Ben Hur - The Complete Series [DVD] [2017]

When it was announced that William Wyler’s grandson was producing a TV miniseries of Ben Hur in 2010, expectations were low – as was, comparatively, the budget and running time (even spread over two nights it’s half an hour shorter than the 1959 film) – but unlike the dismal 2016 version, this punches well above its weight. Where the first two MGM versions went for broke and bet the studio’s fortune on one giant roll of the dice, this had a comparatively modest $30m budget to play with (the Charlton Heston film cost over $15m, or $130m at today’s prices, 51 years earlier), yet while it may not have the budget for the spectacle of the two previous big screen versions it has a real ace up its sleeve in writer Alan Sharp.Although often overlooked these days, with screenplays like Ulzana’s Raid and Night Moves former Scottish shipyard worker Sharp was one of the hottest screenwriters of the Seventies – Faye Dunaway wouldn’t sign up to Chinatown until she found out she’d lost the female lead in the Sharp-scripted Night Moves – but when none of the resulting films hit pay dirt at the box-office migrated to TV movies with only occasional forays back into feature films (Rob Roy, Dean Spanley). This was his final produced screenplay, and it’s a strikingly good one, finding elegant and intelligent solutions to adapting to the budget limitations of television and finding a different way to tell the story while remaining faithful to its core, along the way giving actors scenes worth playing and dialogue worth speaking. The cast may be low on star wattage (just supporting turns from Hugh Bonneville, Ray Winstone, Ben Cross, Art Malik, Alex Kingston and James Faulkner) but they’re well chosen, especially compared to the dismal miscasting of the 2016 versionThere’s more of a focus on intimate character conflict and the political machinations behind both Judah and Messala working their way back from disgrace and ruin to their face off in the fateful chariot race in Jerusalem, with the supporting characters more richly drawn. Like all the other big and small screen adaptations this takes the traditional pre-musical Les Miserables movie approach to the source material, ignoring the last two thirds of the expansive novel and loses swathes of its plot to narrow the focus on the relationship and rivalry between the rich Jew turned slave Judah Ben Hur (Joseph Morgan) and his childhood friend and later deadly enemy, the Roman Messala (Stephen Campbell Moore), set against the life and death of Christ. The most striking change is in Messala’s motivation: without changing the plot, Sharp shows the fallout of the ‘assassination attempt’ on his career and focuses on his feelings of betrayal by his closest friend as his career is ruined and his aspirations snatched away from him by an enraged Pilate (Hugh Bonneville, defiantly unlovable here). All that’s left to him is to lash out.Not that he was a saint to begin with, more a product of an inherently corrupt society: as he explains near the beginning, “Rome and its values are not for you, Esther, nor my friend, your husband to be, but they’re for those whose ambitions remain unchecked by conscience, whose loyalty can be purchased for advancement and coin… Power is the only currency that never loses its value.” Although they never share any scenes, the Emperor Tiberius gets a larger, more manipulative role, betraying those he owes most to like a more powerful mirror of and role model for Messala, showing the way that his skewed morality runs from the very top of the Empire to its lowliest province, destroying what decency it finds before it can threaten to infect it.As if that weren’t reason enough, while both men grow up in the shadow of absent fathers, Messala’s is still alive but has all but completely written off his bastard son as worthless. Even when he lies critically ill he merely meets the news with murmurs of the time and money he’s wasted on him. Only his lover Lucia Jimenez, who acts as his whore, spy, poisoner and conscience, stays the course with him. Judah finds a more interested father figure in the commander of the galley in which he is condemned to row, and because Morgan’s Judah doesn’t have the beefcake or the same burning hate in his eyes that Charlton Heston had, it’s his intelligence and education that fascinates Quintus Arrius (Ray Winstone, who thankfully doesn’t do his autopilot bish-bash-bosh routine but gives a more thoughtful performance). But Arrius is a decent, thoughtful and very sick man, which makes the newly freed Judah’s status highly precarious and it’s the shifting sands of events in Rome as much as a need to see what is left of his old life that sends him back to Judea. Both are outcasts, but both learn different lessons from it.In another intriguing change, this time it is Messala rather than Judah who instigates the chariot race: neither man is experienced and, as with the different sword fighting styles used in Sharp’s script for Rob Roy, the way they race is directly related to their character – which for Messala means racing like he is on a battlefield. It also introduces a new character, Judah’s overseer David Ben-Levi (Marc Warren), who turns the hatred he used to hold for the Romans when he was poor onto his former employer once he is rich and sees where his profit lies.Better cast, better written, better paced than any of the other adaptations bar the 1959 one (and there have been more than you might think), in many ways it makes a virtue of its limited budget. There’s no grandiose stadium for the chariot race, instead emphasising the provincial nature of the dead end colony no Roman wants to serve in but which Rome won’t give up by having it take place on a makeshift track on the outskirts of the city. Similarly the sea battle is a smaller affair – this time instead of the Roman fleet hunting pirates it’s a single galley transporting the victorious Quintus Arrius back to Rome that’s set upon by three pirate ships – but it’s effective. The religious aspect is pushed far into the background and suffers from an uncharismatic Christ in Julian Casey, who plays the part more like he’s delivering leaflets for a sports shop sale to uninterested passers by instead of giving birth to a new religion. Here the final miracle is a human act of forgiveness rather than a divine one of healing, and it’s a quietly effective and satisfying one.Aside from the odd bit of slo-mo or a couple of crash zooms it’s well directed by Steve Shill, a TV veteran whose disparate credits include episodes Rome, Deadwood and Eastenders, with some good photography from Ousama Rawi that manages to give it a decent sense of scale without losing its human focus. The score does work overtime in the chariot race (Wyler Sr’s version had no music after the preliminaries) and the obligatory post-Gladiator wailing woman does make her voice heard on the soundtrack, but for the most part its made with an intelligent restraint that puts its faith in the script and that faith is amply rewarded. A genuinely superior miniseries, it may not replace the 1959 version but it can stand beside it with its head held high and nothing to be ashamed of.Sony’s widescreen DVD release preserves the two-part presentation, with a brief making of featurette the only extra. Well worth a look, especially at the budget price.

Having read the original novel in my 20s, and having enjoyed the 1959 version, I bought this DVD out of sheer curiosity. I rememberedJoseph Morgan in the role of Philotas in Alexander (2004), and while he was not as muscular as Charlton Heston in his prime; or Jason Momoa;nonetheless his Ben Hur has a lot of depth of character. He in fact while came across as is quite intense. You can really see the hate in his eyeswhen he returns to his home in Jerusalem, and the tears and sorrow in his eyes during the death scenes of Quintius Arrius and Messala, and itis quite convincing.Overall, the characters have more psychological depth in this version. The extra back story about Messala's childhood in the Hur householdwas a great extra. You can really see Messala as a tortured figure in this version, poisoned by his unloving oily evil father Marcellus (who wasmissing from the 1959 version). For instance, the relationship between Judah and Quintius Arrius was handled inmore depth than the 1959 version, and his passing in the "pink bath" scene was every emotional. Other character portrayals were betteras well, Pontius Pilate was well portrayed by Hugh Bonneville, better than Frank Thring's Pilate in the 1959 version. You really got a senseof what a pain in the backside Judea was for Roman administrators, and how they were completely out to sea in trying to understand Jewishpeople and their Messianic expectations. I will have to say that Simonides in this 2010 version has more depth than Sam Jaffe in the 1959 version.But on the other hand nobody could top Hugh Griffith's characterization of Sheik Ilderim in the 1959 film.I was not offended by the budget constraints that limited the naval battle, and the chariot race. But the chariot race was diminished slightly bythe ululation from all the Moroccoan extras. This long wavering, high-pitched vocal sound resembles a howl with a trilling quality.You could tell the extras were Muslims and not Jews! Very annoying and innapropriate for a film about a Jewish hero!But then all the Jesus movies get made in Morocco and not Israel!The character of Athene added a fleshy sub text 1959 audiences would not have accepted, even though the character of Flavia in the 1959 versiondoes try to put the move on Ben Hur. It reminded you of the Rome HBO mini series, but at least the bedroom scenes were not the over the topjuvinile portrayals in Game of Thrones. Nor was there any swearing in the film, that was a plus worth noting.Marcellus was a fully fleshed out oily evil fellow, a character not shown in the 1959 version. I also liked Ben Cross totally evil portrayal asTiberius. And while the gladiator scene was not found in the 1959 version, it added a bit of spice. Overall the film is quite well paced, andthe only dissapontment was the run time was 184 minutes vs 212 minutes in the 1959 version, which did not allow for the birth of Jesus or theTriumphal parade of Quintus Arrius in the 1959 version. But that's budgeting for you.The treatment of Jesus in the film was not as overtly reverent as the 1959 version. We don't have the manger scene, or the character of Balthasar,or any of the reverential Mikolas Rosa score; but Jesus actually gets more face time in this version. And the connection between Jesus and forgivenessif anything is better presented this time around. We have quotes from the Lord's prayer and Sermon on the Mount, and in this versionBen Hur forgives Messala in their final encounter, after having met up with Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, and this was more emotionally satisfying thenthe similar scene in the 1959 version. Esther in this version makes a clear appeal for choosing to forgive because she had encountered Jesus, andviewers are not in the dark about what she thinks of Jesus. The healing of Ruth and Tirzah was not shown as taking place on Calvary as in the 1959version, but it is there nonetheless. So it was a pleasant surprise to find more of a Christian worldview in this film, through the characters of Ezra and Jesus.But viewers are left in the dark about what Ben Hur concludes about Jesus as Messiah. In the book, the stage play, and in the silent filmhe comes to a complete belief that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and identifies as a Jewish Christian. This may have been General Lew Wallace'sway of presenting his own journey from athiesm to belief in Jesus as Saviour. Jewish studio executives in 1959 watered down Judah Ben-Hur'sconversion into a belief in the brotherhood of man. (I say that from a standpoint of sympathy for all the Jewish sensitivities toward Jesusas a contentious figure because of the horror stories in Jewish-Christian relations through European history).In this 2010 version Ben Hur moves from bitterness of revenge to a healing reconciliation with his enemy, after encountering Christ.This is no small improvement on the 1959 Ben Hur; but we will have to wait for Christians to undertake a remake ofBen Hur that is completely faithful to the original novel. Let's hope Jews for Jesus or Mel Gibson can get the rights to the Ben Hur story!Wouldn't that be something!

In Israel Jews yearn for the long promised Messiah to save them from their hated oppressors. Against this background here is the tale of Judah Ben Hur and Messala, two childhood best mates who become bitter enemies - that friendly cart race when young years later replaced by a chariot race to the death.Born to fail after the surely definitive 1959 film version, Charlton Heston's Ben Hur impossible to match? Judged on its own merits, this 2010 production has much to offer, especially to fans of "The Originals", Joseph Morgan's later triumph. His Ben Hur is of far slighter build. Some may say this makes the various triumphs over formidable challenges rather more satisfying. More controversially some may also claim this of the chariot race itself - it a more local affair, with not much more to come. (The film's version was breathtakingly spectacular, but there was still a lot of film to follow, it dragging somewhat.)Where this television adaptation disappointingly misses out is in "A Tale of the Christ" aspect. The 1959 film stressed the links between Jesus and Ben Hur - born at the same time, both thought to be The Promised One, their brief encounters very moving indeed, help on the road to Calvary resulting in a miracle as gratitude. This new version sadly misses much by not giving such matters similar emphasis.Despite such reservations this version was enjoyed - not least because of unexpected names amongst the cast. Chief of these was Joseph Morgan himself - a portrayal gaining stature as challenges threatened. Also ever present was a vulnerability very moving - demonstrated in his final scene with Messala. Time to gloat, or for sad reflection on how life so easily could have been otherwise?