here.

William Wyler is one of my favourite directors, but Ben-Hur wouldn't make it into my top five of his films for all the reasons you've highlighted.

For a celebrated actor's director, Wyler did an astonishing job of pulling off such a vast-scale film so very successfully; but for me, much of the personal intimacy prevalent in most of his other films seems missing in Ben-Hur.

As for Charlton Heston, my favourite performance of his came in another Wyler film - The Big Country - the second-largest production he directed (and acrimoniously co-produced with Gregory Peck), but nowhere near the scale of Ben-Hur. I love The Big Country, easily one of my favourite films.

 

[bujaki]

I'll say it again and again: the silent Ben-Hur is superior to the Wyler remake, even though Wyler is the superior director. And I say this after having seen both versions under optimum viewing conditions: MGM's archival 35mm of the silent version, and the original roadshow presentation of the remake in 1959 (and subsequent 70mm revivals).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The DVR is set for the silent version, I think it's on TCM around 1am tonight. I'm not planning on watching it immediately - I think I will enjoy it more if I give a little distance between the versions. But I am definitely looking forward to it!

 

[Doug Wallen]

The DVR is set for the silent version, I think it's on TCM around 1am tonight. I'm not planning on watching it immediately - I think I will enjoy it more if I give a little distance between the versions. But I am definitely looking forward to it!

I really think you'll like it!!!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The DVR is set for the silent version, I think it's on TCM around 1am tonight. I'm not planning on watching it immediately - I think I will enjoy it more if I give a little distance between the versions. But I am definitely looking forward to it!

The silent version is terrific. I ran it about 13 years ago with live pipe organ accompaniment (his own score) and there wasn't a dry eye in the house during the crucifixion.

 

[bujaki]

The naval battle is for real (no model work), and the chariot race is every bit as good as the remake's.

 

[TJPC]

The cost of the naval battle In the silent version with real ships and real fire, was the reason the movie, being filmed in Italy, was closed down and moved back to Hollywood.
There are extremely moving scenes with a sleeping Ben Hur and his family that always cause me to bring out the Kleenex box and I also absolutely love the technicolor sequences. It is my favourite version.
I did not realize how very religious it was however until I showed it to my high school media class. It was a public school, so I ended up apologizing, although no one, complained.
I would not hesitate to view the silent version right away. The comparisons are fascinating.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That just got me thinking about something in general about religion in films. I'm not the most religious guy on the planet. But I can put that aside when watching a movie and be totally moved by a religious story in that context. If the movie is sincere in its beliefs and if it's real for the characters, it's real for me too. I think I probably learned more about what it feels like to have faith from the movies than anything else. It's yet another reason to love the movies - they really open up the door to a wealth of human experiences and emotions.

As long as a teacher wasn't saying "you must believe in what I'm about to show you or you fail the class" (and I'd like to imagine no one would do that), I wouldn't complain about being shown a movie like Ben-Hur in school. I'd probably complain more about the school's television set being too small.

 

[TJPC]

Ben Hur (1959) was part of what I thought was a hilarious prank I pulled during a staff meeting once. One of our school administrators was notoriously one of the most boring individuals on earth. I set up my clam shell portable DVD player to the chariot race in my brief case, and when he started to speak I opened it so that he could not see it, but everyone behind me could. I got flack from everyone as they had a lot of difficulty keeping a straight face, and basically not snorting!

 

[Bryan^H]

Bryan, I just wanted to say thanks again for pushing me in the right direction on Dreams - this might've sat in the pile for ages, I didn't have much enthusiasm for watching the disc until your posts about, and it turned out that I really enjoyed and was moved by the film. Thanks!

You're welcome Josh.

Before the Criterion edition was released, I haven't watched it in over a decade. I always had hope of a Blu-Ray release. I had no idea it would be a 4K transfer and would look so gorgeous. A far cry from the pan and scan DVD-(edit: original DVD was widescreen. I confused it with many of the WB P&S snapper case dvd's of the time.)-Criterion continues to amaze me.

I love the film
All the dreams resonate with me on some level or another. The last dream with the old man and his carefree wisdom is especially touching.

I think Akira Kurosawa's Dreams is the perfect example of the cinematic art form. It is what movies were meant for.
Dazzling image, and intriguing subject left mostly for the viewer to decipher.

Also proof that a film director doesn't lose his touch after a certain age.

 

[bujaki]

The old man in Dreams is Chishu Ryu, the father in Ozu's transcendental Tokyo Story, and in many other Ozu films. He was over 90 at the time, and I felt so honored to be watching this, his last performance.
Edit: Ramin informed me that Ryu died aged 88 and that he was featured in 5 films after his appearance in Dreams. I don't believe those 5 films were released in the US. I thank Ramin for the information.

 

[BobO'Link]

I'll say it again and again: the silent Ben-Hur is superior to the Wyler remake, even though Wyler is the superior director...

The DVR is set for the silent version, I think it's on TCM around 1am tonight. I'm not planning on watching it immediately - I think I will enjoy it more if I give a little distance between the versions. But I am definitely looking forward to it!

...I would not hesitate to view the silent version right away. The comparisons are fascinating.

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit this... BUT...

I purchased the 4 disc "Collector's Edition" DVD of Ben Hur specifically to get the silent version of the film - and I've never watched it! That was almost 6 years ago (June 11, 2001). I distinctly recall the purchase as I already owned the 2004 "snapper case" release of the film and felt it was "good enough." I don't double-dip often and it took some internal struggle to finally decide I "needed" that silent version enough to purchase the main film a second time.

The only reason I own a BR of the film is because it just happened to come with The Ten Commandments and the price couldn't be beat (I got mine used from Hastings before they went under for a measly $3.78 - shipped).

I need to correct that oversight and watch the silent version myself!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Don't feel too bad, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd do!

 

[David Weicker]

I've watched both versions of Ben-Hur (the silent one yesterday).

Each has their qualities. The nativity scene on the '25 is awesome.

Jack Hawkins and Hugh Griffith from '59 surpass their counterparts.

I'm not thrilled by either naval battle - they are just OK to me.

Both feel 'long' to me. Not boringly long but more of a only watch every few years long.

As for the chariot race. The '25 is good. The '59 (IMO) is the greatest action scene of all time