Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Kristýna Bradová

Ben-Hur and Its Four Film Adaptations in Reflection of the Changing American Society and its Values Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Ph.D.

2018

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the Works Cited.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor, doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Ph.D., for patience, help and guidance during the writing process of this thesis. My thanks also belong to my husband, my family and friends for their love, support and encouragement.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Chapter One: The Adaptation Theory ...... 12 3 Chapter Two: Lew Wallace and His Novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ ...... 15 4 Chapter Three: The Importance of Ben-Hur in American Society ...... 21 5 Chapter Four: The Novel Ben-Hur and the Social and Political Issues of the Contemporary United States ...... 25 6 Chapter Five: Ben Hur (1907) ...... 30 7 Chapter Six: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925) ...... 34 7.1 Plot Summary ...... 35

7.2 The Faithful Epic ...... 36

8 Chapter Seven: Ben Hur (1959) ...... 47 8.1 Plot Summary ...... 48

8.2 The Best-Known Adaptation ...... 49

9 Chapter Eight: Ben-Hur (2016) ...... 63 9.1 Plot Summary ...... 64

9.2 The Globalised Judah Ben-Hur ...... 65

10 Conclusion ...... 81 11 Works Cited ...... 87 12 Résumé ...... 93 13 Resumé ...... 95

1 Introduction

The phenomenon of Ben-Hur has mirrored and influenced American society

and culture for more than a century. Since the publication of the novel Ben-Hur: A

Tale of a Christ by General Lew Wallace in 1880, every generation of Americans was

influenced by the Christian message and at the same time thrilled by the large number

of action scenes, notably by the celebrated chariot race. The novel narrates the story

of Jew Judah Ben-Hur who is unjustly accused of rebellion and sent to galleys. He

survives slavery and returns to seek vengeance on Rome by winning the great chariot

race over his former friend, Messala. Judah meets Jesus Christ and becomes his

follower. Jesus heals Judah’s mother and sister from leprosy, and the family of Hur

reunites to pursue Christian life of love and faith.

The story of Judah Ben-Hur and Jesus Christ was also adapted to stage and

later to screen in numerous versions. The theatre and film adaptations gradually

replaced the Victorian novel, and nowadays, Ben-Hur is notably known as the

successful 1959 film starring Charleton Heston as Judah. The first film adaptation,

however, dates back to 1907 when the Kalem company filmed selected scenes from

the novel without purchasing copyright. The copyright lawsuit which followed helped

to form the legal system for adapting a novel into a film. The first feature film

adaptation of Ben-Hur was introduced in 1925. Being the most ambitious project of

the era, the silent version offered intense action scenes as well as the most faithful

adapted plot. The best-known and the most successful adaptations was introduced in

1959. In the middle of the Cold War when Biblical epics were popular and served as

an encouragement, William Wyler made almost four-hour long Ben Hur which broke

the record of the Oscar awards and influenced generations of spectators. Finally, the

5 most recent version, introduced in 2016, reacts on the globalised world and new generation of young audience. Despite its new approach to the story and the use of modern film technologies, the film was a failure.

Every film adaptation approaches the novel from a distinct angle and emphasises selected events, characters and issues which were relatable to contemporary society. However, all four films deal with the story of Judah Ben-Hur as their source material. All significant characters are included in three feature films, and the family of Judah appears in the short 1907 film. Adaptations also include all crucial events, notably the imprisonment of Judah, the chariot race and the crucifixion.

Films picture Judea of the first century with its issues, religion and customs. The predominant theme of all adaptations is the Roman dominance over Jewish people and the clash of Jewish and Roman culture. As society was changing during the twentieth century, so were changing the film adaptations of Ben-Hur and the elements which films discussed in more detail. It is possible to observe altered perspectives on certain issues in individual adaptations.

Drawing upon a large number of books, essays and articles dealing with the novel Ben-Hur, its author and adaptations, this diploma thesis aims to study the depiction of specific social and political issues present in four film adaptations of the novel. The thesis intends to study the issues of war and imperialism, slavery, Israel,

Christianity, women and minorities presented in the films, and how they reflect

American society of the era. The research question of the thesis is how the political and social climate in the United States influenced the depiction of given political and social issues in film adaptations of Ben-Hur. The thesis focuses on the given issues and compares them with political and social events which occurred in the United States in the time of introduction of the films. The master’s thesis argues that selected

6 political and social issues were either accentuated or sidelined because of the then discussed crucial questions in the United States. It is thus possible to claim that four film adaptations of Ben-Hur mirror and reflect American society of eras of their release. As Ben-Hur is a predominantly American phenomenon, its film versions naturally deal with significant issues relatable to local audience. Thus, the thesis focuses on the depiction of given social and political themes in adaptations and how they reflect American society in the 1910s, 1920s, 1950s and 2010s.

In order to understand the concept of film adaptations, the first chapter deals with an overview of modern theories of adaptation which were applied to examined films. Numerous contemporary specialists who deal with the study of film adaptations are introduced as well as their theories which aid to analyse the film adaptations properly. Next chapter briefly discusses the life of Lew Wallace and provides an overview of the plot of the novel. It is relevant to be familiar with the basic plotline of the voluminous novel in order to observe the modifications and actualisations executed in the film adaptations. Following two chapters discuss the importance of Ben-Hur in

American society and social and political issues present in the novel. As mentioned earlier, the Ben-Hur phenomenon is almost exclusively American, and it has influenced American society and culture since the publication of the novel. The third chapter observes the impact of the novel on the United States, notably at the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century. Next chapter analyses political and social phenomena present in the novel and how they reflected the then

American society. One of numerous reasons for the popularity of the novel Ben-Hur was the presence of universal issues relatable for the readers. The chapter identifies and analyses the matters present in the novel.

7

In order to respect the chronological order of film adaptations, the thesis first deals with the 1907 film. Due to its limited length and technical performance, it is arguable if the film may be considered a proper adaptation. Ben Hur offers the choice of the best-known scenes of the accident and the arrest of the Hur family, but the chariot race is predominant. Instead of the consistent story, the film features the most attractive passages from the novel. However, the chapter considers reasons for filming the first film inspired by the novel, and also focuses on the lawsuit which formed the legal approach to film adaptations.

The first full-length adaptation of Ben-Hur is discussed in the following chapter. The film, made in the “Roaring Twenties”, offers not only faithfully adapted story and a considerable number of action scenes, but it also discusses significant issues of the era. With the First World War still in living memory, the theme of war and imperialism strongly resonates in the film as well as slavery which remained a haunting legacy of the American history. The freedom of Israel is carefully discussed as the United States only started to support the idea of a future Jewish state in the period. Interestingly, Christianity is presented as more Catholic than Protestant in the film, with particular attention on Mary, the mother of Jesus. The film offers an remarkable perspective on women, notably of so-called New Women, in the film represented by Iras. The tendencies of women liberation may be observed in giving women more active roles than in the novel. Also, minorities, both sexual and national, are included in the film, notably in Ramon Navarro as the lead Judah Ben-Hur.

Chapter Seven focuses on the best-known adaptation introduced in 1959. In the middle of the Cold War and fourteen years after the end of the Second World War, the adaptation emphasises different aspects than previous representations of the story.

The Soviet Union may be recognised in themes of war and slavery as the arch-enemy

8 of the United States. The free state of Israel is supported by the film, notably by casting

Israeli actress Haya Harareet as Esther. Christianity is transformed into a more civil and Protestant portrayal of the faith. Women are given even more space, notably Esther becomes one of the most active characters. Ben Hur also carries strong homoerotic undertone, especially the character of Messala. Several scenes offer a homoerotic reading as well as the conflict between Judah and Messala.

Ben-Hur filmed in 2016 is discussed in Chapter Eight. Filmed in the contemporary era, with modern film technologies and for the globalised audience, the most recent adaptation accentuates different aspects of the story and approaches the matter from a new angle. The film warns against the ignorance of violence and suggests that the major threat to freedom is the enslavement of the mind. The theme of the state of Israel is not discussed in detail in the adaptation. Christianity is portrayed as the philosophy of love and forgiveness rather than the ultimate religion. Women become almost completely independent of men, they make significant decisions and take action when Judah is not able to do so. As the film was aiming in particular at

Christian audience, the homoerotic reading is omitted from the story. The international cast, however, indicates the globalised audience for which the film was made.

In order to identify and analyse the discussed themes properly, several major sources were consulted, alongside with numerous other books, essays and articles.

Even though several books and articles on the topic of Ben-Hur exist, this American literary and cultural phenomenon is not sufficiently academically studied. Despite the limited number of sources, other books and essays connected with the focus of the thesis were also used to verify the claims.

One of the most important books dealing with the theory of adaptation is A

Theory of Adaptation by Linda Hutcheon. She suggests a different approach to

9 adaptations and adaptology, not only to compare an adaptation with a source text.

Hutcheon rejects the traditional evaluative approach to adaptations and instead argues that every adaptation has to choose only a limited number of elements from the source.

She also calls for rethinking the approach of scholars and intends to start a discussion and suggests to rethink the entire field of study. The ideas argued by the author aid the thesis to apply various perspectives on the adaptations while abandoning the focus merely on faithfulness.

Lew Wallace, the author of the novel Ben-Hur, commenced writing his autobiography and the end of his life and was later finished by his wife, Susan. An

Autobiography provides a detailed insight into the life and opinions of Wallace as well as the process of creating Ben-Hur. Despite its subjectivity, Wallace’s autobiography indicates the reasons for writing Ben-Hur and describes the process of writing. The book is helpful for understanding the author, his opinions and reasoning.

The only volume dealing solely with Ben-Hur and its adaptations is Bigger

Than Ben-Hur: The Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences. The collection of essays, edited by Barbara Ryan and Milette Shamir, deals with various aspects of the novel and the 1925 and 1959 films. Essays study themes such as the depiction of Rome in the novel, the maternal figure and its roles, Zionism in Ben-Hur, several scripts for the 1925 adaptation or homoerotic subtext in the 1959 film. It does not consider the

1907 film or the most recent 2016 version as it was published earlier than the film. The book, however, provides valuable insights into the Ben-Hur phenomenon, and it provided a solid base for the analytical part of the thesis.

The essay “The Charioteer and the Christ: Ben-Hur in America from the

Gilded Age to the Culture Wars” by Howard Miller follows the influence of Ben-Hur on American culture and society from the publication of the novel to the 1959

10 adaptation. Miller also considers the use of Ben-Hur in advertisement and in promoting various products. He describes the impact of the novel on the everyday life of

Americans. Miller also analyses two full-length film adaptations and the reaction of the public. The essay analyses notably Ben-Hur as the cultural phenomenon which influenced several generations of Americans. Miller’s observations were valuable for understanding the impact of the novel and films on society and culture.

L. Ashley Squire’s essay “The Wealthiest Man in the Empire: Ben-Hur as

Model of Evangelical Political Engagement” discusses American Evangelical

Protestantism as a significant political element and the role of Ben-Hur in it. Squires describes the connection between Protestant Christianity in the United States and its political influence. The social status of women in the novel is analysed as well as the as the approach of the novel to patriotism and institutionalism. The author also identifies the interpretation of Christianity in Ben-Hur and how the novel further influenced the understanding of American Christianity. The analysis of the social and political atmosphere among American Protestants aided to understand the importance of the Ben-Hur phenomenon in the United States as well as the role of Christianity in

American society.

11

2 Chapter One: The Adaptation Theory

Ever since the inception of the film industry, adapting significant pieces of

literature was a common practice. However, adaptations may be traced in history back

to Antiquity, when several artists approached the same theme from distinct angles, for

example, Roman authors rewriting Greek legends and famous stories such as the

Trojan Wars. Adaptation in various forms occurs throughout the history; popular

stories were dramatised or turned into novels. Linda Hutcheon provides William

Shakespeare as an example of an author who adapted well-known folk stories in his

plays (30). Thus, be it poems, operas, ballets or novels, authors frequently used well-

known stories, familiar to the audience. However, every artist decided to approach the

material from a different perspective to create a unique piece of art. As Hutcheon

argues: “Whatever the motive, from the adapter’s perspective, adaptation is an act of

appropriating or salvaging, and this is always a double process of interpreting and then

creating something new.” (20).

The main issue connected with adaptations is the so-called “fidelity issue”.

The majority of adaptation scholars, such as Robert Stam, Brian McFarlane, Thomas

Leitch or Linda Hutcheon, form a definite opinion against fidelity as the only indicator

of “quality” of adaptations. Yet, both the public and reviewers often appreciate an

adaptation only if it corresponds to the source. When the adapter decides to change or

modify significant aspects of the source, the response is usually strongly negative. As

Robert Stam points out, even the term “fidelity” carries the emotional connotation of

“intense sense of betrayal” (14), meaning the reader may feel betrayed or hurt by not

seeing in the adaptation what he or she considered to be crucial in the source, usually

a novel. So, the notion of fidelity is strongly subjective and emotional. It is not possible

to create an adaptation which would please all spectators. The other reason for

12 abandoning the importance of fidelity is that it is not possible to adapt all details of a novel, usually even not all actions that took place in the source. Robert Stam gives the example of War and Peace, which could take more than thirty hours to possibly narrate all significant details of the novel (Stam 15). In addition, as a novel and a film are entirely distinct media with diverse forms, the difference is natural and inevitable.

Stam coined the term The Automatic Difference (16), discussing the changes occuring naturally when shifting the source from one form to another. Films contain more features than novels, such as sound, music and obviously, the visual representation.

Film adaptation logically cannot be identical to the source. Therefore, adaptation scholars challenge the audience to abandon the notion of fidelity as the central indicator of quality, and provide distinct readings of adaptations.

Instead of comparing and evaluating the source and the adaptations, scholars tend to study the methods of the transfer from one media to another, and identify the reasons for choices of creators. As indicated earlier, adaptators need to make choices and changes in order to be able to adapt the source to another medium, usually a film or a television series. Therefore, Hutcheon identifies two connected definitions of adaptations, “as a product (as extensive, particular transcoding) and as a process (as creative reinterpretation and palimpsestic intertextuality)” (22). Modern adaptologists are interested in both aspects of adaptations in order to grasp the entire procedure of adaptation, which is equally significant as the final outcome of it.

Thus, the thesis does not compare or evaluate studied adaptations with the source text, in this case Ben-Hur by Lew Wallace, but it rather focuses on both definitions of adaptations, product and process. One of the principal aims of the thesis it to discover methods which creators of Ben-Hur film adaptations used, notably to reflect the contemporary social and political issues. With the aid of the theory of

13 adaptation, it is possible to overcome the focus on faithfulness in adaptations, and to correctly identify procedures used by filmmakers. As argued earlier, each adaptation, be it a film, a television series, an opera, a musical or a computer game, reflects not only the approach to a source but as the well external influence of society and era when the adaptation is created. Thus, adaptations are connected with both the source and the world which influences the outcome of adaptation.

14

3 Chapter Two: Lew Wallace and His Novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ

Before analysing the film adaptations of the novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the

Christ, it is crucial to briefly mention the author of the novel, General Lew Wallace,

and to describe the plot of the famous American Victorian novel. As discussed further,

the unexpected popularity of Ben-Hur influenced generations of readers and boosted

the interest in Christianity at the end of the nineteenth century. Lew Wallace enjoyed

the popularity of the novel until his death, and even though he wrote another novel,

The Prince of India, after the publication of Ben-Hur, the fame of his novel about

Judah Ben-Hur and Jesus Christ was never surpassed. Thus, it is significant to consider

the life of the author before analysing his piece of work.

The life of Lew Wallace was filled with extraordinary events of notably

military and political service. Lee Scott Theisen argues: “The novel's author was as

colourful and prominent as his book.” (33) The Internet website of the Lew Wallace

museum provides a summary of his biography which was used as the main source for

the following paragraphs. Wallace was born in 1827 in the town of Brookville, Indiana.

As well as his father, David Wallace, he became a prominent political figure of the

state of Indiana. Wallace started working as a lawyer in 1849 after his service as a

volunteer in the Mexican-American War. As a lawyer, he participated in the anti-

slavery movement. Soon, he married Susan Elston, a daughter of an army officer. They

had one son. In 1861, he began his service in the Union army, and due to his victories

and successful tactics, Wallace was promoted to Major General in a year. However,

he was later removed to administration service after a tactical failure during the battle

of Shiloh for which he was criticised by General Grant. Wallace later redeemed his

army reputation by defending and saving Washington, D.C. Afterwards, he operated

15 undercover in Mexico and was one of the judges in the trial with the assassin of

Abraham Lincoln. In 1873, Wallace published his first novel The Fair God about

Hernán Cortés and the fall of the Aztec civilisation. In 1878, he became the Governor of the New Mexico. Two years later, Wallace published Ben-Hur, which became a best-seller during the following years. Wallace spent four years as the Minister of the

United States for Turkey; then he returned to his home in Indiana to retire. He published The Prince of India in 1893, and six years later, he sold the copyright for the theatre play of Ben-Hur performed at the Broadway Theatre. Lew Wallace died on

February 5, 1905, in his house in Crawfordsville, Indiana.

Wallace experienced two wars, political missions and also a fruitful artistic career. As John Forbes points out, “Lew Wallace was a lawyer though he does not appear to have let the law interfere with his other interests.” (387) As Forbes discusses later in his article, Wallace profited from generous inheritance after his father-in-law and could thus focus on seeking art and adventure (388-389). Apart from his military service, Wallace was known for his inclinations towards art, notably painting and music. Nevertheless, his primary focus was on literature, especially in adventure novels and travel journals. Jon Solomon discovered that Wallace was mostly self- educated, without any institutional formation until he entered the army (Solomon 3).

However, he was keen on studying, and when preparing for writing Ben-Hur, he spent considerable time researching information in the Library of Congress and other libraries. A thorough study of the subject was a typical feature of Wallace’s writing process (Solomon 36). Therefore, even though primarily known as a soldier and a lawyer, Lew Wallace was interested in numerous artistic fields. Despite being mostly autodidactic, he spent hours studying secondary sources to prove his writing as realistic and credible.

16

Wallace spent seven years writing Ben-Hur. As he states in his

Autobiography: “Of the more than seven years given the book, the least part was occupied in actual composition. Research and investigation consumed most of the appropriated time.” (Wallace 934) At first, he was fascinated by the story of Three

Wise Men looking for Jesus. He wrote a draft but put it aside soon (Wallace 927). In

1876, he travelled with Colonel Robert Ingersoll, who was agnostic and listened to his discussion with other passengers on the issues of God, faith and Christianity (Wallace

929). When Wallace realised he lacked knowledge in this field, he decided to study the Bible and other sources to acquire information. Even though he formed the basic plot of his novel as soon as in 1873 (Solomon 35), the encounter with Ingersoll and further study of Christianity were the crucial impulses for the beginning of writing

Ben-Hur. During the years of research and composing the story, he at the same time found himself believing in God and Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Finally, Wallace created an adventurous story full of action, bravery and love, and at the same time influenced American Christianity for decades.

Moving to the plot of the novel, it begins with the detailed description of the encounter of Three Wise Men who later travelled together to meet the King of Israel.

Each of them represents one country, Balthasar Egypt, Melchior India and Gaspar

Greece. They talk about their countries and how they experienced the power of God and how it changed their lives. They are all led by the Spirit to meet in the desert and together, they continue to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. There, they find baby Jesus in a cave and give him offerings. They leave afterwards, and even though the word about the Messiah spreads through the country, it is soon forgotten.

Twenty-one years later, young Judah Ben-Hur, whose father tragically died, unexpectedly meets his childhood friend, the Roman Messala, who spent five years

17 studying in Rome. They remember their time together, but soon, they find out their opinions and philosophies diverse. Whereas Judah was raised in the Jewish faith,

Messala is influenced by the Roman religion and philosophy. He also looks at Jews as inferior. Messala shares with Judah his dreams about becoming a prefect and living a comfortable life. He offers Judah a share of the power. When Judah refuses, he says goodbye to Messala who decides to abandon his old friendship by claiming: “Be it so.

Eros is dead, Mars reigns!” (Wallace 85). From that moment, Messala becomes the arch-enemy of Judah and plans to destroy him.

Disillusioned and sad, Judah returns to his palace where he lives with his mother and sister Tirzah. He confides in his burden to his mother who encourages him by talking about Jewish history and the benefits of being a Jew. The next day, when procurator Gratus passes through Jerusalem, a roof tile from the house of Hur slips and wounds Gratus. Soldiers immediately arrest Judah, Tirzah and their mother, and banish their servants from the house. Only the old servant Amrah runs back to the house before it is locked. Judah is sent to the galleys after Messala identifies him as the assassin. Tirzah and her mother are imprisoned in the Anthony Fortress and left to die.

Judah marches with other prisoners to the harbour through Nazareth where they stop.

Close to death, he is offered water by a young man of his age. Apart from the physical refreshment, he is touched by his radiant face. Afterwards, he boards the galley ship to row in the lower deck.

After years of hard labour, Quintus Arrius, the commander of the ship, notices hardened Judah who is still young, handsome and of a free spirit. Arrius finds out that he knew the father of Judah, and decides to examine the case of his imprisonment. He also commands not to chain the legs of Judah “He is better without the irons. Put them on him no more.” (Wallace 149). When the ship is destroyed, Judah saves Arrius and

18 keeps him alive until they are rescued by other Roman ship. Judah wrestles as a gladiator in Rome for five years and becomes the adoptive son and heir of Arrius.

Judah, known as Young Arrius, travels to Antioch and accidentally meets

Simonides, the steward of his father and the richest man of Antioch. Judah visits him and tries to persuade him that he is Judah Ben-Hur and the heir of his father. Simonides requires proof, and when Judah cannot provide it, Simonides sends his servant Malluch to find out the true identity of Judah. He befriends him and together, they walk to the games stadium where Judah meets Messala who trains for the great chariot race.

Messala almost injures Balthasar the Egyptian and his beautiful daughter Iras. Judah saves them, and later, he is introduced to Sheik Ilderim who looks for a chariot driver.

Judah wants to revenge on Messala, and thus he decides to ride for Ilderim. Messala realises that Judah lives and starts to plot revenge. Simonides admits he knew the identity of Judah, but he was afraid his daughter Esther would become his slave because Simonides once decided he would remain the slave of the Hur family forever.

The importance of Christ as the rising Jewish leader is also discussed, notably by

Malluch and Balthasar.

Judah wins the chariot race and becomes a champion. He sees his victory also as vengeance on Rome and Messala who is severely wounded during the race. Messala plans to kill Judah and hires a Saxon assassin to wait for Judah in a deserted palace.

Judah, however, offers him money in exchange for his life. The assassin agrees and tells Messala he killed Judah. Judah returns to Jerusalem where he finds his old servant

Amrah, and together, they look for his mother and sister who contracted leprosy in prison. Judah also leads a revolt against Rome and at the same time, he meets Jesus and walks with him for three years of his public service. The house of Hur is restored, and Simonides, Balthasar and their daughters live there. Judah later learns that Iras

19 loves Messala and operates as his spy. He also realises his love for Esther. Before entering Jerusalem, Jesus heals the mother of Judah and Tirzah, and they finally reunite with Judah. Soon, Jesus is arrested, and even though Judah organises a legion of armed men to protect Jesus, he later understands that the mission of Jesus was not to lead a revolution but to be the Saviour for the entire world.

Five years later, Judah and Esther are married and have children. They are visited by desperate Iras who comes to inform them about the death of Messala.

Devastated, she leaves never to be found again. Judah later learns about the hardship of Christians in Rome, and he decides to move there and to establish an underground church there.

As described in the following chapter, the plot and also the universal topics of vengeance, love, hatred and forgiveness significantly influenced readers at the end of the nineteenth century as well as throughout the twentieth century. More than a hundred years after its publication, Ben-Hur still reflects contemporary issues in the society. It is thus crucial to be familiar with the plot of the novel in order to observe changes and modifications in film adaptations analysed in the thesis and to notice actualisations and emphases of different phenomena in distinct areas. The extensive plot of the novel cannot be adapted on screen without changes and omissions; every film adaptation thus selected several aspects to develop and did not include the rest.

As discussed later, the prevailing popularity of Ben-Hur indicates the themes remain universal as well as the attractivity of the exotic settings and the chariot race. Lew

Wallace indeed created one of the undying symbols of the American literature.

20

4 Chapter Three: The Importance of Ben-Hur in American Society

Ben-Hur is considered to be one of the most significant novels of American

literature. Its popularity and high sales remain current more than a century after its first

publication in 1880 (Theisen 35). Even though the novel was written by a soldier and

lawyer, General Lew Wallace, not by a scholar or a professional writer, its appeal and

combination of themes have attracted readership throughout the United States of

America. In the chapter, the reasons for its extraordinary success are discussed.

The tremendous popularity of the novel Ben-Hur is seen as quite surprising in

the history of American literature. The relatively young nation had not shared many

literary or artistic values during the time of the release of the novel. Some social groups

even considered literature to be a tool of Satan and did not practice reading (Theisen

37). Despite a considerable number of various novels written in the United States,

topics and themes discussed in them did not attract the entire spectrum of social classes

within American society. The only novel which influenced the majority of American

society was Uncle Tom’s Cabin, published in 1852 (Theisen 37). After its publication,

Ben-Hur dethroned Uncle Tom’s Cabin and became the best-selling book in the United

States.

Paradoxically, even though Lew Wallace wrote a Christian bestseller, he was not

Christian himself and did not attend any church during the process of writing Ben-Hur.

He states in his autobiography “I had no conviction about God or Christ” (Wallace

927). Paul Gutjahr notes that Wallace decided to focus on the Biblical environment

because the Bible was the most wide-read book ever written (55). As he proceeded in

writing, Wallace discovered the importance of Christianity in his life and thus could

finish the novel as a Christian himself. Wallace nevertheless states in his

21

Autobiography that he does not belong to any church or denomination (Wallace 2).

Still, his novel influenced several generations of Americans, notably Protestant

Christians.

The first reason for the vast popularity of Ben-Hur is its attractive settings and a plot full of adventures, action, vengeance and love. As Gutjahr notices, novels with

Biblical motifs had existed before the publication of Ben-Hur in 1880; they even shared adventurous features with the novel by General Wallace (57). Wallace did not narrate the story in letters, as was common in his era, and thus made the narration faster and smoother. Even though there were numerous novels with Biblical settings before

Ben-Hur, Lew Wallace wrote the narration in the time when American society longed for Biblical stories and when Americans could identify their country with Israel, alternatively with Rome, in the time of Jesus Christ. Americans saw the United States as the new “Promised Land”, and compared their hardship with colonising the New

World with establishing the kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament. Additionally, the

Roman republic served as the ultimate example for the founders of the United States, notably in the government and laws (Shalev 19). Also, after the Civil War still resonating in the society, Americans responded to the universal message of forgiveness, hope and national identity.

Additionally, the novel was created when the United States began to expand its influence to other parts of the world, and thus the notion of Christian empire similar to

Roman Empire was born (Squires 24). Such atmosphere helped Ben-Hur to gain popularity and attention. In Ben-Hur, Christianity and values respected by Americans, such as hard work and loyalty, are combined to create a novel attractive for all social groups of readers.

22

Another reason for the popularity of the novel, as Lee Scott Theisen argues, is that every reader could find an aspect of the novel which was appealing (39). Ben-Hur influenced even orthodox Protestants who considered reading novels as a sin, and the popularity of the novel marked the end of the so-called “village opposition” to narratives (Gutjahr 54). Gradually, numerous churches advised their members to read the novel and even Vatican sponsored a publication of a special edition of Ben-Hur

(Theisen 36). After the apparition of On the Origin of Species (1859) by Charles

Darwin, Christianity was facing severe danger of losing credibility (Gutjahr 58). Thus,

Ben-Hur was welcomed as it offered a scientific perspective on faith and the persona of Jesus Christ. As Gutjahr suggests, Lew Wallace used two procedures to support

Christianity and Jesus scientifically. The first one was the academical accuracy of

Wallace’s writing (63). Wallace performed extensive research on geography, life and institutions of Israel in the first century AD. Therefore the novel gained respectability for offering accurate information on life in the time of Jesus, and the readership appreciated the possibility to gain knowledge from reading it. The other method is the coinage of historical precision, intense action and romantic storyline. Readers could gain knowledge and at the same time were moved by the realistic narration of powerful emotions of Judah Ben-Hur and other characters (Gutjahr 65). Ben-Hur tremendously influenced American society of the nineteenth century by offering an objective and well-researched perspective on the story of Jesus Christ and beginnings of Christianity.

Ben-Hur remains popular in the contemporary American society even after more than a century. As L. Ashley Squires argues, the importance and the popularity of the phenomenon is however not sufficiently academically described (Squires 24). Lee

Sinyard even points out that Ben-Hur is considered by the majority of academics to be a poor narration (xi). Nevertheless, the influence of Ben-Hur has resonated in the

23

United States since the publication of the novel. Firstly, Wallace depicted two diverse opinions of Christians on the politics. As Squires points out, Protestants approached the issue of injustice in the world differently in the times of Lew Wallace (28).

Whereas so-called “private Christians” believed the world could be changed by prayer and personal example, “public Christians” aimed to fight against the social injustice and the system (Squires 28). The different political view formed the end of the nineteenth century and the entire twentieth century. Naturally, two views on Protestant

Christianity were depicted in the novel, in which the “private Christianity” was preferred. Precise examples from the novel are described in the separate chapter of the thesis.

In the end, Lew Wallace sees hope and the possibility of social reform in acts of individuals who use the system, not destroy it. He openly supports the idea that the world cannot be changed by rebellion or violence, but by the political and economic support of Christians who practice “private Christianity” (Squires 35). Such approach, colliding with the notion of “public Christianity”, which preferred the change of society by collective force, undoubtedly influenced several generations of Protestant

Christians in America.

To conclude, ideas and values presented in the novel Ben-Hur significantly affected generations of Americans, notably Christians. The popularity of the story, the action, unusual settings and romance attracted readership from all social backgrounds.

It also met the needs of the young nation for a national literature cannon. Combined with profound social and religious ideas, Lew Wallace created one of the most significant novels in American history. Its popularity may be proven by the number of adaptations which considerably influenced the history of Holywood. Overall, the influence of Ben-Hur on American society and culture is indisputable.

24

5 Chapter Four: The Novel Ben-Hur and the Social and Political Issues of the Contemporary United States

The novel Ben-Hur contains numerous questions and issues relevant to the

American society of the second half of the nineteenth century, despite being a

historical novel from the first century AD. Lew Wallace created his novel during a life

filled with military and political experiences. He witnessed dramatic changes in the

American society and was often an active participant in them. This section of the thesis

explores social and political issues of the United States which Wallace incorporated to

Ben-Hur: The Tale of the Christ. Wallace notably discusses the questions of

imperialism, war, slavery, Zionism and vengeance. Readers during the second half of

the nineteenth century could identify the problems with ease yet the issues have

remained universal until present days. They are also present in a different manner in

the film adaptations discussed further in the Thesis.

To begin with the phenomenon of imperialism, Wallace portraits it in the

subject of the Roman empire. The relationship of the United States to ancient Rome

has been changing throughout the time, as described by Eran Shalev in his essay “Ben-

Hur’s and America’s Rome”. At first, Americans directly after the revolution regarded

the Roman republic as the great model to follow. Americans were seeking inspiration

in the Roman republic to establish political institutions of the newly freed country.

“They appealed to Rome’s history for consolation, justification, and validation.”

(Shalev 19). The pre-Civil War American society found the example in the manner of

Roman law and politics. Buildings such as the Capitol in Washington, DC were built

as a copy of a Roman capitol (Shalev 20). The ancient republican Rome represented

the most crucial values for revolutionary Americans.

25

However, the situation of both the United States and the approach towards

Rome changed dramatically after the Civil War. Historians re-examined the history of

Rome and the intense inclination of Americans to Christianity after the challenging years of the Civil War led to approach Rome in a different manner (Shalev 24). In the time of publication of Ben-Hur, Rome was seen as a ruthless totalism. Lew Wallace depicts Rome as the cruel and blood-thirsty empire. The changed of the perspective before and after the Civil War is significant. Amy Kaplan suggests that America in

Ben-Hur is represented by Christianity which defeats the cruelty of Rome to create a never-ending and undefeatable empire (25). Kaplan further points out that “Lew

Wallace built a career around the rise and fall of empires.” (25). As noted in the chapter on Wallace, he fought against injustice as a lawyer and participated in the Civil War and the Mexican War and later became the Governor of New Mexico. Both the author and the readership understood the imperial significance of Rome with its negative aspects.

Moving to the topic of war, Lew Wallace worked with his personal experience when describing war, violence and the mind of soldiers in his novel. The trend of novelistic writing after the Civil War was realistic, objective and sensible

(Ryan, Shamir 10). Ben-Hur meets the requirements by detailed descriptions of army life in Rome and rebellion for freedom. Although the story is set in first-century

Jerusalem, readers may identify the horrors of the war. At the same time, the conclusion when Judah turns from violent vengeance to Christianity offers a solution for readers and indicate the change of Wallace’s philosophy as well.

Another phenomenon discussed in the novel is slavery and freedom. At first,

Judah is one of the most prominent Jews in Jerusalem, and his only limitation in freedom is inferiority to his mother. “It is the Lord’s will that I shall one day become

26 owner of myself – a day of separation, and therefore a dreadful day to you.” (Wallace

92). Judah does not consider himself an utterly free person; he is bonded to his mother and by her love. However, he does not understand the meaning of his words at that time as the separation between him and his mother is dreadful for both of them. Judah changes from a privileged boy to a slave without the name and future. The close description of the hardship on the galley and the miseries of slaves were well- remembered and still significant issues for American readers at the end of the nineteenth century. As mentioned earlier, Wallace fought against slavery as a young lawyer; he later became an officer of the army of the North in the Civil War. His compassion for slaves and rejection of slavery is prominent in the novel. Even though

Judah is later freed and gains money and fame, he becomes a slave of vengeance. In the end, he may be freed by Jesus Christ and his message of forgiveness and peace. In addition, he gets married to his former slave, Ester. Wallace claims that an individual may be freed indeed only by forgiveness, love and personal Christian faith. Slavery and freedom belong to the central themes and elements of the novel.

Moving to Zionism, the phenomenon has a major significance in the novel.

Ben-Hur was released immediately before the rise of Zionism in the United States

(Obenzinger 77). The novel even helped to explain the Jewish situation and their dream of creating their state to the American public. Obenzinger claims that the United States supported the return of Jews to Palestine because of the influence of Ben-Hur (77). For

American citizens, the ancient nation of Israel and their promised land symbolised the

American strife for independence from the British empire. One part of the American public understood the United States as the new Promised Land and the citizens as new

Chosen People (Obenzinger 76). The Wallace’s novel thus appealed to this group as well. Ben-Hur was, however, popular among numerous religious groups: it was

27 praised by American Protestants, the Pope and the Jewish community, too. Jews found the novel significant because the main protagonist was a heroic, athletic and virtuous

Jew, which was not common in the time of publication of the novel (Obenzinger 88).

Thus, the novel did not serve only as an indirect tool of conversion to Christianity, but it at the same time aided to accept cultural differences between Christians and Jews as they all found the novel appealing. Wallace could understand different perspectives because of his diplomatic services in various and often distinct environments. It may be proclaimed that Ben-Hur was a significant accelerating element of the support of the Jewish state by Americans.

The final social issue of the novel is vengeance. The word ‘vengeance’ occurs in Ben-Hur the most frequently, which may be a possible surprise for a novel with

Christian themes (Obenzinger 82). Judah’s actions are motivated solely by the desire to revenge his family and himself. When the Hur family is arrested by Romans, Judah prays a desperate prayer to God: “In the hour of thy vengeance, O Lord,” he said, “be mine the hand to put it upon him!” (Wallace 115), meaning his childhood friend and later the arch-enemy, the Roman Messala. Later in the novel, Judah’s actions are motivated by the hope to revenge on Rome and notably Messala. He survives the galleys because of his hunger for revenge, as he later notes: “I devoted myself to vengeance long ago. Every hour of the five years passed, I have lived with no other thought.” (311). Revenge serves as an engine for becoming a charioteer and investing all his effort into defeating Messala. Thus, the chariot race in the novel is less about

Judah’s victory and more about defeating Messala. Similarly, organising legions of rebels to protect Jesus leads from Judah’s desire to wreak vengeance on the Roman

Empire which destroyed his life and lives of his family. Judah finally understands the true meaning of the teaching of Jesus as well as his flaw of desiring the revenge only

28 few moments before the crucifixion of Jesus. At the end of the novel, Judah and his family live in Rome, his former enemy, and support the Christian church by generous donations from their considerable wealth. Despite the ending which changed Judah’s attitude towards revenge, the novel was criticised by some because of the amount of attention to the motif of vengeance (Ryan 148). Still, it is the mixture of universal

Christian and secular themes which are one of the reasons for the novel’s universality and popularity.

To conclude, there are several political and social issues discussed in the novel that were present in the American society in the second half of the nineteenth century. With the Civil War still in the national memory, and with the new challenges arising, Lew Wallace included his experience as a soldier and a politician into his historical piece of writing from the first-century Judea. War, slavery, Zionism or vengeance were topics actual to the American public, and it was natural to understand the story of Judah and his family. Thus, the readers did not only experience a pleasurable read, but they could as well identify with the universal problems which both the society and the individual have to face in any era of human history.

29

6 Chapter Five: Ben Hur (1907)

The chapter aims to analyse the first film adaptation of the novel Ben-Hur filmed

in 1907. Despite its limitation in length of only thirteen minutes, the silent film may

be considered as one of the most influential and significant pieces of work of the first

decade of the twentieth century. Attention to the film was brought mainly after the

infamous court battle of the copyright law. The significance of the lawsuit as well as

the analysis of the film are covered in the chapter. Ted Hovet Jr. discusses in detail

both the adaptation and the legal process; thus the chapter of the thesis is hugely based

his on findings.

Firstly, Hovet remarks that Ben Hur made by Kalem Company should not be

considered a proper adaptation in the terms as defined in the chapter on the theory of

adaptation in the thesis. It may be instead approached as “a textual fragmentation”

(Hovet 286) which indicates production of selected familiar scenes of the original text.

The spectator of such performance is obliged to be familiar with the characters and

plot of the source as it is not explained in the performance. Technical capabilities of

filmmakers and the gradual establishment of cinema as a means of entertainment may

be considered as some of the reasons for such arrangement of the film version. As

Hovet remarks, a selection of some famous scenes to perform live in circuses and other

public events was widely and commonly practised at the time of the adaptation release

(286). In addition, David Mayer suggests that spectators of the first film adaptation of

Ben-Hur knew the basic plot, they only wanted to experience the most important

scenes of the notorious story (190). Thus, Kalem Studios were able to compete with

the famous theatre play and offer the spectators a new version of the narration.

Concerning the outline of the film, each scene is introduced by an intertitle which

informs the spectator about the action of the scene. As suggested earlier, the spectator

30 is expected to be familiar with the novel Ben-Hur in order to understand and appreciate the film version. Thirteen minutes of the film duration allow only limited choice of scenes which are considered by the filmmakers as the most crucial. The titles of the scenes are as follow: “JERUSALEM REBELS AT ROMAN MIS-RULE”, “THE

FAMILY OF HUR – AN UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT”, “BEN HUR – RESCUER

OF ARRIUS – ADOPTED AND FREED FROM SLAVERY”, “BEN HUR AND

MESSALA – THE CHALLENGE” and “BEN HUR VICTOR” (Olcott 1907).

The film version of the novel is directly connected to the source text and depends on it. The spectator should know the novel before watching the adapted version. As the film is episodic and does not provide a coherent plot, spectators use their knowledge of the novel to understand and appreciate the film. Ted Hovet Jr. suggests in his essay:

“But the film was still fully participating in the process of textual

fragmentation. Its images and meanings, however novel in form, remain

dependent upon the knowledge and associations that came from the general

recirculation of Ben-Hur in the realm of cheap amusements and other disparate

forms of entertainment culture.” (Hovet 290)

Hovet suggests in the citation that even though the 1907 film adaptation or textual fragmentation of Ben Hur was innovative in the formal aspect, it, however, depended on the collective knowledge of the plot and characters. Also, he remarks further on the page how popular the story was and how frequently it was adapted on fairs and other public events. There were even china sets with motifs from the novel produced (Hovet

288).

Moving to the detailed description of the film, it consists of the choice of the best known and notorious scenes from the novel. The film does not follow the plot and

31 does not introduce characters. The spectator should be familiar with the majority of information from the novel or from other sources such as the famous Broadway theatre play which was performed throughout the United States in the beginning of the twentieth century (Hovet 283). Characters manifest their emotions by excessive gestures to explain the situation and to draw attention because the camera is immobile and does not shoot any detailed shots (Hovet 284). Without the gestures, a spectator could be confused or would not notice the main protagonist of a scene for there are crowds of people often present on the scene also. The predominant part of the film is dedicated to the famous chariot race. As Ted Hovet Jr. explains, the race became a popular attraction and a symbol partly independent of the novel or theatre performance. A high-quality book dealing only with the race sequence from Ben-Hur novel was even published (287). Thus, the film sequence of the chariot race is elaborated and uses four chariots with four horses in each. As it may be noted from the sequence, some shots are repeated to prolong the race and increase its intensity. Hovet points out that there are eight shots of the chariot race yet four that are diverse. He observes a shot pattern A-B-C-B-C-D-A-B (289). Being the highlight of the entire spectacle, the chariot race is performed in a new level due to film technologies.

As for social and religious aspects of the film, the situation differs from later adaptations of the novel. Technical abilities of early filmmaking did not enable the plot to be complicated. As mentioned earlier, both characters and the plotline are sketched.

The film adaptation does not aspire to capture social elements of the story. The conflict between Jews and Romans is outlined, yet it serves merely as a reason for the race.

The film does not include personal conflict of Ben-Hur and Messala. In addition, it is the only adaptation which does not include Jesus Christ or any reference to

Christianity. Being mostly concerned with the race, authors omitted the complicated

32 storyline and various aspects of the novel. Instead, they showed the famous chariot race in a new manner. It can be said that the first film adaptation of Ben-Hur served as a new and exciting spectacle on the screen.

Another significant aspect of the first adaptation is the legal copyright process.

Company Harper Brothers who owned the copyright for a theatre performance of Ben-

Hur, alongside with General Lew Wallace Estate, accused Kalem of ignoring their legal copyright on the story. As Jennifer Petersen points out, the Kalem lawsuit not only defined the need for obtaining copyright when making a film, but it also contributed to the definition of a film as a genre (85). Lawyers of Kalem defended the studio by stating that films are animated photographs and cannot be compared to literature with respect to communicating a story. They did not consider the film Ben-

Hur as an adaptation but as an animated attraction on the screen (Petersen 86). The question which was discussed during the process was whether movements and gestures of actors in silent films could be equal to words of novels or theatre performances

(Petersen 86). The law court finally decided that “films could be considered a copy of written expression but doing so through an alignment of the film with performance and an understanding of film as mechanical” (Petersen 88). Kalem was charged with a significant penalty, and the case became a precedent of the legal position of film adaptations.

To conclude, even though the first adaptation of Ben-Hur was even by its creators considered mostly as an attraction and not a proper adaptation, it laid the foundations for other adaptations. Also, its legal impact on the film industry and the position of adaptations is considerable.

33

7 Chapter Six: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)

The first full-length adaptation of the novel Ben-Hur is considered to be one

of the most significant silent films in history. Nevertheless, the production of the film

faced numerous struggles during almost two years of filming in Italy and the United

States. Being the most ambitious and expensive project of the era, the film underwent

radical changes during its painful creation. At first, the screenwriter June Mathis was

replaced by Carey Wilson who changed her original ideas about approaching the

subject significantly (Slater 64). Mathis was responsible for the entire cast and the

implementing team, so when she was replaced, Fred Niblo as the new director assigned

leading roles to the new cast, including Ramon Navarro as Judah Ben-Hur (Slater 72).

Such changes, alongside difficult filming in Italy and costly propagation, led to

financial difficulties for the MGM. However, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ in the end

aided to establish the MGM Studios as the maker of quality films in Hollywood (“The

Most Expensive Silent Film”). Before proceeding to the summary of the film and the

analysis of social and political issues, it is notable to emphasise two significant details.

Early Technicolor technology was used to add colour to selected scenes, notably to the

Nativity Scene, it was however omitted in the 1930s when the film was re-introduced

with sound effects, and the passages were left black and white. The colourised scenes

were considered lost but were accidentally discovered in a Czechoslovak archive in

the 1980s (“The Most Expensive Silent Film”). In addition, William Wyler, the

director of the 1959 version, worked as an assistant of Fred Niblo during the filming

of his Ben-Hur (Pfeiffer).

34

7.1 Plot Summary

The film begins with the well-known story of the birth of Jesus Christ as it is

narrated in the Christmas time. The opening scenes, however, focus more on Mary

(Betty Bronson) than Jesus and remind us of the Catholic rather than Protestant

tradition. The star of Bethlehem, the shepherds and three wise men are included in the

prelude of the film. The story moves to Jerusalem where the slave Simonides (Nigel

de Brulier) assists the mother of Judah (Claire McDowell) in securing the fortune of

the family of Hur. His daughter Esther (May McAvoy) accidentally meets Judah

(Ramon Navarro), not knowing he is her master, and Judah is charmed by her beauty.

Simonides and Esther leave for Antioch. Judah encounters his boyhood friend,

Messala (Francis X. Bushman), now a Roman officer. He invites him to his home to

meet the mother and Tirzah (Kathleen Key), Judah’s sister. After a warm welcome,

they start to quarrel about the position of Rome and Israel. Both Judah and Messala

see they became strangers to each other and Messala leaves in a hurry. The Roman

leader Gratus arrives in Jerusalem, and when he passes by the house of Hur, a tile slips

from the roof, from where the family is watching the parade, and injures Gratus.

Roman soldiers led by Messala immediately arrest Judah and his mother and sister.

Women are imprisoned, and Judah is sent to galleys. At the march to the sea, they stop

in Nazareth where a young man offers Judah water and encourages him. Judah is

sentenced to row in a galley ship for life. When pirates attack the ship, Judah saves

admiral Arrius (Frank Currier), and later he becomes his adopted son. Even though

Judah becomes the best athlete in Rome, he is haunted by the desire to find his family

and revenge on Messala. He travels to Antioch to meet Simonides, broken by Roman

torture, and Sheik Ilderim (Mitchell Lewis), who urges Judah to ride his chariot in the

great chariot race. During the night before the race, Judah meets Iras (Carmel Myers),

35

Messala’s spy, who wants to find out the identity of Judah who is believed to be dead.

During the race, Judah and Messala compete against each other in mortal combat. In

the end, Messala is defeated, and Judah wins a fortune. He wants to use it to support

Jesus for he believes he is the king who will defeat Rome. As the Passover in Jerusalem

approaches, Judah gathers legions to follow Jesus. Esther finds Judah’s mother and

sister who are dying of leprosy. In the climax when Jesus is sentenced to death, he

heals the women of Hur and Judah understands the true meaning of the mission of

Jesus. In the end, the Hur family reunites, and Judah claims that Jesus will forever live

in the hearts of men.

7.2 The Faithful Epic

Even though the film underwent numerous changes and modifications during

the process of creation, it remains to be the most accurate adaptation of the novel,

presumably because of involvement of Abraham Erlanger1 in early stages of the film

(“Ben-Hur”). Thomas J. Slater found and studied the lost script written by June Mathis,

and his comparison with the final script by Carey Wilson may indicate both social and

political changes made in the script to meet the policy of the film studio. By studying

the result in the film and by comparing several scenes with the original ideas of Mathis,

the complex picture of some of the issues of the Roaring Twenties may be observed.

As two scripts exist, the perspective on the studied issues may be even more

interesting. Still, the principal focus of this section is on the discussed issues as they

appear in the film.

1 He and his colleage obtained copyright for making a largely successful theatre play Ben-Hur. His company as well sued Kalem in the famous lawsuit in 1907. When creating the full-lenght film version of the novel, Erlanger and his company gained the film rights and strongly influenced the script written by June Mathis (Slater 65). Neverthless, the film was finished by MGM and a new team of creators. 36

Ben-Hur is considered to be one of the most expensive silent films ever made.

It was meant to support financially the newly formed film studio Metro-Goldwyn-

Mayer and to establish it as a professional subject producing high-quality films. The film was extensively promoted in media before its premiere, providing information about the filming and the cast. Apart from the advertisement, the studio chose to adapt the popular epic novel which was attractive and approachable for all social classes.

Christian elements, the famous story about the Jewish prince, the themes of vengeance, adventure and love, and the use of spectacularly staged special effects were the crucial elements for the commercial success of Ben-Hur. However, the film discusses several significant political and social issues as well, which will be analysed in the rest of the chapter.

To begin with the political issues discussed in the film, imperialism, slavery and the Jewish question are the most prominent examples. The society after World

War I still remembered the imperialistic reasons for starting the conflict. Also, the

1920s were formed by overcoming the war trauma and choosing a different lifestyle as well as by the rise of capitalism and the “business imperialism”. As Slater argues, making Ben-Hur could “produce spectacle along with a spiritual anti-war/antiviolence message” (67). Romans in the film are depicted as cruel, aggressive and ignorant of the needs of subjugated nations. The personification of the military aggression in the film is Messala, in the film portrayed by Francis X. Bushman. His large and muscular figure and dictatorial behaviour indicate the relationship of Rome with Jews. Even though Tirzah describes him as “Caesar himself is not more kingly” (Ben-Hur), his majestic looks represent Rome and the imperialistic confidence and superiority. When

Judah claims Messala is the Roman who understands Jews, Messala replies: “Rome rules the peoples she has conquered. It is for them to understand Rome!” (Ben-Hur),

37 he adds that “your stiff-necked race must learn submission to your masters” (Ben-Hur).

The use of terms in his speech and well as the word “masters” indicate his belief in the superiority of Rome; spectators may identify similar imperialistic tendencies still current in the Twenties. Filmmakers depict and criticise the universal issue of brutality of imperialistic powers on subjugated peoples. The Roman Empire in the film represents dictatorial empires throughout history such as the British Empire in the eighteenth century when it was at the peak of its colonial expansion. At the same time,

American enemies in World War I such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the

Prussian Empire may be identified as states who used to oppress opposition and the desire for freedom of subdued nations. As the film was initially shot in Italy when

Benito Mussolini became the dictator, Italy, changing to an aggressive state with imperialistic tendencies, may be identified in the film, too. In general, several countries from the beginning of the twentieth century may be identified with ancient Rome.

However, it may be claimed that in this adaptation, cruelty and superior behaviour is more evident in the actions of individuals who were influenced by the imperialistic system, rather than in the system as such. The character of Messala may be considered as the most obvious product of the oppressive power system of Rome.

Both the novel and the film introduce him as a childhood friend of Judah who almost belongs to the family of Hur. The novel describes the encounter of Judah and Messala in the manner of a discussion between them on cultural and religious differences between Rome and Judea. Distinct opinions on faith and culture indicate dissimilar natures of the young men. Messala does not encounter the family of Judah, they meet in neutral space of a street in Jerusalem. He offers Judah a share on fame and money once his dreams of the career in the Roman army are accomplished. Wallace indicates

Roman education, philosophy and formal religion changed Messala’s mind into an

38 imperialistic Roman soldier. The final statement “Eros is dead, Mars reigns!” (Wallace

85) shows the final change to his entirely Roman identity. On the other hand, the film introduces Messala as a significant Roman officer who is happy to encounter Judah and his family. Inviting Messala to the house of Hur indicates more personal relationship of the Hur family with the young Roman. In the beginning, when Messala sees Tirzah and Judah’s mother, he shows cordial affection which is in contrast with his later behaviour when arresting Judah and his family. As indicated earlier in this text, when women leave and Messala talks with Judah in privacy, spectators observe

Messala’s arrogant and dominant behaviour. Messala in the novel is a young man dreaming about a career in army whereas Messala in the film has already achieved military success, he is more sober and pragmatic. The film and the novel depict two distinct sorts of behaviour influenced by imperial powers. Messala in the novel becomes cruel because of his disillusion after the conversation with Judah who did not want to share his dreams about serving Rome, whereas Messala in the film is already a scheming professional who is ready to forget his childhood friendship for the sake of Rome and his own career.

The theme of slavery is also deeply connected with the issue of Rome and imperialism in Ben-Hur in general, so it is in the 1925 version. The toilsome march from Jerusalem to the harbour to board a galley ship becomes Via Dolorosa for Judah

(Walsh 140). The misery and desperation of the galley slaves are pictured in drastic scenes from the galleys. Giving an example, the intertitle preceeding the galley ship seqeunce comments on it: “Stately and beautiful; but under the beauty, deep-locked in the heart of every ship, a hell of human woe.” (Ben-Hur) The intertitle prepares the spectator for the reality of the galleys, and indicates the difference between the grandeur of the ship and the “hell” (Ben-Hur) inside. After that, the spectator is

39 confronted with the reality of the lower deck by a shot of a naked slave chained to a cross. Other scenes containing cruelty to slaves follow, indicating that the galley slaves are not considered human any more. Harsh treatment of the slaves and the concrete examples of physical punishments may resemble mistreatment of African slaves in the

United States. It is disputable whether the creators of Ben-Hur aimed to remind the audience of the dark period in the history of their country. The use of visual cruelty may, however, indicate an intention of the filmmakers to condemn the mistreatment of human beings, be it in ancient Rome or the United States. However, as prisoners from all defeated nations are present in the galley ship, the notion of slavery may be understood as the universal warning against the cruelty of one empire which wants to control the entire world and does not consider all humans to be equal. Also, surprising openness in showing violence and male nudity in the 1925 version indicates less strict censorship regulations than later in the twentieth century, and at the same time, it represents the tendencies of the post-war society to abandon strict Victorian manners of behaviour (Slater 69).

As for the presentation of Jews in the film adaptation, it is limited to a kippah worn by Judah at the beginning of the story, and to the notion of the conflict between

Romans and Jews. No political statement about Palestine or Jews is pronounced in the film. However, the film does not depict Jews persecuting Jesus; only Romans do so

(Walsh 139). Thus, Jews are universally portrayed as the victims of the Roman dictatorial regime. The film does not participate in the problematic discussion among

Jews and Christians on the guilt for killing Jesus. Jews in the film are brave yet oppressed, and Jesus offers them the solution in choosing peace and love. One of the reasons for not including Jewish involvement in crucifying Jesus Christ may be that the owner of the film studio now known as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Marcus Loew,

40 was a Jewish immigrant from Europe. Other members of management of the studio were Jews, too, such as Samuel Goldwyn or Irvin Thalberg. Also, the question of

Jewish involvement in the crucifixion have resonated in the Western society for centuries, and as the question of Jews returning to Palestine was discussed in the society, it is possible that the authors of the film did not want to make any political statement concerning the complex issue of Zionism.

Moving to social issues discussed in the film, the approach to Christianity is to be focused on first. The Twenties were symbolised by questioning and relinquishing traditional values including Christianity and the exclusivity of the Christian faith in

American society. The horrors of the war and the consequent abandoning of traditional principles are visible in the film adaptation of the classic Victorian novel, Ben-Hur.

Having the subtitle “A Tale of the Christ”, Christianity cannot be omitted from the film adaptation. However, the spectator may observe a distinct approach towards the

Christian faith. The lost script by June Mathis indicates a departure from the traditional understanding of Christianity. Mathis combined the Biblical tradition with Eastern religions and with mysticism to create a notion of spirituality rather than purely

Christian themes (Slater 68). The fusion of religions and ideas and the questioning of traditional principles is evident in the innovative and daring Ben-Hur script by Mathis.

When the creation of the film was assigned to the new team, the approach towards

Christianity became more traditional, and no dramatic changes were performed.

However, the spectator may observe several deviations from the Christian tradition.

At first, surprisingly considerable attention is directed to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Her portrayal in the film resembles Roman Catholic tradition more than American

Protestant notion of Christianity. Surprisingly, Lew Wallace describes Mary in a manner similar to the Catholic concept. Wallace’s Mary is pale, blonde and with

41 perfect features. He later proceeds to describe her behaviour: “Often, with trembling lips, she raised her eyes to heaven, itself not more deeply blue; often she crossed her hands upon her breast, as in adoration and prayer; often she raised her head like one listening eagerly for a calling voice.” (29) Such Mary appears in the 1925 version as well, resembling an icon. However, such depiction of Mary is not typical in the United

States where Protestantism and the Puritan tradition prevails. Several possible reasons for such interpretation may be offered, none of them however may be sufficiently proven. As far as it can be researched in available sources, none of the screen-writers was Catholic, neither the director. However, Ramon Navarro starred in numerous

Mexican catholic films with the emphasis on the Virgin Mary (Peredo Castro 75). In addition, screenwriters possibly wanted to preserve the description of the Virgin Mary in the novel. However, the evidence for the use of Catholic symbols in the film adaptation is missing.

The image of Christianity presented in the 1925 version differs in other aspects from traditional American Protestantism. Richard Walsh points out that because of the emphasis on the birth of Jesus, but not on crucifixion and resurrection,

Ben-Hur is almost a secular narration of the story of Jesus and Judah Ben-Hur in which the “holy family” is represented by the Hur family (132). Both film scripts departed from the traditional notion of Christianity and combined it with ideas from other religions. Walsh further notices that unlike in the novel, Judah in the film does not convert from Judaism to Christianity but he rather turns away from Roman militarism to the Judaism of love and forgiveness (138). Thus, the crucial elements of Christianity as found in the New Testament are incorporated into the existing faith of Judah and his family without the need of following Jesus as Christianity requires. Judah converts to a modern and liberal religion, which is signified by his last words about Jesus: “He

42 is not dead - - He will live forever in the hearts of men.” (Ben-Hur) Three crosses in the background indicate the resurrection of Jesus, but it is not stated explicitly. On the contrary, Slater argues that according to the film, it is sufficient to remember Jesus, not to follow him actively. Also, the peace offered by Jesus is an absence of war rather than the internal spiritual peace (122). To sum it up, Christianity offered by the film reflects the trends of the 1920s to combine ideas and to turn from spiritual issues to social. As Walsh concludes: “The religion of Ben-Hur’s Jesus is not really Jewish or

Christian but a modern or liberal commitment to love and forgiveness or, more accurately, a commitment on the part of the individual to leave religion out of social and political matters.” (139). The aspect of Christianity in Ben-Hur reflects well the change in society in the decade after the World War I and searching for new values in the much-changed society.

As for the issue of women and feminism, Ben-Hur offers an interesting perspective on the subject. In the 1920s, a new female figure, so-called New

Woman, rose in the American society. New Women demanded equal rights, became more independent and self-confident (Fischer 6). Yet, film heroines usually remained submissive and dependent on male protagonists to be an active factor in action. There are both types of female protagonists present in Ben-Hur. Whereas Esther is portrayed as a sweet, naïve, shy, devoted, obedient and passive character, the Egyptian Iras is independent, seductive, dangerous, intelligent and manipulative. Lew Wallace describes Iras in detail in the novel, making her the ultimate temptress and the evil opposite to the good Esther. However, Iras may be understood at the same time as a representative of New Woman (Mayer 181). Wearing revealing dresses and in the scene of seducing Judah even a wig resembling the 1920s bobbed hair, Carmel Myers represents a vamp character with mostly negative attributes of New Woman. Even

43 though she lacks the elaborated character described by Wallace, Iras in the 1925 version represents freedom and seductiveness as an opposite to submissive Esther played by May McAvoy. Despite being portrayed as a negative character, Iras at the same time embodies New Woman’s freedom commencing in the Twenties. Her sexual affair with Messala is in the opposition against the purity of Esther. At the same time,

Esther is given a more active role in the adaptation as she helps the mother and the sister of Judah to be healed by Jesus as he walks to Golgota. Amrah, the servant, helps her female masters to be healed in the novel. Hence, even though the traditional female archetypes predominantly prevail in the 1925 adaptation, the changing role of women may be visible.

The final social issue to be discussed is the perspective on minorities, notably immigrants and homosexuals. The position of minorities, both national and sexual, changed dramatically during the Twenties. Notably, the gay and lesbian community was more respected in the society, partly because of the artistic environment in

Hollywood. On the other hand, immigrants still struggled with the acceptance of the

American society, particularly immigrants from Eastern Europe and African

Americans (Fisher 12). However, June Mathis was in her professional and private life open to the homosexual community, and she included homoerotic allusions to her work (Slater 9). Thus, her Ben-Hur script contains numerous homoerotic scenes and references to the fascination with the male body. Such focus prevails in the final version, too. Apart from surprising nudity in the film, it is casting Ramon Navarro as the lead male character which indicates sexual, and in this case even racial, freedom in Hollywood. Navarro combines both national and sexual minority as he was a

Mexican immigrant and gay (Williams 40). Michael Williams focuses on the display of Navarro’s body in the film in the context of homosexuality and at the same time the

44 pagan/Christian allusions in Ben-Hur. He observes that Ramon Navarro, the first gay

Hollywood star at the peak of popularity in 1925, serves as an object of admiration and visual pleasure of spectators. His character Judah Ben-Hur additionally represents the athletic beauty attributed to the Greek god Apollo (41). Thus, Navarro, the immigrant and gay, represents the ideal of male beauty in the Hollywood epic. There can indeed be observed a change in the approach towards minorities commencing in the 1920s.

Even though the question of tolerance and acceptance has prevailed in the American society, the commencing change may be traced to the Roaring Twenties. As Williams comments: “The Jew who becomes a Roman and walks with Christ, and the Catholic

Navarro who is worshipped as if a pagan god of innumerable fan-letters and articles

[…] Navarro as Ben-Hur is literally idolized as if a statue […].” (41). Symbols of

Christianity and paganism and the new and the old world are combined in the actor

Navarro and his Judah Ben-Hur, who represents a combination of Jewish, Christian and Roman influences. Such mixture characterises the changing society of the United

States at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Finally, having considered the main political and social aspects of the film, following response of the audience and financial success should be considered.

Unfortunately, no contemporary reviews on the film are available to consult, and thus the commercial success of the film must be approached as a certain response of spectators on the film. When released in 1925, it earned approximately nine million dollars whereas it cost one million dollars (“The Most Expensive Silent Film”). Thus, it may be said that the film was well received by spectators if we should consider earnings as the indicator of popularity. Even though the studio did not make any profit due to the costs of promotions and other subsequent expenses, it established its

45 reputation and made other successful and first-rate films. The film was re-introduced in the 1930s with special sound effects, and it continued to be popular and earn money.

To conclude, Ben-Hur from the year 1925 is considered to be the most faithful adaptation of the novel. Despite serious production problems, the film became the most magnificent epic of the decade. In addition, it reflects the questions and issues of the society of its era. Contemporary spectators could identify themselves with the personal struggles of the main protagonist Judah as well as with universal issues of imperialism, slavery and the questioning approach towards traditional Christianity. Also, the changing role of women and minorities in the society may be observed in the film.

Despite being set in the Ancient world almost two thousand years ago, the plot and the themes remain universal. The specific style of 1925 Ben-Hur reflects the contemporary society and significant issues during the Roaring Twenties. The adaptation also marks the beginning of the era of ambitious historical epics made in Hollywood.

46

8 Chapter Seven: Ben Hur (1959)

Three decades after the premiere of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925), a

new epic adaptation of the beloved novel Ben-Hur was introduced. Soon, it became

one of the most significant films ever made in Hollywood, winning eleven Oscars and

influencing generations of film-makers and spectators. The film was made by Metro-

Goldwyn-Mayer Studios in reaction to its complicated financial situation. Choosing

William Wyler as the director, who was already well-known in the film industry, and

aiming to film a great epic which would attract the audience were presumably the keys

during the creation of the film. Even though the production of such an expensive film

could seem like gambling, it was paid off by the tremendous success completed by

winning eleven Oscar Awards, which was a record until Titanic (1997) by David

Cameron. The courageous project relied on the popularity of the novel and the silent

version from 1925, on preceding success of films with Biblical motives such as The

Ten Commandments2 (1956), Samson and Delilah (1949) or Quo Vadis?3 (1951), and

on a spectacular stage set of the film. Apart from that, the well-known story of Judah

Ben-Hur and his turbulent life was understandable for spectators in the Fifties, who

still remembered the hardship of World War II, and who lived in the midst of the Cold

War. Thus, this chapter aims to analyse the social and political themes present in the

film and compare the amount of actualisation of the text so that it would attract the

audience in the middle of the twentieth century.

2 Moses, the main protagonist of the film, is played by Charlton Heston. Because of his mature and vivid portrayal of the Biblical phrophet, he was chosen for the title role of Ben Hur, Judah Ben-Hur. 3 The film, made by MGM as well, established the Biblical epic genre in the studio and was a commercial success. And numerous stage properties and costumes were re-used in Ben Hur eight years later. 47

8.1 Plot Summary

The film begins with the traditional scene of the birth of Jesus Christ; it even

precedes the opening titles of the film. The film proceeds with a scene in Nazareth

where Jesus is mentioned for the first time as the opposite to the Roman army marching

through Nazareth at the same time as the ministry of Jesus is discussed. The Roman

legion is led by Messala (Stephen Boyd), the new Tribune of Judea. He encounters

Judah (Charlton Heston), his old friend, and they have a long and friendly conversation

in the military quarters and later in the house of Hur, where Messala meets Judah’s

mother Miriam (Martha Scott) and younger sister Tirzah (Cathy O’Donnell). Despite

the friendly atmosphere, when Messala wants Judah to collaborate with Romans and

to identify leaders of rebellions, they quarrel, and Messala leaves in anger. In the

meantime, the slave Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter Esther (Haya Harareet)

arrive. Esther is to marry a man she barely knows, but it is obvious Judah is in love

with her, and they kiss passionately when she leaves. Later, when a new commander

rides through Jerusalem, a tile falls from the roof of the house of Hur and injures him.

Judah, his mother and his sister and immediately arrested. Judah is sentenced to

become a galley slave, and his family is imprisoned. Judah encounters Jesus who offers

him water and comfort as the slaves march from Jerusalem through Nazareth. For

several years, Judah rows as a galley slave and he is kept alive by the desire for

vengeance. During the sea battle with pirates, he saves the life of Admiral Arrius (Jack

Hawkins) three times; he is later saved by another galley ship, taken to Rome where

he is praised as a hero. He later becomes a champion in chariot races, and finally, he

is adopted by Arrius. He is however haunted by his past and decides to leave Rome

for Jerusalem to seek vengeance and to learn what happened to his mother and sister.

On his way back, Judah encounters Sheik Ilderim (Hugh Griffith), who wants him to

48

be his champion in the chariot race in Jerusalem, and Balthasar (Finlay Currie), one of

the three Magi who came to Jesus in Bethlehem. Judah returns to his house in

Jerusalem, and he meets Esther there, who never got married, Simonides and the

servant Malluch (Ady Berber). Romans tortured them, and they later settled in the

abandoned house to wait for their master to come back. Judah is moved by their

faithfulness and by Esther’s love. Judah confronts Messala to promise him vengeance.

Messala decides to set Miriam and Tirzah free, they, however, contracted leprosy in

prison and they decide to remain dead for Judah. Esther is forced by them to tell him

they are dead. Shattered, Judah decides to face Messala in the great chariot race to seek

his vengeance on him. Judah wins the race, and Messala dies. Before his death, he tells

Judah that his mother and sister are alive but lepers. Judah travels to the Valley of the

Lepers where he sees them and meets Esther who helps them. Broken by the misery,

he wants to pursue his vengeance on Romans. Esther and Balthasar, however, tell him

about Jesus as his teaching of love and peace, Judah resists and quarrels with Esther.

Judah later decides to go to the Valley of the Lepers and to ask Jesus to heal his mother

and sister. During the march to Golgotha, Judah offers Jesus water and understands it

was the Christ who helped him in Nazareth. Jesus is crucified, and his love changes

Judah. Miriam and Tirzah are miraculously healed when Jesus dies. When Judah

returns home, he finds his mother and sister healed, and they are all happy to be

reunited. The film ends with a view on three empty crosses.

8.2 The Best-Known Adaptation

The entire American society, as well as the film industry, were significantly

influenced by the Cold War and the patriotic and anti-Communist tendencies in

everyday life and culture. During the Fifties, the Korean war ended, the Soviet dictator

Joseph Stalin died, the Space Race between the Soviet Union and the United States

49

begun, the USA struggled with social and economic insecurities, and other turbulent

events occurred (America Since 1945). In the climate of uncertainty, the traditional

values such as patriotism, family and Christianity were praised as the answer notably

to the Communist threat. In such political and social context, Hollywood film studios

were encouraged to produce films praising traditional American values (Tuszynski

121). Thus, numerous Biblical epics were made in the 1950s as the reaction to the

social climate.

However, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios chose to re-adapt Ben-Hur not

only because of its preferable pro-American ideals but as well because of the

prevailing popularity of the story which promised a financial success (Murphy 7). The

film studio was financially struggling and finally, it chose to invest fifteen million

American dollars in the ambitious project to re-make the famous story of Judah Ben-

Hur. The studio hoped the film would support it financially and that it would offer new

directions MGM could choose to follow. The filming of Ben Hur4 was the most

ambitious venture of the era. It took five years to prepare the film, six and a half months

of intensive filming and then nine months of editing (Oakes 94). Hundreds of the

members of the crew, as well as hundreds of the extras, were involved. The film was,

in short, the most expensive and the most spectacular. Running for 212 minutes, the

film offered all beloved elements of the novel in a modern and approachable way. The

stage setting was rich and attractive, famous actors provided lively performance of the

protagonists, and the action sequences were realistic and professionally executed. Both

critics and spectators loved the new adaptation of Ben-Hur. Later, MGM continued in

filming other Biblical epics, yet none gained the popularity of Ben Hur. The epic was

also an incredible financial success, earning more than one hundred and forty-six

4 Whereas the novel and the first two films use a hyphen between Ben and Hur, the 1959 film ommits it and the title is written Ben Hur. Thus, the difference is respected in the text of the thesis. 50 million American dollars. In the end, it became the most successful film of the era.

The daring project saved MGM financially and influenced generations of spectators and film-makers.

The script of Ben Hur was actualised and modified by five screenwriters, notably by Karl Tunberg, Gore Vidal and Christopher Fry (Tuszynski 119) to approach contemporary audience and its issues. Screenwriters as well changed numerous details, such as the relationship between Judah and Esther. They omitted the character of Iras and added Pontius Pilate. It is arguable if they wanted to bring new elements to the story, or if they aimed to emphasise different motifs than in the 1925 adaptation.

Significant changes will be discussed further in the text in detail. Despite the changes, the adaptation may be considered faithful and following the well-known story without dramatic actualisations.

Ben Hur contains numerous political and social issues relatable to the audience in the Fifties. Due to the turbulent changes within the society and politics influenced tremendously by World War II and the Cold War, both political and social issues in the 1959 adaptation differ in some respect from the 1925 version. The occurrence of the sound in Ben Hur provides space for a broader discussion of personal and social issues. The rest of the chapter aims to analyse the political and social issues present in the film, with a comparison to the novel. The discussed topics are imperialism, Israel, slavery, Christianity, women and minorities.

The phenomenon of imperialism and war were omnipresent in the American society when Ben Hur was introduced. World War II ended almost fifteen years ago, and the United States found themselves in the midst of the so-called Cold War. The pro-American and anti-Communist propaganda was everywhere, as well as the paranoia of espionage and treason. Even Hollywood was influenced by the political

51 atmosphere in the United States. The film industry experienced investigation of its possible anti-American activities, and many people were persecuted (Tuszynski 118).

On the other hand, propaganda used Hollywood Biblical epics to motivate American citizens to ultimately win the Cold War (Tuszynski 117). Also, Geraldine Murphy suggests that the “toga films” in the Fifties were popular partly because of the

American fear of the notion of the empire, be it the former British Empire, the USSR, or even the United States themselves (3-4). Thus, the “toga films” were supposed to represent the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. In Ben Hur, Romans embody the dictatorial regimes of the Fifties, notably the USSR, and Jews are virtuous, yet oppressed people who hope for deliverance and freedom. The theme was supposed to motivate spectators to fight against dictatorial regimes and to support the United

States in standing against the USSR.

As for the concrete examples of imperialism in the film, Romans and notably

Messala represent the dictatorial tendencies and the oppression of freedom. The first scene after the opening titles introduces a Roman legion marching through Judea. The neverending line of legionaries resembles a snake or a long chain which ties the oppressed nation. The “snake” is led by Messala, the new Tribune of Judea. As well as in the 1925 adaptation, Messala is a Roman officer and a leader, not a young soldier blinded by the illusion of fame, as he is portrayed in the novel. The scene of Messala being honoured as the new Tribune further indicates the change of Messala in the novel and the film. Messala even mentions that when he was younger, he dreamt of becoming the commander of Judea (Ben Hur). The dreams of Messala in the novel are fulfilled in the film adaptation. Later, Messala discusses the people of Judea with the former

Tribune, Sextus. Both John the Baptist and Jesus are mentioned, Romans, however, see them as a threat. At the end of the conversation, Messala declares that the way of

52 fighting an idea is by offering a different and more attractive idea. The spectator could identify the propaganda and practices used in the Cold War as a part of the campaign was distributing modified versions of the truth.

Judah meets Messala in the Roman headquarters. Their first meeting is warm, former friends reunite and repeat their favourite sport, throwing javelins as close to each other as possible. It may be considered a symbol of unity and some understand it as a metaphor for phallic closeness (Tuszynski 119). The relationship between Messala and Judah may be seen as a metaphor of the United States and the USSR, once allies in World War II who became enemies. Further in the conversation, another aspect of imperialism may be observed as Messala asks Judah to collaborate with the Roman regime. Judah refuses and later, Messala arrests him and his family without mercy and wants to make him a deterrent example to other Jews. Being forced to inform on others was a reality to many Americans in the Fifties. Thus, the scene may be understood as a warning to spectators not to collaborate with communist spies, but it may be at the same time seen as a criticism of informing on suspicious people, even because of hate or envy. Even though Judah becomes a Roman citizen, he declines his privileges, in the end, to remain faithful to his motherland. In the same manner, American spectators are challenged to resist temptation and to be loyal to the United States. At the same time, cruel behaviour of imperialistic Rome is exposed and condemned. The reading of the imperialistic aspect of the film offers multiple understandings due to the time of occurrence.

As for the topic of slavery, there are two separate layers to be found in the film. Firstly, it is Judah’s experience as a galley slave. Scenes in the galley ship are realistic and intense, as it is in the 1925 adaptation. Lew Wallace describes the galley slaves: “So, as the result of long service, the poor wretches became imbruted--patient,

53 spiritless, obedient—creatures of vast muscles and exhausted intellects” (133). The film depicts the neverending labour and misery in the same detail. Judah was at the beginning of the film introduced as the most wealthy and powerful of Jewish aristocrats, so his transition to a slave without the name is intensified. It may be said that similar change in social status, often also by a mistake or human envy, was experienced by spectators in the United States during the Soviet paranoia. People were forced to quit their occupations, and in a metaphorical sense, became slaves of the system. At the same time, similar persecution experienced citizens of the East, be in the Soviet Union or other socialistic republics. The galley ships may be understood as a symbol of gulags and labour camps where almost two million prisoners died during the Communist regime. Both readings were current for spectators at the end of the

Fifties.

The other layer of the slavery topic is found in Esther. As discussed further in the chapter, her character is the most elaborated and transformed in the adaptation.

The topic of freedom and slavery is mostly concerned with her. At the beginning of the film, she arrives in Jerusalem with her father. She is to marry a stranger who would pay for her freedom. When Judah hears it, he gives he freedom as a wedding gift. Thus,

Esther faces a complicated situation which she summarises: “It’s strange. I hardly felt a slave. And now, I hardly feel free!” (Ben Hur). In the utterance, Esther expresses the difference between the status of slavery and the emotional freedom. In her case, when she was a slave, she could be in love with Judah. Paradoxically, when he gives her freedom, she becomes a slave of obligations. The film suggests that the real freedom is in mind, not in social status. Judah finds himself in the opposite situation when he becomes a slave of vengeance. When he is ready to gather an army against Rome,

Esther confronts him: “It was Judah Ben-Hur I loved. What has become of him? You

54 seem to be now the very thing you set out to destroy, giving evil for evil! Hatred is turning you to stone. It is as though you had become Messala!“ (Ben Hur). Judah does not become a slave when he is condemned to the galleys, but he loses his freedom when he cannot forgive. Finally, he is set free by Jesus Christ and his mercy, and by his love for Esther.

Moving to the question of Israel present in the film, several aspects may be observed. Notably, it is casting of the Israeli actress Haya Harareet as Esther. It was not common in the 1950s to cast native actors, such as Arabs or Jews, to play such nationalities in a film. Thus, Harareet represented the state of Israel, only eleven years old in 1959. The choice of her to play Esther, who is more confident and active than in the novel, as discussed later, may be observed as a political statement of “special relationship of the United States and Israel” (Murphy 10). The United States supported

Israel and saw the Jewish state as an ally in the Cold War. Michelle Mart suggests that the main reason for the support of Israel by the USA was the Christian revival in the

1950s, which led to the notion of Judeo-Christian unity, as Christianity and Judaism shares significant ideas and principles (Mart 109). Mart identifies also that “other factors—including the longstanding sympathy among some Protestants for Zionism and the strategic calculations of securing a pro-Western ally in the Middle East— contributed to American support of Israel in the 1950s.” (Mart 109) As Geraldine

Murphy adds, William Wyler supported Israel as well and thus decided to cast the

Israeli actress (8). One scene of the film represents, in particular, the supportive attitude towards Israel. Right before the chariot race, Sheik Ilderim approaches Judah and gives him the Star of David “to shine out for your people and for mine, and blind the eyes of Rome!” (Ben Hur). Riding with the Star on his neck, Judah becomes a personification of Israel, standing alone against numerical superiority of enemies who

55

want to destroy him. The Star of David brings another connotation with Jewish people,

such as the horrors of the Holocaust still in the living memory. In one sense, when

Judah wins the chariot race, it may be seen as giving satisfaction to Jews and especially

victims of the Holocaust and later of the fight for the independence of the State of

Israel. Finally, the symbol of mezuzah5 occurs several times in the film. In various

stages of the story, Judah touches it affectionately when entering his home. It is another

symbol of Jewish legacy and heritage, showing respect for the Torah and Jewish

traditions. As Wyler came from the Jewish background, the symbol well-known in the

Jewish community was chosen as a metaphor for home. At the same time, using a

detail Jews could understand was another form of reference to the importance of Israel.

On the other hand, it is interesting that Esther is the most active follower of Christ in

the film, and often cites to Judah what she heard from Jesus. The fusion of Christianity

and Judaism may be seen in this. Also, when Judah returns home after witnessing the

death of Jesus on the cross, he touches the mezuzah again. Richard Walsh suggests

that Judah was not converted from Judaism to Christianity by his encounter with

Christ, but the change he experienced is “simply his restoration to non-violent Judaism

after a brief flirtation with Roman vengeance” (138). Judah’s conversion to

Christianity is not mentioned in the film, as it is described in the novel. The film thus

leaves the transition of Judah’s faith open.

Christianity is deeply connected with the terms of freedom and slavery as well

as with Israel, notably in the 1959 adaptation. As discussed earlier, it is not evident

whether Judah converted from Judaism to Christianity, the Christian faith is however

almost omnipresent. During the nativity scene, before the actual beginning of the film,

considerably more attention is paid to Jesus and his importance than to Mary, as it was

5 A little box with a passage from the Torah which Jews place on a doorpost in their houses. 56 in the previous adaptation. Later, when Roman soldiers pass through Nazareth, Joseph is asked by his friend about his son, Jesus. Joseph replies to a question why he does not help him by arguing that Jesus works with his father. The scene, not present in the novel, introduces Jesus and his true nature, understood by Joseph. The face of Jesus is never shown in the film, and the name of the actor playing him, Claude Heater, is not included in the closing credits. The wish of Lew Wallace is therefore fulfilled in this adaptation as well. When Judah returns to Jerusalem, Esther and Balthasar tell him about Jesus and transmit to him crucial thoughts of Christianity, usually using paraphrases of Biblical verses. Esther dissuades Judah from fighting against Rome; he, however, struggles with believing in Jesus. His opinions are shattered when he recognises Jesus as the one who gave him water when Judah was marching to the galleys. Judah repays Jesus the act of mercy by offering him water before the crucifixion. Finally, after witnessing the crucifixion, Judah is changed by love and forgiveness of the Christ. “And I felt his voice take the sword out of my hand.” (Ben

Hur). Both the spectator and Judah learn about Jesus and his teaching throughout the story, the lives of both men meet during several occasions. Susan Tuszynski suggests the film challenges American spectators to embrace Christianity rather than hate or vengeance (122). After the horrors of the Second World War and then the Communist threat, spectators could identify themselves with the suffering of Judah. They were offered a solution in domestic life, love and Christian faith. The film respects protestant tradition and does not emphasise the importance of Mary. Christianity was interconnected with the state and the society, and the majority related Christian faith with the “American way of life” (Penncock 376). American Protestantism, originating in Puritanism, is another symbol of patriotism and national heritage, therefore the film depicts Christianity typical for the majority of the American society. Also, it portrays

57

Jesus in more civil and approachable manner than the 1925 adaptation, showing him as a person with family ties (the conversation between Joseph and his friend) and charisma no one could resist. Such a portrayal of Jesus as a personal saviour of everyone, without religious aura, was approachable for spectators. Especially in the second half of the film, the storyline of Jesus collides with the main plotline. At the end of the film, when Jesus is crucified, it starts to rain, and water takes with it the blood of Jesus. At the same time, the mother and the sister of Judah are miraculously healed. The symbol of blood as a remedy for healing is well-established in the

Protestant tradition. Afterwards, the women let the miraculous rain wash them. They are in one sense baptised by water and are reborn after the healing. Thus, the complex

Christian theology is transmitted partly orally, partly through symbols. Christianity, notably American Protestantism, plays a crucial role in the 1959 adaptation of Ben-

Hur.

Moving to women of Ben Hur, a significant shift of their importance may be observed in the film adaptation. As mentioned before, Esther underwent the most radical transformation. It is apparent that the concept of a quiet, passive and obedient

Victorian girl was outdated after World War II when women realised their strength and equality with men. Thus, Esther in the film becomes one of the prominent characters and often the most active and decisive one. She is introduced as a shy slave secretly in love with her master. However, when the family of Hur is arrested and her father brutally tortured, she takes over responsibilities which belonged to her father and decides to live in the house of the Hur family, guarding it, protecting it and anticipating the return of Judah. When Judah enters his home, he finds Esther strong, independent and brave. At the same time, Esther it changed by the teaching of Jesus and transmits his thoughts to Judah. Later, when Judah is paralysed by grief and

58 misery, she decides to be the active element, she helps Judah to find his way from the obsession with vengeance. Also, as she helps Judah’s mother and sister, she is forced to lie to Judah about their existence in order to protect him from more pain. Esther is given a significant amount of attention in the film, and the screenwriters combined her character with Amrah, an old servant of the Hur family, who was significant in the novel but was omitted from the film adaptations. At the same time, the character of

Iras is not included in the film adaptation. As Esther was introduced at the beginning of the film, it is possible filmmakers did not want to complicate the love story with an intruder. Esther and Iras appeared almost simultaneously in the novel and were thus naturally rivals. The 1959 film, on the other hand, follows in more detail the moral dilemma of Judah and his existential questions, and the love of Esther is often his only certainty. As a part of the American politics and propaganda was supporting traditional nuclear families with many children, it was preferable not to include another woman, but to emphasise the values of a supportive partner. When Judah returns home after the crucifixion, he places his head on Esther’s stomach, indicating their closeness symbolically and as well her role as a future mother of their children (Tuszynski 122).

In the end, Esther is as well a symbol of hope for Judah, and in the figurative sense for

American spectators. Concerning other female characters, it is relevant to note that for the first time, Judah’s mother is given a name, Miriam. Milette Shamir understands

Judah’s mother as a symbol of home, youth and faith, and thus she is not given a name in the novel (45). Equally, the 1925 adaptation does not name the mother. Mother in the novel is a crucial element; she is given several monologues at the beginning of the novel and symbolises wisdom and tradition. Her importance in the 1959 film adaptation is transmitted to Esther as a wise and active character. As Shamir later points out, Judah does not find happiness among males such as Arrius or Messala, who

59 are exclusively Romans, but among Jewish women, his mother, sister and Esther (50).

Women, as a symbol of the motherland, were to encourage spectators to remain faithful to their country and not to betray the United States to the USSR or other enemies of the state, even at a personal loss (Tuszynski 122). Thus, women in Ben Hur carry numerous symbolical meanings, and notably Esther is given more space and activity. Both the increasing feminism and American propaganda may be observed in it, as described earlier.

As for the minorities present in the film, there are several fascinating issues to be found. Above all, the homoerotic subtext during the scenes with Judah and

Messala. Numerous scholars analysing Ben Hur, such as Geraldine Murphy, Susan

Tuszynski or Ina Rae Hark, identify homoerotic symbolism during the first encounter of Judah and Messala in frequent touching, Messala’s gaze on Judah, and notably the spear competition, which is identified as a phallic symbol (Tuszynski 119). Gore

Vidal, who was one of the screenwriters, claims the scene was directed deliberately by

Wyler to indicate the homoerotic feelings of Messala towards Judah and to provide a motive for the later hatred when Judah rejects him (Hark 169). It is said that Charlton

Heston, known for his conservative opinions, was not told about the director’s intentions (Tuszynski 119). In addition, several other scenes including Roman men carry homosexual subtext, notably in the galley ship. When Arrius watches Judah rowing, the entire situation carries homoerotic overtones, in particular in a space filled with half-naked men (Hark 172). As Susan Tuszynski suggests, Judah has to decide if he remains in “unnatural” relationships with Messala and Arrius, or if he gives preference to the “natural” relationship with Esther (122). The situation served as a reminder for young American men, tempted by “unnatural relationships” and by cooperation with the enemy, to understand that true happiness may be found in being

60 faithful to the motherland and choosing a good wife who would give him many children (Tuszynski 122). And thus, two perspectives on sexual minorities are offered in the film. Firstly, the hatred of Messala may be understood as the reaction to unfulfilled desires. Several other scenes in the Roman environment indicate their inclination to homosexuality. Secondly, American spectators are encouraged to choose the “natural” way of living, as shown by Judah renouncing his Roman identity and embracing his Jewish identity symbolised by the relationship with Esther.

Concerning the national minorities and immigrants, the film was made by

William Wyler, a German immigrant (Internet Movie Database), and other members of the crew were immigrants as well, such as the music composer Miklós Rósza, coming from Budapest (Internet Movie Database). Combining experience from

Europe with possibilities in Hollywood, immigrant filmmakers were able to enrich the procedures of making films in America. Significantly, Israeli actress Haya Harareet was cast as Esther, which was the first step in providing possibilities to talented actors from other countries. It may be said that despite being made in the United States, Ben

Hur is truly international.

Considering the response from critics and audience, it was intense and largely positive. The majority of reviewers praised the film for the action scenes, plot and overall implementation. Giving an example, Variety Movie Reviews praises:

“a majestic achievement, representing a superb blending of the motion picture arts by master craftsmen.“ ("Ben-Hur." 3.). Philip Oakes points out that: “Ben-Hur sets an entirely new standard for spectaculars.” (95). He, however, argues that as Ben-Hur is a nationally beloved bestseller, its adaptations are not to be criticised, but praised (95).

As mentioned earlier, Ben Hur won eleven Oscars and helped to establish the Biblical genre within MGM. For generations of spectators, it became the synonym for the

61

Biblica epic. The chariot race is identified even by those who have not seen the film.

Although it cost fourteen million dollars, twice as much as it was expected, it earned almost sixty-six million dollars in the first year (Chagollan 13). Overall, despite being a hazardous project, Ben Hur, in the end, became an incredible success.

To conclude, the film Ben Hur reflects political and social issues of the

American society during the Cold War. The question of imperialism resonates through the film, and the spectator may identify numerous allusions to the political situation, notably the relationship with the USSR after World War II. Further, freedom and slavery are discussed in the film from several perspectives, suggesting that the true freedom is to be found in mind and choosing love and forgiveness. The Jewish theme acquires a new form by casting the Israeli actress Haya Harareet. In her playing Esther, the relationship between the United States and Israel is strengthened, and the existence of the state of Israel is supported. Christianity plays a major role in the adaptation, encouraging spectators to remain faithful to their faith and country. Women are given more attention and a share in activity, notably Esther is in several moments the most decisive and active individual. Finally, as for the depiction of minorities, the relationship between Messala and Judah was by many considered as homoerotic, at least from Messala’s side. The question was widely discussed, and it shows the complicated relationship of the American society to minorities, notably the sexual one.

As described earlier, apart from being the most successful epic film of the era, Ben

Hur reflects significant questions and issues of the society in the midst of the Cold

War.

62

9 Chapter Eight: Ben-Hur (2016)

The most recent film based on the novel by Lew Wallace was introduced in

2016. For almost sixty years, Ben Hur with Charleton Heston was considered to be an

unrivalled classic, and it was generally believed that there was no reason to make

another version of the film. Thus, when the new film adaptation of the novel was

announced by Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, sceptical voices

defending the 1959 version questioned the need for a new adaptation. Director Timur

Bekmambetov, producer Sean Daniel and other members of the crew in numerous

interviews insisted on two major differences between the 1959 film and their version:

the young audience needs its own version of the famous story, and their film is not a

remake of the adaptation by Wyler, but it focuses straightly on the novel and it

approaches the plot from a fresh perspective (Debruge 58). Indeed, as analysed further

in the chapter, the 2016 film modifies and changes many aspects of the story, and it is

questionable if it may be called a remake of the previous film versions or the novel by

Wallace. However, the new perspective on the story and characters reflect the social

and political changes which occurred in the society at the end of the twentieth century

and the beginning of the twenty-first century. Dramatic plot changes reflect equally

dramatic changes in the society, not only American but worldwide. In the high-tech

and globalised world of today, even the well-known story of Judah Ben-Hur is

approached from an innovative perspective. As described further in the text, responses

to the changes were mostly negative, and the film was not a financial success either.

Yet, the response of the audience, notably on the Internet and social media, as well as

the changes and modifications of the story provide an interesting picture of

contemporary society and its social and political issues. Naturally, one film cannot be

the universal example of the climate in the society, it, however, reflects the surprisingly

63

high number of contemporary issues. Concrete examples of them found in the film are

described in detail further in the chapter.

9.1 Plot Summary

The film commences with a scene from the beginning of the chariot race.

When the race starts, the film returns eight years earlier and introduces Judah (Jack

Huston) and Messala (Toby Kebbell), his Roman adoptive brother, horse racing. When

Judah falls from the horse, Messala saves him and carries him to the House of Hur

where he is taken care of by his mother Naomi (Ayelet Zurer) and sister Tirzah (Sofia

Black D’Elia). Judah recovers, but he later quarrels with Messala because Messala is

in love with Tirzah, which the mother does not approve. Messala leaves for become a

Roman soldier and fights for three years in the Roman army to return to Jerusalem as

a Roman officer. In the meantime, Judah marries Esther (Nazanin Boniadi), his former

slave. Judah refuses to be involved in the Zealot rebellion or any other revolt against

the Roman Empire. However, Tirzah becomes a part of the resistance and brings a

wounded Zealot rebel to the house to hide him from Romans. She persuades her

brother to help them. At the same time, Messala reunites with Judah and the rest of his

family. Being the Roman officer, he chases after Zealots and asks Judah for help.

When Judah refuses, Messala leaves in anger. During the march of Roman troops

through Jerusalem, led by Pontius Pilate (Pilou Asbæk), the Zealot rebel hidden in the

Hur’s house attacks Pilate by an arrow. He flees but Judah, Naomi and Tirzah are

captured. Judah is sent to galleys, and his mother and sister are to be crucified. When

marching to the galleys, Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro) encourages Judah and offers him

water. Judah survives years as the galley slave and escapes when his ship sinks. Sheik

Ilderim (Morgan Freeman) finds him on the beach half-dead and takes care of him.

However, he does not believe Judah at beginning and Judah must prove that he is

64

trustworthy by helping one of the Ilderim’s horses. They travel to Jerusalem where

Judah reunites with Esther who became a follower of Jesus and helps the poor and the

persecuted. Judah wants to wreak revenge on Messala, and thus he decides to ride in

the chariot race. He also learns that his mother and sister live but are held in the prison

where they contracted leprosy and became partly insane. Shattered, Judah returns to

Ilderim’s camp to meet Esther who wants him to choose love over vengeance. They

quarrel and Esther leaves to join Jesus. Judah wins the chariot race, Messala is

seriously injured, and the audience in the are is encouraged by his winning to clash

with Roman soldiers. Even though Judah wins the race, he at the same time loses

Esther who decides not to support him but to follow Jesus. Judah finally understands

that love overcomes hatred and decides to find Messala, crippled by the chariot

accident, and they forgive each other. In the meantime, Jesus is arrested, and on the

way to Golgotha, Judah recognises him as the one who helped years ago. After the

crucifixion, Judah and Esther are reconciled, and at the same time, miraculous rain

heals Noemi and Tirzah from leprosy. The family of Hur is reunited and together, they

leave with Sheik Ilderim.

9.2 The Globalised Judah Ben-Hur

It is possible to conclude even only from the plot summary that the most

recent adaptation of Ben-Hur shifts and changes both events and characters of the

story. Bekmambetov, however, aimed not to remake the 1959 film, but to rather aimed

to rely on the 1880 novel by Wallace (Pahle 8). Yet, despite claiming to be depending

on the novel, now in the public domain, screenwriters Keith Clarke and John Ridley

created a mostly original story loosely connected with the novel. Thomas Leitch

identifies such adaptation as revision, meaning that screenwriters modify the story

65

significantly but refer to the source and aim to preserve “the spirit of the novel” (Leitch

106). Even though filmmakers of the 2016 film claimed they wanted to follow the

story of the novel and make a believable adaptation of Ben-Hur (Debruge 59), they at

the same time modified the plot and characters to modern standards. Numerous

changes and their possible interpretations are analysed in detail further in the text.

Filmmakers, led by Timur Bekmambetov, had several strategies for making

the film which would “revisit” (Giroux) the famous story. As described in numerous

articles on the making of Ben-Hur, the aim was supposed to offer the well-known story

to the globalised world and to introduce Ben-Hur to the new generation which was not

familiar with the story or with the 1959 film (Debruge 59). Indeed, the film is truly

international: partly filmed in Rome6 by the director originally coming from the USSR,

with international cast7 and aiming its propagation worldwide, also through social

media. Another goal was to film a motion picture which would be as realistic as

possible. Nick Miller summarises the aim of the director: “He wanted a ‘grounded and

real’ movie, not a togas-and-sandals fantasy.” (Miller). Therefore, even though there

are numerous action scenes in the film, the primal emphasis is on the character

development and on the complicated relationship between Judah and Messala,

emphasised by making Messala Judah’s adoptive brother, not a childhood friend.

Bekmambetov says: “The movie should be very different in order to survive, and that’s

why Ben-Hur is very realistic. It’s a realistic, deep drama, not a huge tentpole

attraction. It’s just drama.” (Giroux). Thus, filmmakers aimed to film an international

version of the classic novel with the use of modern technologies yet grounding the

story on strong characters and their relationships.

6 The film was partly made in the Cinecitta Studios near Rome, where the 1959 was filmed as well (Miller). 7 Giving an example, Jesus is played by Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro, Esther by Iranian actress Nazanin Boniadi or Pontius Pilate by Pilou Asbæk from Denmark. 66

Concerning the response of the audience and reviewers, the film was received

mostly negatively. There are several reasons to be found for both critical and financial

failure.8 Firstly, even though filmmakers assumed that the new generation would

welcome a new version of Ben-Hur, the 1959 film has remained within the public

memory and both spectators and reviewers compared it with the new adaptation.

Despite claiming the new Ben-Hur is not a remake of Wyler’s film, it was approached

as a remake. Moreover, spectators expected the well-known story and were

disappointed with the changes in the plot and characters. As reactions and reviews

were shared mostly online, spectators possibly lost interest in the film even before they

would watch it themselves. On the website rottentomatoes.com, it obtained 24%, the

number consists of both professional and audience reviews and reactions. Users of the

webpage IMBd.com rated Ben-Hur 5.7 out of 10. In the majority of reviews, it is

compared to the 1959 film, and it is criticised for the lack of originality and credibility.

For instance, film critic Joshua Rothkopf writes: “Just because you're rolling in the

chariot doesn't make you Charlton Heston. That's a lesson this weightless, instantly

disposable remake of the 1959 sword-and-sandal Oscar winner learns the hard way.”

(Rothkopf). However, not all spectators were disappointed, such as Joshua Sheetz: “It

was, truth be told, a film that I looked forward to eviscerating -- an example of

Hollywood gone wrong with big budget filmmaking, relying more upon name

recognition than actual content or inspiration. And I was completely wrong, as Ben-

Hur proves a more solid retelling than anyone anticipated or even deserved.” (“Ben-

Hur”, Rotten Tomatoes). However, such reactions were in the minority, the most of

the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, IMBd.com and news websites criticised the film for

numerous reasons such as the lack of originality, credibility and realism. Because of

8 The film cost more than one hundred million American dollars but only earned ninety-four million American dollars. 67 the negative reviews which discouraged possible spectators, Ben-Hur was also a financial failure, ending in red numbers.

The film, however, deals with a considerable number of contemporary political and social issues of the modern, mostly globalised, world. Being it the contemporary film reflecting current issues, the application or interpretation may be misleading as the historical perspective is missing. Still, the aim of the rest of the chapter is to analyse the main political and social issues in this version of Ben-Hur and identify the reasons for the manner of depiction as suggested by the filmmakers. As in the previous films, the themes focused on in the chapter are imperialism, slavery,

Israel, Christianity, women and minorities.

Commencing with the complex issue of imperialism, there are several fascinating phenomena to be found. However, the perspective on the depiction of imperialism and Rome is one of the examples which would need further historical interval. At the moment, it is precarious to identify the United States or another state as Rome in the film. Rome in Ben-Hur is a brutal system which rules over nations and peoples. Its primary tool is violence and infiltration of its culture by providing cheap entertainment for the subjugated people. Timur Bekmambetov, however, argues: “We live in a Roman Empire: globalization, ego, a cult of power, and competition are only ways people can develop this world.” (Loria 34), indicating the persistent relevance of the Roman Empire on the world of today, notably on its present equivalent, the United

States. It may also be one of the reasons why the theme of Ben-Hur remains actual and appealing to the audience and filmmakers. Concerning the characterisation of Rome in Ben-Hur, at the beginning of the film, the voice-over of Morgan Freeman as Ilderim summarises the nature of Rome: “It is an empire nourished by blood and secured by fear. They will take everything you have. They would invite you to their games to

68 watch others suffer and to forget what you have lost.” (Ben-Hur). It is arguable that instead of representing one concrete country, Rome in Ben-Hur depicts a universal corrupted system of domination which is based on violence and at the same time on buying the affection of people by offering them thrilling excitement in the arena. It may be also seen as the globalised world of today.

To begin with the depiction of brutality of the Roman Empire, the scenes from the galley ship are an ideal example. Before Judah descends to the lower deck of the galley ship, two soldiers drag a body of a dead slave up the stairs to throw it into the sea. The scene symbolises the horror of the life of a Roman slave without dignity or even name. Judah becomes a slave of the system and survives only because of his thirst for vengeance. In the 2016 version, the character of Admiral Arrius is omitted, so the misery in the ship is not redeemed by the presence of a future friend. The character of a commander of the ship who talks to slaves before a battle represents cruelty of the

Roman system which ignores identities of the slaves and even the mere fact they are human beings. The raw and brutal scenes from the galley ship indicate the corruption and dehumanisation of Rome. As in the previous film adaptations, the sequence depicting the slavery of Judah may be considered as the most drastic example of the cruel political power which can crush the life of an individual and deprive him of everything. The personification of the Roman power is predominantly found in Pontius

Pilate, who is given more space than in previous adaptations. Cold-blooded, pragmatic and cruel, Pilate aims to crush both the Zealot rebellion and the teaching of Jesus

Christ. To do so, he uses the collective guilt of Judeans and crucifies innocent people as a warning to Zealot rebels and also to Judah who is planning to seek vengeance on

Rome when he returns from the galleys. Pilate also orders to use Jewish tombstones

69 for building the Roman arena in Jerusalem. The symbol of the Roman circus made of sacred Jewish tombstones is another example of Roman dominance and arrogance.

As for the depiction of entertainment as a tool of Roman dominion, it is more emphasised than in previous adaptations and the novel. The 2016 film noticed and accentuated the fact that the famous chariot race is provided by Romans to give the subjugated nations, from Judeans to Greeks and Egyptians, entertainment and amusement. Notably, Sheik Ilderim draws attention to the phenomenon at the beginning of the film when he describes Rome as a cruel totalitarian regime. The scene with the voice-over follows seconds before the start of the chariot race with a particular focus on the thrilled audience. Thus the spectator watches the film with the opening scene in mind, seeing the race from a different perspective. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the famous chariot race is “bread and circuses” for spectators in both the ancient world and on screen as it is usually the most beloved part of the film. Such analogy, even though not explicitly stated, raises a question of the need for entertainment at any cost in the modern world. The spectator may thus question his or her approach to amusement and thrill. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer deal with the notion of the culture industry which identifies culture and entertainment as a tool for manipulation. They also identify features of the culture industry in history, claiming that: “Amusement and all the elements of the culture industry existed long before the latter came into existence. Now they are taken over from above and brought up to date.” (Adorno and Horkheimer 107). When there were enough food and entertainment in the Roman era, people were less likely to rebel. The film raises the question of how much our society corresponds to the ancient one, especially concerning the question of amusement.

70

Moving to the topic of slavery, the 2016 film offers a different approach than the previous adaptations. Slavery is not the predominant focus in the film, as other themes such as forgiveness, bravery and identity are emphasised instead. However, it may be understood that the universal issue of slavery is modified from the social status to psychological or mental. Judah struggles with the thirst for vengeance when he returns from the galleys, and even though he is given freedom by Sheik Ilderim, he becomes the slave of vengeance and violence. Just as in the 1959 version, the film continues to depict the destructive effects of mental slavery caused by the desire for revenge. On the other hand, the character of Esther is given freedom through marriage with Judah at the beginning of the film, and thus she acts throughout the film as a free woman, on both social and mental level. Moreover, Judah may resemble the slave of hatred, and Esther acts independently of her husband. As the filmmakers decided to abandon the theme of Esther finding her freedom in the slavery, Judah is the only protagonist who struggles with freedom. Naturally, the struggle is the most intensively depicted in the galley ship sequence. Judah is kept alive by his desire for vengeance, but at the same time, he imprisons himself in the mental slavery of hatred. Another form of slavery is formed when he is rescued by Ilderim and his men. Sheik, being a slave of pain and hatred himself, keeps Judah bound and is ready to hand him over to

Romans. So, even though Judah survived the Roman slavery, he became the slave of

Ilderim. Sheik tells him: “You owe me your life. I expect the bill to be paid.” (Ben-

Hur). Finally, by the great victory in the chariot race, both Judah and Ilderim are set free as Judah redeems his debt by winning, and Ilderim triumphs over Rome. Yet, the ultimate freedom is obtained by forgiveness. Thus, the topic of slavery is transferred from the traditional concept to the psychological level.

71

Concerning the depiction of Israel and Jews in the film, it is sidelined by the focus on the relationship between Judah and Messala. Also, it is possible that the authors decided to remain politically neutral to the question of Israel, as it represents an international diplomatic and political issue. However, there are several details which naturally indicate the Jewishness in the film. Firstly, Judah wears a kippah at the beginning of the film, indicating his Jewish faith. There is mezuzah visible on the doorway of the House of Hur. Yet, Judah does not touch it when entering his home, and it does not carry the symbolic meaning as in the 1959 adaptation. Moreover, it seems that Judah in the 2016 film struggles with faith as he confronts his wife, Esther:

“If there is a God why doesn’t he do the right in the world?” (Ben-Hur). Such utterance indicates a changed attitude of Judah to the Jewish faith. Whereas in the novel and previous adaptations Judah is devoted to his faith, Judah in the 2016 adaptation rather professes kindness and solidarity with the poor and oppressed. He is moved by the suffering, and his faith in God is shattered. Such change in Judah’s faith may be relatable to many spectators who struggle with institutional religion and are moved by the suffering of others. The change in Judah’s Jewishness is significant for understanding the approach to Christianity, as discussed later.

Additionally, there are two other significant Jewish elements: the importance of Jewish gravestones used for the construction of the arena, and the Zealot uprising.

The original motif of stealing gravestones for building the Roman arena in Jerusalem indicates the Roman indifference to Jewish customs and traditions. The affair reflects the universal problem of the occupational power violating the culture of occupied countries. For Jews, graveyards represent a significant element of the tradition and the connection with the past, thus when the gravestones were used for the construction of

Roman, gentile, arena, the understanding of the Jewish identity is devastated even for

72

Jews themselves. It may also be understood as a universal metaphor of the clash of cultures lasting until presence when the ignorance of one causes conflicts and misunderstandings. The Zealot uprising is connected with the phenomenon. A significant amount of attention is centred on it in the 2016 film despite it not being explicitly mentioned in the novel. However, filmmakers considered the theme of the fight for independence crucial for the film. It is arguable that Jews in this aspect represent countries and nations who find themselves in the danger of losing freedom and sovereignty. Two kinds of reaction to the Roman occupation are captured in the film: the revolt and acceptance. Whereas Judah does not want to get involved in the violent revolution, Zealots and Judah’s sister Tirzah prefer fighting Romans by force.

The Zealot revolution represents one of the possible strifes for freedom, not always successful. It is not evident whether filmmakers understood a specific nation as a symbol of Israel in the first century, the concrete example in the revolt and its comparison with the acceptance of the regime is, however, a universal phenomenon.

The film suggests that neither of the answers on the military aggression is sufficient and offers the solution in accepting the teaching of love and forgiveness as offered by

Jesus.

Christianity in the film plays a significant role; it is however approached from an unusual perspective. It is crucial to point out that the new adaptation of Ben-Hur was produced by Christians, Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, who filmed Biblical stories for History Chanel in a modernised way (Felman 98). Several articles on the filming of Ben-Hur emphasise that the target audience is mostly faith-based and

Christian (Debruge 59). Despite these facts, the interpretation of the figure of Jesus and the Christian teaching is rather unusual and unconventional. First of all, the filmmakers did not respect the wish of Lew Wallace, who did not want the face of

73

Jesus to be shown. Naturally, it is more interesting for spectators to see Jesus’s face, and it is also easier for filmmakers to shoot the scenes with Jesus when his face is visible. Nevertheless, abandoning the wish of the author corresponds with other modifications in the notion of Christianity presented in the film. Firstly, Jesus talks to

Judah before the accident and before he offers him water when being transferred to the galleys. Jesus in the film lives in Jerusalem and works as a carpenter. When Judah and

Esther discuss freedom and the Zealot revolt, Jesus argues that freedom is found in loving the enemies. He continues while working: “God is love. He made us to share that love.” (Ben-Hur). Further, he states that fear and hate are lies and that God has a prepared plan for everyone. Thus, even before the beginning of his public service,

Jesus confronts Judah with basic Christian thoughts. He shares them in friendly and approachable manner as a reaction to the discussion between Judah and his wife.

Esther is interested in the teaching of Jesus and later, she joins him as one of his disciples. Jesus is given a face and a voice in the adaptation, and his portrayal is more civil than in the previous adaptations. However, the information found in the Bible contradict Jesus living in Jerusalem, the detail is therefore invented by the filmmakers.

The second, and possibly more significant change in the interpretation of

Jesus in the film, is the lack of miracles and supernatural events performed by him.

Even though the new film adaptation was aiming at Christians and the “faith audience”, the persona of Jesus Christ was at the same time during the film preparations discussed and analysed by consultants of different faiths to provide the universal picture of Jesus (Debruge 53). Thus, Jesus in the film is not introduced as the Son of God, the nativity scene is possibly omitted because of that, but he is portrayed as a prophet and philosopher who loves and protects the poor and the persecuted. There is a long American tradition in approaching Jesus as an

74 extraordinary man but not as God, Benjamin Franklin, for example, questioned the divinity of Jesus in one of his letters, where he professed his belief in God but not in

Jesus as God (Franklin). In the film, Jesus offers the doctrines of Christianity concerning love and forgiveness, yet the cornerstone of Christianity, the recognition of Jesus as God and Saviour, is missing. Therefore, filmmakers created “the universal

Jesus” who would not contradict other faiths. Even the crucifixion is mostly understood by the film as the tragic execution of an inspiring man. When Messala and

Pilate ride through Jerusalem, they witness Jesus protecting a leper from being stoned to death. Instead of healing him, which would support the Christian view, Jesus comforts him and teaches the crowd to love and not to hate. Such interpretation of

Jesus creates a universal and inter-religious picture of Christ; the film, however, chose not to depict Jesus as “the way, the truth and the life” (Bible 982), as Christianity understands him. Jesus as presented in the film may be seen as a symbol of the postmodern interpretation of Christianity which chooses not to emphasise differences and possibly problematic topics. In the film, Jesus even does not heal Noemi and

Tirzah, but they are healed by a miraculous rain after the crucifixion. The rain may symbolise a god or a divine power, without the need to form a definite opinion on the nature of God or Jesus. Thus, despite aiming at Christian audience, filmmakers created a postmodern and universal picture of Jesus as a philosopher and an inspiring man, not the Son of God.

Moving to the depiction of women in the film, they were given more active and significant role than in the novel and previous film adaptations. There are three strong women characters to be found in the film: Esther, Noemi and Tirzah. Esther and

Tirzah are sisters-in-law who represent young, active and independent females ready to take action and make decisions. On the other hand, Noemi is an ageing Jewish

75

matron who prefers protecting her family and house and does not approve some

decisions of her daughter. Thus, female characters in Ben-Hur represent distinct

generations with different opinions. When Noemi finds out that Tirzah is in love with

her adoptive brother Messala, she strongly disapproves of their love. Naturally, she

aims to protect her daughter from the unusual relationship. Noemi represents the caring

yet sometimes manipulative maternal figure. Compared to the praise of the wisdom

and virtues of Judah’s mother in the novel, Noemi in the film is shown also with flaws.

When Messala returns to Jerusalem after travelling with the Roman army, he

apologises to Judah “Sorry I’ve left you alone with her.” (Ben-Hur), meaning their

mother. Such remark would be impossible in any preceding adaptation or the novel as

Judah’s mother was a symbol of home and safety, as discussed in previous chapters.

Moreover, when Judah finds his mother and sister in prison, Judah’s mother is weak

and partly insane. Whereas in the previous adaptations, she was strong and stable

despite the suffering, Noemi in the film is depicted as a considerably weaker character.

Such portrayal of the mother, even though it was seen as a symbolic personage in the

novel and previous films, indicates the inclination of authors to create more animated

and realistic character, not merely a symbol. Also, contemporary generation

approaches to their parents in more civil and informal manner than previous

generations.

Concerning Esther and Tirzah, both young women decide to influence their

lives actively and join the nation-changing movements, Tirzah helps the Zealots and

Esther joins Jesus Christ and his disciples.9 Both women do not wait for others to save

them; they are even active elements when Judah is unable of action because of fear or

thirst for revenge. Esther becomes a more significant character than even in the 1959

9 The film suggests Esther is a woman close to Jesus as she was in the Gethsemane garden with the twelve disciples when Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers. 76 version, as thoroughly described in the chapter on the adaptation. Tirzah, on the other hand, is given more attention for the first time in the 2016 film, where she rebels against the expectations of her family, falls in love with Messala and later helps the rebellion. Tirzah’s character is considerably actualised and modernised; it lasts however only until the accident when she and her mother are imprisoned. Then, both women wait for death or rescue, until Sheik Ilderim pays for their freedom. Still, two active and independent female characters indicate a significant change in the contemporary society. In general, the portrayal of female characters in Ben-Hur may be considered as the most dramatically changed attribute in the film adaptation.

Equally, the phenomenon indicates the change in perspective on women’s role in society. Nowadays, it is acceptable and even desirable to include women as an active element in the story, which was impossible in the Victorian era, when the novel was written, and even in first decades of the twentieth century. It is also remarkable to point out that the character of Iras was omitted from the 2016 film version despite the claim that the film adapts the novel, not the previous adaptation. It is arguable that as the film was primarily aiming at Christian audience and thus it was preferred to make

Esther Judah’s wife at the beginning of the story and to focus on the development of their marriage rather than on the complications caused by Iras. Also, as Messala is in love with Tirzah in the film, the character of his mistress is possibly redundant and unnecessary. Despite the omission of Iras, a strong and interesting female character, the film attributes more active roles to Esther and Tirzah who make decisions independently on Judah, which indicates the change of the depiction of women in films and the present-day society.

As for the minorities, the focus of the film on them is limited. After the intense and long-lasting discussion on homosexuality in the relationship of Judah and Messala

77 in the 1959 film, the most recent version completely ignores the possible reading of their relationship as romantic, not only by changing the friends to the brothers but also by accentuating the love of Tirzah and Messala. The filmmakers possibly aimed to disprove any speculations about homosexual feelings between Judah and Messala by introducing the romance of Messala and Tirzah as the reason for Messala joining the

Roman army. There are no indications in the film which would indicate the romantic relationship between the adoptive brothers. It is probable that as the film was aiming mostly at Christian spectators, it was decided to accentuate the complicated relationship of Judah and Messala, yet in solely unromantic manner. There are as well no other scenes or characters with homoerotic orientation or subtext indicated in the film. The film thus does not follow the contemporary trend of the clear indications of homoerotic relationships in films and television series. The main reason for it may be found in Christian undertone of the film.

The film, the cast and also the places of filming are truly multicultural. When focusing on the cast, it consists of actors of a considerable amount of nations, as discussed earlier. The mere fact that the majority of the cast are not Americans or Brits indicates the contemporary phenomenon of globalisation. The 2016 film was made by the multi-cultural team for the multi-cultural world. It is notable to point out that Esther is played by Iranian actress Nazanin Boniani. Even though it is the most likely only a coincidence, the character who was portrayed in the 1959 version by Haya Harareet from Israel is in the most recent version performed by the actress whose nation is in a war with Israel. Thus, in the connected and globalised world of today, it is possible for actors of any nation to cooperate on a film. Because of the possibility of international film productions, both spectators and filmmakers are more accustomed to actors of

78 non-English speaking nationalities. Despite the current challenges of xenophobia and racism, Ben-Hur is an example of fruitful international cooperation.

To conclude, the most recent adaptation of the beloved story of Judah Ben-

Hur and Jesus Christ reflects the quickly-changing society and the issues it faces. It would require a certain distance in time to more sufficiently analyse the phenomena pictured in the film. However, it is evident that the 2016 adaptation is truly global and globalised due to the international production, projections in numerous countries, and the impact of the internet and the social media on the film reputation. As indicated earlier, the film was mostly discussed on the internet and spectators made their opinions on the film according to the fan reviews, which were mostly negative. Yet, the film reflects several significant social and political issues. Ben-Hur raises the question if we are living in Rome, and rather than alluding to one country, it emphasises the culture of violence and the politics of control which are universal issues of the contemporary world. The film discusses in more detail the mental slavery of hatred and vengeance, rather than reminding the physical slavery of Afro-American slaves or Russian political prisoners, as in previous adaptations. Also, the film is more cautious in the Jewish depiction and does not emphasise Jewishness much. Moreover,

Ben-Hur offers the universal symbol of the subjugated nation which is forced to obey and tries to rebel. Therefore, the Zealot rebellion is given significantly more space than in previous adaptations. The image of Christianity is as well altered to a universal religion led by the inspirational figure of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, his divine attributes such as miracles, and his identity as the Son of God are not mentioned, possibly in order not to make any religious claim but to respect all spectators and their beliefs. The role of women is also modified, notably Esther and Tirzah act independently on men and make their own decisions. The more active role of women

79 corresponds to the contemporary trend of feminism and emancipation. At the same time, the film completely abandons the homoerotic subtext of the relationship of Judah and Messala and analyses their relationship as purely brotherly. No other homoerotic allusions or scenes are to be found in the film, which on the other hand does not follow the contemporary inclination of equalising the LGBT community in the film industry.

Thus, the film in many aspects reflects the contemporary social and political trends, yet it chooses a different direction in others. Despite the negative reactions, Ben-Hur is a valuable example of the Ben-Hur phenomenon in the twenty-first century.

80

10 Conclusion

The phenomenon of Ben-Hur has reflected through its film adaptations the

political and social situation of the United States for more than one hundred years.

Even though the first 1907 film cannot be compared with later adaptations, the

copyright lawsuit and the reaction of the public reflect the society of the beginning of

the twentieth century. However, the themes of war, slavery, Israel, Christianity,

women and minorities may be identified in the three following feature film

adaptations. The analysis in the previous chapters proves the presence of the crucial

topics in the film adaptations, and it also indicates how the themes were changing

during the last century and the beginning of the contemporary one. By accentuating or

omitting discussed issues in the adaptations, it is possible to observe significant social

and political issues of not only Judea in the first century but also of the United States

in the time of the introduction of the films. Dramatic changes in the society, as well as

numerous armed conflicts which influenced the United States, are reflected the Ben-

Hur films. Being it a predominantly exclusive American phenomenon, Ben-Hur

demonstrates the shifts in society as well as major political issues.

As described in detail in the analytical part of the thesis, every film adaptation

is influenced by the then issues and the political situation in the country and the world.

The analysis of the universal topics, present in all feature film adaptations, reveals the

most significant challenges of the eras of introduction. The comparison of the

depictions of the issues indicates the evolving questions faced by the United States.

Thus, the adaptations mirror political and social issues of the USA in 1920s, 1950s and

2010s.

1907 Ben-Hur reveals details about the inception of cinema and film

adaptations. With only thirteen minutes of running time, static camera without details

81 and repeated scenes of the chariot race, it is disputable if the film may be recognised as a proper adaptation. It also does not deal with social and political issues as it focuses merely on the most famous scenes from the novel. However, the film laid the foundations for other adaptations as well as for the legal treatment of copyright. As it is an early film adaptation in the film industry, it may be proclaimed that Ben-Hur was significant for filmmakers and attractive for spectators during the 1900s, at the beginning of the history of film adaptations.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ from 1925 deals with all studied issues in detail, despite being a silent film. War and imperialism are represented mostly by the character of Messala who stands for violent and ignorant Roman power. As the First

World War still remained in the living memory of Americans, Ben-Hur could “produce spectacle along with a spiritual anti-war/antiviolence message” (Slater 67). The cruelty of the Roman regime can be understood as a warning for the spectators of the film.

The adaptation transmits the anti-war message mostly by the raw portrayal of war and violence. Notably the depiction of Judah’s slavery, which is connected with war and imperialism, reveals the dangers of totalism. Uncensored scenes of misery, pain and madness from the galley ship serve as a reminder for American spectators of their slavery past, and at the same time challenge them not to tolerate violence and oppression of an individual or a country in the future. Jews in the film represent the oppressed nations who suffer under the Roman rule. Despite the portrayal of Judah as a Jew, filmmakers did not make any political claim about Jews and Zionism as the movement for the Jewish state was yet forming. Jews in the film, however, serve as a universal symbol of the brave yet tyrannised nation.

Two scripts by two authors were written for the 1925 adaptation, and it is interesting to compare them, especially their portrayal of Christianity as it was

82 approached from distinct angles. Whereas June Mathis, whose script was not used, combines Christianity with Eastern religions and mysticism, Carey Wilson follows the

Christian tradition without radical innovations. It is however noteworthy that religious scenes, notably with Mary, the mother of Jesus, carry Catholic connotations, some scenes, especially the Nativity, are performed in a manner of Catholic art, including halo above Mary’s head. The focus on women is also evident in characters of Iras and

Esther. Iras is New Woman, sensual, independent, intelligent and dangerous, whereas

Esther represents the perfect example of a well-behaved and obedient young lady. Both women are nevertheless active elements in the story, Esther is given more attention than in the novel. Finally, Ramon Navarro as Judah Ben-Hur may be seen as the representative of both sexual and national minorities, being a Mexican gay. He was known as the first gay idol in Hollywood, which opened to minorities during the 1920s.

His casting as the lead in Ben-Hur indicates the changing climate in the society during the Roaring Twenties.

1959 Ben Hur elaborated and modified the themes studied in the thesis in order to correspond to the political and social situation in the United States during the

Cold War, with the horrors of the Second World War and the Korean War still resonating within society. The perspective on Rome and imperialism changed in this adaptation due to the Communist paranoia and even fear of the empire, be it the USSR, the United Kingdom or the United States (Murphy 3-4). Rome is personalised in

Messala and Quintus Arrius; Judah’s former friend stands for the aggression and violence whereas the general represents fatherly leading and support. The climax of the criticism of the empire is again in the galley ship sequence which shows slaves as mindless creatures captured in the corrupted system. Thus, slavery is included in both imperial and personal context, concerning Esther. Judah also finds himself in the

83 mental slavery of hatred and pain from which is rescued by Jesus. The notion of freedom is also connected with Israel which is openly discussed in the film. Apart from casting Israeli actress Haya Harareet as Esther, several details from Jewish everyday life may be found in the film. Judah also carries the Star of David during the chariot race to represent subjugated peoples fighting for freedom.

Christianity is considerably related to both war and slavery; it may be approached as their opposite. Even though Judah meets Jesus and he heals his family, it is disputable if he converted to Christianity or returned to “non-violent Judaism”

(Walsh 138), the question is left unanswered. However, Christianity is portrayed as more personal and civil religion than in the previous adaptation. The face of Jesus is not shown in the film; he, however, appears on screen without aureola around him. As for women in Ben Hur, they are given a more significant and active role, notably Ester.

Judah’s mother is also given a name, for the first time. The character of Iras is however omitted which indicates an interesting modification compared to the novel and the

1925 film. Women in Ben-Hur represent motherland, the United States, and certainties of home. As for sexual minorities, a heated debate concerning the relationship between

Judah and Messala, as well as hidden homoerotic indications, occurred. Gore Vidal, one of the screenwriters, claimed he arranged the relationship of two friends as homoerotic in order to explain the later hatred of Messala. Scenes from the galley ship also indicate homoerotic undertones. Charleton Heston stood up against Vidal and refused such reading. The spectator may, however, find numerous readings of the topic in the film as well as other issues analysed by the thesis.

As for the most recent adaptation of Ben-Hur from 2016, filmmakers decided to “revisit” the famous story and to include new elements which would be more relatable to spectators in the twenty-first century. The considerably modified plot

84 which was filmed by international cast and crew addresses universal yet actual issues such as the perspective on Christianity, women emancipation or fear and hatred. The

Roman Empire is depicted as a corrupted political system based on violence and cheap entertainment. It is possibly a universal metaphor of an imperialistic totality, without any specific state as a model. Messala is imprisoned in the system rather than being a co-operator. The film suggests that love and forgiveness are the answers to violence and imperialism. Slavery focuses rather on mental enslavement than physical as Judah protects his free spirit during his slavery yet becomes the slave of hatred and vengeance when he is set free. Jews represent subjugated people, without specific emphasis on the State of Israel.

2016 Ben-Hur depicts Jesus as a philosopher and philanthropist without suggesting Christianity being the only way to salvation. The film thus chooses a compromise which would not exclude any racial or religious group. Despite the claims about aiming at Christian audience, the interpretation of faith in the adaptation portrays

Christianity as a philosophy of love and forgiveness and Jesus as an inspirational leader, not as the Son of God. Women are also approached from a different perspective. Notably young women, Esther and Tirzah, become entirely independent, make their own decisions and remain active when Judah does not take action. Esther leaves Judah to join Jesus and Tirzah disobeys her brother and helps Zealots in their rebellion. Their mother, however, remains mostly passive and keeps following traditional values. The 2016 adaptation completely omitted the homoerotic reading of the relationship of Judah and Messala as well as other homoerotic undertones. It is probable that creators did not want to include the reading due to aiming and faith-based audience. National minorities are however included in the international cast indicating

85 the Ben-Hur phenomenon is no longer exclusively American, but it is relatable to spectators all over the world.

There are surely numerous ways of analysing social and political issues in film adaptations of Ben-Hur as well as there are more issues and social challenges depicted in each of the film adaptations. Also, various filmmakers working on the adaptations influenced the outcome and the amount and nature of questions and issues discussed in the adaptations. It was at the same time impossible to include all relevant questions; choices, therefore, had to be made. It is thus not possible to discover and describe all included motives and readings in Ben-Hur films. Yet, the analysis of social and political issues present in four, respectively three film adaptations of Ben-Hur offer the spectator a valuable insight into the American Christian phenomenon and how it reflects the changing society and at the same time how it is modified by evolving social and political challenges. This thesis therefore manages to identify and analyse political and social phenomena present in Ben-Hur (1925), Ben Hur (1959) and Ben-

Hur (2016) as well as to understand factors for making the first thirteen-minute long

Ben-Hur adaptation in 1907. The thesis identifies political and social aspects for distinct readings of crucial questions in Ben-Hur throughout the twentieth century as well as at the beginning of the twenty-first century. It also indicates how historical events influenced film adaptations of Ben-Hur.

86

11 Works Cited

Primary Sources

Ben Hur. Directed by Sidney Olcott, Frank Oakes Rose, H. Temple, performance by William S. Hart, Kalem Company, 1907.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ. Directed by Fred Niblo, performance by Ramon Navarro, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1925.

Ben-Hur. Directed by William Wyler, performance by Charlton Heston, Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer, 1959.

Ben-Hur. Directed by Timur Bekmambetov, performance by Jack Huston, Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 2016.

Wallace, Lew. Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ. Worsworth Editions Limited, 1996.

Secondary Sources

"BEN-HUR." Monthly Film Bulletin, vol. 27, no. 312, 1960, pp. 18. Screen Studies Collection, ProQuest Ebook Central.

"Ben-Hur." Variety Movie Reviews, no. 1, 1/1/1959, p. 3. EBSCOhost.

“Ben-Hur.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 17 Aug. 2016, www.imdb.com/title/tt2638144/.

“Ben-Hur.” Rotten Tomatoes, Rottentomatoes.com, 2016, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ben_hur_2016/.

Azlant, Edward. "Screenwriting for the Early Silent Film: Forgotten Pioneers, 1897- 1911." Film History, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997, pp. 228-256. ProQuest Central; Screen Studies Collection. 7 Nov. 2017.

Debruge, Peter. “A Race against Time.” Variety, vol. 333, no. 1, Aug. 2016, pp. 56– 59. EBSCOhost. 19 June 2018.

87

Feldman, Dana. “Iconic Hollywood Epic ‘Ben-Hur’ Rides Again.” Variety, vol. 333, no. 1, Aug. 2016, pp. 98–99. EBSCOhost. 19 June 2018.

Fisher, Lucy. “Movies and the 1920s.” American Cinema of the 1920s: Themes and Variations, edited by Lucy Fisher, Rutgers University Press, 2009, pp. 6–6.

Forbes, John D. “Lew Wallace, Romantic.” Indiana Magazine of History, vol. 44, no. 4, 1948, pp. 385–392. JSTOR. 22 Feb. 2018.

Franklin, Benjamin. “Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). To Ezra Stiles, With a Statement of His Religious Creed.” Bartleby, www.bartleby.com/400/prose/366.html.

General Lew Wallace Study & Museum. “Ben-Hur 1925: The Most Expensive Silent Film Ever Made.” General Lew Wallace Study Museum. 30 Apr. 2018.

General Lew Wallace Study & Museum. “Lew Wallace: Timeline.” General Lew Wallace Study Museum, www.ben-hur.com/meet-lew-wallace/timeline/. 8 Aug. 2018.

Giroux, Jack. “'Ben-Hur' First Look: Morgan Freeman Is the Chariot Racing Master.” SlashFilm, 15 Mar. 2016, www.slashfilm.com/ben-hur-first-look/.

Gutjahr, Paul. "'To the heart of solid puritans': historicizing the popularity of 'Ben- Hur. '." Mosaic: A Journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature, vol. 26, no. 3, 1993, p. 53+. Literature Resource Center. 25 Apr. 2018.

Hark, Ina Rae. “The Erotics of the Galley Slave: Male Desire and Christian Sacrifice in the 1959 Film Version of Ben-Hur. Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 162-178.

Hopwood, Jon C. “William Wyler Biography.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm0943758/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm.

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press, 2002.

88

Hovet, Ted,Jr. "The Case of Kalem's Ben-Hur (1907) and the Transformation of Cinema." Quarterly Review of Film and Video, vol. XVIII, no. 3, 2001, pp. 283-294. Screen Studies Collection, ProQuest Ebook Central. 17 Nov. 2017.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. Routledge, 2006. Chagollan, Steve. "`Ben-Hur' Reigns as Ultimate Bible Epic." Variety, vol. 377, 19 Nov. 1999, p. 13. EBSCOhost. 4 May 2018. Chagollan, Steve. “`Ben-Hur’ Reigns as Ultimate Bible Epic.” Variety, vol. 377, Nov. 1999, p. 13. EBSCOhost. 14 June 2018.

Kaplan, Amy. “Imperial Melancholy in America.” Raritan 28(3), December 2009, pp. 13-31. 16 May 2018.

Leitch, Thomas. Film Adaptation and Its Discontents: From Gone with the Wind to The Passion of Christ. JHU Press, 2007.

Life Application Study Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, 2007.

Loria, Daniel. “FULL SPEED AHEAD. (Cover Story).” Boxoffice, vol. 152, no. 8, Aug. 2016, pp. 32–36. EBSCOhost. 19 June 2018.

Marcus, Robert D, and David Burner. America Since 1945. St. Martin’s Press, 1972.

Mart, Michelle. “The ‘Christianization’ of Israel and Jews in 1950s America.” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, vol. 14, no. 1, 2004, pp. 109–147. JSTOR. 4 March 2018.

Mayer, David. “Challenging a Default Ben-Hur: A Wishlist.” Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 179–190.

Miller, Howard. “The Charioteer and the Christ: Ben-Hur in America from the Gilded Age to the Culture Wars.” Indiana Magazine of History, vol. 104, no. 2, 2008, pp. 153–175. JSTOR.

Miller, Nick. “Ben-Hur 2016: On Set during the Epic Chariot Race.” Nick Miller: Europe Correspondent, Fairfax Media Australia, 22 Aug. 2016, www.nickdmiller.com/2016/08/14/ben-hur-2016-on-set-during-the-epic- chariot-race/.

89

Murphy, Geraldine. "Ugly Americans in Togas: Imperial Anxiety in the Cold War Hollywood Epic." Journal of Film and Video, vol. 56, no. 3, 2004, pp. 3-19. ProQuest Central; Screen Studies Collection. 11 Nov. 2017.

Oakes, Philip. "A Seat at the Circus." Sight and Sound, vol. 29, no. 2, Spring, 1960, pp. 94. Screen Studies Collection, ProQuest Ebook Central. 7 Nov. 2017.

Obenzinger, Hilton. “Holy Lands, Restoration, and Zionism in Ben-Hur. Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 74-90.

Pahle, Rebecca. “Blood Brothers.” Film Journal International, vol. 119, no. 6, June 2016, pp. 8–82.

Penncock, Pamela E. “’The Number One Social Problem of Our Time’: American Protestants and Temperance Politics in the 1950s.” Journal of Church and State, Summer 2012; vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 375-405. ProQuest Ebook Central. 8 Oct. 2018.

Peredo Castro, Francisco. “Catholicism and Mexican Cinema.” Moralizing Cinema: Film, Catholicism and Power, by Daniël Biltereyst, Daniela Treveri Gennari, New York, 2015, pp. 75.

Petersen, Jennifer. "Can Moving Pictures Speak?: Film, Speech, and Social Science in Early Twentieth-Century Law." Cinema Journal, vol. 53 no. 3, 2014, pp. 76- 99. JSTOR.

Pfeiffer, Lee. “Ben-Hur.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 30 June 2014. 10 Dec. 2017.

Robinson, David. "Spectacle." Sight and Sound, vol. 25, no. 1, Summer, 1955, pp. 22. Screen Studies Collection, ProQuest Ebook Central.

Rothkopf, Joshua. “Ben-Hur (2016).” Time Out New York, 19 Aug. 2016, www.timeout.com/us/film/ben-hur-2016.

Ryan, Barbara and Shamir, Milette. “The Ben-Hur Tradition.” Bigger than Ben- Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 1-17.

90

Ryan, Barbara. “Take Up the White Man’s Burden: Race and Resistance to Ben- Hur.” Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 143-161.

Sanna, Antonio. "Ben-Hur and the Simple Resurrection of an Epic." Cinematic Codes Review, vol. 2, no. 1, 2017, pp. 8-13,87. Screen Studies Collection, ProQuest Ebook Central. 7 Nov. 2017.

Shalev, Eran. “Ben-Hur’s and America’s Rome: From Virtuous Republic to Tyrannous Empire”. Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 18-32.

Shamir, Milette. “Ben-Hur’s Mother: Narrative Time, Nostalgia, and Progress in the Protestant Historical Romance.” Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 33-51.

Sinyard, Lee. “Foreword.” Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. xi-xviii.

Slater, Thomas J. "The Vision and the Struggle: June Mathis's Work on Ben-Hur" (1922-24)." Post Script - Essays in Film and the Humanities, vol. 28, no. 1, 2008, pp. 63-78. Screen Studies Collection, ProQuest Ebook Central. 7 Nov. 2017.

Solomon, Jon. “The Classical Sources of Lew Wallace’s Ben- Hur.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition, vol. 22, no. 1, Apr. 2015, pp. 29–75. EBSCOhost. 20 Sept. 2017.

Squires, Ashley L. “The Wealthiest Man in the Empire: Ben-Hur as Model of Evangelical Political Engagement.” 5 Feb 2018.

Stam, Robert: Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation. Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Theisen, Lee Scott. "''My God, Did I Set All This in Motion?' General Lew Wallace and Ben-Hur." Literature Resource Center, Gale, 2018. Literature Resource

91

Center. 25 Apr. 2018. Originally published in Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 18, no. 2, Fall 1984, pp. 33-41.

Tuszynski, Susan. "A Cold War Cautionary Tale: Heterosexuality and Ideology in William Wyler's Ben-Hur." Journal of Popular Film & Television, vol. 34, no. 3, 2006, pp. 116-122. ProQuest Ebook Central. 5 Apr. 2018.

Wallace, Lew. An Autobiography. Harper Brothers, 1906.

Walsh, Richard. “Getting Judas Right: The 1925 Ben-Hur as Jesus Film and Biblical Epic.” Bigger than Ben-Hur: the Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences, by Barbara Ryan, and Milette Shamir, Syracuse University Press, 2016, pp. 125-142.

Williams, Michael. “The Idol Body: Stars, Statuary and the Classical Epic.” Film & History (03603695), vol. 39, no. 2, Fall 2009, pp. 39–48. EBSCOhost. 19 June 2018.

92

12 Résumé

The main assignment of this thesis is to identify, describe and analyse the

social and political issues of the United States of America as portrayed in four,

respectively three film adaptations of Ben-Hur. The thesis argues that issues of war,

slavery, Israel, Christianity, women and minorities are present in all feature film

adaptations; their portrayal, however, changes throughout the twentieth and at the

beginning of the twenty-first century. The thesis thus claims that the social and

political issues of the USA are reflected in the American phenomenon of Ben-Hur.

The thesis analyses the interpretations of the issues and compares them with the

American society in the 1920s, 1950s and 2010s.

The thesis is divided into eight analytical chapters:

The first chapter summarises the contemporary adaptation theory which was

applied to films.

The second chapter deals with the author of Ben-Hur, Lew Wallace, and with

the plot of the novel.

The third chapter analyses the importance of the Ben-Hur phenomenon in

American society.

The fourth chapter identifies and analyses. the main social and political issues

in the novel.

The fifth chapter describes the first film adaptation of Ben-Hur from 1907

and its influence of cinema.

The sixth chapter is concerned with the analysis of the 1925 silent adaptation.

The seventh chapter focuses on the best-known adaptation from 1959.

93

The eighth chapter deals with the most recent film version made in 2016.

94

13 Resumé

Hlavním cílem této práce je identifikovat, popsat a rozebrat sociální a

politické otázky Spojených států amerických, jak je zachytily čtyři, respektive tři

filmové adaptace Bena-Hura. Tato práce dokazuje, že témata války, otroctví, Izraele,

křesťanství, žen a menšin jsou obsaženy ve všech celovečerních adaptacích, jejich

ztvárnění se však v průběhu dvacátého a na počátku dvacátého prvního století mění.

Tato diplomová práce proto dokazuje, že americký fenomén Ben-Hur odráží sociální

a politické otázky Spojených států. Práce rozebírá interpretaci těchto otázek a srovnává

je s americkou společností ve dvacátých a padesátých letech dvacátého století a

v druhé dekádě dvacátého prvního století.

Práce je rozdělena na osm analytických kapitol:

První kapitola shrnuje současnou adaptační teorii, která byla aplikována na

rozbor filmů.

Druhá kapitola se zaobírá autorem předlohy, Lew Wallacem, a dějem knihy.

Třetí kapitola rozebírá důležitost fenoménu Ben-Hur v americké společnosti.

Čtvrtá kapitola rozpoznává a rozebírá hlavní sociální a politické otázky

v knize.

Pátá kapitola popisuje první adaptaci z roku 1907 a její vliv na dějiny

kinematografie.

Šestá kapitola se zaměřuje na analýzu němého filmu z roku 1925.

Sedmá kapitola analyzuje nejznámější filmovou adaptaci Bena-Hura z roku

1959.

95

Osmá kapitola zkoumá nejnovější film z roku 2016.

96