Ben-Hur a pointless resurrection
(M, 123 mins)
Directed by Timur Bekmambetov Oh come off it. Ben-Hur? Really?
I mean, a few months back when I first saw a poster for this remake, I actually figured it was an arch advertising campaign for some inside-Hollywood satire. ‘‘We’re remaking Ben-Hur!’’ is a line that would have slotted nicely in to Altman’s The Player or the Coen Brothers’ Hail, Caesar! Cue hilarity all ‘round.
But no, it’s real. I’ve seen it. And now that I have, I’m still kind of asking the same question. Oh come off it. Ben-Hur? Really?
And it’s not even, in a standalone, judge-it-on-its-own-merits kind of way, too bad a film. I’ve seen worse loads of old rubbish than Ben-Hur this year and I’m sure I will do again pretty soon. But, why? I know you can argue that a lot of what Hollywood flogs popcorn with these days is essentially just a remake of something that has gone before.
But they don’t usually do something quite as pointless, doomed and begging to be criticised as remaking a film that is not just universally loved and admired, but – as the highwater mark of mid-century Biblical epics – is hardly of a genre that really excites the box office anymore. I mean, there’s not a bidding war under way to get to remake The Ten Commandments or Quo Vadis any time soon is there?
These are films whose time came and went when mighty, unevolved beasts like Charlton Heston and Kirk Douglas strode the earth.
A little history. The 1959 film (which, yes, was itself a remake of a 1925 movie) was a three-and-a half-hour behemoth. It won 11 Academy Awards – a record not equalled until Titanic came along 1997 – and is still regarded as one of the most successful, ambitious and overwhelmingly scaled films ever made. To this day, to call any film ‘‘bigger than Ben-Hur’’ is the exact equivalent of calling a band ‘‘the next Beatles’’. There just ain’t no such animal.
But, here comes the director of Night Watch and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter to have a crack at it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a happy fan of Timur Bekmambetov. Provided you’re in a pretty daft and generous mood, and didn’t have to pay money for your ticket, then Bekmambetov makes likeable films. He’s got visual flair to burn, a nifty way with a car crash or a fight scene and he can generally get his stories done and dusted with change out of two hours. All of which is enough to endear him to me.
But there is nothing – nothing – on Bekmambetov’s CV to suggest he had a credible Ben-Hur in him. If Ben-Hur had to be remade – and it really didn’t – then surely Spielberg, Ridley Scott, or even the apparently now resurrected Mel Gibson would have been the fullas to do it.
So, all things considered, BenHur is a film I never thought I’d see. And, if it wasn’t my job to go and have an opinion about it, I seriously doubt whether I ever would have bothered.
But, here goes. What you get for your money is kind of a streamlined, under-nourished Cliff’s Notes version of the 1959 film. The action is compressed down to a two-hour running time. We open on a wealthy Jewish prince – Judah Ben-Hur – (Jack Huston), living in Jerusalem in a mansion on the hill with his mum, sister, sundry photogenic serving staff and his adopted brother Messala (Toby Kebbell).
Messala crashes his horse, a couple of disagreements about the Roman occupation lead to a falling out between the bros. And before you can say ‘‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’’ Messala has run away to join the Roman army. Cue a couple of subGladiator scenes, as Messala hacks and stabs his way across the known world, butchering the natives of Germania and Aegyptus in the name of peace and the glory of Rome.
Eventually the winds of war blow Messala back to Jerusalem, where the family reunion goes pretty spectacularly wrong. BenHur is betrayed and sold into the short and moist life of a galley slave, while Mum and Sis are given a dose of cinematic leprosy and packed off to jail.
And so begin the bits of BenHur that everyone remembers, as our boy makes his way from slavery to chariot driver and heads towards the grand-daddy of all car chase scenes.
During a lot of this long and relatively action-packed second act, I couldn’t decide whether Bekmambetov was nakedly ripping off Gladiator, or just wryly pointing how much Gladiator ripped off the 1959 film. I figure the answer is probably ‘‘both’’.
Anyway, the sea battle and the chariot race are both truly fine. Bekmambetov clearly didn’t have the time or the – equivalent – budget to play with, but the two allaction set pieces that Ben-Hur is best known for still scrub up pretty well. Even if Bekmambetov’s CGI galleys still don’t look as good as the artistry and craft of 1959’s miniatures-in-a-swimming-pool. But, there’s more to Ben-Hur than action scenes.
Even if the trailer cynically tries to hide it, this is a religious film. Jesus and the resurrection
Even if the trailer cynically tries to hide it, this is a religious film. Jesus and the resurrection story is a major player right through the film.
story is a major player right through the film. Ben-Hur at least favours the more modern vaguely Mediterranean-looking Jesus that has superseded the blonde haired and blue eyed version of a thousand 1970s Sunday School walls.
But he is still – like every cinematic Jesus I’ve ever seen – afflicted with the sort of poise and cheek-bones that, had malemodelling been a viable career option in first century Palestine, the world might have been spared the whole religion thing. It’s been a while since I last looked at a Bible, but I’m pretty sure that nowhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John does it say ‘‘and the Lord made Him smokin’ hot’’.
And yet, there he is, looking spookily like mid-career Keanu Reeves in a kimono, reminding everyone of this film’s origins.
And it’s not the religious material I’ve got a problem with. I’m not a believer myself, but I’ve seen plenty of decent films based on Biblical stories that I’ve given pretty positive reviews. Nope, what irritates me is the cynicism and the cowardice of the film’s makers, doing everything they can to hide the fact that Ben-Hur isa religious film at all.
If you haven’t got pride and belief in your own material – and I don’t think anyone who saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter came away with the impression that Timur Bekmambetov was any sort of committed Christian – then you’re just not going to make the film that your story deserves.
Whether you love it or not, the 1959 film had the courage of its convictions. There was passion in every frame. This 2016 Ben-Hur is nothing but a technical exercise in complete pointlessness. I’ve seen far worse films, but I haven’t seen a film that deserved to fail quite as badly as this in years. – Graeme Tuckett