Monday, September 19, 2016
Responding to Richards’ analysis of Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ
Richard's analysis of Ben-Hur (1925) addresses several things. As the film is an adaptation of a novel, Richard talks about how the 1925 version of Ben-Hur is a more faithful adaptation than the 1959 incarnation, citing the more developed love between Esther and Ben-Hur and the inclusion of Messala’s Egyptian mistress as evidence. Richard also makes the argument that Ramon Navarro makes a more convincing Ben-Hur than Charlton Heston. Given Heston’s image as a hero of strength and masculine confidence, I agree with Richard as Navarro’s more youthful and less powerful appearance makes his struggle and physical “rebirth” in slavery more powerful. Personally, I was a little surprised that Richard did not address the color scenes of the movie which were groundbreaking at the time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also felt that Richards does a good job comparing the two versions, and I was similarly surprised that he only mentioned the use of color for several biblical scenes ("all in Technicolor", p. 45) without actually talking about the effect this has on the movie or the limitations of the two-strip technicolor process. Richards likes to talk about the costs of movies, but he draws no connection between "Ben Hur's" record budget and the then very costly and laborious technicolor process.
ReplyDelete