I never read the novel, that was wildly popular in the late nineteenth century and for most of the first half of the twentieth, rivaled only by Gone With The Wind on annual best seller lists. I'm told, though, that the current release, staring Jack Huston as Judah Ben Hur and Toby Kebbell as his rival (and here adoptive brother) Messala, is truer to the source material than the two previous films. Religion always played a part in the story, with Judah's plight in some way mirroring that of Jesus of Nazareth. Here the parallels are drawn out even more prominently than before, with faith playing an important part in most of the central characters' lives. Whether this reflects greater fidelity to the book or not, I can't say, but it makes sense. The First Century Roman Empire was a religious place for Jew and Gentile alike, and Messala is sympathetically depicted as being a faithful devotee of his pagan gods. While no one should be under any illusions that this Mark Burnett, Roma Downey executive produced effort will make us forget the William Wyler directed classic, it does present surprising nuance to the story and the characters that differs from past versions, that I'm guessing reflects Wallace's original vision.
That being said, I've read a lot of hate from critics today, who have been critical of everything from the character development, to the CGI special effects to the significant trimming done to reduce the running time from 1959's three and a half hours to this one's relatively stream lined two hours and three minutes. Usually, if I read bad reviews ahead of time (keep mind that I try not to read anything before I see a movie), as much as I don't want it to be so, the critics by and large get it right. This time they don't, pure and simple. How much of it has to do with the ramped up religiosity on display here, I can't say. It's never easy remaking a legend - our minds can't help but compare the two, which also must be a reason for some of the negative notices. They also do change key plot points and eliminate subplots from the earlier film (I'm guessing for a combination of fidelity and budget concerns), that in some cases make the logic of what's happening less plausible. So, I'm not saying all the criticism is unfounded, but the level of negativity seems a bit out of proportion.
The bottom line is that Ben Hur 2016 works as a movie, which is a big leap forward for faith based films. The team of Burnett and Downey - who brought us the cable success The Bible (2013) and the theatrical release Son of God (2014), which turned a hefty profit on a modest budget, obviously reinvested their earnings in a attempt to make a big(er) budget epic. My argument for a long time has been that faith based movies too often preach to the converted, while shakily skating by artistically on good intentions. Here we have two action set pieces that, while depending a lot on CGI, are nonetheless thrilling. Ben Hur's decent into bitterness, and Messala's inner conflict between loyalty to his adoptive family and his duty to empire offers more complex characterizations than previously presented, even if Heston and Stephen Boyd were better actors. If Ben Hur fails at the box office, it won't be because the producers didn't make a quality film that could appeal to a wider audience.
Briefly, if you're unfamiliar with the story, Judah Ben Hur (Huston) is a Jewish prince, roughly the same age as Jesus, living in Jerusalem with his mother Naomi (Ayelet Zurer), sister Tirzah (Sofia Black D'Elia) and, Messala (Kebbell) who was adopted into the House of Hur before the patriarch's death. Messala leaves home, feeling a second class family member, in spite of his strong bond with Judah, joining the Roman army. After years of combat service in far flung lands, he returns to Jerusalem as an officer under Pontius Pilate. The happy reunion turns sour after Judah refuses to hand over the names of local zealots who might want to disturb the peaceful entry of Pilate into the city. You guessed it, the new prefect's triumphant entrance is disturbed by an assassination attempt, for which Judah takes the blame unjustly, with the slighted Messala happy to let him and the family suffer. Instead of death he is sent to the galleys to serve as a slave. After a miraculous escape he meets up with a rich African sheik, Ilderim (Morgan Freeman), who teaches him the finer points of chariot racing and revenge.
A controversial aspect of the 1959 film, which I'm not sure anyone outside of a few people were even aware of at the time, was co-writer Gore Vidal's alleged inclusion of a gay subtext in the relationship between Judah and Messala. He revealed this years later, stating that it was done to give the latter a clearer motivation for feeling betrayed by Judah. Others who worked on the film are dubious of the claim. I've seen the movie a number of times, and if you tell me its there I'll believe you - such a reading isn't implausible though it's not necessary. But this time around they seem to go way out of their way to let the audience know that Judah and Messala have a serious case of the "not gays." It's made very clear from the start that Judah only has eyes for the slave girl Ester (Nazanin Boniadi), with their relationship moving at light speed compared with the earlier film. Messala, meanwhile, has his heart set on Tirzah - which is a little creepy considering that they're step brother and sister. A running gag is that they are always getting interrupted before they can kiss, but a mild yuk factor still prevails, at least in this critics mind.
Other than that, a subplot involving Judah going to Rome is cut, which is too bad because it would better explain how he learned to be a great chariot driver. Here his background gives him knowledge on the care of horses, but we're expected to believe he learns how to ride with the best and the baddest through osmosis. There are some other tweaks to the plot: some work, others are pretty inconsequential. Some minor characters that gave the '59 version atmosphere and depth are given short shrift, or left out completely, which is also too bad. Like Son of God, I felt the they had a lot more to say, particularly by way of social commentary, but either the budget or time constraints held them back from developing themes that are, in the end, only hinted at.
On the plus side the themes of forgiveness, reconciliation and compassion are clearly presented. Jesus is actually heard from, interacting with Judah, unlike in the original. The parallels between Ben Hur and Jesus are made more obvious here than previously, which is also a plus. The acting is solid, the action is engaging and the emotional payoffs well earned. Ben Hur 2016 is not a perfect movie, nor is it even a great one. It will not win 11 Academy Awards, and probably won't even get nominated for one. It is simply a good summer time entertainment with, dare I say, a wholesome Christian message. It is a significant step forward for faith based films that deserves better from the critics, as well as a wide audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment