Well, I would say the 1880 novel and earlier versions (1925 and 1959) had the Via Dolorosa crowds treating the situation with mockery as well as sadness.
Yes, BEN-HUR is a man proud of being a Jew. It was an exception in a century of Fagin, Svengali, Shylock, etc.
Does this have anything to do with the reason for the Hur's downfall? The 2016 version is the only one to have Judah being guilty to some degree. The novel and earlier film versions have Judah completely innocent: Atop their palace, the Hur family watches the new procurator (Gratus) march by their home. A loose tile is upset and hits Gratus. The Romans misinterpret this accident as an assassination attempt. Messala fuels leads the accusation, completing the family's arrest.
The novel (and the 1925 version) is pretty anti-Roman except for Arrius (who- unlike the 2016 version- is instrumental in saving Judah's life. Judah returns the favor, and Arrius gets him out of the Galleys) and Pilate (keep in mind the 2016 version is the only one to have him the trigger for the Hurs downfall, when actually he doesn't take over things until after Judah returns; at any rate, he orders the release of all prisoners whose crimes went unrecorded, like Judah's mother and sister).
The 1959 version is more dimensional to the Roman characters. The tribune Sextus is brutal but finds the Jewish religion profound, Arrius laments a dead son and adopts Judah, Messala's betrayal of Judah is partly based on hurt feelings, and Pilate accepts that Rome isn't perfect, but it's the system they have to live with right now.
reply
share