OVP: Ben-Hur (1959)

Film: Ben-Hur (1959)
Stars: Charlton Heston, Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, Hugh Griffith, Martha Scott, Cathy O'Donnell
Director: William Wyler
Oscar History: Boy howdy, there's a lot-12 nominations/11 wins (the record for most wins, in a tie with Titanic and The Return of the King) (Picture*, Director*, Actor-Charlton Heston*, Supporting Actor-Stephen Boyd*, Art Direction*, Cinematography*, Special/Visual Effects*, Film Editing*, Sound*, Original Score*, Costume*, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Perhaps no film has more staying power than the epic.  Comedies, dramas, horror films, action adventures-they've all got their own "best in shows" that are celebrated on the lists of the greatest films ever made, but it is the epic that shows up with the most regularity-Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The Lord of the Rings, Titanic-films that tower over their competitors and are "must views" on nearly every collection of films to see before you die.

The problem is, though, that you only get to see these films for the first time once, and I've been trying to savor them, as I have a confession to make-I love epic films.  Yes, I know the pitfalls (they're oftentimes poorer in the acting and writing departments), but I don't care.  I find the big, expansive ideas and images that they bring to mind exhilarating, and every time I hear tell of a new epic, I want to dive in headfirst.  But with me continuing my Oscar Viewing Project, I will have to finally cross the final few that I haven't seen off my list, and today was probably the biggest remaining: Ben-Hur.

I'll admit off-the-bat that I actually knew very little of Ben-Hur, and I'm not ashamed to admit (okay, I'm a little ashamed to admit), that I didn't know if Ben-Hur was a real biblical figure or not.  Turns out he isn't, though there is a Ben-Hur mentioned in 1 Kings.  Even so, the Bible is very present in the film, and a cursory knowledge of the New Testament helps quite a bit.  Ben-Hur, instead, was a creation of Lew Wallace about a Jewish prince who existed at the same time as Jesus.  Judah Ben-Hur (his full name), is played by Charlton Heston, he of the many biblical epics and the strong profile.

If you're wondering why I keep introducing the topic without making the leap into actually, you know, discussing the film, it's because this is a nearly 4-hour movie, and one of the very few essential movies I have never seen, and part of me cannot believe I've finally encountered the movie and that part of me wants to savor it.  As you can see in the tags, this is also an American Film Institute-cited film-one of the Top 100 films in both their original and tenth anniversary list.  I have all but seven now left from that first list, and Ben-Hur was one of my final remaining films to be featured on both.  While I still have some indisputable classics (The Birth of a Nation, Spartacus, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, MASH) left, Ben-Hur was probably the one I was most looking forward to, and I shall miss having it be my answer to "what classic film have you never seen?"

But it's time to dive in, and I think the best place to begin would be the ambition behind William Wyler's storyline.  By the time you've finished, it feels like you've watched four films in one, but in the best way possible.  The movie starts with the introduction of Heston's Ben-Hur and Boyd's Messala, sibling friends and rivals (and probably lovers-I totally got what Gore Vidal was getting at in The Celluloid Closet), then moving to Ben-Hur's unjust banishment as a slave, shifting into his role as a master chariot racer, and finally into his quest to find his mother and sister, and in the process, witness the Crucifixion.  Wyler gives each of these expansive chapters their due, and you don't feel like any get short-shifted.  Some reviewers have commented that they dragged a bit too long, but I didn't feel it.  The repetitive nature of the rowing I found exhausting in a real sense, and the lengthened chariot races made me practically feel the sun in the Roman stadiums beating down on me as I watched and cheered and winced.

This confidence in the viewer's patience is perhaps the film's biggest strength.  There's a lot of big ideas to push forward in this movie-love, country, friendship, honor, religion-and they need time to simmer.  Additionally, William Wyler has created expansive and yet meticulous sets to share with the audience, and you need time for your eyes to feast.  The film won eleven Oscars, but perhaps none so appropriately than the Art Direction Oscar (I know we're not supposed to call it that anymore, but it'll take a few years for me to make the concession).  While Oscar occasionally goes with the film with the art direction that bursts from the seams (see The Grinch) rather than the set that best carries the story, here we find a case where both seem to be true.  The stadiums and Roman houses seem lived in, and if you take the time to stare you see rows of sabers, vases, and furniture all of a similar color palette. Along with the handsome costume design, you feel as if you're watching a moving, breathing Titian fresco, come to life in 65 mm.

The film also doesn't shy away from religion, and in each of those four parts Jesus plays an important role.  While the audience never gets a proper look at the actor playing Christ (you do see his face briefly in the final quarter of the film), his presence is felt first in the Christmas story (which opens the film), then when Ben-Hur, captive in the desert, receives water from Christ (a soaring moment in the score and a stunner visually in the film), the appearance and role of Pontius Pilate in the chariot races, and finally, the full Crucifixion in the final scenes.  It's a fascinating concept having a biblical epic in the time of Christ that doesn't focus on the Christ figure, but instead on a figure that in the confines of the film, is probably just as well-known.  It brings to mind that not all people focus on the same things in the public eye, and also begs the point of what may seem significant now may not be 100 years from now.  I have to say that the Jesus-on-the-edge concept really worked for me, and I was glad that Wyler smartly didn't give us a true conversation between Ben-Hur and Christ in the film, which would have shifted the focus too much toward their cursory relationship.

There's more to the film, though, than just religion, and that begins with the love/hate relationship between Heston's Ben-Hur and Boyd's Messala.  Like I mentioned above, Gore Vidal wrote them as if they had been lovers as teenagers, and though I read this tidbit after watching the film, I felt it throughout, even though it was obviously never mentioned.  Messala looks at Ben-Hur with a deep longing, and Boyd knows just how to strike the balance between his adoration for his old friend and his hatred that their relationship will never be exactly what he hopes it to be.  This conflict is the most interesting part of the first quarter (the slowest act of the film).

I can't discuss Ben-Hur without getting into the spectacular and revolutionary special effects on display in the film, particularly in the naval battle and the chariot race.  The naval battle, one I didn't know much about going into the film, is dazzling, with that excellent camera shot of the ship headed toward Ben-Hur's ship through a porthole, ready to ram into the ship and sink it into the sea.  The chariot race, which you've seen clips of even if you've never seen this entire film, is still a wonder.  The stuntmen in the movie deserved some sort of Oscar for their life-endangering work (as did the horses), and as a viewer you're struck by the immensity of what you're seeing on-screen.  So much of these scenes would be CGI today, which let's face it, takes away dramatically from the spectacle onscreen.  You can tell that there are real men, real animals, chasing around a truly constructed Roman stadium, and that's part of the invigoration.  Every turn of the carts, every crash, brings you further into the scene.  It's one of the most stunning things I've ever seen in a movie, and deserves every accolade that's been showered upon it.

I could go on, and on, and on, but I feel I need to stop this review at some point, but not before I grade the Oscar nominations.  As I mentioned above, the art direction, cinematography, sound, editing, costumes, special effects and score are all top notch, and though I have yet to see all of the other nominees, this movie's going to be tough to beat.  That's true of the top prizes, as well-William Wyler's direction and scope is something I'd have to pick over even the non-stop laugh riot that is Some Like It Hot.  It would probably have trouble taking out Some Like It Hot or perhaps North by Northwest in Best Picture, but lucky for Wyler and unlucky for the Academy's integrity, neither of those films made it into the Best Picture race, and it's tough to see Anatomy of a Murder or The Nun's Story (both films I have left to see) taking out this stunner of an epic.

That gives the film a probable nine trophies within the OVP, and I think that's where it's going to end.  Had the film had a few more of Vidal's touches, it may have leant a bit more to the dialogue and been a contender against Wilder's cross-dressing mob comedy, but Ben-Hur was a team effort, and some of the later dialogue gets a bit bogged down by heavy-handedness.  Amongst the actors, Boyd gives the best performance in the film-a cautious, angry man who gets a full character arch despite being absent for half of the film.  I would need to consult Inside Oscar, but I'm assuming that his non-mention was a large and unexpected snub, considering that he had just won the Golden Globe and couldn't even muster a nomination with the Academy.  Oscar instead chose the racially insensitive performance given by a bumbling Hugh Griffith to win the Oscar instead, and I am not impressed.

Heston's performance also gets quite hammy throughout the film.  Shirley Knight probably said it correctly when she quipped, "Hollywood is where they give Academy Awards to Charlton Heston for acting."  Heston certainly isn't bad, and does what he's called to do in the film, but he goes over-the-top quite frequently (especially during pious tirades) and is a terrible onscreen crier.  One secretly wishes that someone like Brando or Kirk Douglas had decided to take this role instead.  Either way, Heston isn't better than the ease Jack Lemmon brings to his nominated work in Some Like It Hot, or the sexy swagger that Laurence Harvey struts with in Room at the Top.


And now, twelve paragraphs later, I turn it over to you.  What are your thoughts on Ben-Hur?  How many Oscars do you think it should have taken home?  Would you make any casting changes, or leave everything as is?  And what great classic film are you still holding out on in your personal viewing?