At least they fixed the parade scene - Ben-Hur (2016) Discussion

[–] angmc43 8 years ago

The falling tile has been a part of BEN-HUR since the novel. I thought it made sense, highlighting Judah's innocence and Roman oppression.

reply

[–] HenryCW 8 years ago

True. By contrast, what he and the boy did in this film would get them thrown into prison in any era (including the present) and in any country.

reply

[–] razor323 8 years ago

I agree. The boy shooting the area was far more dramatic and urgent than the falling tiles in the 1959 film.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

The point was that it was ambiguous. Messala could have made the call that it was an accident - as he certainly realized it was after the tile slipped under his OWN hand. This makes it all much more heinous.

Boy actively trying to kill a Roman official? Not at all ambiguous. And therefore not as interesting.

reply

[–] razor323 8 years ago

Eh. Drama-wise, boy shooting arrow was pictorially stronger and more dramatic than falling tiles. If the Romans accepted that, then there would have been no story.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

The drama was not in the falling tile per se. It's in the tile being dislodged by the MOST innocent member of the family, completely by accident, yet which gives Messala the pretext he needs to move against his now-enemy and show his ruthlessness even against two women who have cared for him.

How can anything be "more dramatic" than this?

reply

[–] KindredSouls2 8 years ago

Every reply of yours I read just reinforces why making comments on a movie you haven't seen is nonsensical. If you had seen it, you'd know how changes the cirxumstances adds richness to the layers of the scene. Messala is more justified I though still wrong-in letting Judah be blamed in this version. First off, he asks for Judah's help in quashing the rebellion, and Judah ultimately cares more about "not rocking the boat" and keeping the status quo-ie his social status, money and priveledge-over helping his friend. Secondly, Judah IS harboring a Zealot- a fact he hides from Messala-not only that, he is harboring him in Messala's old bedroom and the Zealot uses Messala's own bow and arrow. Plus, Messala doesn't make an accusation out of misplaced ambition-Judah confesses-but he confesses to protect the women. Judah also tells Dismus to run, so in essence, he is guilty of what in today's world would be labeled accessory after the fact to murder. These events serve to make Messala more sympathetic and not totally wrong. Even Judah's sister is in league with helping the Zealots. So it isn't as passive as the old version where they are the passive victims of a loose tile. If you want to argue complexity of character, there you go. None of the main characters, except for maybe Ester, are all black or white. Both Judah and Messala are guilty of a form of betrayal.I for one am glad they took the time to make Messala more sympathetic than he seems to be in both the book and the earlier versions. It makes for a much richer story, to know that in spite on Judah's white horses and Messala's black ones, that neither are all hero or all villian. As far as the movie showing Judah as increasingly darker, it does. As far as the movie being about both Judah and Messala's emotional and spiritual journey, it is. But then, you'd have to watch the movie to know that.

reply

[–] razor323 8 years ago

Totally agreed, KindredSouls. This version is MUCH better than the staid, boring William Wyler version. Who cares if it won 9 Academy Awards? Many other turkeys won the Oscar; but the Dismus thing is MUCH, MUCH better dramatic motivation than the hokey loose tile business.

reply

[–] KindredSouls2 8 years ago

I think maybe the 59 version won 11 awards, not 9. Agreed, the events leading up to the rift between the brothers in this version are far richer and more complex than a loose tile.

reply

[–] KindredSouls2 8 years ago

By the way, day anyone else notice that it is Dismus who is the thief on the cross who speaks to Jesus near the end? Did love the film, but one flaw was the flow of some of the moments, and that was one of them. I would expect Judah to have a more visceral reaction to this boy he protected at the cost of his own freedom, wasting his second chance. The kid was still hanging out with the same people and ended up crucified. But Judah only seems to notice Jesus hanging there, which is good, but still. A moment where the audience sees Dismus arrested or Judah hearing about it, could have added so much more to the scene.

reply

[–] p-goodall 8 years ago

You're an idiot

reply

[–] chantells 8 years ago

According to Tradition, Dismus was the Penitent thief on the Cross. Also, with Judah harboring the guy, can't really blame him. The Romans were controlling the whole known World at the time, and were the intruders, and the Jews were simply protecting their homeland. Actually the Galilian's were the ones who hated the Romans the most. They were what we call nowadays the most Patriotic of all the Jews. This would have included most, if not all the Apostles. Which my guess is why it took so long for the Jews to go the the Romans(There is no contact between the Apostles and the Romans, until Saint Peter meets the Centurion Cornelius in Acts, Chapter 11). So my guess is most of the Apostles supported the Zealots, or at least liked what they were doing. My guess is, While Messala was Judah's best friend and adopted brother, he still felt like he had to protect his people from the Romans, which is understandable. BTW: In all versions, it seems like in the end Messala betrayed Judah, and the rest of their family for his own ambition. Is that safe to say? Like I sad, it doesn't mean Judah care for Messala, but if he was a devoutly religious Jew, odds are he wanted Israel liberated from the Romans, so he could have easily admired the Zealots as well. He still easily could have resented the Roman occupation of Israel.

reply

[–] Kray2013 8 years ago

Nobody takes away the 'richness' of the scene in the 2016 movie versus the goofy depiction of the tile falling in the 1959 one. There is no doubt which scene itself was executed better. As a plot device however the boy is just not as dramatic as the falling tile. Others have said this already but I'll say it again. Even in these 'civilized' times the presence of an assassin in your home could be construed as aiding, abetting, shelter, even conspiracy. 2000 years back much worse - it's not a hard moral choice inasmuch as Judah clearly erred in sheltering that kid, knowing he was a zealot. The falling tile, though, is a tougher moral question especially where it is quite conceivable for it to be an accident, especially from the hands of an aristocratic peacenik like Judah.

It seemed to me the 2016 tried to make Judah a bit less blameless than the 1959 movie - though at the cost of ruining that scene.

reply

[–] Trax-3 8 years ago

Eh. Drama-wise, boy shooting arrow was pictorially stronger and more dramatic than falling tiles. If the Romans accepted that, then there would have been no story.

Visually stronger - maybe, but dramatically weaker.

reply

[–] razor323 8 years ago

Disagree. Not so. Dramatically, it's actually stronger.

reply

[–] KindredSouls2 8 years ago

Agreed-I see this as dramatically stronger as well.

reply

[–] mkelly-98152 8 years ago

Why does the story require Messala be pure evil and Ben Hur to be completely innocent? There is no realism in that scenario. Life does not deal with pure black and white. The fact that it wasn't pure black and white makes it far more interesting of a story. Black and white is boring and predictable.

Mesalla still had dilemmas in this new scene. He still had to make the call as to whether he should run Judah through or crucify him or make him a galley slave, and he had the option of whether or not to accept his confession that he acted alone and thus leave his family out of it. So it's not like his fate was sealed the moment the arrow was shot.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

The older version was rich in multi- layered characters. Messala was not all evil but frustrated by Jewish resistance and what he saw as a betrayal of friendship - his AND the offer of Rome's.

And Judah? The whole film is about his transformation, and he reaches a very dark place before he does - dark enough that the woman who loves him tells him, "It is as iif YOU had become Messala!"

As for the newer version, confessing to a crime he did not commit in the hopes of sparing a boy he barely knew would be insanity. This was a strongly patriarchal society. At best, he was leaving his mother and sister without a male guardian, with the likelihood the Romans would confiscate everything they possessed. At worst, he would have been crucified and they would be sold into slavery, along with every other person in the household.

As noted elsewhere, the Romans did not crucify women.

reply

[–] KarmaSmith 8 years ago

In the 2016 version, Messala's character is equally multi-layered. He comes across as somebody who does not agree with all the violence he has seen in the Roman army, but he is resigned to the fact that violence and reprisals are their modus operandi and, if he rocks the boat, he will just ruin his chances for advancement and the violence will not stop. He is badgered by his commander (played as a one-dimensional "evil" character) to "leave no able-bodied man alive" in the towns that they capture.
This new Messala feels betrayed by Judah in the same way as the "old" (1959) Messala. That has not changed.

In the 2016 version, Judah definitely reaches that dark place. Esther keeps trying to dissuade him from vengeance, but he tells her that hatred was all that kept him alive when he was a galley slave. The "as if YOU had become Messala" line does not make it into this version, but it would be fitting.

In the 2016 version, Judah helps the boy who shot at Pilate to flee his house. I believe that he did that, in part, because he mistakenly believed that his relationship with Messala and, perhaps, his station as a nobleman would protect him from punishment. It is not until he realizes that Messala is not going to help him that he confesses to the crime himself, to save the rest of his family.

You have a lot of interesting insight into the original film. I think you should actually go see the 2016 version. Would be interesting to read your insights.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

I'm sure I will see it eventually on cable. I DO try not to comment on specifics of the new film, as opposed to DIFFERENCES between the two films that have been described in detail in reviews or comments by those who HAVE seen it.

A great deal of critical analysis is out there for all to read (and as a thinking person, I don't subscribe to the "all critics are idiots" chant found often on this board), so it's not as if I'm flying blind on the differences between the two films. "Ben-Hur" 2016 is now down to 27% on Rotten Tomatoes, and though a film scoring in the 40s may just be a matter of damning with faint praise or not getting its particular vibe("Man from UNCLE" and the latest "Tarzan" come to mind, both films that scored in the 40s with critics but turned out to be among my recent favorites), that is really a shockingly low score.

When the lines spoken by characters in the trailers are anachronistic to the point of being jarring, when I know that the film uses shaky cam and standard action movie quick-edits, when lack of costuming and other cultural authenticity is out there in stills for all to see, and when we learn that one thematically vital character after another is absent from the story, it is difficult to want to give money to the people who made it.

reply

[–] KarmaSmith 8 years ago

I didn't mean it as a criticism at all. It just seems like you are a big fan of the original and you might like to see the 2016 take on the film for the sake of comparison.

I am definitely NOT from the "all critics are idiots" school of thought. In fact, I have taken one or two commenters to task for this already.

The trailers rate about a 2/10 from me. They were meant to resonate with the lowest common denominator of viewer: teenaged boys.

I believe I rated the film 5/10. Maybe I was a tad harsh, but 6/10 would be the top of what I'd be willing to offer. It is interesting to see that there was some sort of vision on the part of at least some of the players who were a party to making the film. There was some potential there that was not realized.

I guess I watched it as a "case study" as much as anything, trying to figure out what on earth the filmmakers were thinking. In that way, it was very interesting.

reply

[–] mjr1114 8 years ago

You make a lot of very good observations and points. The only thing...for the part where you are calling the 1959 version the 'original'. It is in fact the third filmed version of the story and is actually a remake of the 1925 Fred Niblo directed 'Ben-Hur: A Tale Of The Chirst', which is equally compelling, if not superior in its story telling than its remake. (William Wyler was an assistant director on the original and went on to direct the 1959 remake, the opening scenes of the chariot race was a scene for scene replication)
I see a lot of people calling the 1959 version the original in order to try to put down the 2016 version basing it off a belief that a remake can never be as good as the original. I just think it's important for many people to realize that a lot of their preferred versions of films are apt to be remakes, themselves. I, personally, prefer the 1925 version, but I can appreciate the remake and this version. I try not to be one of those people that automatically hate the idea of a remake. Sometimes, they can be just as good or good in their own right for its take on the story. I've found that if I hated everything for being a remake, I'd be pretty much be relegated to only watching silent and foreign films. I'm a fan of both, but I like movies of all genres, eras and origin and don't want to box myself into one type.
I like that you are pointing out that this movie deserves an open minded viewing.

Credo ergo sum

reply

[–] ccoombs-1 8 years ago

I disagree. I believe the tile scene was much better. It is a more natural and less 'forced' scenario.

With tensions already high, the falling tile striking the Roman would have been naturally assumed to be an attack. When the tile also slips from under the Roman's hand he KNOWS it WAS an accident. So Messala is condemning his former friend and family, that he knows are innocent, for purely political reasons.

In the 2016 version, the whole crossbow thing feels like a plot element created just to advance the plot. It is not as dramatic because it WAS an assassination attempt.

In addition, the tile scene was in the original novel.

As for movie goers today... Gladiator (2000) was a big budget epic with a dramatic (you would say overbearing) orchestral score. It grossed half a billion dollars world wide. The Dark Knight (2008) was an epic movie with a dramatic orchestral score. It grossed over a billion dollars world wide. The Avengers (2012) was a big budget epic movie with a very dramatic orchestral score. It grossed 1.5 billion dollars world wide. Star Wars TFA (2015) was an epic movie with a dramatic orchestral score. It grossed over 2 billion dollars world wide. All these movies average 2 1/2 hours long, have big, dramatic orchestral scores, and tell large, epic stories.

If by 'big budget movies' you meant the same genre as Ben-Hur, then again we have:
Gladiator (2000), Troy (2004), 300 (2006) [I love 300, but if you want to use the description 'hammy' you cant get more hammy than 300]... all successful.

Movie goers today DO seem to go for these kinds of films. And the fact that Ben-Hur 1959 still remains popular today shows it is not as dated as you might think.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

You left out "Avatar" - with a gorgeous orchestral and choral score by James Horner.

This should perhaps be another thread, but has anyone written one word about the new "Ben-Hur" score, other than the pop song at the end? It must have left no impression at all.

Meanwhile, Pandora plays selections from the Miklos Rosza score multiple times a day, so it is still wildly popular.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

Next day: "The March of the Charioteers" is currently playing on Pandora. It was interesting to read under the CD reviews on amazon, by people who have heard both scores, the contrasting choices regarding just the chariot race. Rozsa wrote a sweeping symphonic score, with fantastic marches before and after the race - but goes silent during the race itself, so that we hear only the pounding hooves and cracking whips of the race itself. By contrast, the current film does play music during the race.

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 8 years ago

The Dark Knight is my favorite movie, but I couldn't help but laugh at your comment here as it's score is often bashed for NOT being as Orchestral as the Elfman score.

I feel like modern Historical films tend to fail because they are trying to "Nolanize" things rather then be EPic, Theatrical and Operatic like the Classics.

I didn't know Troy 2004 was considered successful.

reply

[–] goonies383 8 years ago

In this version Ben-Hur is guilty of a crime as is his sister. They deserved to be imprisoned and he has no reason for revenge. He is really the villain while Messala is a victim of circumstance.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

Now there's an original observation! Without the outrage of genuine innocence, what IS the motive for revenge?

reply

[–] KindredSouls2 8 years ago

Well, I don't see either as villain. More like both of them are just regular people, both capable of good and bad. Those are the best kinds of conflicts-where there is no easy answer.

reply

[–] BubbleBobbleTaito 8 years ago

I prefer the story of the falling tile.

I remember so well how morally wrong it was of Messala to arrest the Hur family. After making up an investigation report and later used in a fair trial it could be made acceptable the tiles were loose and hence an accident.

In this version Messala was forced to arrest because it was a clear attack on a Roman leader and, making things even worse, Judah himself made the choice to cover for the assassin and not turn the boy in.

The revenge story in this 2016 version doesn't feel as intense as before.

reply

[–] ChazzJazz 8 years ago

I am missing something?

The Tile scene is great; they dont write movies like they used to

1. The tile scene shows the innocence getting crushed in war and occupation

2. The two women were Messala's friends who he grew up and cared for him, the sister was supposed to marry him?

3. Messala knew there was clear evidence of corroding tiles, but he still condemned them

4. The Revenge: the ladies are condemned and contracted leprosy

5. Ben Hur after all his trials and hardship eventually set aside his revenge, as he watched some dude by the name of Jesus cure his mother and sister....

I mean, you cannot write a better Revenge-redemption story like that any more...

I am about to watch the new version, but already the two main leads have no charisma

http://my-impressionz.cu.cc

reply

[–] angmc43 8 years ago

2. The two women were Messala's friends who he grew up and cared for him, the sister was supposed to marry him?

If we're talking about the 1959 version, then Messala grew up with the Hur but was raised separately by his own family. Tirzah was in love with Messala (created for the 1959 version), but I don't think there was a plan of an eventual marriage.

reply

[–] mmq1 8 years ago

Something about a falling tile offend you? Are you a roofer?

reply

[–] rishavritesh 8 years ago

The 'Overbearing orchestral scores' that you are talking about made the 1959 version beautiful and emotional. The song at the end of this movie ruined everything for me. Miklos Rozsa must be rolling over in his grave.

Tis' but a scratch.

reply