Taras Bulba

 

Before we get into this, please be warned.  There are going to be a lot of SPOILERS in this review!  

I think by now, we all know that epics are my favorite genre.  Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Spartacus, Ten Commandments and Ben Hur are among my favorite movies, and I even make time for those lesser epics like El Cid and Cleopatra, flawed messes that are nonetheless fun for me.  I try to seek these movies out when I can.  But there was always one movie that eluded me for one reason or another - 1962's Taras Bulba.  I remember as a kid seeing that badass image of Yul Brynner, confidently mounted on his horse, the sun reflecting off his iconic bald head, his scimitar flashing in the sun, and I knew this was movie I had to see.  

As I got older, I learned more about Taras Bulba and most of what I read wasn't good.  It was a box office success, but had still underperformed and lost money.  While it wasn't considered an outright disaster, I guess you could say everyone involved walked away disappointed.  And it is a shame because there is a lot of talent on display here.  Director J. Lee Thompson was coming off two powerhouse hits with Gregory Peck, Cape Fear and the Oscar-nominated Guns of Navarone.  The script was adapted from the iconic Nikolay Gogol novel by two well regarded screenwriters, Waldo Salt, who would go on to win Oscars for Coming Home and Midnight Cowboy, and Karl Tunberg, who was one of the writers who worked on Ben Hur.  Tony Curtis was in the midst of a remarkable run of hits that included Some Like It Hot, Operation Petticoat, Spartacus and The Great Imposter.  And the title character, Taras Bulba himself, was played by Yul Brynner, the major box office star whose last big role was in the iconic western The Magnificent Seven.  

I also really appreciated that Taras Bulba focused on a time period and location in history that largely goes ignored in movies.  The story picks up in the 17th century Russian steppes.  The Cossacks, a fierce band of nomadic cavalry, ally with the Imperial Polish army to defeat the invading Ottoman Turks.  Instead of celebrating, the Polish army turns on their allies and uses the opportunity to conquer the steppe.  Taras Bulba, infuriated by the betrayal, vows to never rest until he has his revenge on the Poles.  Decades pass and some semblance of peace returns to the land.  Taras Bulba agrees to send his two sons Andrei (Tony Curtis) and Ostap (Perry Lopez, Chinatown) to be educated in Kiev - the goal being to learn more about the Polish so that information could be used in any upcoming war.  But instead of focusing on his studies, Andrei falls in love with the daughter of a local aristocrat, Natalia (Christine Kaufmann, Last Days of Pompeii).  And of course, we all know that is going to lead to all sorts of problems.  

But the biggest problem is that this movie kind of stinks.  No wonder it was considered such a disappointment, when there is this much talent behind the scenes and in front of the camera.  So what went wrong?  I think the biggest problem is the critical miscasting of Tony Curtis.  Never in a million years could I believe that the middle aged Tony Curtis could be the son of a middle aged Yul Brynner.  It makes all of their scenes together utterly ridiculous, whether it's their giddy wrestling matches or their bonding over upcoming battles.  I just can't get past it.  Whenever Curtis says, "yes, poppa" or "no, poppa" (which is often), I just roll my eyes.  But it's more than that.  I often read people criticizing Tony Curtis's performances in period films.  Though he made a lot of historical movies, critics these days really seem to prefer him in comedies or more contemporary material.  I've read reviews that joke that he has trouble hiding his New York accent or that his acting just isn't good enough compared to his co-stars.  I don't agree with that.  I found him to be very effective in both Spartacus and The Vikings.   But in Taras Bulba, all of those criticisms are completely justified.  He isn't even trying.  Everyone else seems to understand they are in a movie about Russian steppe in the 17th century, and Tony Curtis just strolls on in with his 1960s swagger and his 1960s haircut, and he tries to woo young Christine Kaufman with his 1960s charm.  He just sticks out like a sore thumb.  

It does not help that Christine Kaufman was 16 at the time, and Curtis was 37.  It also does not help that in real life, Curtis fell in love with Kaufman, shattering his marriage to Janet Leigh.  Curtis and Kaufman were married a few years later, when she turned 18.  I know it was a different time, but this really bothers me.  But this behind-the-scenes drama didn't ruin the love story in the film for me.  It ruins itself because it's just not well done.  I read about the romance after I had seen the film, and it just kind of made everything worse.  

At a certain point, the movie has to make a choice.  During post production, it became clear that the film was going to be too long.   So what to cut?  Do they can spend the time on Tony Curtis and his unbelievable love story, or should they focus more on Taras Bulba himself, who, you know, the movie is named after.  They chose Curtis, cutting many of Yul Brynner's scenes, infuriating the actor.  

Look, I don't want to lay the whole blame at Tony's Curtis' feet.  That's not fair.  And the bad decisions in this film were not his.  I put a lot of the blame on J. Lee Thompson, as well.  He was the captain of this ship and some of that oversight is just a mess.  He tried some editorial tricks to "modernize" the film, such as blurring out the sides of the frame whenever they do a closeup of Natalia, in a goofy way of representing Andrei's love for her, or the whiplash editing at a Cossack party that is more appropriate in a 1960s French sex farce.  That's not to mention the laughable special effects - some ridiculous rear projection that puts Curtis and Brynner in the center of the battles, or - spoiler alert - the rag dolls dressed as Polish soldiers that are thrown off "a cliff" at the film's climax.  You're telling me that with a budget this big, they couldn't afford more realistic looking rag dolls or an actual real cliff?

But most of all, the movie is a disappointment because this could have been something really cool.  The movie's setting is different and intriguing, Yul Brynner is amazing, and there are some moments in the movie that really are terrific - yes, even some including Tony Curtis (I really like the extended and genuinely tense sequence where he tries to infiltrate the Polish fortress).  And I have to give a special mention to the film's most famous scene - where the Cossacks are gathering their forces for battle.  Yul Brynner's Cossack band is riding in the steppes to glorious music by Franz Waxman, and at a certain point they see more Cossack horsemen in the distance; everyone yells a cheery hello and the bands join up and keep charging ahead as the music kicks it up another notch.  And then they run into another group, yell hello, join forces and the music kicks up yet another notch.  This keeps happening until thousands of horsemen are galloping through the plains to Waxman's blistering music, blinding columns of dust trailing behind them.  It. Is. So. Cool.  And gives a taste of what this movie could have and should have been.  

So is the movie really that bad?  No, to be fair, it's not.  It's a handsomely made picture and there is some good stuff in there.  This is not The Tartars.  But in some ways, it feels worse.  This is just a huge missed opportunity and a waste of a lot of talent.  Disappointment really is the best word for it.  

MVP:

The MVP for Taras Bulba is an easy choice.  I do want to give an honorable mention to Franz Waxman for the score.  Bernard Hermann, who composed Citizen Kane and Psycho said that Taras Bulba was the finest movie score ever written.  I would never say that, but that "Ride of the Cossacks" cue is easily one of the best cues ever composed.  It is just an immense and masterful piece of movie music magic.  That is not enough to put him in serious contention for MVP, but it's worth a mention. 

No, the MVP is easily Yul Brynner.  He connected deeply to the role and sank himself into it.  He loved this character and he embodies him to the point that you cannot imagine anyone else possibly playing the part.  When Brynner is on-screen, he utterly dominates the picture and everyone else pales in comparison to his forceful and at times emotional performance - which is what you want in your Taras Bulba.  This character should be a force of nature, and I still remain utterly baffled that the filmmakers muffled their greatest asset for huge portions of the movie's runtime, preferring to focus on Tony Curtis instead.  Oh, I'm sure the studio thought Tony Curtis would bring in a bigger box office.  I get it.  But they were wrong.  This should have been Yul Brynner's movie.  But even muzzled, he is still the MVP.

BEST LINE:

Taras Bulba: From the day I plunged you in the river to give you life, I loved you as I loved the Steppes.  You were my pride!  I gave you life.  It is on me to take it away from you.

TRIVIA:

Yul Brynner really did poured his heart into this character and this film.  And he was so disappointed by the result, that according to his son, Rock, he never again put himself into his film performances.  He would care about his craft on the stage, but movies were now just for the paycheck.  And you can see that in his filmography.  Before Taras Bulba, you have Ten Commandments, Anastasia, Magnificent Seven, The Brothers Karamasov, The Sound and the Fury, and his Oscar-winning performance in the King & I.   Not all of them were good, but they were all classy productions.  After Taras Bulba, it doesn't take long before he falls into material like Morituri, Invitation to a Gunfighter and Flight from Ashiya.  Sure, we have the iconic Westworld coming up in the 1973, but that was a blip on the radar that was followed by movies like The Ultimate Warrior and Death Rage.  Damn it, Taras Bulba, your greatest crime is that you broke Yul Brynner.  How many amazing performances in great movies did you cost us!?

The Slave: Son of Spartacus

In my review for The Tartars, I explained a bit about what a "peplum" was.  With Hollywood epics such as Samson and Delilah making bank at the box office, Italian film producers wanted to get into the action and started producing their own sword and sandle pictures that were popularly known as peplum films, named after a type of tunic worn by ancient Romans and Greeks.  These movies were usually made relatively inexpensively, and weren't necessarily critical darlings, but they were a popular sub-genre, especially for teenaged boys.  Sometimes a Hollywood star was even lured to Italy to star in one of these films; for example, Kirk Douglas in Ulysses.  And while Ulysses did fairly well in the American box office, peplum films still rarely made it across the ocean.

That all changed in 1958, when American actor and bodybuilder Steve Reeves was brought to Italy to star as Hercules.  The film was a huge hit in Europe, but then American producer Joseph E. Levine bought the distribution rights and released it in the United States.  The result was a huge box office smash and the peplum genre was suddenly all the rage.  Dozens of peplum movies were released in the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and lots of them proved to be really successful.

Hollywood studios even tried to get in on the act - which is how that monstrosity The Tartars was produced.  Geez, I really hate that movie.  And to be honest, I was sort of dreading watching The Slave: Son of Spartacus because of my experience with The Tartars.

Like many of the peplum films, The Slave tries to cash in on a famous Hollywood film - in this case, the classic epic Spartacus, starring Kirk Douglas and directed by Stanley Kubrick.  Spartacus is the true story of the slave revolt that almost brought Rome to its knees in 71 BCE.  The film was the biggest blockbuster hit of the year, and Italian director Sergio Corbucci quickly jumped on the bandwagon to produce his own version (and possibly even an unofficial sequel?).  I can only imagine the lawsuits that would happen today, but I guess in the 1960s, I guess you could sneak by!

The Slave picks up the story 25 years after Spartacus' defeat, and follows the adventures of Randus (Reeves), one of Julius Caesar's finest soldiers.  Caesar has just defeated the Egyptian army, but just when he should be celebrating victory, he senses betrayal among his Roman allies - namely, the wealthy Crassus who rules the Eastern portions of the Empire from Syria. Caesar sends Randus and his lieutenants Beroz (Franco Balducci) and Lumonius (Roland Bartrop) to spy on Crassus, but during a storm, Randus dives off his ship to rescue a beautiful slave girl named Saïde (Ombretta Coli) who had fallen off.  The ship sails off without them.  After swimming to shore, Randus and Saïde are captured by slave traders.  Through a series of silly coincidences that I don't want to ruin, Randus discovers he is actually the son of the legendary Spartacus.  The conflicted Randus must now struggle between his loyalty to Caesar and taking charge of the brewing slave revolt in Syria.

Okay, let's get this out of the way.  The Slave: Son of Spartacus isn't winning any awards.  Expectations need to be clear about what you are getting with this film.  This is not Kubrick and Douglas.  This is a fun, little adventure and weirdly enough, The Slave has more in common with Zorro than Spartacus.  Once Randus embraces his role as the Son of Spartacus, he puts on a disguise and attacks Crassus' men, freeing slaves, destroying supplies and generally just sowing chaos across the region.  After every raid, he even writes a giant "S" on the wall before disappearing.  After his attacks, he takes his helmet off, sneaks back into the palace and professes loyalty to the tyrannical Roman regime.  That's definitely Zorro with a Roman twist.  And it's also all pretty silly.

And yet...it is also a pretty good time.  The Slave knows exactly what it is - a swashbuckling adventure for teenagers, and from that perspective, it's actually not half bad.  Maybe the best way to review this is to directly compare it to The Tartars, the film with the bigger movies stars in Victor Mature and Orson Welles, a veteran director in Richard Thorpe, and certainly a more sizable budget.  Let's start with the acting.  Mature and Welles looked tired and uninterested.  They were there for the paycheck and you could tell.  They act like material is beneath them (and in fairness, it kind of is).  But you don't get that attitude from Reeves, Bartrop, and the other performers in The Slave.  They definitely understand the type of movie they are in, but they still give it everything they've got.  They are trying to entertain, not win Oscars, and there is a certain relish to their performances.

I would like to take a second to compare the sets and the look of the fiml.  With the exception of the exterior scenes shot in Yugoslavia, The Tartars was mostly set bound, and you can tell.  The Khan's palace was a cool set, but it still looked like a set.  And the exterior shot of the fortress was just a giant matte painting - a good matte painting, granted, but still a reminder that nothing in this film feels real.  The Slave, with a fraction of the budget, simply looks better because it is filming mostly in real places, including Egypt.  Randus' initial meeting with Caesar takes place in front of the Sphinx, and the ruined city that the slave army is hiding in is really a ruined city.  All this just adds a sense of authenticity to the film that I wasn't expecting and that I really appreciated.   

We can compare the action sequences, as well.  The Tartars' action scenes were really pretty boring, a bunch of stunt doubles waving fake weapons at each other.  But the action in The Slave is kind of fun.  It helps when the combatants look like they are actually trying to hit each other.   And then you have Steve Reeves himself.  He was cast for his muscles, and not his acting chops.  His performance is a bit stiff and stilted, and he isn't the most charismatic leading man in the world.  But then he picks up a sword and flexes those biceps - and wow, this guy looks really good fighting.  Forget the stunt man, Steve Reeves is all in!  And I was digging it.  

And I think it is important to note that Steve Reeves really was a trailblazer in many ways.  Maybe his acting wasn't the best, but he worked hard and became an action star and his physicality truly makes an impression.  He paved the way for future massive musclemen to become stars.  Without Steve Reeves, I don't think we get Arnold Schwarzenegger, and I think that's a pretty huge cultural impact.  

But back to the comparisons.  The biggest strength of The Slave is the direction.  The Tartars was dull, slowly paced and sluggish, and filmed in a style that was, well, old-fashioned.  They just plopped the camera down and let the actors run around in front of it (which isn't always a problem, necessarily, when you have good writing and good performances in front of that camera, neither of which The Tartars enjoys).   Say what you want about how cheesy these peplum films are.  A lot of them were directed by young and hungry filmmakers who were bringing creativity and energy to the proceedings.  The Slave, directed by Sergio Corbucci, features a snappier pace, quicker editing, and dynamic camera movement and angles that really make the film feel more modern.  Eventually, Corbucci and his other peplum filmmakers, including the legendary Sergio Leone, would bring what they learned to a new subgenre that would truly explode - the spaghetti Western.  The peplum films, whose popularity waned by the mid-1960s, proved to be their training grounds.  And it is a lot of fun to see this amount of creativity and energy being given to a film that many people wouldn't feel deserves it.  

I don't want to overstate my point, though.  I'm not saying The Slave is great cinema.  It's really not.  The story is goofy, the acting is very hit or miss, and there is a lot of silliness.  The history would be enough to drive classical historians bonkers.  But at the end of the day, there is a creativity to it that I really admired. Would I recommend it?  Maybe, depending on who I was talking to.  But did I personally enjoy it?  Yep.  And will I be willing to give other peplum films a chance?  I bet I will.  

MVP: 

This is surprisingly a difficult decision.  I really loved Randus' right hand man, Lumonius, played by Roland Bartrop.  He is irreverent and sarcastic, but his humor is really just a tool that hides an observant and cunning Roman officer.  He's probably the most intelligent character in the film, and Bartrop really digs his teeth into the character.  But at the end of the day, I have to give the MVP to Sergio Corbucci.  The main reason this movie works, aside from Steve Reeves' biceps, is because of Corbucci and the energy he brings.  It's my first Corbucci film, but this one makes me want to seek out The Last Days of Pompeii, The Great Silence, and his most enduring hit, the western Django.  

BEST LINE:

This time around, the best line really has to be the worst line.  This bit of dialogue, spoken by Randus to the beautiful slave girl Saïde is just wrong on so many levels that it made me laugh.  Does that make me a bad person?  Saïde is talking about how horrors of servitude and how her family was killed when the Roman armies attacked.  And this is Randus' reply: 

Randus: Look, I'm only a soldier.  I can't change the way things are.  There are masters and slaves.  Like there are pretty girls and ugly girls.  

WTF?!  And I think this is all happening when he's attempting to flirt with her?  Anyways, it's such a horrible line that it needed special attention.  

TRIVIA: 

I have no doubt that the producers considered The Slave to be their unofficial sequel to Kubrick's Spartacus.   For one thing, the movie mentions Spartacus' wife, Varinia.  She is a fictional character, invented specifically for the Howard Fast novel that the classic film is based on, and memorably played by Jean Simmons in the film.  

The Tartars

Why do I do this to myself?

I think there is something wrong with me.  There are a lot of movies I have never seen before that are considered genuine classics, iconic films like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Gandhi, and Stagecoach.  And there are also some films that I haven't seen in decades that I have always wanted to see again.

So how do I keep finding myself in this situation?  One day, The Tartars popped up on TCM and I immediately DVR'd it.  I am a sucker for an epic, even a bad one.  And while I didn't know a lot about The Tartars, I did know its reputation wasn't very good.  The film stars Orson Welles (Citizen Kane), who is clearly here just to collect a paycheck, Victor Mature (The Robe), an actor I've never particularly liked, and it was directed by Richard Thorpe (Ivan Hoe), a director I have also never particularly liked.  And within 2 minutes of watching the movie, I knew I was in deep trouble.

And I looked over at my movie shelf and all those good movies I had to watch.  And then I looked back at the TV and the cheap costumes and bad dubbing, and decided to settle in for the night and finish watching this train wreck.

What is wrong with me?

The Tartars is the story of Oleg (Mature), a Viking king settled in Russia.  He is allied with the Tartar khan, Togrul.  When Togrul announces his intention to invade the Slavs, Oleg refuses.  The Slavs are also allied to the Vikings and Oleg refuses to break his word.  I suppose he could have been diplomatic about the whole thing, but instead he ramps up the insults, kills the khan and kidnaps his daughter Samia (Bella Cortez), bringing her back to his fortress as a hostage.   The khan's brother Burundai (Welles) ascends to the throne of the Tartars and now must decide how to deal with these meddlesome Vikings who won't bend to his sword.  Stupid stuff proceeds to happen. 

Where to start.  Well, I think it is important to mention this is a peplum film.  Basically, this refers to low budget Italian films, usually set in the ancient or medieval world, where the Italian studios would fly in Hollywood star to headline the picture and guarantee some sort of box office return.  The rest of the actors were all Italians and were dubbed, often poorly, into English before the film was released back in the U.S.  Though there had been some earlier peplum films, the genre really exploded when bodybuilder Steve Reeves played Hercules in 1958, which was a huge box office hit.  Suddenly, horribly cheap Italian films were all the rage.  And Hollywood's studios, which were getting battered by television, were desperately trying to find ways to make oodles of cash with very little investment.  Well, MGM decided to get in on the act and sent over an over-the-hill actor in Mature who at this point in his career was more interested in playing golf, as well as one of their more reliable directors, Richard Thorpe.  To guarantee they had a good actor playing the villain, they also hired Orson Welles, who was desperately trying to raise cash for his own projects.

But I do want to make an important point about peplum films - just because they are low budget doesn't mean they all necessarily bad.  There was some really talented filmmakers working in the genre, including Sergio Leone, who directed the fun Colossus of Rhodes with Rory Calhoun.  Sadly, I don't think any of those people worked on this movie.

Almost everything about this movie is terrible.  And I think it starts with Richard Thorpe.  I know he was considered a solid filmmaker who made a lot of hits for MGM, but I have always found his style to be slow and plodding.  The story is ridiculous and the acting across the board is atrocious.

Hey, at least the Khan's palace was cool.  That was a really good set.  And the matte painting that shows the fortress in its full magnificence is kind of neat.  There is a random Viking named Sigrum, played by Furio Meniconi, who has a line or two.  I liked that guy.  Arnoldo Foá plays an advisor to the Khan and he is appropriately wise and stoic.

And yeah, that's about it?  So how about everything else?

This film is so miscast.  Victor Mature might be the worst cast Viking I have ever seen, and his character is a relatively inept and ineffective ruler.  I think he was chosen to rule the Vikings because he is the only one brave enough to never wear pants.

He looks old and tired, and there is so much grease in his hair that I got nervous whenever he walked near a torch.  He certainly didn't make any effort to participate in the action scenes and they found the world's worst stunt double to take his place when he is fighting, swimming, riding a horse, and sometimes, you know, walking.

Orson Welles isn't cast much better.  He at least delivers his lines with appropriate menace, but he is never believable as a warrior chieftain.  And his stunt double is even worse.  It's just a short guy that they stuffed into a costume which looks like it was then inflated with helium.  The final fight between the antagonists is almost sad, as the two try to swing cheap swords at each other, one desperately trying to keep his wig on as the other tries to swing his arms from inside his balloon.  I stared at the screen in disbelief.

Oh, something else.  Spoiler alert for those who have made it this far!  This film seemingly takes place over a week or two.  Oleg has a brother named Eric (Luciano Marin) who falls in love with the imprisoned Samia.  Even though Eric is the one who killed her father, she quickly succumbs to his advances and they decide to get married.  The very next time we see the lovebirds, seemingly the next day, Samia asks if the Vikings will let her stay now that she is pregnant.  I'll admit, I don't know a lot about the Tartars.  Maybe their pregnancy tests really were that good.  Seems awful quick to me, though.

I can keep going, but I won't.  I need to put this behind me.  I need to calm myself, reset and breathe, and re-evaluate my life.  Why do I feel the need to torture myself this way?  How can I stop myself?

But then I glance up at my DVR...and I see Steve Reeves' Son of Spartacus is about to start on TCM...and I feel myself reaching for the record button...


MVP:

I really think I am going to Furio Meniconi, who plays one of the Vikings named Segrum.  He just appears occasionally in the background and even has a line of dialogue every once in awhile.  At first, I just thought he was a cool looking dude with a cool hair and a cool beard.  He actually looked like he knew what he was doing when he swung a sword.  So, points for him.

Then later in the movie, maybe about 30-minutes from the end, you realize he is Oleg's right hand man.  I hadn't realized that, but that would have been good to know.  And then 15-minutes from the end, he has a short speech where he says that he helped raise Oleg and Eric and he wished the brothers would stop arguing.  And again, I thought, well, that would have been interesting to know earlier.  Never mind the fact that he looks the same age as Victor Mature.

Anyways, he still looks cool.  So he gets my MVP.

BEST LINE:

This dialogue isn't that great, but like I mentioned, Orson Welles provides the right amount of menace in his performance.  It helps when you have one of the coolest voices in all of Hollywood history!

Burundia: Why should I spare you, then?  You give me no choice.  I, who stand on the threshold of glory...What does your little life mean to me?

Ciu Lang:   Less than nothing.  It means no more to me.  We have no choice in the matter of death.  It comes for us all. 

Burundai: You seem to desire your own.

Ciu Lang: No, I have no desire. I follow the way. 

Burundai:  The way.  Your way is mystic humbug.  It leads nowhere.  Mine is forward...into greatness. 

TRIVIA:

We had a wasted opportunity with this film.  Victor Mature and Orson Welles had hated each other since the 1940s when they were both competing for the affections of Rita Hayworth.  They really could have used that antagonism to their benefit and played up the tension between the two.  But sadly, I think that would have required better actors, a better director and a better script.  Or perhaps a different movie, altogether.

Ben Hur (1925)

Ben Hur (1925)
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!

Ben Hur (1959)

Ben Hur (1959)

So everyone knows epics are my favorite genre.  The heyday of the epic was in the 1950s and early 1960s, when Hollywood went all in with these monster pictures in order to beat back competition from TV.  Though there are notable exceptions, I feel the 1950s were more about the biblical epics (Quo Vadis, The Robe, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Ten Commandments) while the 1960s abruptly shifted focus to the historical epic (Spartacus, Cleopatra, Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid).  The religious epic reached its zenith at the end of the decade, with 1959's Ben Hur. 

A major box office smash and the winner of 11 Academy Awards (a record until Titanic came along), Ben Hur has gone down as one of the great all-time classics.  It is clearly one of the best of the genre, and is certainly the best religious themed epic.  I actually think it is the best religious themed film ever.  Forget all the others.  Ben Hur is the real deal.

During the days of the Roman Empire, Ben Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy Jewish merchant who also happens to be best friends with the newly appointed commander of the Roman garrison, Marsala (Stephen Boyd).  Marsala betrays Ben Hur, imprisoning his family and sentencing him to life as a galley slave.  Ben Hur swears vengeance, and slowly works his way back to Jerusalem for a final showdown with Marsala during an epic, epic, epic chariot race.  But along the way, Ben Hur's story interweaves with another story, that of a simple carpenter named Jesus who wanders the countryside, preaching peace and performing miracles.

Look, is Ben Hur perfect?  No.  It is dated in some places, and also tends to drag in a few areas, particularly in the beginning (that love scene does not age well at all), and following the chariot race.  I think 15 minutes of this movie could have been trimmed and it still would have been just as good.

But these are nitpicks, because Ben Hur really is superb on almost every level.  There are some people who poke fun at Heston's acting career, but when he was firing on all cylinders, he was really a very good actor.  And I don't think anyone quite pulled off the noble, larger-than-life roles as believably as Heston.  He certainly deserved his Oscar for Best Actor.  The rest of the acting is also great along the board, with a supporting cast including Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Hugh Griffith, Andre Morell, Sam Jaffe, and Stephen Boyd as Marsala.  Boyd is particularly good. He plays Marsala as a wounded man, someone who actually thinks he was betrayed by his old best friend, and not the other way around.  He was actually directed to act like a spurned lover, and watching his performance with that in mind opens up a whole new dimension to the character.  It's great work, and its a shame he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor (the award went to Hugh Griffith, who was nominated for Ben Hur for playing Sheik Ilderim - a fun role and good performance, certainly, but hardly Oscar-worthy).

The direction by William Wyler is superb, the cinematography is evocative, the art direction, sets, and costumes are awe-inspiring, and the music by Miklos Rozsa is easily one of the best scores ever written for a motion picture.  This is just a superb film from top to bottom.  Compare it the other massive hit of the religious genre, Ten Commandments.   Ten Commandments is just a bundle of sheer entertainment. No director was quite as adept as DeMille at mixing the cocktail of scope and silliness into something so unabashedly fun.  But Ben Hur blows it out of the water, with a filmmaking prowess and thematic depth that most historical films of the time period could not hope to match. William Wyler took the genre as far as it could go.  It is no surprise that religious epics went out of style in the 1960s.  Sodom and Gomorrah, King of Kings, and The Greatest Story Ever Told were pale attempts to continue the genre, but none thrived at the box office.  It's almost as if audiences just knew - the religious epic should have died with Ben Hur.  It was the best they were ever going to get.  So why bother trying anything else?

MVP: 
Some small spoilers here.  At first, this seemed like a tough call.  Wyler, Heston, Boyd and Rozsa could all make a strong case.  There are also a few scenes that are so good I have to consider them.  Probably my favorite scene involving Jesus in any movie is in Ben Hur, when the beaten Ben Hur is being dragged through the desert into slavery.  The line of exhausted slaves end up marching into Nazareth, which is where Ben Hur has his first encounter with Jesus.  It's a famous scene, justifiably so, and it had more of an emotional and religious impact on me than any of the heavy-handed biblical quoting that often plague films like this.  It's a beautiful sequence, with great work from Rozsa and great acting from Heston and the Roman guard who tries to stop Ben Hur from getting water.

But it's not my MVP.

No, once you start thinking about it, it is obvious what the MVP is...and as it should be, it is the one thing that the movie is most remembered for.  It is the image that is on all the posters, DVD covers, and featured in most movie montages.  It's that damn chariot race, that final confrontation between Ben Hur and Marsala.  How could it be anything else?  That race is a show stopper and has not aged a day.  It is just as intense now as it was then.  Maybe even more so, since audiences are used to CGI action scenes whereas this scene used stunt men who really get run over by horses.  That is pretty amazing to see - and please know that the rumor that a stunt man died while filming this movie is just that - a rumor.  But watching the chariot race, you have to wonder how that is possible, because there is some crazy dangerous stuff going on!

All in all, I actually think the chariot race is the best action scene in movie history.  Ever.  And I'll stand by that.  It's not just my MVP for this movie.  It's my MVP for the entire genre!

BEST LINE:
Judah Ben Hur: "Almost at the moment he died, I heard him say, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Esther: "Even then?"
Judah Ben Hur: "Even then."

It's not so much the first part of the exchange that I like, as I've heard it thousand times. It's the second part. "Even then." Those two words sum up the message of the film, the fruitlessness of revenge, the power of forgiveness.  There is a lot of power in those two words, and they've stuck with me ever since I first saw the film.

TRIVIA:
When Kirk Kerkorian liquidated MGM's assets in the 1970s, he sold one of the chariots for $4000 to a Sacramento restaurant owner.  A few years later, during the height of the 1970s energy crisis, this guy was arrested for driving the chariot on the highway.  I know there is probably better trivia out there about Ben Hur itself, but I thought this one was too strange not to post!

More Musings on Troy

More Musings on Troy

First off - spoiler alert!

So there are a few other items I wanted to discuss from Wolfgang Peterson's Troy from 2004. As I wrote my review earlier, the movie was a disappointment overall. When it worked, it was quite good. Unfortunately, there were just as many moments that did not work, and many of them are major problems.

There have been many criticisms leveled against Troy, some deserved and some not. I would like to defend the movie against some of these unfair criticisms.

1) The Gods are the most important part of The Iliad. Where the heck are the Gods in this movie?

The first misconception is that Troy is even an adaptation of Homer's The Iliad. It isn't. You could never make a movie of The Iliad because it only tells a tiny fraction of the Trojan War, a period of just a few weeks during the vast 10-year long conflict. The war doesn't begin in the Iliad. Troy doesn't fall in the Iliad. There is no Trojan Horse in the Iliad. Achilles is not famously killed with the arrow in the heel in the Iliad. The Iliad is ONLY the story of the events that directly lead to the epic Hector vs. Achilles duel. That's it. So let me clear that up right away.

People argue that without the gods, the whole story of the Trojan War is meaningless. To which I have to ask - why? The gods are important to the myth of the Trojan War, but that is not the story that Troy is trying to tell. Troy is trying to tell a plausible story that over thousands of years could have become the myth. I do agree that the involvement of the gods is important to the myth itself and does provide some wonderful thought-provoking themes about the nature of free will and what it means to be a human being. All very interesting material, but hardly necessary. What is essential to this tale is love - Achilles and Patrocles, Hector and Andromache, and especially that of Helen and Paris, who choose love over politics and bring about the destruction of a civilization because of it. Pride is also an essential theme. Hubris, the blind and haughty pride that has brought down many a hero and villain is on full display in both the myth and the movie. It is Agamemnon's hubris that insults and isolates Achilles so he refuses to fight, it is Troy's hubris that they can never lose a battle that leads to their downfall. That is much more important to the core story.

So why are the gods needed? Someday someone will adapt the myth into a film, and realize its impossible because the scenes in Olympus don't work in a film medium. It would be an hour of debating free will. Interesting to read. Boring to watch. I'd rather watch the war itself, thank you very much.

2) The acting stinks!

Overall, I have to disagree again. Critics singled out Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole, and Sean Bean as giving good performances, but every one else was a target. There are some weaker performances in the movie, I will admit that (for example, Saffron Burrows, whose acting in this movie consists of various combinations of weeping and shaking). But I want to defend the rest of the cast. Brendan Gleeson and Brian Cox are overacting as villainous brothers Menelaus and Agamemnon, but who cares? These are larger than life characters and they need to be played large. Personally, I enjoyed watching the two of them trying to chew apart every scene they were in. Orlando Bloom caught a lot of heat for a moony, whiny and annoying performance, but wait a minute - is that fair? Paris is moony, whiny and annoying. The fact that you hate Paris in this movie just means Orlando Bloom was doing his job effectively. And how about Brad Pitt as Achilles? Critics called his performance the epitome of Hollywood pretty boy miscasting. But I actually think that is what you need in this role. Achilles doesn't need to be a good actor; he needs old school Hollywood charisma. I don't care if he's one dimensional. I just want him to be charismatic chiseled weapon of destruction. Brad Pitt brings that to the movie. If his dialogue delivery is a little flat in a few scenes, he looks and moves every inch like Achilles. And in every scene with Brad Pitt, your eyes are naturally drawn to him. That is what you need in Achilles. He is the greatest warrior in all of literature.

I've been hearing these two criticisms unfairly leveled against Troy for years, so I just wanted to speak up in the film's defense. But I don't want to defend the film too much as it has some very big problems. Like below:

1) There is only so much you should change the legend!

If you are adapting an old tale, re-envisioning or updating it, there are certain things that can and cannot be changed. If you want to kill certain characters who are supposed to live, or visa versa, that's okay. I'm not a stickler for the details. But Troy goes too far. The city of Troy falls. Paris dies. Helen goes back to Greece. That's the whole point. The story of Paris and Helen cannot end well  They are responsible for the destruction of their city and the deaths of thousands of their people. They simply can not live happily ever after. So when Paris and Helen escape to the mountains, are we supposed to be happy for them while the city is burned and pillaged? What the hell?

The confusing thing is that they even set up Paris' death nicely. Before running into the city to save his cousin, Paris hands a young boy named Aeneas the Sword of Troy, saying so long as a Trojan holds this sword, her people will have a future. Since in the legend, Aeneas went on to lead the Trojan survivors to Italy and that his descendants founded Rome, I thought this was a cool little bit. But when Paris survives and escapes with everyone else, I had to wonder what was the point of the whole Aeneas scene? Now its just random and pointless.

2) Helen

She is partially responsible for starting the war, after all. But after the first half of the film, where all she does is mope, she largely vanishes. Nobody liked Helen in this movie, and a lot of people blamed Diane Kruger's acting. I think she is just badly written and not given anything to do. Playing the most beautiful woman in history is an impossible task in of itself. But add that to filmmakers who don't really know what to do with you after the opening act...poor Kruger was being set up as a target from the very beginning! What a wasted opportunity to play up the guilt, the horror that this conflict is her fault. They could and should have done something with that. They only hint at it once, in a beautifully done moment before Hector goes off to fight Achilles. Helen waits for him by the gate, weeping, because she knows that the best man in the city was about to be killed protecting her. It's a good moment, and the movie needed more of that.

3) Death of Patroclus

This is such a stupid moment! When Hector kills Patroclus, both armies stop fighting (as if all 10,000 men could have known this duel was happening) and get all depressed because the young man was killed. "That's enough killing for one day" and they all go home. What?? First of all, Patroclus isn't that young and was certainly not any younger than half the other people getting slaughtered in the movie. We didn't stop fighting for any of those guys. I think the writers just didn't know how to end the scene. They wrote themselves into a corner and had to think of a way to end the fight before the Trojans won the battle. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but this scene is STUPID!

4) Patroclus and Achilles

Speaking of Patroclus, I think they missed a big opportunity. Patroclus was Achilles' friend, not his cousin. There is even some subtext that he is Achilles' lover. I think the studios got afraid because they didn't want their sexy leading man to be gay. What safer way to do that than turn his best friend/lover into his cousin? But how much more interesting would the scenes in Achilles' camp have been if they had kept that part of the story intact? What an interesting love triangle. Achilles falls in love with the Trojan priestess, Briseis, and rejects the war and prepares to return home. In doing this, he is not just rejecting his old life as a warrior but is rejecting the loved one who represents that life: Patroclus. In the movie, Patroclus is just some whiny kid who is bummed out because he never gets to fight. Wouldn't it be better if he sees Briseis as what she is, as a rival and a threat? Suddenly, Patroclus being killed by Hector takes on more meaning. It ignites Achilles, who unleashes his vengeance on the battlefield. Such fury makes more sense if it is the love of your life who has just been killed. I'm not saying that the filmmakers needed to go Brokeback Mountain in ancient Greece. If the studios were worried, they could have kept this subtle. But I think this decision to make Patroclus a cousin just smacks of marketing fears. Pity. I think they missed an opportunity for good drama!

Okay, my ramblings are over. Thanks for indulging! New review next time - the terrific Chinese film, Ip Man!

Troy: Director's Cut

Troy: Director's Cut

As a child, my mind was lost in myths, legends and history. I spent hours devouring the stories of Alexander the Great, King Arthur, and the Trojan War, my imagination completely captured. Unfortunately, in 2004, Hollywood managed to take all three of my childhood dreams and send them crashing back down to Earth. (I speak of Alexander, King Arthur, and Troy). Of the three, Troy was probably the best. When it worked, it truly did work. There are moments that really are grand epic fun. But when it was bad...oh, boy, was it bad. The worst part was that it just seemed sloppy. Strange shots, bad editing, and questionable plot decisions ruined what could have been a solid film.

But has the new Troy: Director's Cut solved these problems? Yes and no. Make no mistake - this is not Kingdom of Heaven, where the director's cut turned the film from an interesting failure to one of the best films of the year. The major problems with Troy remain. Some of the acting is goofy, characterizations are often lazy and one-dimensional, and all the major plotting problems are still there.

But make no mistake, those problems are not as noticeable because the film has gone through quite an upgrade. This film is longer than the theatrical version, but it actually feels shorter! That is because of subtle changes that director Wolfgang Peterson made, shifting the pacing of the film, fixing any sloppiness and providing a full color adjustment that makes the film much more vibrant and beautiful to look at. The theatrical cut dragged in a lot of places and its problems were glaring. The Director's Cut moves along so smoothly that the problems don't bother me quite so much. The added scenes add some necessary and welcome character development, especially for Sean Bean's wonderful Odysseus.

In almost every way, the Director's Cut is better. My one complaint is about the music, which most people won't notice. But since I love film scores, I have to complain! The score for Troy was a last minute replacement by James Horner (Braveheart) and he wrote, recorded and mixed the entire score in 13 days. Which is pretty impressive, even if the score isn't great. But it at least got the job done efficiently. But Peterson has stripped Horner's score almost entirely from the film. The one piece he did like, he re-uses about seventeen thousand times. Then he sprinkles in music from other movies like Planet of the Apes and Starship Troopers. The rest of the music, playing wall-to-wall during dialogue scenes that don't even need music sound like a chimp farting out notes on a Yamaha synthesizer. It is TERRIBLE! And horribly distracting to me. But hey, I admit it, I might be psycho about this kind of thing. So take this with a grain of salt...

Other than that, the Director's Cut is a definite improvement over the theatrical version. If you liked the movie before, you will probably love it now. If you thought it was okay, you might like it just a little bit more. But if you hated it, this version won't do anything to change your mind. To me, it is an improved, but still not great movie. It still doesn't live up to my childhood dreams, but at least it isn't destroying them. So that's my sum-up.

P.S. I have also written a review of James Horner's score to Troy. Check it out by going to SoundtrackDB!

MVP: Gotta give it to Sean Bean. I just really enjoyed the heck out of his performance as Odysseus. And he succeeds in giving life to this iconic character with not a lot to work with. I actually want them to make a sequel because I would love to see Sean Bean in The Odyssey, tackling sirens and sea monsters!

TRIVIA: Brad Pitt (who played Achilles) injured himself during the production of the film. Ironically, he injured his achilles tendon.

BEST LINE: (minor spoiler?) Priam: I loved my boy from the moment he opened his eyes until the moment you closed them."  On paper, this doesn't sound like much of a line, but you need to see its moving delivery!

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Costume Design