Would Ben Hur (1959) work better without the Jesus overtones? (1 Viewer)

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

Agreed--except in this film. His lead turn in The Fall of the Roman Empire must surely be the most boring hero in film annals. But as with Heston, save for some awkward early scenes, I thought Wyler the uncanny coaxed out of him a quite superb performance. His death scene is without question his finest five minutes on the silver screen.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Why couldn't this thread be posted when I wasn't at work? So now that I'm home, there isn't nothing else I can add that hasn't been covered so eloquently by Mitty, Ken, Ashley, Agee and others. I couldn't agree more with their comments regarding the importance of Jesus and Christianity to the storyline of Ben-Hur. Without those important elements, the film "Ben-Hur" would not be recognized as one of the greatest films ever made. Furthermore, to me the climax of the film isn't the chariot race but instead is the Crucifixion scene. My memories of this film will forever be focused on Judah again seeing Jesus's face and the scenes immediately after the death of Jesus. By the way, this is a great thread and commend those involved in this film discussion!

Crawdaddy

 

[Dave Gorman]

Actually, despite my comments above, I still find Spartacus, yawing flaws and all, to be vastly superior to the ostentatious molehill that was Gladiator.

To each his own, I guess... Gladiator, at least, held my interest more consistently than Spartacus. Spartacus seemed a much longer movie than it actually was. But I certainly wouldn't try to talk you into liking Gladiator or even argue its merits or lack thereof. Many have tried to convince me that Forrest Gump and Titanic were good movies -- I still don't believe them

 

[Agee Bassett]

I'm sure Seth will be on here later to express similar laments.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"...a, by and large, weakly characterized, dramatically insufficient, partly miscast, and enormously overrated film. Minus Ustinov's contribution, the only interesting personality I found in Spartacus was Olivier's brilliantly-layered Crassus. Glaringly lacking Ben-Hur's depth, human interest, complexity, cohesion, irony, passion, literacy, and thematic sweep."

With all due respect, Agee, I could not disagree with you more. But you do compare it favorably with that CGI-driven thing by Ridley Scott, so all is not lost.

As for the hyphen, hey, that's the title of the film.

Overtly religious films tend to leave me cold, but the music and "inspirational" scenes (i.e., Ben-Hur dying of thirst in the desert sand, pleading "God help me," followed by the shadow of the Nazarene on his face--that works, in all its late-'50s Hollywood glory) make Ben-Hur unique among those largely dreadful biblical epics from the 1950s.

 

[Terrell]

Hmm, I thought Gladiator was utterly fantastic in every sense. That's all I'll say on that one. Spartacus was boring to me. Well made film, but completely boring. Now Ben-Hur was a fantastic and exciting film, far surpassing Spartacus.

 

[Nick_Scott]

Just for the record, Ben-Hur is my favorite movie..
However, I did also like the Simpsons version where Mr Burns played the part of Jesus.

 

[RobR]

Hey Crawdaddy,
Give some credit to the thread starter I knew it would generate some highly-eloquent reponses. Perhaps someday I'll be voted as the best thread starter on HTF Want to know my next thread: "Would 2001: A Space Odyssey work better without the classic scores?" (just kidding, just kidding).

 

[Seth Paxton]

I am one of the biggest fans of Ben-Hur, but I will say that I often skip the bookends of the film or pay less attention to them.

However, Jesus as a character within the actual narrative (which the bookends tend to exist outside of) is critical to the film. Judah must cross his path time and again.

But I don't think you need to be Christian to appreciate the film. It is, after all, about learning to forgive and how the drive of hate can bring a man to his knees and ruin everything around him. The fact that Jesus remains constantly in his environment as a viable option helps drive home the point that Judah refuses to forgive.

That is one of my favorite aspects of Ben-Hur, that he is a real character who flies in the face of common sense because of his emotions. I find that VERY realistic, and therefore very thoughtful in it's philosophical moral stance. We can all learn from Judah's obsessive hate of Massala and Rome, even if they earned it.

But cinematically I think the bookends, especially the front end, play clunky because the film is about Judah primarily with Jesus as a backdrop, a setting or theme if you will as much as a character.

It would be different if that story was unknown, and as it is the FULL story of Jesus as he is portrayed in the film (classic Christian belief) is NOT shown, so you still need to know who he is. So why bother showning any of it?

But that's the film, love it or leave it. Personally I love it.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Now, the REAL question is, would it have better without that gay undertones.

Mitty, you son of a...

Seth chases after Mitty to kick his Gore Vidal loving ass

 

[Seth Paxton]

Sorry, but let me go back and address the ending more specifically.
I think the story arc was better served with Judah learning to forgive without anything in it for him. By having his mother and sister healed we get the message that if you convert/forgive then there is something in it for you.
I think it's more powerful to show that the key is forgiveness, that forgiveness is it's own reward. That was the message we get when Judah goes to see Jesus on the cross and understands. STOP.
I think the cleansing rain aspect is a fine metaphor but not necessary to the main theme, and it slightly undermines it.
I guess I will use this discussion as an excuse to pop in the DVD and think about it some more. Never a bad thing.
BTW, I think Boyd and Heston give their best performences in this film and are equally excellent.

 

[Joseph Goodman]

I am an athiest, and I absolutely love "Ben-Hur". You simply cannot divorce Jesus from the story, and still have the struggles of Judah Ben-Hur reach any sort of meaningful conclusion. The makers of modern-day "Christian" such as "The Omega Code" or "Left Behind" could learn a lot from the Biblical epics of yore, such as either version of "Ben-Hur", which appealed to the true Christian message of forgiveness, not to the fear and hate of the modern day "religious right".

 

[RobR]

Seth,

But cinematically I think the bookends, especially the front end, play clunky because the film is about Judah primarily with Jesus as a backdrop, a setting or theme if you will as much as a character.

It would be different if that story was unknown, and as it is the FULL story of Jesus as he is portrayed in the film (classic Christian belief) is NOT shown, so you still need to know who he is. So why bother showning any of it?

I think it's more powerful to show that the key is forgiveness, that forgiveness is it's own reward. That was the message we get when Judah goes to see Jesus on the cross and understands. STOP.

I think the cleansing rain aspect is a fine metaphor but not necessary to the main theme, and it slightly undermines it.

I agree with you. I like your thoughts.

 

[Agee Bassett]

If you'll forgive me, Seth, it sounds like you are imposing some of whatever spiritual baggage you may have onto the film. The film makes is quite clear that Judah is already a changed man before he even learns of his mother and sister's healing; that he has already fully let go of his bitterness. That he returns to find them whole again plays no part in his spiritual rebirth, but rather his emotional one. Wyler uses some discreet, but sublime imagery leading up to this scene to convey this (the shaft of light on Judah's face at the crucifixion; the reflection of his image in the redemptive rain puddles--walking on water--as he goes back to Esther; his low, humble position in relation to the camera, etc.). I think it is shortchanging the depth of Ben-Hur's story to ascribe his reunion with his mother and sister as critical to his faith (as is your interpretation of the film's attitude toward Judah's eventual denial of Messala's evil).
FWIW, this same misinterpretation of the film's moral seems to plague ingenuous viewers of Hawks' Sergeant York.

 

[Tom-G]

Now, the REAL question is, would it have better without that gay undertones

There were gay undertones in the film? Please elaborate.

 

[Mitty]

Tom, honestly, I'd rather not, as I fear it would sidetrack this conversation. My comment was more of a joke aimed at Seth (who I KNEW would visit this thread...BTW - gotcha! ) . There was a rather lengthy thread entitled (IIRC) "Ben-Hur: The Great Gay Epic?"
There was a bit of a stir a few years ago when uncredited writer Gore Vidal went on record in the documentary The Celluloid Closet and talked about the gay undertones in certain scenes in the film. Charleton Heston was apparently apoplectic upon hearing his blurb.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm in agreement with Mitty let's not go there!

I think the cleansing rain aspect is a fine metaphor but not necessary to the main theme, and it slightly undermines it.

Seth,

How in the world does it slightly undermine it?????????? I don't agree with that statement at all!

Crawdaddy

 

[Tom-G]

That's fine with me guys. I wasn't aware of anything of the sort in this film.

 

[RobR]

Agee,

If you'll forgive me, Seth, it sounds like you are imposing some of whatever spiritual baggage you may have onto the film.

And you don't think you are allowing whatever spiritual baggage you have onto the film influence your perception?

 

[RobR]

Seth,

How in the world does it slightly undermine it?????????? I don't agree with that statement at all!

While I can't answer why Seth thinks the cleansing rain aspect undermines it, I totally agree it's not necessary to the main theme. For one thing, it's not central to Judah or anything that has been written about his character.