For the last couple years, Hollywood has been on a binge of remakes, reboots and sequels, and if the public is to be believed, they hate it. I think it shows the creative bankruptcy of a bloated system creaking under its own weight, churning out vanilla, non-controversial fare of familiar greats that hopefully, the entire family can get behind. The industry is in a place that is close to pure self-immolation. Movies have become so expensive to produce and distribute that nobody wants to take a chance anymore on anything remotely unique. Combine that with the lessons of some costly flops in the 1970s (Heaven's Gate being the most prominent), the studios are not willing to let the inmates run the asylum, either, by ceding total creative control to the artist. Thus, why would a studio spend mega-bucks to attempt to recreate one of the greatest epics of all time, and certainly most honored (along with Titanic and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, each movie has garnered 11 Oscar wins)? It seems tantamount to career and budgetary suicide. But as we look at each of these films, we will see there are some striking differences outside of the main story.
To begin with, the most interesting fact is that the famous 1959 version that everyone loves is, in itself, a remake as well, from not just one, but two film versions. In fact, Ben-Hur may be one of the most remade properties ever, with at least four movies: 1907-a 15-minute one-reeler, 1925-a 2.5 hour silent film, 1959-a 3.5 hour epic of epics, and 2016-a middling 2 hour romp. There are also two animated versions for younger audiences (1988 and 2003-where Carlton Heston reprised his role), a 2010 3-hour British mini-series, and an awful 2016 ripoff sequel that has nothing to do with the original story. In true Hollywood send-ups of great movies, it even has a 1995 porno parody ridiculously titled Dun Hur. (Don't worry, that one will not be reviewed here.) So, as you can see, Ben-Hur has been a go-to project since it debuted to raves on Broadway in 1899. This essay is going to concern itself with the 3 big-screen adaptations from 1925, 1959 and 2016.
A quick synopsis of the plot for those of you who have lived under a rock for the last 130 years. Ben-Hur was a fictional novel written by ex-Civil War Union General Lew Wallace in 1880. After a train ride with a friend, he realized he didn't know much about his Christian faith and set upon a course to learn as much as he could to eventually write a historically accurate account of the life of Christ. Add in his love of romantic novels like Ivanhoe and The Count of Monte Cristo, he began writing a serialization of the Tale of the Three Magi. After much alteration and a realization that he didn't want to write a story with Christ as the main hero, he instead penned the story of a fictional Judean prince, Judah Ben-Hur in Jerusalem. He is betrayed by Messala, a childhood Roman friend, to a life as a galley slave. During a battle, he saves a Roman Tribune's life. The tribune adopts him and Ben-Hur quickly becomes a champion charioteer in Rome. He eventually departs back in Jerusalem where Messala is the local tribune and chariot-racing champion. Ben-Hur vows revenge inside the arena against Messala and outside the arena against Rome by joining the Jewish Zealots. After triumphing and mortally wounding Messala in a chariot race, he sees Christ's crucifixion and becomes a Christian. Once this conversion happens, he forgives Messala and the Romans and is able to find inner peace in his life.
A quick note on the 1907 version. It was made without the consent of the Wallace estate, who sued for copyright violation, in a precedent-setting case decided in the Supreme Court in favor of the estate which was awarded damages. Every artist seeking restitution for copyright-infringement has Ben-Hur to thank for being able to collect on their intellectual property. While the overall outline of the story remains the same across each version, each version differs from the others in its own way and reflects the mood and circumstances of its times. But what is common among all three is that they were arguably the most expensive films of their times, and at least two saved their studios from bankruptcy. It remains to be seen whether the 2016 version will be a similar cash cow or an albatross. All reports point to it being one of the priciest flops of all time.
BEN-HUR: A TALE OF CHRIST (1925)
Francis X. Bushman and Ramon Novarro (left to right) as Messala and Judah Ben-Hur (1925)
The 1925 version is much harsher in its portrayal of Judah and Messala. While they did grow up together, Messala is much more racist, more Romanized than he is in the other versions. He treats Judah from the start as an inferior, with little of the brotherly affection that characterizes the other two. So, his eventual betrayal is much less surprising according to his established character in the story. However, this version is probably much more historically accurate considering Roman attitudes toward their subjects. Thus, the betrayal is less dramatic, in my opinion. Judah, on the other hand, is much more radicalized in this version, also probably more historically accurate. He is pretty much in the zealots' camp from the start, and is extremely suspicious of Rome. So again, his boyhood closeness stretches my credibility of the character, but makes his eventual conversion to Christianity and forgiveness of Messala in particular and the Romans in general much more dramatic. The special effects were amazing for their time, and the chariot race is awe-inspiring. Its composition was so good that the 1959 version lifted many sequences shot-for-shot.
A couple comparisons of composition between the 1925 and 1959 versions.
For me, though, the most interesting technical element was its use of the early Technicolor process. Silent films had been hand-painted before, or even color tinted. Indeed, this version also has some color tinting in parts. But what is really neat is the use of true color through the Technicolor process, which was hideously expensive and quite experimental at the time. This was an earlier version of Technicolor that rendered three-color palettes, but had a lot of grain in it. It was used to showcase particularly dramatic scenes, such as anything dealing with Christ or important scenes. These color scenes were thought lost to disintegration until a copy showed up in the Czech Republic film archives in the mid-2000's with these segments intact. Up to this point, the color segments were replaced with black-and-white segments. Once the color segments were discovered, they were restored by Turner Archives and reinserted into their former glory. (See below)
Mary, portrayed by Betty Bronson
Arrius' (Frank Currier) Triumphal March Into Rome
Judah Saying Goodbye To Arrius To Return To Jerusalem
Three other interesting side notes unique to the 1925 version. It was made in the pre-Hays Code era. The Hays Code was a self-censorship board that was established as a result of intense pressure from Congressional and the Catholic Decency League. They held Hollywood was subverting good moral values. Hollywood set up the board to prevent official government and religious censorship of their art. It included prohibitions on: sex, clothing, drug use, marriage/divorce issues and law enforcement issues. The Hays Vode lasted from the mid-1930's until the mid-1960's when the beginnings of the current MPAA code began to take effect. But until this point, the sky was the limit. During the 1910-20's, sword-and-sandal movies were particularly popular because they could show actors and actresses in nothing or next to nothing (See below). By presenting them in the context of a biblical story, it was considered educational and not obscene, thus proving Hollywood was tittilating viewers from the very beginning. There is nothing new under the sun.
Examples of pre-Code films-- clockwise from top left: Johnny Weissmuller & Maureen O'Sullivan-Tarzan & His Mate (1934); The Sign of the Cross (1932); Theda Bara-Cleopatra (1917); Norma Shearer-A Free Soul (1931); Jeanette MacDonald & Genevieve Tobin-One Hour With You (1932); Johnny Weissmuller promo shot for Tarzan.
This version has at least two scenes of nudity, male rear ends in the gallies and topless females in the triumphal parade. (See above). Second, the chariot race scene featured cameos of almost every major silent film star including: Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks Sr, Lionel Barrymore, John Barrymore, Myrna Loy, Clark Gable, Harold Lloyd, Joan Crawford and Gary Cooper just to name a few. Third, a young assistant director on this film was one William Wyler. This same William Wyler would go on to win the 1960 Academy Award for Best Director for another Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston.
BEN-HUR (1959)
Stephen Boyd as Messala and Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur (1959)
By the time the next iteration of Ben-Hur came about, TV was killing the movies. More and more families had a TV, and studios were facing some very hard times. The studios realized they had to improve their game if they were to survive, so they decided to make an experience that TV couldn't replicate. At this point, all TV screens are small and black-and-white. Movies went in the opposite direction with bigger and brighter and more colorful stories, and thus the movie epic is born. Cecil B. DeMille kicked it off in 1956 with a remake (there it is again) of his 1926 biblical epic The Ten Commandments to huge box office receipts and positive critical reception, as well as becoming a huge financial shot in the arm for Paramount Studios. The struggling MGM Studios decided to replicate the idea with an even bigger film and gambled everything on its success. From the start, Ben-Hur was going to be big. With screenwriter Gore Vidal and director William Wyler, the studio set out, like it did in 1925, to make the biggest spectacle the world ever saw. Both movies, in their times, were the most expensive films ever made, and both saved the studio.
The 1959 version is hard to criticize. It is almost the perfect movie. While the acting can be a little hammy at times, particularly Charlton Heston's performance, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everything about this film is huge, from its theme to its aspect ratio, one of the largest ever at 2:76:1. A little over-the-top acting by a star who was larger-than-life himself, seems to fit this story. Judah's relationship with Messala also changed. Gore Vidal wrote the characters to be much closer at the beginning and made subtle hints that there was a deep, emotional bond between the two men, possibly even a homosexual one. He wrote Messala's character to reflect this, as a man trying to restart an old flame from the past which Judah rejects out if turn. Messala's reaction, that of a spurned lover as well as naked ambition, becomes much more nuanced. Wyler and Vidal conferred with Stephen Boyd, who played Messala, about this. Nobody told the conservative Heston, and the tension does come through. Being that this was 1959, and a biblical epic to boot, albeit a fictional one, this had to be done extremely subtly. Wyler would go on record later denying the homosexual subtext, but Vidal insists this was a strategy agreed to early on. In any case, whether true or not, the friendship is much more believable. It is also so much more tragic with Messala's ultimate betrayal and eventual death. Judah's conversion and forgiveness is also more believable as his arc brings him full circle. He is essentially a non-violent man trying to get along with the Romans, becomes an out-and-out rebel until his conversion to Christianity at the end, where he renounces the destructive path which would have led him to ruin. Great, heady material for an incredible story.
Finally, one cannot leave a discussion of the 1959 movie without discussing the two major set pieces: the naval battle and chariot race. Like the 1925 movie, these are both the centerpieces of each film. The naval battle in 1925 actually had featured two full-size gallies that caught on fire, almost killing star Ramon Novarro in the process. The battle in 1959 features some of the most amazing miniature work, and a surprisingly explicit brand of violence during the actual battle. But if that was something to see, the climatic chariot race was nothing short of extraordinary. There are not enough superlatives to properly describe that race. In my opinion, it is the best action scene ever filmed, and set the bar for future great sequences as the car chase in Bullitt, the scenes from the Indiana Jones movies, the freeway chase in The Matrix: Reloaded, to its most obvious progeny, the pod race scene in Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace. It was bigger and more spectacular than anything before or since, and contrary to rumor, no one was killed or seriously injured in the filming of the sequence.
Toby Kebbell as Messala Severus and Jack Huston as Judah Ben-Hur (2016)
BEN-HUR (2016)
Finally, the 2016 version differs a lot from the other two versions with some significant story changes. First, the running time is much shorter at just over two hours. In this version, Judah is almost a pacifist, wanting absolutely nothing to do with the zealots. The biggest change of all is that the entire Quintus Arias story is totally cut. On top of that, the naval battle scene is drastically truncated. We see the entire sequence from the point of view of the galley slaves and see very little of the actual battle. Whether this was done to save time or money, we'll never know. But it is a shame these action and dramatic scenes are gone. The action is exciting and the time with Arias gives Judah a chance to grow and advance in his character arc. It also makes the reunion with Messala much more believable if he thinks that Judah is a Roman dignitary. The reveal is much more dramatic and interesting. The relationship between Judah and Messala is also dramatically different. In this case, they grew up in the same household as brothers, Messala having been adopted by the Hur family.
The most grevious change is the actual ending of the film. WARNING!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!! In both the previous films, Messala dies without Judah's forgiveness, miserable and alone. With Judah's conversion, both previous versions show that when Judah lets go of his hate, he can live with an internal peace, happily ever after, in a way. But this version is a total betrayal of this complicated dynamic by giving into the temptation of a typical Hollywoid happy ending. Judah sees Messala, broken and dying. After a few terse words and Judah's forgiveness, Messala breaks down into a blubbering mess and begs forgiveness. He then immediately renounces his Roman-ness and ends up leaving with the Hur family, bringing their relationship full circle. Messala's total change of heart is totally out of character and makes no logical sense whatsoever. The movie was actually pretty good up until the end. The end totally spoils the film for me.
So, in conclusion, all the films are good in their own way. They reflect the popular attitudes of their respective times. This is most evident in Judah's character and the nature of Judah and Messala's relationship. This is what ultimately separates each film and determines its quality. On that measure, the 1959 film stands out as the best as pure entertainment, but the 2016 version is the most realistic in the world that is created. The 2016 version is good and worth watching. But sadly, it does not live up to the bar set by the previous two. This is too bad, because this was a lost opportunity to make a wonderful film. As it is, it is merely good. It could have been great. It isn't larger than life, but rather a simple little story with large events around it.
