Let's be honest for a moment, here. Ben-Hur is probably only famous for three reasons: for starring Charleton Heston, for being incredibly long, and for having that chariot race scene. I could have just mentioned those things in my two-monthly review round-ups and be done with it, but there's a lot more to this film that is worth discussing. So I thought that rather than compress my review into three paragraphs, I would expand it into several points.
The Story
Heston plays the titular character, Judah Ben-Hur, a wealthy, Jewish man of Judea. He has been friends with Messalah, a Roman who is now a centurion, since childhood. If you're one for subtext, there's a little hint in the performances that suggest they weren't just fiends, if you know what I mean. Anyway, Messalah is to be second in command to the new governor of the city, who is accidentally wounded when a tile from the Ben-Hur household is accidentally lodged loose and strikes him in the head as he is parading down the city streets.
Judah, his sister, and his mother are all arrested and considered guilty. Messalah knows they're innocent, but makes an example of them to keep the rowdy locals in line because they don't like Roman rule. The women are sent to the dungeons, while Judah is sent off to be a galley slave on a Roman ship, vowing to return and seek vengeance.
It all culminates in that famous chariot race, which I'll discuss a little later. Once that's over, the story keeps going for another half hour or so. This is probably the biggest flaw in the film. We have this massive, action packed scene that feels like a climax, but when it ends the story should have logically ended with it. The plot-line with Judah's sister and mother, which we think has been finished off a while back, gets picked up again for what feels like no good reason other than to eventually have a completely happy ending.
That neatly brings us to my next point...
The Length
This film is 212 minutes long. To put that into perspective, The Ten Commandments, the true Cecille B. DeMille epic (and also starring Heston), is only slightly longer at 220 minutes. The cinematic version of Return of the King is 201 minutes, so if you couldn't sit through that then you've got no hope of sitting through Ben-Hur. (The extended edition of Return of the King is 251 minutes, if you're curious, but that was somewhat intended to be viewed with an interval if you wished.)
Despite it's length, though, it doesn't actually feel long. It doesn't feel like it drags, until you get to that last half-hour after the chariot scene. Then it feels like it's going nowhere. Everything that happens until that point is interesting in someway, because it adds something to the plot. It's all essential to the story and keeps the pace moving. Sure, bits and pieces here and there probably aren't necessary, but you don't see them as being unnecessary.
That last half-hour, though, is a real problem. Up until that point, we know what's going on. Judah Ben-Hur has a purpose. He wants to get back to Judea to seek revenge for what was done to him and his family. We don't know how he'll do it, what form that revenge will take, or whether he will even succeed. In general, from the point he's sent to be a slave, we do know what the movie is about from here on and where the movie is headed. The problem is that when that part of the movie is resolved, there's no clear direction for the film to take. It's not obvious what the rest of movie is about until that part of the film (and the film in general) is over.
It's okay for a film to keep audiences in the dark, as long as we have a general feel for what's going on and what the film is about. The last little bit of Ben-Hur doesn't quite make it obvious as to what it's about anymore.
The Chariot Scene
This scene is awesome. This scene should be shown to the people who are producing the trashy Hollywood blockbusters these days. Why? Because it feels real. There's a real sense of tension, suspense, and danger. It has all of these things because it's not CGI. It has real horses, real chariots, real people, and realistic dummies that get trampled (so realistic it gave rise to the completely untrue rumour that a stuntman was trampled and killed during the filming of the scene).
As an example of what I'm talking about, take the pod-racing scene from Star Wars Episode I. Putting aside the many, many failures of the film, for the most part this scene is still somewhat entertaining. But it's not a great scene. It doesn't feel completely real. The CGI gets in the way. When there's an accident, we either don't really see the consequences, or see the pod come to a gentle stop. Despite what everyone says about the whole sport being incredibly dangerous, we never actually feel that danger. The bumps and crashes have no impact because they don't feel like real bumps and crashes. They're Hollywood bumps and crashes. They're over the top and riddled with CGI to try and enhance the visual and audible experience, rather than the emotional one.
Now, with that scene in mind, go and watch the chariot race from Ben-Hur. Not only will you see the influences that George Lucas took from it, but you'll understand what I'm talking about, and why the pod-racing scene becomes a laughable failure of film-making in comparison. The bumps and crashes feel real, because for the most part they are. Obviously there is an element of movie-making, special effects trickery, but you don't notice it because the base of the scene is rooted in reality.
If a scene has to be touched up with CGI because there's a bit that's just too dangerous for a person (or a horse), then fair enough, I'm all for that. But if you're just going to be lazy and do the whole thing in a computer, then sure it looks all fancy but the thrill of it is gone. In some respects if the film were made now, some of the scene would have been touched up with CGI to protect the horses, but the modern approach to this scene would completely ruin it.
The Depiction of Christ
This film is subtitled as being "A Story of the Christ". That's a little misleading, because although he does appear in the film, he only appears in it for about a total of 20 minutes. I think what they're trying to say is that it's a story about love and Christanity and such. But what I did find interesting was the way in which he is depicted and referred to. Whenever he is on screen, we do not see his face. Ever. We only either see him from the back, or from the front with his face shielded.
Nor do we actually hear him speak. We actually see the start of the sermon on the mount (or at least a sermon of some importance on a big hill), but we never hear his voice. We see people's reactions to him, and believe it or not, that's enough to get the message across. People will repeat what they have heard him say, and will describe his voice as having some sort of otherworldly power. In the modern day and age, such an approach to a film would probably be regarded as a stupid failure. I think it's an interesting and unique approach.
Also interesting is that the name "Jesus" is only ever mentioned once. He's more often referred to simply as something like "a man from Nazareth". Sometimes it's "a man who is more than a man". One time he's even referred to as a rabbi. It's actually pretty clever, because when you think about it these are probably terms that people who had never met the man nor knew his name would call him.
In Summary
For the most part, Ben-Hur is actually a pretty good film. Yes it's long. Yes, it's actually also quite violent and gruesome at times. Yes, when we finally see the faces of the lepers they look more like pale old people than lepers. Yes, it has it's faults it terms of plot and pacing. But it doesn't feel long. When it's brutal and gruesome, it's because it has to be. The lepers are still treated like lepers, so we accept they are lepers even if they don't look as much like lepers as they probably should.
And that chariot scene is worth the price of admission alone. Not just because it's terrifyingly exciting. Because it shows that in some respects Hollywood has gone backwards with the advent of CGI and modern film-making, rather than forwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment