Why Ben Hur Frustrates Me and Could Be More Thematically Nuanced- A Proposal for Remake

It was only a matter of time before I missed a week let alone two! I'm sorry audience (if your really even exist). It was a super crazy couple of weeks for both good and bad reasons that I'm sure I will illuminate at some point. Or never. Definitely one of those two. That being said, if you're actually reading this blog on a weekly or semi-regular basis, would you mink clicking that wee "follow" button? I'd like to get a sense of how many people I'm letting down if I ever have to skip a post again.

It was also only a matter of time before I started tearing apart a beloved American film classic. Go big or go home, right? As far as pop culture is concerned, the best place to find such a worthy film to rip to shreds is the American Film Institute's list of their chosen top 100 films of all time. I started my quest to watch all 100 of these movies a couple years ago. I've seen about 75 of them so far! It's mainly the depressing epics that have me dragging my heels with it, but I'm pretty sure I'll get it down before the end of this year. There are plenty of movies on this list that I find flawless, but plenty more that leave me wondering what business they have being on the list at all. Then, there are those that are great movies, but could be so much greater. Within this final category is where Ben-Hur (1959) sits.

Shit's about to get epic.

I'll start of by saying what I've already mentioned, that Ben-Hur deserves its place on the AFI top 100 list. It is an awe-inspiring feat of flim making. There's so much that this movie does right. If you need an epic Jew, who better than Charlton Heston? Right? Also if you want to see how epics were staged before the use of CGI, I'm fairly certain Ben-Hur sets the standard.

[Now come the spoilers.]
Now, as the title of this post suggests, I have a few, arguably minor gripes with this movie. Minor gripes that I believe could make MAJOR improvements on a thematic level. Quick synopsis: Judah of the house of Ben-Hur is a Judean prince (sort of). His best friend from childhood, a Roman named Massala, returns to Judea as the region's Tribune (a military governor). He asked Judah to reveal the names of Judean rebels seeking to cause rebellion. Judah says he don't know no stinkin' rebels, and if he did he wouldn't betray them. Later, some tiles accidentally fall from Judah's roof, killing a Roman governer. Judah is charged with murder and insurection by Messala and sold into slavery while his mother and sister are tossed in prison/dungeon. Years later, Judah returns to Judeah as a Roman citizen and chamption chariot racer (obviously). He wins the chariot race of the decade, effectively killing Messala in the process. Also, at the end Jesus dies.

Let's start right at the very beginning. Once the Overture ends, text appears that reads "A.D. 1." I think I litterally face-palmed the first time I saw this. A.D. stands for "anno domini," Latin for "in the year of the Lord" (Lord as in Jesus Christ). The thing about using A.D. in Ben-Hur is that it takes place before Christianity was the state religion of Rome, before Christianity was a religion, before anyone named Jesus was recognized as Christ. The guy that said temporal reckoning is based upon dies at the END of this movie, so the notion of AD at the start of it doesn't make sense yet. I suppose "CKRF" wouldn't have made sense as a date to modern audiences, but I'm sure something could have been concocted along the lines of "Februarius in the 17th year of Caesar Augustus" just to give a better sense of context for the story.

Another thing that bothered me was how unvillainus the villains were. The supposed villains of this epic are Romans, essentialized in the film's personal conflict as Messala. The thing about Romans in this movie is that they just aren't vile enough. Messala becomes the only real villain of the film due mostly to his pride via his inability to admit he wrongly prosocuted Judah. The best way to describe all other Romans inthis film is as beurocratic bullies. Sort of annoying overall, but hardly a reason to start a revolution. They just seem like people who work at the DMV. Messala does wax poetic about the superiority of Roman order, but the soul of imperialism (i.e. the real and systematic form of injustice in Palestine at the time) never fully manifests itself. Instead, the personal conflict about pride falls into clearer focus that overarching themes of opression and justice. I think there was a huge missed opportunity to parallel Romans to the British occupying Palestine at the time of the film's release. I suppose something that overtly political wasn't really done in mainstream Hollywood productions in 1959.

Name: Joseph. Place of Birth: Bethlehem. Marital Status: Married (2nd marriage/ widower)

Perhaps my greatest frustration with this film is the unrequited romantic undertones in the relationship between Judah and Messala. They never make out and it makes me feel cheated. The mezuzah on Judah's house gets more action than either of these guys. Again, I'll concede that this was not permissible in 1959 if a filmmaker wanted to get a picture shown, and probably this wasn't the intent of the story's creator, but it sure as hell is the vibe you get watching Charton Heston and Stephen Boyd eye-fucking each other. This would have made for some excellent cultural drama as well! While the Israelites fully frowned upon homosexuality, Romans are well known for drawing a somewhat fuzzy line between what was and wasn't taboo sexual behavior. It would explain Judah's postponing his marriage to Esther (his own sexual reluctance) and Massala's exceptionally strong vindictive prosecution of Judah (his hurt for being romantically slighted by someone he thought was his best friend [and in Rome "with benefits" is implicit]).

"I hear the water in Arkansas is very hard."*

My further aggravation is due to the lack of research done to represent cultures contemporary of that era. Arabs didn't exist yet. At least, not in the sort of Islamic sheik fashion they are historically imagined today. "Arabs" are mentioned in certain translations of the bible, but this was in reference to many different "desert dwelling" peoples. They were more of the proto-grandaddy Yarab peoples, mainly Nabataeans. More specifically, Caliphs and the Caliph status structure didn't exist yet. So why does Judah travel around with one for a quarter of the movie? Point is, there were plenty of other cultures surrounding Judea at the time. It was the flippin' Roman Empire- everyone from the known world could travel to any other part of the know world at any given time! Open a history book and sort your shit out William Wyler!

Ultimately, this is a film about the futility of vengence. This is made evident by the how even after Massala's death, Judah feels empty and unfulfilled. It's also about the spiritual imprtance of forgiveness (of others and self) as a means of redeption. This is how this Jesus character (allegedly) fits into the plot. At the end of the movie, Judah becomes convinced that this Jesus dude is the messiah. For me, this takes Judah down a notch. It angered me that his conviction melted away so easily. Judah doesn't say this aloud at any point, but like most characters played by Charlton Heston, he tells us all we need to know by the gleam of his teeth. While it does fall in line with the reckoning of Christian scripture, that through the Passion (the act of Christ's crusifixtion), Jesus converted thousands of people on the spot. Within that narrative, it's plausable that Judah could have indeed become a believer in spite of the three other times throughout the film he crossed the path of the supposed Christ and didn't believe. Yes, many believe the Passion to be "the greatest story ever told, however it isn't the most cinematically climactic end to Judah's tale. It makes everything he has done throughout the movie pointless, as it should. If that's true, though, what did we just spend the last two hours doing? I ended up feeling a little like...

One of my best friends explained to me that this all follows the formula for 19th century christian sentimentality, which was super popular in the US at the time (and I guess still is). She just turned in her masters thesis on 19th century American literature, so I try to trust her in these matters, even when I'm spiting mad, even when we're discussing Ben Hur.



You just think you're soooo great. Just because you were the #1 best selling novel in theU.S. from 1880-1936.



And thus do I propose Ben Hur be remade, yet again, to fit modern audiences. While I'm sure many of the suggestions I've implied will make many people angry and cry "scralige" as many did/do with The Last Temptation of Christ, these slight changes will make this movie a) more historically accurate, and b) more copellingly nuanced. Also, I would be happier as a movie-goer, and really my satisfaction is paramount here.

*I am not above quoting True Blood.