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

[Robert Crawford]

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.

So are you telling me that every scene has to be central to Judah? If so, I don't agree with that point because not every scene shot in any film has to be about the protagonist or any other central characters per se. Obviously, the scene was shot for dramatic effect to emphazise the cleansing of mankind due to the death of Jesus and the washing of his blood from the rain.

Crawdaddy

 

[Agee Bassett]

No, I don't. Ben-Hur's film universe works completely as self-enclosed drama. It concerns itself strictly with the characters and the drama which unfolds before them, and makes no attempt to directly engage the audience with messages. While this may have been the intent of the original novel's Christian author, William Wyler, the film's Jewish director, instead chose to ground character motivations in more universal, self-evident truths about our nature in inviting us to relate to the characters (this did, unfortunately, result in some cringingly banal religious dialogue). The Christianity in Ben-Hur can be accepted, in fact, simply as a McGuffin. So the film relies no more upon proselytizing the audience of its spiritual doctrine than Lucas did with his Jedi religion in Star Wars.
That Seth chooses to ascribe a sermonizing layer as undermining the underlining theme of the film frankly has me baffled.

 

[RobR]

So are you telling me that every scene has to be central to Judah? If so, I don't agree with that point because not every scene shot in any film has to be about the protagonist or any other central characters per se. Obviously, the scene was shot for dramatic effect to emphazise the cleansing of mankind due to the death of Jesus and the washing of his blood from the rain.

No, but is it necessary to the story or the main theme? My opinion is no.

 

[Agee Bassett]

The rain and blood metaphor not only addresses the main theme, it is vital to it. To sum up the overriding, fundamental theme of Ben-Hur, it is that forgiveness is the healing of a spiritual wound that hate and vengeance only provoke. The cleansing is not only intended to be seen from the POV of it's universal implications, but also from the audience's subjective POV of the protagonist. Our hero who was about to shed blood has innocent blood shed for him. Washed from his soul is the rot and corruption which he saw in others, but flourished dangerously within him ("It was as though you had become Messala."). The healing of Miriam and Tirzah is, as mentioned before, a further manifestation of this.

 

[Mitty]

Regarding the necessity of certain sequences in the film:
This may come as a shock to fans of this film, but it's not exactly the best kept secret that, despite its greatness, it isn't the world's most economical story.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

RobR

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...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.

Agee Bassett

[/Ben-Hur is a movie, above all, about redemption and forgiveness/]

We seem to be arguing about the meaning, or theme of this movie without settling on an agreed upon definition. The argument will remain that the movie means different things to different people. In a sense this is true. A non religious person could lop off the ends if this film and have an entertaining action movie not unlike Gladiator, but without the need for the protagonist to meet his fate as would happen in a Greek tragedy. A Christian would see the theme as a series of events in Judas’s life as tempting and debasing him to stoop to the level of his enemies; to be consumed by his hatred and desire for vengeance, but gaining redemption by his faith that the Christ has died for him and for those who follow and believe.

You don’t have to accept the message, but that is my reading of the intent of the author.

Without the spiritual message, I am not sure how Judah “learns” to leave behind his hatred. Any of us would certainly not be above sharing his feelings and desire for revenge. We only have to look in the paper every day to read the actions of our government and military to track down Osama bin-Laden.

Judah was and remained a man of faith to his religion. As such, he know the he and his mother and sister were sinners. It may not be clear to him or to us what they all did to be punished, but the fact that they were in their painful situations, were testament to an act of sin that they committed. How does Judah come to grips with his sins unless he undergoes a fundamental change in how he views his faith? This learning, this insight comes about when he sees Christ die for Judah’s sins. This sacrifice is enough for Judah to finally let go.

Is Judah doing something only because there is something in it for him? When do we ever do anything that is not in our self-interest? Letting go of the hatred is in his self-interest. What action or behavior does he do when he sees Christ die? Nothing, it is through his belief and acceptance. He cannot make a pronouncement, nor do a deed. Only he and his God will ever know the depth of his belief and commitment. The movie indicates this belief is so and it is acceptable in the context of the work

 

[RobR]

Ashley,

You summed it up very nicely. I agree there is no one single interpretation of the film. The spiritual message that enables Judah to learn to leave behind his hatred could still be retained if one eliminates most of the bookends. This would be done by eliminating the navitity prologue (since everyone knows the story of Jesus) and cleansing rain scenes, and ending the movie with the crucifixion scene where Judah sees Jesus dies for his sins. The film would play tighter and emphasize the story better (in my opinion) even without eliminating the spiritual message and religious overtones. However, my various suggestions (the aforementioned one and the ones I've made in past posts) are useless as I would never change an artist's work.

 

[Mike Broadman]

I believe I read that ben means "the son of" in Hebrew. Judah Ben Hur as in "Judah, the son of Hur," in which case it doesn't make sense to put the hyphen in the title (at least not in English).

This is, indeed, correct. Before the mass diasporas, all Jews were named this way. My Hebrew name, for example, would be Moshe ben Reuben. There was no concept of a last name until Jews assimilated themselves into Europe and other non-Semitic areas. Notice the lack of last names in the Bible.

I didn't even realise that there's a hyphen in the movie title. Oh well.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

which appealed to the true Christian message of forgiveness, not to the fear and hate of the modern day "religious right".

go too far. Just becuase they don't hold your views is no reason to call them hateful.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The film makes is quite clear that Judah is already a changed man before he even learns of his mother and sister's healing;

I agree Agee, my problem is that I think the cleansing section is added FOR THE AUDIENCE as a little payoff to them. This is more typical of classic Hollywood which has to give everybody a clean happy ending.
I am saying that Judah DOES learn forgiveness, but that the film gives him a "reward treat" for doing so as if to teach the audience that being good will pay off. However, I think the true message of the film is that the "pay off" of being good and learning to forgive are those emotions themselves with no other physical guarantees.
After all, if the only reason for Judah to forgive was to fix his mom and sister then the film wouldn't play very true at all, would it? So why even go there at all?
One reason - send the audience home happy all around even if it goes against the moral lesson just taught.
And a big reason I love the film so much is that Judah is honestly slow to accept such a change (believably so) and that when he finally does so it's because he can no longer stand the emotional burden he is to himself and others rather than because he wants his life fixed.
That lesson is very applicable to Christianity or Humanists alike, which is what makes the film so great.
And as I've said regarding the opening..."let us introduce Jesus"...thanks, I never would have known. Trust us, we know the character, let's get to the main story.
For the record I consider myself athiest as well. I might believe in forces outside our current knowledge and a greater fabric to existence, but I don't believe in a "creator" in any of the modern religious context. I don't want to debate it, but I figure knowing that stance might clarify my approach to Ben-Hur.
I also happen to find all the contact with Jesus between the bookends to be terrifically emotional and inspirational. I love that theme and his portrayal. Just not fond of the heavier hand usage at the front and back end.

 

[Seth Paxton]

A non religious person could lop off the ends if this film and have an entertaining action movie not unlike Gladiator

Wait a second, do you guys really think that passing on the retelling of the birth of Jesus and the final cleansing of mankind would turn this film into an action film???
Come on. You need to cut about another 2 hours to get to that point. No one here is advocating making the film like Gladiator. (cripes, anyone at HTF knows I'd be the last person to advocate such a crime after my rants around the last Oscars)
I think the greatness of the film is in telling a true human journey to deal with hate and forgiveness, and therefore about Judah with Jesus as backdrop.
But it sounds like many of you see the film as about Jesus with Judah simply a metaphor for all the human race. Surely by bookending on the larger story of Jesus you bring that to the forefront of the story.
Robert is saying something to the effect that the key theme to the film is the cleansing of all mankind by Jesus, but what does that have to do with Judah learning to forgive unless Judah is a surrogate for Jesus within the film?? Meaning that only when Judah learns to forgive does Jesus then learn to forgive (I don't think those 2 are supposed to be connected).
Otherwise it then plays more like "well Judah has learned to forgive, so now Jesus will forgive mankind". And THAT undermines both the humanist and religious theme of true forgiveness that had just been portrayed.
The greatness of Judah's forgiveness is that it is not dependent upon having himself or mankind forgiven by Jesus for having done so.
This is not to say that within the Christian story the next narrative step might be Jesus forgiving mankind's sins, but Jesus is also not doing so for some personal reward. So showing Judah being rewarded for his efforts EVEN THOUGH HE CHOSE TO FORGIVE WITHOUT KNOWING OF SUCH A REWARD still undermines his final redemption to the audience. It tells them "see, Judah learned to forgive and rewards came to him, Jesus fixed his life".
For the record, as great as the Chariot scene is, it is far from my favorite moment in the film.
Those would be
1) When Judah steps from the shadows having just given Masalla his dagger.
2) When Myriam says "It is as though you had become Masalla"
So I'm in no way looking to have a great film turned into an average revenge film like Gladiator. One of the great differences between Gladiator and Hur is that Gladiator has the moral lesson that revenge is good or justified and Hur shows that revenge is an empty reward that will leave you still thirsty for more.
"The race goes on, Judah"

 

[Seth Paxton]

And no, I would never really want this film altered to meet my taste. We are simply discussing the film and our feelings about it, but the film should stand as is for all time.

 

[Julian Reville]

The film under discussion is a remake of a silent film.

I knew that. But my dislike of remakes does not apply to remakes of silent films, which (even though some are classics) are so dated as to be (dare I say it?) unwatchable.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

You should watch the silent Ben-Hur. Many, if not most, who see it conclude it's better than the Heston version (which is why it was suppressed for many years by the studio).

 

[JerryW]

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".

I'd say you're 80% correct, most do preach fear, intolerance, and universal objective morality. Hate, I believe, is too strong of a word though. I do know some Fundamentalists that are more inclined towards compassion than anger, but they do seem to be too few and far between at times.

Yes, I am Christian, but not in the "religious" and exclusionary sense that's unfortunately saturated most of today's "church". The message that's conveyed in Ben-Hur is the ideal of what being Christian means to me. Not the focus on the morality of others, but the struggle to become "Christ". The movie is simply fantastic, and my all-time favorite. I wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yet another discussion that exemplifies why HTF is the best Internet site of its kind. Great job.

Many other factors contribute to how well this film works, most notably the restrained direction, the superb cinematography and Rosza's magnificent score.

As a result, and, as has been noted here, even athiests and nontheists can appreciate the film--and even enjoy it.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Nice summation, Jack. Now we can move on to the discussion of whether Moustapha Akkad's "The Message" would have been better without all of those POV shots [insert rimshot here].

Regards,

 

[Agee Bassett]

Perhaps either this cold I have is hindering my ability to correctly comprehend, or this reading simply demonstrates the variance of opinion resultant from whether one applies humanistic vs. religious interpretations of the film's attitude towards its protagonist. Being grounded strongly in the fundamentalist values of its original author (albeit ecumenized for the film), our interpretation seems predicated by the fact that the film presents forgiveness as a gift from above; that whatever "greatness" lie in Judah's forgiveness was not his, but Christ's. In fact, I think it a mistake to suppose that the film ever pretends to bestow "heroic" aspirations upon the actions of the protagonist (Christ is the hero, from beginning to end); instead, taking a much humbler view of his status in the drama. This meek viewpoint offers us a guidepost to interpreting the significance of Miriam and Tirzah's healing. I suppose, depending upon your convictions, one could argue whether this cheapens the value of Judah's actions; but I don't believe the story's fundamentalist proclivities ever intend us to accept it as anything but otherwise.
While I think that interpreting the film from the standpoint that Judah is a surrogate for Mankind (not Jesus -) works, I personally view it on much more literal and intimate terms. I don't believe that just because Wyler uses the rain and blood visual as a symbolic way of portraying spiritual cleansing that it was necessarily intended to abstract the literalness of the protagonist's being. Instead of the elaborate, cliched gesticulations of the silent's portrayal of his conversion, Wyler instead relies upon purely cinematic devices (traditional "holy" elements [water, blood, etc.], symbolic relationships, visuals, editing) to depict Judah's inner transformation. That it also serves as an ironic "answer" to Judah's earlier bloodthirsty designs ties the fim into a perfect dramatic loop.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

While I do concur that the opening sequence is too clunky and long drawn-out (perhaps a compendiary montage would've worked better), these bookends are absolutely essential to the dramatic unity of the piece. Besides that Finlay Currie's Balthazar seems to be the second-person narrator of Ben-Hur (and therefore needs introduction into the story), a motif Wallace and Wyler use to illustrate the unifying theme of spiritual rebirth is the fact that the narrative begins with one birth and ends with another. Once again, intrinsic to the Christian values which engender the story.