I know I said I was done with this discussion, but I couldn't resist commenting on a few of your points; and then I'm finished for real.
Mixing business with friendship, intimidation, a false accusation of a heinous crime, a guaranteed death sentence through slavery, suffering and death for the family, complete loss of wealth and reputation, attempt to kill many times in the arena - all this from an adopted member of the family. And that's all cool in the end and Messala can finally take Tirzah out on a date - yay. I nearly fell off my chair watching that last scene - it was so supremely terrible.
Messala was essentially corrupted by idolization of Roman government and the power thereof. All the things you mention trickled down from his worship of Roman rule. Yet this didn't change his past in that Ben-Hur's family was
his family. These were his roots; there was a bond despite becoming the proverbial prodigal son.
The end shows Messala utterly humbled and broken after defeat in the chariot race. This occurred simultaneously with Christ's death/resurrection and the corresponding good news of the gospel, i.e. "message of
reconciliation." After the women's healings, Messala was ripe for the message and the corresponding spiritual transformation, Ben-Hur too. The potent message is that the power of God healed this family physically, mentally and spiritually. Forgiveness & love flowed. It wasn't "terrible" at all. It was quite awesome. If you don't like this sort of message I suggest sticking with more nihilistic flicks.
So all (serious) Dracula films end with Dracula's demise, Last of the Mohicans with Uncas dead and Chingachgook as the last Mohican, and so on. It's one thing to vary small elements here and there, add sub plots, etc. provided main plots are adhered to and the alterations do not create inconsistency with the main story
Like I said, I prefer that filmmakers stick to the original work, as far as possible, but the change in Coppola's "Dracula" was very significant in that they morphed Stoker's novel into a love story where Drac was no longer a paragon of unadulterated evil, but a powerful vampire with a serious case of lovesickness. While I hated this change at first, because I read the book before viewing that film, over time I came to see that it was an interesting change in that it contributed to a pretty inspiring message on redemption.
Or consider Milius' "Conan" where they took story elements from several of REH's yarns and mixed it into a blender to concoct the '82 film, which was a minor hit. Again, I hated these changes when I first saw that movie, but over time I embraced it as a cartoony sword & sorcery near-masterpiece (for that era).
I could go on and one; significant changes are made all the time in book-to-movie adoptions.
Despite your objections to the 2016 "Ben-Hur" making Messala a non-blood brother to Ben-Hur and the reconciliation of the two at the end, the story's not
that different to have a coronary over. It's still the same basic story as the '59 version.
like the introduction of Dismus in place of the falling tile
This was a good change over the -- let's face it -- rather lame tile scene.
the depiction of Messala as an adopted brother (and not merely a best friend)
Another interesting change that worked IMHO.
I don't believe plots or storylines should be changed merely for the heck of it.
Do you seriously think they made those changes "for the heck of it"?
As for forgiveness, neither the novel or the older films are about forgiveness - the filmmakers are welcome to make a similar movie about forgiveness but they should not title it Ben Hur.
Whether you care to admit it or not, the '59 version
was about forgiveness -- Christ's death/resurrection is all about humanity receiving God's forgiveness and being redeemed. The titular character himself received forgiveness!
The 2016 version simply expanded this element to Messala and the only family he ever knew; and it fit well.
Besides, in light of the production team being the ones who released 2014's "Son of God" and 2016's "Risen" everyone knew going in that they were likely going to heighten (or deepen) the spiritual aspects of the story.
given the availability of techniques today it would be expected for Ben Hur remake today to depict gore and violence the way Gladiator did.
But, like I said, it was thoroughly brutal enough. Besides, I don't remember "Gladiator" being much more radical in violence, if at all (and I've seen it three times).
If what you say is true, and "Gladiator" was technically more overt in gore then perhaps the producers of "Ben-Hur" simply decided that what they included was more than enough. Why should filmmakers continually "up the ante" in violence (or anything else) anyway? After awhile enough is enough and it becomes revolutionary to do the opposite.
I didn't find the dog tag sequence idiotic at all - assuming we refer to the same scene. It was quite sobering actually
It could've worked if done right but Spielberg laid it on too thick and, for me, the scene just became so eye-rolling. But if it works for you that's cool.
I'm saying Gladiator's weakness was in the story (as compared to its other elements). Ben Hur had the advantage of starting with a readymade great story but messed it up - didn't help that the rest of the elements were mediocre.
But we agree that Gladiator's blatant weakness is its story, which
is the most important part of any dramatic-based movie. We also agree that "Ben-Hur" has a great story, even though you believe this new version screws up the story. I don't; I think the changes make it an interesting updating.
while I do favour my own judgment supremely I do take notice of critics - I have generally found film critics today better than those of the past while awards today are unreliable. Having said that I don't expect anyone to treat an award or rating as gospel.
Well said.
It's ironical you - someone who professes liking for BH 2016 - mention 'compelling storytelling' as a crucial parameter - that's quite easily the one thing this remake had the least.
Says
you. The experience my wife and I had was obviously different: The movie grabbed our attention right out of the gate and kept it till the end.
And, even if it wasn't as compelling as you say, it still has more narrative drive than the overrated "Gladiator." That's the main point of this thread.
Okay, I'm done, my friend; have a good one!
My 175 (or so) Favorite Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
reply
share
Kray2013
8 years ago
Thanks for your comments. I have highlighted couple of points where I believe a reply is wanting.
This occurred simultaneously with Christ's death/resurrection and the corresponding good news of the gospel, i.e. "message of reconciliation." After the women's healings, Messala was ripe for the message and the corresponding spiritual transformation, Ben-Hur too. The potent message is that the power of God healed this family physically, mentally and spiritually. Forgiveness & love flowed. It wasn't "terrible" at all. It was quite awesome.
I could go on and one; significant changes are made all the time in book-to-movie adoptions.
the '59 version was about forgiveness -- Christ's death/resurrection is all about humanity receiving God's forgiveness and being redeemed. The titular character himself received forgiveness!
The 2016 version simply expanded this element to Messala and the only family he ever knew; and it fit well.
While some amount of liberty in on screen depiction is understandable (and sometimes even desirable) no credible filmmaker will or should change major plot lines. In my opinion nothing in the book allows for a happy reunion with Messala in the end; peace with himself (Ben Hur) yes, with God - maybe. By depicting a smiling Messala at the end all huggy and lovey-dovey this remake trivializes the extent of the defeat Judah inflicts on Messala (as also his own struggle in being forced to undertake that course of action).
I can understand the pressure to be 'innovative' in a remake and come up with something 'different' but Ben Hur 2016 was not innovation; this was rank dishonesty. They should have simply given some other title and not fooled people into thinking it had any connection with the book or the 1959 film.
But good for you that you enjoyed it.
This was a good change over the -- let's face it -- rather lame tile scene.
As before you either fail to understand the symbolism of the falling tile or choose to deliberately ignore much of what has been written here.
The 'lameness' - and I believe you've admitted on either this thread or some other - of the falling tile scene is on account of the depiction in the 1959 film - which I cheerfully agree was lame. The plot however is not. Lew Wallace went to great trouble to describe how the heated sun caused the tiles to bake and become loose and set up the scene very nicely for the accident to follow - an incident is ambiguous, hard to ascribe liability and yet retains the innocence of the young Judah - permitting the depiction of Messala's subsequent arrogance and spite. Replacing that with an assassin - and one who is earlier granted refuge by Judah no less - changes Judah's culpability greatly; Messala's actions are now somehow justifiable and by extention Judah's calculated revenge is not. It's a different story - is it good? Maybe / maynot be but it's not Ben Hur.
I don't remember "Gladiator" being much more radical in violence, if at all (and I've seen it three times)
I say this without sarcasm or exasperation - you should watch Gladiator again and see the very realistic depiction of combat and arena.
perhaps the producers of "Ben-Hur" simply decided that what they included was more than enough. Why should filmmakers continually "up the ante" in violence (or anything else) anyway? After awhile enough is enough and it becomes revolutionary to do the opposite.
Let me put it this way; if you don't want a bloody film don't set up too many violent / war scenes. If BH 2016 wanted to avoid depiction of gore it could easily have skipped most (though not all) of the violent scenes. Today we have the technology to show realistic combat unlike 1959 when the fashion (dictated by both morals and tech limits) was to have bloodless death. Again - this was an area where Bekmambetov could have scored well.
The experience my wife and I had was obviously different
Just out of curiosity - I keep seeing you mention 'my wife and I' in almost every thread. Any particular reason? Is that supposed to reinforce the idea that you are not alone in your view. Because it's cool even if these views are not shared by anyone else. Nobody would think any less or more of you simply on account of your wife agreeing with you.
Making remakes is risky. Making a remake of a great film doubly so. It should not come as a surprise that a venture like BH 2016 failed given the high standard it followed, compounded with attempts to be innovative and the presence of inexperienced actors and a director with limited English filmography (his last directorial venture was the 2012
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Go figure 😁 - please don't say that's an interesting take on Lincoln)
reply
share