Once were friends: Charlton Heston (right) is Ben-Hur, and Stephen Boyd is his nemesis, Messala.
Once were friends: Charlton Heston (right) is Ben-Hur, and Stephen Boyd is his nemesis, Messala.
Like all seminal works, 1959’s Ben-Hur elicits some strong opinions. Is it one of the best films ever made? Or is it simply an overhyped sword-and-sandals flick? And how does it compare with the likes of Lawrence of Arabia, Quo Vadis, Spartacus, or even the Lord of the Rings trilogy?
That stuff is fun to argue over, but I’m not sure it’s relevant. From where I sit, Ben-Hur is one of the most entertaining movies of all time. It’s impeccably crafted. It’s morally ambitious and intellectually nuanced enough for most movie mavens to take seriously. And it’s one of those rare films that define the zeitgeist of the decade in which they were made.
A brief backstory: The best-selling novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, written by Civil War Major General Lew Wallace, was published in 1880. A staged version ran for more than 20 years in various cities. The first attempt at a film adaptation, in 1907, was just a 15-minute one-reeler, but 18 years later the story became one of the first cinematic epics. Yes, Virginia, the first full version of Ben-Hur was a silent movie, which also did smashingly well at the box office.
When MGM began shooting its remake, the studio was facing the very real possibility of bankruptcy. But it was confident enough in the project to invest the then-staggering sum of almost $15 million to get the movie made. The 9-minute chariot race alone, among the most iconic sequences ever committed to the screen, cost a million bucks to shoot. Put that investment into context: In 1959, the average American male made about $5,000 a year, and you could drive home a new Buick LeSabre for $1,500. Movie tickets were a dollar apiece.
Written for the screen by Karl Tunberg (with uncredited help from Gore Vidal and others) and directed by the great William Wyler (Wuthering Heights, The Best Years of Our Lives, The Heiress, Roman Holiday), Ben-Hur went on to win 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Special Effects. (Tunberg was nominated but lost to Neil Paterson for Room at the Top.)
The Best Actor Oscar went to Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur, the Jewish prince in Roman-occupied Jerusalem in the year A.D. 26. As the story unfolds, Judah is saved by and then continually crosses paths with a charismatic figure who is never seen in full face. That figure is Jesus Christ, whose presence here, paralleling the struggles and redemption of Judah, is the moral axis upon which the movie revolves. Wyler’s masterful imagery and storytelling in the moments that depict Christ are at least as important in elevating Ben-Hur to its place in the film canon as are any of the director’s grand spectacles here.
Now comes the 52-year-old movie’s debut on Blu-ray in a slightly delayed 50th Anniversary Ultimate Collector’s Edition, with the 3-hour, 42-minute film on two discs and a wealth of compelling extras on a third disc. I’m not gonna quibble: From the quality of the printed packaging to the discs themselves, this box set is one of the finest, most painstaking presentations I’ve ever had the pleasure of reviewing.
I read with interest your review of Ben Hur but was curious as why you were inclined to include personal comments about Heston, particularly the one about the movie succeeding in spite of him, or that you never cared for him as an actor. Why not just say he didn't deserve the Oscar either. Why then were there no comments about the supporting actors such as Stephen Boyd or Jack Hawkins? I'd be disappointed if your commentary was grounded in your dislike of Heston's politics or colored by your own.
Posting negative comments about Charlton Heston is not suprising for the Sound & Vision staff. Any actor or film that is not on the left politically, is disliked by this staff. I have grown to despise the political views expressed by the staff at Sound & Vision, so much so that I let my subscription expire back in 2005 when a GLOWING review was published about Michael Moore's Farenheit 911. When readers wrote in to complain, all the editor stated was that they only received a "handful" of complaints. Maybe it was just a "handful", but the purpose of this magazine is NOT to promote political views, yet they continue to do it. It is obvious the staff are made up of New York liberals and feel that their position allows them to bash the right whenever they can. There were a number of Bush bashing comments made by S&V writers made while he was in office, I grew sick of it. I was a subscriber to Stereo Review, from 1974 until it changed to Sound & Vision and never recalll any political overtones in the writers from that period. Wake up Sound & Vision and get off the political bandwagon! Come on already Republicans love home theater too! Enough already drop the politics.
@stevo238, @rpjasin, you're certainly welcome to express your opinions (as are the writers), but so far as I can tell the only partisan sentiments expressed here are in your comments. If there's political content in our pieces that you'd like to discuss, please feel free to do so in the comments area for those pieces — but it just isn't here in this piece.
I'm looking back over the article now, and our reviewer writes that his lack of affection for Heston's acting stems from what he perceived as Heston's lack of subtlety and tendency towards scene-chewing, especially during the period he mentions having come into awareness of the actor's work (when he was playing outsized sci-fi lead roles in Apes, Soylent Green, etc). I think reviewers across the political spectrum would likely agree on this; even at the height of his powers Heston was never known for a soft touch, and his stage-informed epic approach was certainly out of fashion by the 70s.
Mberk, I suppose I chose to read between the lines of Mr. Horowitz's comments because there is a certain underlying dislike for Mr. Heston here. That's my perception, because I thought this was supposed to be a review of a blu ray transfer and not the umpteenth review of this movie or Mr. Horowitz's lack of affection for Mr. Heston's acting talents.
Thanks for your comments. But to cast my opinion of Charlton Heston's acting ability in political terms is an unfair and completely false characterization--and one that isn't supported in any way by the text of my review. In the past, I've written glowing testimonials to the talents of many Hollywood stars, including Sean Penn and Robert Duvall, two of the greatest actors working today. As most people know, Penn's views are considered well to the left of the mainstream and Duvall's well to the right. The fact is, they're great artists. Period. For the record, I've also written some uncomplimentary things about Keanu Reeves's acting over the years, and I have no idea where he stands on the political continuum.
In my opinion, Charlton Heston was a mediocre actor at best. I came to that opinion based solely on his work, not on his politics. Mberk sums it up nicely above: "...the only partisan sentiments expressed here are in your comments... " --Marc Horowitz
OK, fair enough, I'll admit my post was a bit strong. As I mentioned I was a Stereo Review/Sound & Vision reader for years until I couldn't take the political comments anymore and dropped my subscription. Having said that, I just upgraded my system with a new Panasonic DMP BDT-310 bluray player and a Denon AVR-1912 receiver. My interests have been rekindled so I decided to log on to the S&V site after a long departure. Naturally I was drawn to the Ben Hur bluray disc review and believed the comments to be anti-Heston because of Heston's strong political views on the right. After reading Marc Horowitz's above comments though, I acknowledge I was being unfair to him. I have no problem with a critic's dislike for an actors ability, just don't do it for political reasons, and as Marc has pointed out that was not his intent.
Ok, fair enough again. I just don't get the "Full disclosure concerning The Charlton Factor." What does that mean? Again, I thought this was a review about a blue ray transfer. I would recommend a more toned down performance by Heston in the movie "Will Penny"...for full disclosure of course.