Of course 2016 Ben Hur was an unmitigated disaster- the remake no one asked for, wanted, or enjoyed. And here's my review of it:
As I mentioned in one of my recent posts on Ben Hur, I did at one time watch the 2016 movie remake. It was, to be blunt, terrible. Not that I expected anything else; Hollywood is allergic to making anything which might give credence to Judeo Christian theology in any way, shape, or form. Though they'd still like to cash in on the profits, hence the reason we are treated to a film about Noah which posits that the flood was caused by people not being environmentalists (the ultimate sin in progressives' eyes) with mythical rock monsters thrown in for good measure. Because when you have no respect for the source material or the audience, why the heck not?
Of course 2016 Ben Hur was an unmitigated disaster- the remake no one asked for, wanted, or enjoyed. And here's my review of it:
Comments
Continuing in Book Four, this is really where we get into some major plot differences between the novel and the 1953 film. Judah hears that Sheik Ilderim is looking for a driver to race his team of horses in the upcoming race in which Messala is competing. He approaches the Sheik, offering to drive; his plan is to defeat Messala and humiliate him before the Roman authorities. In the movie, Ben Hur initially refuses to race, planning on dealing with Messala in a more, shall we say, permanent way. Balthazar makes a return to the story at this point as well, and with an important character who is cut out of the movie entirely: his daughter Iras (though she does appear in the 1925 film version). They are sitting near a fountain in the stadium when Messala, recklessly driving his chariot, nearly careens into them. Ben Hur who, as mentioned, is in the stadium, leaps out in front of the horses and, using the extremely powerful grip developed by years at the oars, grabs the horses' bits and pulls them to a stop. Messala doesn't recognize him- it's been years, and he obviously thinks Judah is long dead- and speaks to him contemptuously, unbothered that he nearly ran down a bunch of people. Messala does, however, note that Iras is very beautiful in an exotic, Egyptian way, and introduces himself, showering all sorts of compliments upon her. She doesn't appear too interested, and instead beckons to Judah and asks him to bring her a cup of water. Messala is obviously displeased with the snub but laughs it off, promising that she'll see him again as he leaves. An elderly Balthazar thanks Ben Hur and invites him to dine that evening in the tent of Sheik Ilderim, with whom he's staying. After taking his leave of Balthazar and Iras, Judah confides in Malluch, telling him his history and his plan to humiliate Massala in the circus, which Malluch thinks is a fine idea. In return, he tells Judah that he knows the Sheik slightly- through Simonides- and relates to him the story of Belthazar having some twenty seven years before followed a star to see a child prophesied to be King of the Jews. Judah is fascinated by this story, asking for details. Malluch accompanies Ben Hur to Sheik Ilderim's tent, introducing him, and then leaves to report to Simonides (and Esther). He tells them all that occurred, and that he believes Ben Hur's account of past events, and then relates Judah's plan to humiliate Messala in the Circus. Though still worried about Esther's future if he acknowledges Judah as the heir to the Hur title and fortune, Simonides is also gleeful at the thought of revenge being taken on those who destroyed the house of Hur, crippled him, and caused the death of his wife. He starts plotting how to best aid Judah's fledgling plan, ensuring it does the most damage to the Romans. Esther, on the other hand, pleads with her father to try to discourage Judah from racing, worried about his safety. Unlike in the movie, Judah does not go reveal himself to Messala; rather, Messala is partying with friends when someone brings up the fact that young Arrius has arrived in Antioch. The description of him fits the man with whom he had the confrontation with at the fountain but- Messala reassures himself- that guy was a lowly Jew. That's just it, he's told: Arrius the younger was a Jewish galley slave who saved old Arrius' life and was adopted by him in return. Messala is starting to get a bad feeling about all this, but shrugs it off and continues with the drunken orgy. Meanwhile at dinner, the Sheik has agreed to let Judah try out his horses the following day. Then he, Balthazar, and Judah begin talking of Balthazar's meeting of the Child destined to be King. Ben Hur of course has known of the promised Messiah all his life and wonders if the child- now man- wherever he is now is that Messiah, and if He will lead them from Roman occupation. If so, Judah muses, the preparation he himself has had in the Roman ways of war will certainly come in handy. As he takes his leave, Judah hears the sultry voice of Iras, singing, and it conjures up the image of her dramatic beauty. Almost immediately, he also recalls the sweet, lovely face of Simonides' daughter Esther and smiles at the memory. (To Be Continued...) Related Posts: My sister messaged me yesterday to ask if I could make an Easter bonnet to go with the dress my little baby niece is going to be wearing next Sunday, of which she sent me a picture (seen below). So last night I had a look through my fabric stash and found some white cotton and lace which I sewed into a little bonnet. And then I came across a fat 1/4 which had some peach/pink in it so made another one in case my sister would prefer to have something a little more colourful. Incidentally, for those not in the know, a fat 1/4 of cotton differs slightly from a regular 1/4 yard; that difference is in how they are cut. A quarter yard is 9x44 inches- long and skinny. A fat quarter is 18x22 inches, the same amount of fabric, but short and, er... fat. As you may recall (or not) I also made some bonnets for last Easter and wrote regarding the most well known- perhaps the only- song about Easter bonnets: Related Posts: Book three deals with Judah Ben Hur's time as a galley slave, picking up when he's been chained to an oar for around three years. The Roman fleet has been ordered into battle against Greek pirates under the command of Quintus Arrius who, while inspecting the rowers, becomes interested in Ben Hur and makes inquiries about him. He's told that Judah is the best rower, strong and skilled, and it's mentioned that he requested that he be allowed to alternate between manning the oars on the right and left, so that his muscles would develop evenly. This part is quite similar to the film: Arrius talks to Judah during his rest period and finds out his history though, unlike in the movie, it turns out that Arrius was slightly acquainted with Ben Hur's late father, who had many business contacts in Rome. When the ship engages in battle with the pirates, Arrius orders Judah's chain to be unlocked. This is fortunate as, when the ship sinks, Ben Hur is able to save Arrius from drowning, pulling him onto some floating debris. They are picked up by another Roman vessel; though the ship was lost, the battle was won and Arrius returns to Rome a celebrated hero. With him is Judah who he adopts as his son. As I said, this is all quite similar in both the book and movie, but it's here that the plots start to diverge somewhat, notably with the timeline. In the 1953 movie, Ben Hur is gone a total of close to five years while in the novel it's considerably longer than that; he's a galley slave for over three years and then is in Rome for another five years, training in combat and becoming a champion charioteer. Arrius dies during this time (unlike in the film) and Ben Hur, his heir, is now a very wealthy Roman citizen. And he doesn't return directly to Jerusalem; he goes to Antioch on business and hears that his father's steward/slave Simonides still lives in the city (this occurs in part four). When the Roman authorities were seizing all of the Hur lands and wealth, they tortured Simonides to get him to reveal the location of much of said wealth. He refused and was left broken in body, unable to walk. The shock of what happened killed his wife (not mentioned in the film) and he is now cared for by his sweet teenaged daughter Esther. This is one thing which I don't like about the film: it pretty much sidelines Simonides after Ben Hur's return. In the book, he's still sharp as a tack- and as hard as nails (except with Esther). Having saved most of the Hur family's monetary wealth, he made smart investments with it- mostly overseas where the Romans couldn't get their hands on it- and made the Hur fortune grow far greater than it already was. Absent of any Hurs to deliver this fortune to, Simonides and his daughter are living very well and prosperously in Antioch when Judah Ben Hur arrives at the door. He is admitted by Esther; this is the first time they meet, unlike in the film, and Judah does not have romance on his mind. He's there solely to see his father's steward. Simonides recognizes him right away (he looks like his father) but pretends not to, demanding that Judah produce evidence that he is who he says he is. Judah is dismayed by this: he's been gone for the better part of a decade, no doubt is presumed dead, and has no papers to prove his identity. He says as much, but asks Simonides if he has any knowledge of the fate of his mother and sister. Simonides tells him entirely truthfully that he was unable to learn of their fate. Ben Hur leaves sadly and Simonides, wanting to know more about young Hur who has appeared so suddenly, sends his servant Malluch (who doesn't have his tongue cut out) to keep an eye on him. Malluch befriends Judah without revealing his identity and they go to the arena where Judah catches sight of his erstwhile friend, now enemy, Messala who is training for an upcoming chariot race. Meanwhile, Simonides has confided to Esther that he knows that Judah is indeed Ben Hur and she is confused as to why he pretended otherwise. Part of this is his natural caution; he wants to learn what kind of man Judah has become before committing to anything. But, he also points out, if he admits that Judah Ben Hur is alive, as a bond servant all of the wealth which they have- which he earned- technically belongs to Judah, as does he, and Esther for that matter. Esther, who was very much moved by Judah's obvious anguish over his mother and sister, tells Simonides that these things don't matter; they must do what's right. None of this is in the film, of course, and the plots of novel and movie will diverge even further from here on out. (To Be Continued...) Related Posts: Ben Hur: A Tale Of The Christ was written by Lew Wallace and published in 1880, while the author was serving as Governor of New Mexico Territory. It soon became extremely popular, holding place as the US all-time best seller until 1936, when it was knocked from top position by the juggernaut Gone With The Wind. Lew Wallace was a fan of the writings of Sir Walter Scott (Ivanhoe, Marmion, etc)- well, aren't we all- and Jane Porter (The Scottish Chiefs) and was in part inspired by their works to take up writing historical fiction. He was also very much an admirer of Alexandre Dumas' The Count Of Monte Cristo, echoes of which can be seen in Ben Hur... the unjustly accused & convicted man who is imprisoned for years, then becomes wealthy and comes back for revenge. Wallace was no doubt also influenced by his experiences in the American Civil War, during which he became a Major General in the Union Army. I have in past posts discussed a few of the film adaptations of the novel- the 1925 movie, the 1953 version, and the ghastly 2016 disaster. I have not, however, done a review of the book, and I'm not going to do a full one now, because it would take more time than I have to spend at the moment to go into depth with it. What I will do is talk a bit about the differences between the novel and the movies, particularly the best one- the 1953 Charlton Heston picture. We will not speak of the 2016 travesty, as there is no comparison to be made between that and even the other film adaptations, let alone the book. I have often remarked that while I adore the 1953 film, I would not be adverse to seeing a movie which adhered more closely to the novel; a lot- by necessity- is left out of the existing adaptations. It would probably have to be a miniseries to handle all of the storylines with any degree of success. But I don't want one made at present time, because Hollywood currently seems unable to produce anything but crap.... case in point: the 2016 movie. As bad as modern day film studios are at producing any kind of story worth watching, they're a thousand times worse with Biblical epics. There are many reasons for this: complete ignorance of the Bible and disdain for the potential audience, historical illiteracy (I'm not ruling out actual illiteracy) and a compulsive need to fill the narrative and characters with modern day sensibilities and behaviours... to name a few. I mean, can you image what they would do with the character of sweet little Esther? By the end of it, she'd probably be leading a rebel force against the Roman Empire and have rejected Ben Hur to run off with Tirzah instead. The absolute state of things. I am, however, wandering off the topic of the differences between the movie and the book, so *SPOILER WARNING* if you haven't read Ben Hur... though, since the book's been on the market for over 140 years, one shouldn't be necessary. To begin with, Ben Hur: A Tale Of The Christ is divided into 8 parts, or books. The first part- as the movie briefly shows- deals with Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem for the census and also introduces us to the Magi- Balthasar (an Egyptian), Melchior (a Hindu), and Gaspar (a Greek) who have been brought together through their study of the signs and scriptures, and are following a bright star to the region where they search for the child prophesied to be the King of the Jews. They run afoul of Herod in the process, with disastrous results for the people of Bethlehem. Book Two is where we meet young Judah Ben Hur; as in the film, he and Messala are childhood friends, but they are both still boys when Messala is sent to Rome for 5 years of training; he returns when the two are teenagers. This is unlike the movie, where they are considerably older. Messala does indeed return full of arrogance and pride, sure of Rome's superiority, and now looks down on his former Jewish friend, mocking Judah and his faith. The two become estranged. As in the film, disaster strikes when a tile from the Hur roof falls and hits the passing Governor Gratus. In the film, it is Tirzah who accidentally knocks the tile, with Judah taking the blame; in the book, the loose tile is under Ben Hur's hand when it falls. The rest of this event proceeds more or less in the same manner: Judah is betrayed by Messala to the authorities and he and his mother and sister are arrested. He is sent to be a galley slave on a Roman warship while his mother and Tirzah are imprisoned in the Fortress of Antonia. All of the Hur lands are confiscated by Rome, which leads us to one major plot change: Simonides and Esther. In the 1953 film, Simonides brings Esther to the house of Hur to receive permission from Judah for her to marry, cue the tender romantic scene between Ben Hur and Esther. In the novel however, Simonides, based in Antioch, manages the Hur properties and money there and he and Judah have never met in person. He does not bring Esther to Jerusalem and she's not betrothed; indeed, she would only be a child at the time. Simonides is, as shown in the movie, tortured by the Roman authorities to try to make him give up where all the Hur wealth is, which he refuses to do, being left as a cripple because of it. Meanwhile, in both book and film, while on his forced march to the galleys Judah passes through Nazareth where a young carpenter gives him water to drink and a will to survive. He vows to one day return and seek vengeance against the Romans. (To Be Continued)Related Posts: "But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do." -C. S. Lewis So it's March Break here this week, which doesn't affect me at all since I must continue to go to work every day. But most of my nephews and nieces are off of school, including the homeschooling ones. One of my nephews read the Hunger Games books a while back and has been wanting to watch the films, so a few of us have been watching the movies this week- The Hunger Games on Monday night, Catching Fire last night, and tonight we're going to be watching Mockingjay- Part I. The plan is to continue with Part II and then watch the new prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. Of the movie watchers, I'm the only one who hasn't read the books. I've also never seen any of the films, so I'm pretty clueless as to the plot(s) other than what I've gleaned from social media, of course. I was a little reluctant to watch the series, as I've been burned before... my sisters occasionally catch me in a weak moment and get me to agree to watch some lame rom-com or angsty young adult movie and those are usually pretty grim fare. And the last time one of them talked me into watching movies based on a series of YA novels I hadn't read, it was the Twilight films. A ghastly experience, and one I did not have the intestinal fortitude to endure; I managed to sit through the first movie, fell asleep during the second one, and skipped out on the rest. So I was understandably a little trepidatious about attending The Hunger Games watch party, but after all, I reasoned, no one will be glittering in the sun or changing into wolves, so how bad could it be? And so far, the answer is that it's not nearly as bad. I realize that's not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement... "The Hunger Games: better than Twilight"... but it's an accurate one. Not that I'm saying that's the only positive about the movies either, but I'll go into that further when I write a review when we finish the films. For now I'll just say that I'm having a much better time watching them than I thought I would. Related Posts:With the holy days of Easter swiftly approaching, I thought I would revisit some of the Easter-related reviews which I've written at various times, The first one will be of Risen, the 2016 film starring Joseph Fiennes as Clavius, a Roman Tribune who oversees the crucifixion of Jesus. After His body goes missing from the tomb, Clavius is ordered by Pontius Pilate to find it before the rumours of the Christ returning from the dead cause some sort of populist uprising.
One of the gifts that I gave my sister for her birthday was a copy of The Importance of Being Earnest, the 1895 play by Oscar Wilde. It is a satire/farce which is widely regarded as one of- if not the- best of his theatrical works, though it was not particularly successful in its London debut as it was forced to close early due to the scandal of Wilde being arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for gross indecency, as homosexual acts were at that time illegal. This of course had nothing to do with the quality of the play, which is great fun and full of witty dialogue. Though some theater critics did find fault with it for being without any kind of social or political message, tut-tutting over its lack of seriousness. I personally am unbothered by this; although I appreciate moving, thoughtful works of fiction as well as the next person- probably more than many- there is certainly a place and time for silly fun, especially that which is written with skillful wit... see also: PG Wodehouse. In any case, we've been so belabored with "messages" in so many movies and shows in the last number of years produced by twits who have somehow convinced themselves that it's their moral duty to re-educate the poor dumb masses, that it's a relief to watch/read something in which the primary focus is not lecturing us on some modern social pseudo-problem. Also, the alternate title of The Importance of Being Earnest at the time was A Trivial Comedy For Serious People so I'm not sure just what the critics thought they were going to see. The play begins with a meeting between two friends: Algernon Montcrieff and Ernest Worthing. Ernest is in love with Algy's cousin Gwendolen and has come up from his estate in the country to propose. Algernon however, refuses to consent to the match until Ernest explains a mystery; Algy has noted that his friend's cigarette case has an inscription from "Cecily" with love to "Uncle Jack". What's this about? Ernest is forced to admit that he's living a double life: at home in the country, he uses his true identity- Jack Worthing, a responsible landowner who is setting a good example for his sweet young ward Cecily, an heiress who is not yet out socially. When however, he wants to slip the bonds of responsibility by cutting loose in London, he tells Cecily he must travel to town to check on his reckless, wastrel younger brother "Ernest". There is, of course, actually no younger brother; Ernest is Jack's fun London identity. This confession by Ernest/Jack leads Algy to make one of his own: whenever he wishes to escape an unwelcome social event, he tells people that he must go to the country to visit an invalid friend named Bunbury who does not, in fact, exist. Ernest's love Gwendolen arrives with her mother Lady Bracknell to visit Algernon. Now accepting of his friend's suit, Algy helpfully distracts the disapproving Lady Bracknell, giving Jack (Ernest) a chance to propose. Gwendolen enthusiastically accepts but he is unnerved when she waxes lyrical about his name, making it sound as if she could only ever marry someone named Ernest. This is a problem as of course, his actual name is Jack. He immediately resolves to be quietly rechristened Ernest to head off any potential trouble. Speaking of trouble, Lady Bracknell is seriously displeased with the news of their engagement and immediately starts questioning Jack/Ernest about his background. A snob, she is horrified to learn that he doesn't know much about it; he was adopted by the Worthings as a baby after being found in a handbag at Victoria Station. She immediately forbids the engagement and tells Jack to stay away from her daughter. Before being dragged away by her mother, Gwendolen manages to pledge her love to Ernest and he swiftly gives her his address in the country- in Woolton, Hertfordshire- so she can write to him. What he doesn't realize is that Algy has overheard and made note of the address; greatly interested in Jack's description of his pretty, wealthy ward, he decides to travel into the country to meet her. Meanwhile in Woolton, Cecily has been left in the care of her governess Miss Prism. Algernon arrives and gains entrance to the house by introducing himself as Jack's younger brother Ernest. He makes himself very charming to Cecily, who has always been rather fascinated with tales of her guardian's absent black sheep brother. She falls in love with "Ernest" which leads Algy to make plans to have the local rector Dr. Chasuble rechristen him with the name Ernest. A spanner is thrown into the works by the arrival of Jack who, resolving to make himself worthy of marriage, has decided to give up his double life. He arrives dressed in mourning and announces that, tragically, he has received word that his younger brother Ernest has died of a sudden illness while visiting the fleshpots of Paris. Imagine his surprise when he finds his recently deceased "brother" is not only in residence on his estate, he's wooing his ward Cecily. Back in London Gwendolen, devastated by her mother's denial of her engagement to Ernest (Jack), decides to run away and, possessing her fiance's country address, makes her way to Woolton. Arriving at the estate, the first person she meets is Cecily to whom she introduces herself as Ernest Worthing's fiancee. Cecily is aghast, indignantly declaring that, in fact, she is engaged to Ernest Worthing. Further shenanigans ensue. I won't go into all the details in case you haven't read- or seen- the play, but suffice to say that, in the end, the romantic entanglements get straightened out and the mystery of Jack's origins- and the discovery of his infant self in a handbag- is delightfully resolved. I won't get into critiquing them now (it's getting late) but I've seen two film adaptations of The Importance of Being Earnest: the 1952 version and the 2002 version.
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |