05-13-2009, 10:37 PM
There's not much to say that hasn't already been said here. Although I agree with Niedal I would go even further and ask : what could possibly be improved in the definitive version to begin with ? In fact, how could they hope to even equal any aspect of the classic film ? Not only did the film have an unprecedented budget, it was backed by the best talent of the day. This latest project has neither of those backing it up. It will be inferior in almost every way imaginable, I predict.
To answer my first question : The only parts that can be improved upon are the naval battle scene [my favorite part of the film, btw] and the costumes. Both of which require a hefty budget [even if they were to simply to reproduce the old quality.]
For my second question : Perhaps the acting quality of the original could be achieved. English actors are inexpensive. But that's all I can see.
Yes, they could produce a more historically accurate movie but it wouldn't be 'Ben Hur' anymore, as Graham pointed out.
If people want to see / read good, classic, historical fiction they can pick 'Quo Vadis'. I've never seen a more accurate piece of historical fiction - just about every character, including the minor ones, is real and portrayed quite realistically. I counted at least twelve of them : Nero, Saints Peter and Paul, Aulus Plautius, Pomponia Graecina, Acte, Theon, Tigellinus, Poppea, Petronius, Lucan, Seneca , and Nerva. There are historical characters in other films like Spartacus and Gladiator but they are fictionalized almost beyond recognition. But 'Fall of the Roman Empire' is probably Quo Vadis' closest rival in terms of accuracy.
As for prisons, did the Antonia Fortress not have a prison ? Maybe the Romans inherited some other prisons from Herod ?
Since the last part is not explicitly stated in the film it need not be interpreted that way. We know that from time to time the governor of Syria did indeed march his legions through Judea as a show of force. Although I can see why people would infer that they were coming to stay. Messala did say that there was “rebellion in the wind, it will be crushed”.
Another questionable part of the film is the battle against the pirates. Pompey cleared the Mediterranean of pirates in his day but piracy did flare up from time to time afterwards, IIRC. Besides, since the film never explictly states that the fleet was sent to clear the Mediterranean it could be interpreted that they were clearing the Black Sea. (I always try to think of more plausible interpretations to reconcile these films with history ;-) ) )
~Theo
To answer my first question : The only parts that can be improved upon are the naval battle scene [my favorite part of the film, btw] and the costumes. Both of which require a hefty budget [even if they were to simply to reproduce the old quality.]
For my second question : Perhaps the acting quality of the original could be achieved. English actors are inexpensive. But that's all I can see.
Yes, they could produce a more historically accurate movie but it wouldn't be 'Ben Hur' anymore, as Graham pointed out.
If people want to see / read good, classic, historical fiction they can pick 'Quo Vadis'. I've never seen a more accurate piece of historical fiction - just about every character, including the minor ones, is real and portrayed quite realistically. I counted at least twelve of them : Nero, Saints Peter and Paul, Aulus Plautius, Pomponia Graecina, Acte, Theon, Tigellinus, Poppea, Petronius, Lucan, Seneca , and Nerva. There are historical characters in other films like Spartacus and Gladiator but they are fictionalized almost beyond recognition. But 'Fall of the Roman Empire' is probably Quo Vadis' closest rival in terms of accuracy.
Quote:Anyone tossing tiles on a passing Governor, which should in fact be the Prefect, would probably have been crucified straight away! As far as I know Romans had no large prisons.I partly disagree. Ben Hur was a man of prominence (“the richest man in Jerusalem”) and his estranged friend was in command at that point (since the Prefect was unconscious). So, I thought that part of the film was justified. But not, of course, his being sentenced to the galleys. He would have been crucified unless Messala could intercede by finding a lesser sentence like exile.
As for prisons, did the Antonia Fortress not have a prison ? Maybe the Romans inherited some other prisons from Herod ?
Quote:In the famous film version there is a mention of 'two more legions' arriving and presumably adding to an existant Legionary force
Since the last part is not explicitly stated in the film it need not be interpreted that way. We know that from time to time the governor of Syria did indeed march his legions through Judea as a show of force. Although I can see why people would infer that they were coming to stay. Messala did say that there was “rebellion in the wind, it will be crushed”.
Another questionable part of the film is the battle against the pirates. Pompey cleared the Mediterranean of pirates in his day but piracy did flare up from time to time afterwards, IIRC. Besides, since the film never explictly states that the fleet was sent to clear the Mediterranean it could be interpreted that they were clearing the Black Sea. (I always try to think of more plausible interpretations to reconcile these films with history ;-) ) )
~Theo
Jaime
