11 Oscars...

...but not one for writing.

Yup.  That's about right.

This is the latest in the series I'm writing on watching all 100 of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a calendar year.

Film 30

30.  "Ben-Hur" (AFI Rank #100)
This is going to be a tricky piece to write, and then again...not.

I watched, last night, the third of three Best Picture Oscar winners from my version of the list (Rules on that here).  Clocking in at 3 hours and 32 minutes, it's also the longest film I've watched thus far trying to get through this.  I know it's not the longest ("Gone With The Wind"), and LORDY, I have some long films coming down the pike.  I'm looking at you "Intolerance,"  I see you there, mocking me, with your 1916 filmmaking techniques, bad edits, jump cuts from improperly cared for film, and your silence...and your D.W. Griffithiness.  This film is...epic.  That should be like a category of filmmaking.  Oh.  Wait.  Right.

This film also marked the 80th of the top 100 that I've now seen in my lifetime.  That makes me...80% through it, on the lifetime achievement scale.  Math has always been my strong suit.  Hey, I'm also 30% through the list this year...ain't that cool?  It is also the last film I hadn't watched all the way through prior to this year until I get to number 41 on the list.  By then, I'll be 40% through the list.  HA!  Oh yeah, Math.  You're my BITCH!

I'm having fun.  I got less than 4 hours sleep as a result of watching this film, and I'm awfully punchy.  Sue me.

I guess I should get on with it.  I knew I was in for a big show when the first image that planted itself on my television screen was a close up of the fingers of God and Man, taken from Michelangelo's ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  Over that image?  The word "OVERTURE."  The film had an overture.  Let's just go ahead and get it out of the way.  It had an INTERMISSION and an ENTR'ACTE, also.  I listened to the Overture.  I did neither the Intermission nor the Entr'Acte.  If that makes me less of a completist, then so be it, but it was LATE, and goddammit, I'd be in line at the concession stand or the bathroom if I'd seen this film in the theatre, so forget that.  Besides, without any great theme coming from the music...what the hell was I listening to?  Sure, it was nice, classical music, tinged with hints of middle-eastern style tones/melodies...but I didn't feel myself getting in the mood for what I was to witness.  That's me.  Maybe in a different era, with different expectations from film, I'd see it another way.  Not this day.

As the film began, we are shown the familiar scene of the Romans demanding that the people of Judea return to their homelands to be censused, then taxed.  We see Joseph and Mary of Nazareth, her, in her standard position on the donkey, him leading the way.  We then see a star arise in the night sky, lighting the way for shepherds, kings and others towards a manger, where we see Mother, Father, and Christ Child.  We meet Balthasar, Melchior and Gaspar, whom we know as the three Wise Men.  We are most assuredly watching the story of Jesus.  Then, after this, we get the opening title sequence...which calls this film "BEN-HUR" then proceeds to tell me that it's..."A TALE OF THE CHRIST."  Except...IT'S NOT.

It's actually the story of Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston), a wealthy Jew, whose boyhood friendship with a Roman named Mesalla (Stephen Boyd) lands him a death sentence, chained to the oar of a ship.  Well.  See, what happens is, a new Roman Governor is parading past the Hur house, Judah and his sister are watching him, when some roof tiles give way, gravely wounding the Governor.  Judah is arrested for his treason.  But, really, he is being used to show that Mesalla should be feared, as he is unwilling to bend, even for someone he loves.  Mesalla knows Judah to be innocent, but doesn't care.  Taken along with Judah are his mother, Miriam, and his sister, Tirzah.  Judah, a strong, and strong-willed man, meets a kindly stranger while being escorted to the galley for his sentence...the very same person we instantly recognize to be Jesus (but we don't see his face)...who gives him a drink of water.  Even the Roman guard who was insisting that Judah not be given water, yields when he looks into this stranger's eyes.

And that, my friends, is why I have started to talk about the writing in this.  In a world where "Monty Python's Life of Brian" did not exist, I'm sure that these brief encounters that we have with Jesus would be very powerful.  They are exquisitely filmed, careful never to show Jesus in full face.  We know it's Jesus.  He appears several times in the periphery throughout the film.  And all I can think of is...this was so much FUNNIER when Python did it.  So, what I'm left with, as a film viewer, is a film subtitled "A Tale of the Christ" which is, in fact, a film that should have been subtitled "A Tale In Very Close Proximity to the Christ at Several Key Moments.  You know, Geographically."  "Ben-Hur" has Jesus as a very key figure, but there is nothing about this that is his tale.  It is the tale of Judah, and Judah alone.  Unfortunately, the story ranges all over the place, in part, because of that looming figure of the Christ.  Let's look at it this way.  Without spoiling too much, Judah gains favor for his tenacity with the commander of the boat, a powerful Roman named Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins).  Left unchained as the boat is brought into battle, Judah is able to escape the galley as the boat is besieged, then saves the life of Quintus twice, once by spearing a man about to get him, and once when the Roman is knocked into the sea from the ship.  Judah dives in and pulls the man onto some wreckage.  Rescued by a Roman boat a while later, Judah is brought under the care of Arrius, and in fact, is taken to Rome for a year, where he is adopted as Arrius's son, with full rights to his properties, and name.  As this goes on, Judah can think of one thing.  Returning to Judea, and killing Mesalla and rescuing his mother and sister from Mesalla's prison.  I'm doing a lot of synopsis here, but the point was the Christ. The story, "A Tale of the Christ" is really not about Christ at all, but about a man seeking revenge.  And...he gets it.  And never stops thinking about it...until he witnesses the death of Jesus on the cross.  So, I've got a 3 hour and 30 minute film, a full 2 hours of which (probably more), I've watched a man singly focused on getting revenge for a wrong...and seeing him succeed...then he decides, after realizing that Jesus was the man who gave him water...that maybe that whole revenge thing wasn't all that great, and maybe he should live a different way.

EXCEPT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE LEFT TO EXACT HIS REVENGE UPON, ANYWAY.

It seems more convenient that Judah is saved, rather than a moment of "I need to stop this festering resentment and forgive the man who wronged me," we get..."Well, shit.  I guess I'll live better...now that my enemy is vanquished."  It doesn't ring true, and is a very weak story, if the healing power of Christ's love is the message.  More spoilers.  Judah sees his mother and sister again.  They are lepers, thrown into a valley away from the rest of the world.  Kept alive by the mercy of others, they beg Esther, Judah's love, to keep Judah away from them, so he would remember them as beautiful.  After killing Mesalla, the leprosy gets worse...get it?  Then, when Jesus' death occurs, BAM, Judah sees the light, his mother and sister are healed, and we get a happy ending.  Except...WHY?!

This film is #100 on the list.  Here's the long and short of it.   Were it not for the dreadful problems with the writing, I could EASILY see this film in the top 20, maybe even top 10.  The acting leaves a lot to be desired, especially from Heston, but he won an Oscar for Best Actor in this...maybe because it was his best work, by far.  He's actually pretty capable in this, showing a large (for him) range of emotion.  I'm getting off course.  This is a grandiose film, with lavish sets, gorgeous costumes, incredible cinematography.  I'm telling you right now, I'm not a Christian.  I think this treatment of Jesus' crucifixion is the most moving I've seen on film.  There is real weight to the moment, and the shots of the blood in the puddles of water are actually fairly subtle moments that carry the momentum of a sledgehammer.  William Wyler made a film that should be lauded in the annals of history.  His work, especially, was tremendous.  Never showing Jesus' face, even when hanging on the cross, was a phenomenal choice.  The composition of every shot in the frame...it's a wonder to behold.  And then it's got that fucking ping pong story.  GODDAMMIT.  Truly, though, Wyler's work is something that should be studied, then imitated, then redone, then made into a shrine of "Holy Crap, THAT'S how you do that."

I need to comment on the Chariot Race, the most famous sequence in the film.  Did you know there's no music during that scene?  Did you know that at most times, you can see Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd ACTUALLY riding the chariots?  Did you know that that scene is breathtaking?   You might have known all this.  I didn't.  I've been watching clips from the scene all my life, and lots and LOTS of films have references to it.  I realize this film is actually a remake, but damn.  That is an amazing piece of film.  If you were to watch only that portion of "Ben-Hur," you'd still see an incredible film.  I cannot say enough about it.  But, I think I have.

Acting was touched on, so let's have at it.  Heston is really capable in this, but still Charlton Heston.  Stephen Boyd was given the correct subtext for his character's relationship with Judah, that they were, as younger men, lovers.  You can see that in his performance, and it's a great bit of character.  Heston was not told this until long after, and protested it vehemently.  Too bad.  It adds so much to their story.  Boyd's death was also very well performed, and quite...graphic.  It's a very good performance.   Hugh Griffith won an Oscar for his performance as Sheik Ilderim, and it was worthy of such an honor.  Like "West Side Story," I could have done with a little less of the dark makeup, but I guess that's where Hollywood was.  Also of note are Jack Hawkins as Quintus, Haya Harareet as Esther..but especially Frank Thring as Pontius Pilate.  Pilate, as shown in this, is a cool pragmatist, with a wisdom to understand what is good in the land of Judea, while still administering a land far from his home.  It's a really subtle bit of acting, but the guy nails it.  He's wonderful.

To wrap this up...as it may take you 3 and a half hours to read this if I continue..."Ben-Hur" is a tremendous film burdened by a lack of focus.  It is absolutely worthy of your time to watch it...but dammit, try and remember that the story sucks.  Just absorb the film...because it is a wonder.

No Ebert this time.  Doing a Google search...most of the snippets of links I'm seeing talk about the scatteredness of this film.  Voila.  I'm not the only one.