Many people always say remakes are bad. Or at best they might say that even if a remake is watchable, it pales in comparison to the original. I don't necessarily agree with that. The superb 1959's Ben Hur is technically a remake. While I had never seen the 1925 version, I would have been shocked if it was a superior movie. But truth be told, I didn't know. The 1925 version is very well-regarded, and maybe it was a better movie, a masterpiece that I had been missing out on all these years. Since I just re-watched and reviewed the 1959 classic, I figured now was a good time to visit the silent film and find out for sure.
I will admit that maybe I am not the best person to make the comparison. Other than Buster Keaton, silent films generally don't do much for me The overacting in most silent films just seems silly to me and I am not a fan of reading cue cards instead of listening to dialogue. In Ben Hur, this card problem is exasperated by how long the text is onscreen. I think audiences in 1925 must have been the slowest readers on the planet because something short like "What did you have for breakfast?" is on screen for what feels like 10 minutes. I think this 151-minute long film would have been closer to 20-minutes long if the text cards had been removed (okay, maybe that is an exaggeration).
While it was difficult to engage with the story on an emotional level, I could certainly view it as a piece of filmmaking. And Ben Hur must have been hugely impressive in 1925. There are parts of this film that are even in color, which is fascinating to watch. Thematically, they wanted all the moments that had to do with Jesus (and one parade in Rome) to be in color, while the rest of the film would be in black and white or tinted purple. I believe the film reels were literally painted by hand, frame by frame, and the result is beautiful. Also, I have to say that this film is definitely EPIC, with thousands of extras and monstrous sets that still inspire awe today. To be honest, I think most of the sets are even more impressive here than in the 1959 version - particularly the gates of Jerusalem, which have always looked way too fake for me in the remake. On the contrary, Jerusalem's walls in the silent film resemble ancient stone behemoths that would impress any and all travelers. I was staggered by their awesomeness. I also think that the sea battle in the silent film is better than in the remake. With the exception of the intense moment on the flagship's deck where Charlton Heston lights that stunt man's face on fire (super cool!), I've always been unimpressed with the battle in the 1959 version. The boats looked like models floating around in a giant bathtub. I believe in the 1925 version they actually built more ships and let them actually go at each other. And there are moments of intense violence that I would expect in a film today, not in 1925 (how about that pirate charging into battle with a severed Roman head impaled on his sword? Whoa.). I also think the chariot race is still a thrill, even if it doesn't quite equal the remake. And at the end of the day, the storyline of Ben Hur is just downright compelling. It is hard not to be interested in Ben Hur's quest for revenge.
I do want to take a moment to talk about the story and different filmmaking approaches of the two films, so be warned that I am heading into SPOILER territory here. For example, I am not a fan of how Jesus is handled in the 1925 version. Both movies take a similar approach in that they will not show his face. But at least in 1959, we see him walking around, preaching, and acting as a character in a film. In 1925, he is represented by a seemingly disembodied arm and hand that appears from off camera, magically unseen by all the other characters. Maybe they are taking this approach to be more pious, but it doesn't work. It's just silly. Just compare the way the two films handle the moment by the well, when Jesus gives Ben Hur water and saves his life. In 1959, this is a moment of cinematic poetry. In 1925, I laughed at the random arm that pops on screen and plops water all over Ramon Novarro's face. Not good.
I know that the silent film is more faithful to the book, but for the most part the changes in the remake were vast improvements. In the book and the silent film, Ben Hur raises an army and prepares to start a revolt. He gathers the army just outside Jerusalem so that they can save Jesus when he is captured and they wait for the right time to strike...how Ben Hur hides 10,000 men from the Roman legions posted in Jerusalem I'm not sure, but let's leave that to suspension of disbelief. That aside, this army then proceeds to...do nothing. Ben Hur follows Christ as he marches to his fate and the army still does nothing. And then once Ben Hur witnesses the crucifixion and is converted, he sends a message to the army saying, "hey, violence isn't the answer. Everyone go home." And all 10,000 soldiers just say okay and leave. Huh? Maybe if the army or the generals had witnessed the crucifixion, this might make some sense. But they didn't. So they just leave, a random plot device built up to be something important that really served no purpose and was wisely cut out in 1959.
There is also the issue of Marsala, played by Francis X. Bushman in the silent film and Stephen Boyd in the remake. Bushman is having fun with the role, but the character is a cartoon bad guy with no depth. Marsala and Ben Hur were best friends as kids, and yet from the moment they see each other, Marsala is embarrassed by Ben Hur and looks down on him for being a Jew. There is no way these two were ever friends. And this makes Marsala's betrayal of the Hur family kind of...well, meaningless and inevitable. It only really happens for the sake of the plot.
One of my favorite moments in the 1959 film is when he first meet Marsala. He is told by a soldier that a Jew has come to see him. When the soldier uses a disparaging tone of voice, Marsala scolds him for his disrespect. "Remember, this was their land before it was ours." For me, that line is the key to Marsala. Marsala is not a bad person. But he has been corrupted by the 'glory' of Rome and that sets him on a collision course with his oldest friend. When he betrays the Hur Family, it actually hurts. It hurts the audience and it hurts Marsala, too. He's not happy about the decision, but believes it is what he must do. And remember - despite the fact that Marsala betrayed Ben Hur, he is adamant that it is the other way around, and that Ben Hur is the traitor for refusing to help him when he needed it. That's some juicy stuff. That makes for a good villain. That is an example of the depth that is all over the 1959 Ben Hur and almost completely absent from the 1925 version.
There is one story point that I liked in the original more. The Hur Family has a slave named Simonides who is also their steward and accountant. In the 1959 film, they sugarcoat the slavery thing by showing how Ben Hur is such a nice master who treats his slave like family. And when Ben Hur returns from his exile, Simonides is excited to have his old master back in his life. Bleah. The 1925 version takes a slightly different approach. When Ben Hur returns, Simonides at first claims not to recognize him. Even if the Hurs were good masters, they were still masters, and Simonides has no desire to go back into slavery. That's an interesting idea that I wish had been developed more in the original and maybe expanded on in the 1959 version. Alas, I can't have everything.
Anyways, this is getting to be a long one, so I feel I should wrap it up. I could go on and on about the differences between the two films, but it would just be emphasizing the same idea: that while the 1925 version has its merits, it is clear that it does not hold a candle to the remake, which is simply one of the greatest epics ever made.
MVP:
For the 1959 version, I awarded the MVP to a sequence instead of a person (the chariot race). I am doing the same thing now. I am giving MVP to that truly exciting sea battle. I was just really impressed with the scope of this sequence, and it looks like the extras are really fighting each other...which they may have been. Political upheaval was engulfing Italy at the time (which is where they filmed this sequence), and many extras were pro Mussolini while others were staunch opponents of the fascist dictator. The two sides' animosity is sort of obvious when you are watching this battle. Plus, there is a lot of messed up stuff in this battle that I cannot believe made it past the censors of the day. There were multiple moments where I actually said out loud, "wait, did that just happen?" Much of the battle I had to watch twice. That is more than enough for it to earn my MVP.
TRIVIA:
In some ways, Ben Hur might be the most star-studded film of all time. In addition to its leads, Ramon Novarro and Francis X. Bushman, who were big silent film stars, there were a number of future legends in the cast. Granted, they were mostly extras standing in the crowds during the chariot scenes, but still...check out this lineup: John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, Carole Lombard, Marion Davies, Myrna Loy, John Gilbert, Douglas Fairbanks, Harold Lloyd, Janet Gaynor, Fay Wray, Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish and Dorothy Gish. Wow. That's impressive!
No comments:
Post a Comment