In a Hollywood season of reboots, remakes and never-ending superhero movies, it still came as a surprise to see an out-and-out classic like Ben-Hur being adapted for a modern-day audience not used to the old-fashioned epic. In the 1950s and the early 1960s, the Hollywood biblical/Roman saga was an event in itself - Quo Vadis (1951), The Robe (1953), The Ten Commandments (1956), Spartacus (1960) and Cleopatra (1963) were but a few of the massive productions of the time involving hundreds and thousands of technicians, extras and sweeping production sets in the most exotic locations.
The fortunes of the biggest film studios would thrive or fall on the success or failure of such larger-than-life movies. In the pre-cable TV and pre-Internet days, when choice of what to watch was pretty limited to most people, these over-the-top historical dramas were the grandest entertainments one could think of; the best of them were huge commercial as well as critical successes worldwide.
The best-known of the lot was arguably the Charlton Heston-starrer Ben-Hur (1959), directed by William Wyler. Based on the famous novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, written in 1880 by General Lew Wallace, it went on to win an astonishing 11 Academy Awards and was also the highest-grossing film of the year. It is widely considered to be one of the greatest movies ever made and in 1998 the venerated American Film Institute ranked it the 72nd best American film. There would be very few movie-watchers of that era who did not see this Ben-Hur somewhere, sometime. It cost a fortune to make and also ended up making a massive pile of money for all involved.
But times have changed considerably and “sword-and-sandal epics” of this type have long fallen by the wayside. The last major hit in the genre was the Ridley Scott-directed Gladiator (2000), which won five Academy Awards and made Russell Crowe a global star. In this revenge tale, ancient and savage Rome was recreated in all its splendour via computer generated imagery (CGI) and the vast sets of the past were no longer deemed necessary or feasible.
Then along came the 2016 version of Ben-Hur and critics were already sharpening their knives well before it hit the US cineplexes at the fag end of the summer blockbuster season. It opened in early August to scathing reviews and has also bombed financially, grossing to date just US$41 million worldwide against its US$100 million budget.
The lack of big stars has been cited as one key reason for its box-office failure. There is nobody here who is a household name except veteran Morgan Freeman, whose familiar silky voice provides the occasional voiceover – Freeman also has a supporting role as a wealthy Nubian sheikh who plays a key role in the story. The leads – Jack Huston and Tony Kebbell – as well as the Kazakh-Russian director, Timur Bekmambetov - are all virtual unknowns to general audiences.
Another reason for the latest Ben-Hur’s failure was put down to the fact that it did not know what its fan base was – if it had been marketed as a purely Christian movie, it would have turned off many non-Christians who would have enjoyed it otherwise as a pure entertainer set in the days of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, hype it as a secular movie and then lose the Christian church base who would normally definitely go to watch it. It did neither of these approaches properly and so ended up attracting few from any of the usual movie-watching crowd.
I went to watch it expecting a total disaster – and came away pretty much impressed. Of course, this Ben-Hur is not exactly an under-rated classic that will be rediscovered and appreciated anew many years from now. It is also not going to win any major awards anywhere – but it is also far from the unmitigated train wreck that the critics and the box-office in the West have condemned it to be. I found it far more entertaining than, for instance, the lamentable Jason Bourne, which was marketed and reviewed much more favourably just a few weeks back.
The Ben-Hur of 2016 is way shorter than the 1959 version - at almost two hours less, it does a very impressive job of cutting short many familiar storylines from the much-loved story and also tweaks some of the main characters. Brevity works to its advantage, especially at a time where audience attention spans are increasingly limited.
The greatest attraction of the 1959 edition was, as everyone knows, the magnificent chariot race which is one of the most exciting footage ever captured on film. I loved the same sequence in the new movie, even though such a scene these days would definitely have made far-greater use of CGI than actual actors and horses like in the past. The sea battle here is also pretty decent, compared to the original. Whatever violence is there is handled tastefully, which was another pleasant surprise in this day and age. Jesus gets more prominence, a significant change from the classic movie where His face is never shown. Also, there is a major difference here in how the two lead characters, Judah Ben-Hur and Messala, are related to each other.
So, is there anything I did not like in the 2016 "re-imagining"? Yes - the ending seemed too pat, too convenient and not very convincing, considering all that had gone before. The major female characters are not in the least-bit fleshed out and you struggle to even remember even their faces a couple of hours after the movie is over. A couple of important plot devices make their appearances on cue but are quickly dispensed with.
But, having said all that, the new Ben-Hur is still eminently watchable on various levels and it gives you a couple of hours of very enjoyable popcorn entertainment. It is such a pity that poor reviews, word of month and disappointing box-office takings have destroyed its prospects even before it had a chance to take off. It deserves much better, if you ask me.
The fortunes of the biggest film studios would thrive or fall on the success or failure of such larger-than-life movies. In the pre-cable TV and pre-Internet days, when choice of what to watch was pretty limited to most people, these over-the-top historical dramas were the grandest entertainments one could think of; the best of them were huge commercial as well as critical successes worldwide.
The best-known of the lot was arguably the Charlton Heston-starrer Ben-Hur (1959), directed by William Wyler. Based on the famous novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, written in 1880 by General Lew Wallace, it went on to win an astonishing 11 Academy Awards and was also the highest-grossing film of the year. It is widely considered to be one of the greatest movies ever made and in 1998 the venerated American Film Institute ranked it the 72nd best American film. There would be very few movie-watchers of that era who did not see this Ben-Hur somewhere, sometime. It cost a fortune to make and also ended up making a massive pile of money for all involved.
But times have changed considerably and “sword-and-sandal epics” of this type have long fallen by the wayside. The last major hit in the genre was the Ridley Scott-directed Gladiator (2000), which won five Academy Awards and made Russell Crowe a global star. In this revenge tale, ancient and savage Rome was recreated in all its splendour via computer generated imagery (CGI) and the vast sets of the past were no longer deemed necessary or feasible.
Then along came the 2016 version of Ben-Hur and critics were already sharpening their knives well before it hit the US cineplexes at the fag end of the summer blockbuster season. It opened in early August to scathing reviews and has also bombed financially, grossing to date just US$41 million worldwide against its US$100 million budget.
The lack of big stars has been cited as one key reason for its box-office failure. There is nobody here who is a household name except veteran Morgan Freeman, whose familiar silky voice provides the occasional voiceover – Freeman also has a supporting role as a wealthy Nubian sheikh who plays a key role in the story. The leads – Jack Huston and Tony Kebbell – as well as the Kazakh-Russian director, Timur Bekmambetov - are all virtual unknowns to general audiences.
Another reason for the latest Ben-Hur’s failure was put down to the fact that it did not know what its fan base was – if it had been marketed as a purely Christian movie, it would have turned off many non-Christians who would have enjoyed it otherwise as a pure entertainer set in the days of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, hype it as a secular movie and then lose the Christian church base who would normally definitely go to watch it. It did neither of these approaches properly and so ended up attracting few from any of the usual movie-watching crowd.
I went to watch it expecting a total disaster – and came away pretty much impressed. Of course, this Ben-Hur is not exactly an under-rated classic that will be rediscovered and appreciated anew many years from now. It is also not going to win any major awards anywhere – but it is also far from the unmitigated train wreck that the critics and the box-office in the West have condemned it to be. I found it far more entertaining than, for instance, the lamentable Jason Bourne, which was marketed and reviewed much more favourably just a few weeks back.
The Ben-Hur of 2016 is way shorter than the 1959 version - at almost two hours less, it does a very impressive job of cutting short many familiar storylines from the much-loved story and also tweaks some of the main characters. Brevity works to its advantage, especially at a time where audience attention spans are increasingly limited.
The greatest attraction of the 1959 edition was, as everyone knows, the magnificent chariot race which is one of the most exciting footage ever captured on film. I loved the same sequence in the new movie, even though such a scene these days would definitely have made far-greater use of CGI than actual actors and horses like in the past. The sea battle here is also pretty decent, compared to the original. Whatever violence is there is handled tastefully, which was another pleasant surprise in this day and age. Jesus gets more prominence, a significant change from the classic movie where His face is never shown. Also, there is a major difference here in how the two lead characters, Judah Ben-Hur and Messala, are related to each other.
So, is there anything I did not like in the 2016 "re-imagining"? Yes - the ending seemed too pat, too convenient and not very convincing, considering all that had gone before. The major female characters are not in the least-bit fleshed out and you struggle to even remember even their faces a couple of hours after the movie is over. A couple of important plot devices make their appearances on cue but are quickly dispensed with.
But, having said all that, the new Ben-Hur is still eminently watchable on various levels and it gives you a couple of hours of very enjoyable popcorn entertainment. It is such a pity that poor reviews, word of month and disappointing box-office takings have destroyed its prospects even before it had a chance to take off. It deserves much better, if you ask me.