I apologize that so much of this review is taken up with comparisons to the more well-known remake but it's hard to watch this film without thinking of it...
Ben-Hur:A Tale of Christ is on the novel of the same name by General Lew Wallace. It was released on December 30th, 1925 and is directed by Fred Niblo and stars Ramon Navarro as the titular hero. It is the most expensive film of the silent era and, despite being overshadowed by the 1959 William Wyler remake, has had a great influence on the film industry.
This film follows the same basic plot that most of you are probably familiar with from the 59' film. Judah Ben-Hur is unjustly condemned to the galleys when he inadvertently knocks a tile off the roof of his home, nearly killing the Roman Governor Gratus. He eventually wins his freedom by saving Consul Quintus Arrius (Frank Currier) and sets out to find his mother (Claire McDowell) and his sister Tirzah (Kathleen Key) who were imprisoned by Gratus. Along the way he clashes with his former friend Messala, now a Roman tribune, and comes into contact with a certain young prophet named Jesus.
Generally speaking this film is much closer to the book, but the 1959 film still borrows ideas directly from it. Jesus' face is never seen, always shown from the back or from a great distance, and his presence always fills those around him with reverence and awe. Both films portray the birth of Christ but this film also shows Him saving the adulteress from being stoned and instituting the Eucharist at the last supper. Unlike in the later film, Ben-Hur is not a pacifist here. As in the book, he becomes a fiery zealot and is inspired by Jesus' popularity to organize a rebellion to overthrow the Romans. After witnessing Jesus' death, and the cure of his mother and sister from leprosy, he gives up this idea. Messala is also far less sympathetic in this version, and doesn't die in the chariot race. Because of this there is less focus on Ben-Hur as a character and more on the suffering caused by the Roman occupation.
This film is more than an hour shorter than its remake and as a result is much more briskly paced. Since this version is, as already mentioned, less character driven, this faster pace actually serves it fairly well. There's enough time to tell the story but, unlike the 1959 film, there much less time for to sit back and let the drama sink in. Nonetheless this film is still very enjoyable in its own right, provided you like silent movies (which I do). The chariot race is spectacular, rivaling the one from the Wyler film
which it clearly had an influence on and the sea battle is also a sight to
behold.
Personally I prefer the remake to both the original movie and the book its based on. It's simply a more character driven story. With that said both have strengths and weaknesses. The romance between Ben-Hur and Esther is more subtle and convincing than the, admittedly, somewhat stilted one in the remake. As I mentioned before it also gives you a better understanding of the political backdrop, which helps to make Judah's rebellious actions more sympathetic. On the other hand, it relies too much on inter-titles to give the audience information and, half the time, they aren't really needed anyway. It also lacks focus at times, with a certain character introduced half-way through the movie who disappears before the climax.
The silent version of Ben-Hur may be overshadowed by its remake, but it's still a pretty entertaining and inspiring film in its own right. If you like silent epics or are a fan of the novel, it's definitely worth checking out.
Score: 8.5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment