I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned on these boards already. Surely there are intelligent people out there who were irritated by this throughout the movie and can enlighten us by identifying more examples.
My own tentative suggestions:
Men didn't wear jeans in Ancient Judea.
Jewish women didn't wear pants and ride horses astride.
It is unlikely Judah Ben-Hur would exclaim "My God!" with such a casual air.
Jesus did not permanently reside in Jerusalem.
Lock and key mechanisms were not so sophisticated.
The concept of 'progressivism' did not come about until the European Enlightenment (19th Century).
And of course, there was no enormous arena in Jerusalem. The book set the race in Antioch.
That didn't bother me as it was necessary for efficient storytelling. The other things you site show a really awful lack of concern for the culture of this era, which was not true of the 1959 version, where Judah was an observant Jew, would never have taken the Lord's name in vain, and where men and women dressed modestly and with traditional head covering. I don't knew whether the current filmmakers were ignorant or simply pandering to their idea of a modern audience. But when you set out to make a film set in a very specific era, you should pay some attention to how those people lived.
They made the movie is a movies way. This is not supposed to be an accurate historical documentary about real life events, its a movie and it panders to modern audiences which are going to go and watch it.
There was no colloseum, there was no major troops stationed in the city, they were all in outposts, Jesus was hardly in Jerusalem, etc....
Is that a still from the movie or a practice rehearsal session? I can tell you right now that everyone wore robes or other material of the period. There's no way that the filmmakers would do that. However whenever I see the movie again I will look for that and be stunned if it's true.
They were obviously jeans (see the seams) and I suspect that picture was not from the movie but rather taken during a relax session. Also notice their shoes - especially the woman's. Their attires are so modern that they could just walk into the street without causing any raised eyebrows.
Are you sure you saw the film? It was the exact scene from which those stills were made. I remember seeing the stills before the film came out and thinking it must be a "dress rehearsal" or something, but they were definitely there.
After looking at the IMDb pictures, I agree. Whether they were "jeans" or not, they were certainly pants long enough to cover the legs down to the ankles, which I doubt was the typical attire for centuries to come. You could see this even in the poster picture shown in the main page here - definitely long pants.
Compare to Charlton Heston's picture also from IMDb (robe tied or belt at the waist):
I must agree that the clothes worn in that photo looks like a still from a rehearsed scene or possibly a break in rehearsals. I can't imagine the director allowing the actors to wear such out of period clothes for an actual scene.
I must agree that the clothes worn in that photo looks like a still from a rehearsed scene or possibly a break in rehearsals. I can't imagine the director allowing the actors to wear such out of period clothes for an actual scene.
It's a still from the film. I just watched it and couldn't believe what she was wearing. Even if she was wearing a long robe though, a woman in that place and era wouldn't be riding like that behind a man.
The story is a fantasy on a historical theme. No point complaining about historical accuracy when the central plot device is flawed - Romans did not use galley slaves.
You are correct there. They did not want amateurs rowing the ships and it would have been hard to keep that many slaves under control in a small space.
But the lack of attention to details regarding observant Jews and the culture of the Middle East is more bothersome.
Also before the invention of the stirrup few people rode horseback for pleasure.
And this really isn't a "historical fantasy," whatever that is. Historical fiction is one thing. But "fantasy" implies a greater break with normal reality than a few slips of historical details. The characters in this story (other than Jesus) are intended to have human capabilities, live in a realistic ancient world, are anchored in a specific time when Tiberius was emperor and Pontius Pilate the procurator of Judea, so it really doesn't meet the criteria of fantasy. You may or may not believe in divine healing, but the very presence of a miracle suggests that it is something NOT normal, or it would not be a miracle but magic.
miracle - suspension of the natural laws of the world due to divine intervention magic - suspension of the natural laws of the world due to supernatural intervention
Not a huge difference to most people. Both are NOT normal.
Whilst on the subject remember the famous Arthur C Clarke quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
eg.take a mobile phone back a few hundred years and you will be viewed as a God or a Wizard (because of the phone, not your time machine, lol)
Thank you for mentioning that. That was the moment which ruined the movie which was already a travesty. The orchestral scores by Maestro Rozsa made the 1959 version beautiful, emotional and truly an 'epic'.
I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned on these boards already. Surely there are intelligent people out there who were irritated by this throughout the movie and can enlighten us by identifying more examples.
My own tentative suggestions:
Men didn't wear jeans in Ancient Judea.
Jewish women didn't wear pants and ride horses astride.
It is unlikely Judah Ben-Hur would exclaim "My God!" with such a casual air.
Jesus did not permanently reside in Jerusalem.
Locks with keys were not yet invented.
The concept of 'progressivism' did not come about until the European Enlightenment (19th Century).
Based on a book filled with 99% bullsh!t,contradictions and nothing but historical innaccuracies your problem is with the movie? lmfao. Cant make this sh!t up.
Anyone who uses the term "Mary Sue" is a dirty neck beard having homosexual hipster.
reply share
(larosat) >Is that a still from the movie or a practice rehearsal session? I can tell you right now that everyone wore robes or other material of the period. There's no way that the filmmakers would do that. However whenever I see the movie again I will look for that and be stunned if it's true.
(HenryCW) >They were obviously jeans (see the seams) and I suspect that picture was not from the movie but rather taken during a relax session. Also notice their shoes - especially the woman's. Their attires are so modern that they could just walk into the street without causing any raised eyebrows. ========================================================
larosat and HenryCW, Whether or not the still was from a rehearsal session, all I can say is... I think that regarding what Judah, at least, was wearing in the movie - they sure Looked like jeans! I even asked myself, more than once (and leaned over to spouse at one point, and asked), "Is he wearing Jeans???" (Obviously I did not have access to "freeze frame" in the theater, so hard to say for sure.)
And whether or not they Were jeans, tho, he was wearing Some kind of pants. And yeah - as for some of the other clothes he wore, they looked like late '60's/early '70's retro. That's 20th Century '60's and 70's, btw.
The "jeans" were definitely in the movie. And what's even worse is that Esther was wearing skin-tight white PANTS on the horse!! Looks like she could have gotten them at the mall.
Yes, I found the general lack of "trying" to be period immediately lowered my ability to invest in the characters. Stirrups stood out in the early scenes but most people wouldn't know the Romans didn't have them I 'spose. I am usually generous but there are many flaws in this movie that detract from the overall impression.
Ancient Greek women used to wear trousers; there's evidence of it in writings of the time and pottery of the time. Could've been carried over to the Romans since they dealt with each other a lot. And if they wore trousers and rode horses, one would contend they did it astride.
The key dates back to the 6th Century BCE.
The 'concept' of progressiveness has been around forever, what your talking about is a political movement that happened in the 19th Century. Not the same thing.
Yes, and Roman women wore bikinis in the bathhouse. But not out of doors. Women in the ancient world were heavily draped out of doors. Head coverings for sure.
I just saw another still from the movie: Ben-Hur and Ilderim before the race. Ben-Hur is clearly wearing a shirt with set-in sleeves, not only machine-sewn (again, you can tell by the line) but this was not a technique that even existed in the ancient or medieval world. Tunics (and sleeves) were basically made by doubling a length of cloth over, cutting a hole for the head and sewing up the sides by hand.
Any high school student working in costume shop would know that much. And these are professional costume designers?
Yes, you can take short-cuts. You can put in a zipper - but only if you know it will NEVER been seen on screen. It wouldn't be so bad if it were a few extras, which is where you usually find the glitches, but this was the star in an extremely important scene. You would think every detail would be correct for the period.
I saw once a pottery image of a woman wearing trousers, I'll have to look for it, though. Don't know if i saw it online or one of my Greek history books in my library.