Triple Ben-Hur Extravaganza!

Up until recently I had never seen any film version of Ben-Hur. Last Sunday I watched three in one day! Am I crazy? Maybe a little. But I thrive on challenges especially fun ones like this.

 It all started with the screening of Ben-Hur (1925) at the Somerville Theatre in Somerville, MA. I went with my good friend Kevin.

Silent Film Accompanist Jeff Rapsis performed. (Read my previous interview with him here). Before Ben-Hur (1925) was screened, they brought out a projector and showed a rare 16mm print of Ben-Hur (1907). Yes 1907!  A gentleman (I didn't catch his name) came out to introduce the film to us. He made it very clear that he thought the film was silly and gave us permission to laugh. I take film history a bit more seriously and let's just say I wasn't amused.

Ben-Hur (1907) is a 9 minute long one-reeler. How did they get the entire plot of Ben-Hur into a 9 minute film? They didn't. This short film only shows a few key scenes from the story for example the tile falling on the governor and the chariot race. It was filmed on a very small budget and on Coney Island. Jeff Rapsis explained later on that the story of Ben-Hur had been so wildly popular that audiences then already knew the story very well. It's a landmark film because it was the first time filmmakers were sued for copyright infringement. Movies were so new that there wasn't any language in copyright law about adapting copyrighted works into movies. The publisher (Harper) and the estate of Ben-Hur author Lew Wallace sued the filmmakers and won. Filmmakers have had to pay for film rights for adaptations ever since!

Not knowing much about the story of Ben-Hur, I was a bit lost watching the 1907 version. I definitely appreciated being able to see a piece of history on the big screen like that!

After Ben-Hur (1907), Jeff Rapsis gave an introduction to Ben-Hur (1925), which was shown on 35mm. Rapsis pointed out that by comparing the 1907 and 1925 versions of Ben-Hur we can see
how rapidly the technology of making movies developed during that time. The 1925 version still stands up well today in terms of cinematography and story telling. The novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Lew Wallace was first published in 1880. It became a cultural phenomenon and a best-seller and one of the reasons it was such a hit was because it took a fictional story and placed it in the familiar context of the Bible and story of Jesus Christ. Before the movie adaptations, Ben-Hur was a hit on stage and theater productions of the story were common.

Rapsis also made note that filmmakers very gingerly approached showing Jesus. In the 1925 version, you only see Jesus' hand or in one see his outline at the Last Supper. He didn't mention this but the 1959 version obscures Jesus' face but the 1927 version of The King of Kings does not attempt to obscure Jesus at all. Director William Wyler decided to obscure Jesus' face in the 1959 version. Perhaps he was influenced by the 1925 version that he worked on as a young assistant director?

It took 2 years to make Ben-Hur (1925) and it is considered to be the most expensive silent film ever made. It was shot in black-and-white and in two-strip Technicolor. There are also some tinted scenes. Rapsis mentioned that during that era it was very difficult to shoot movies at night. Nighttime was often shown with a dark blue tint to give the sense that it was late in the evening.

I was quite impressed with the 1925 version of Ben-Hur. It clocks in at around 2-1/2 hours which is about an hour less than the 1959 version but I didn't feel anything was rushed or left out. I very much enjoyed watching Ramon Novarro in the role of Judah Ben-Hur. The audience at the Somerville Theatre was respectful and they only laughed at a couple of the romantic scenes. Jeff Rapsis did a tremendous job playing for 2-1/2 straight hours without stopping.

Later that evening, I decided to watch Ben-Hur (1959) at home. I had a copy of the Blu-Ray which was part of a larger boxed set of Blu-Rays that I own. The quality of the visuals on the Blu-Ray were so stunning. It may not have been fair to watch the 1959 version immediately after watching the previous one because I kept comparing them both to each other. In fact, I enjoyed the 1925 version so much that I kept trying to hold the 1959 to it's standards.

Both films were excellent feats of cinematography especially the chariot race scenes. The 1925 version seemed to be more focused on sharing the entire story of Ben-Hur while the 1959 version cut out several plot points in order to linger more on other ones. I thought the difference between how the two films portrayed Jesus was particularly interesting. As I mentioned before, Jesus' face was obscured in both films and in the 1925 version you only get a hand and one instance of a silhouette and in the 1959 version you see more of Jesus' form. There isn't much time spent on the Passion of Jesus and his crucifixion in the 1925 version but it's explored a lot more thoroughly in the 1959. I always, ALWAYS cry watching depictions of Passion and the Crucifixion. The King of Kings (1927) and (1961) both make me weep and I definitely found myself teary-eyed watching Ben-Hur (1959). Both Ben-Hurs depicted Jesus in slightly different ways but drove home the same essentials of his story. (Editor's note: I'm not religious nor am I pushing any religion here. These are just my observations of the story lines!)

I enjoyed both Ramon Novarro and Charlton Heston in their roles as Judah Ben-Hur. I can't pick a favorite out of the two, they both played their roles adeptly.

Watching three Ben-Hurs in one day was tiring but a worthy endeavor. I'm glad I tackled these classics and now have at least two new favorite epic movies!

The 1925 version is on DVD but might not be for sale individually. You can rent it on Netflix and TCM will be showing it on August 8th which is the Summer Under the Stars day for Ramon Novarro. Ben-Hur (1959) is available on DVD and Blu-Ray. There is a 4-Disc Collector's Set which has Ben-Hur (1959) which has the 1925 version.

Warner Archive Wednesday ~ The Secret Garden (1949)

Dean Stockwell, Margaret O'Brien and Brian Roper in The Secret Garden (1949)

The Secret Garden (1949) is a delightful adaptation of Frances Hodgson Burnett's novel of the same name. Of the three adaptations I've seen of The Secret Garden, this one is my favorite (although I'm also partial to the 1993 version too). The film is filled with wonderful moody cinematography and has great use of light and shadow. The movie is in black and white but there are three glorious Technicolor sequences which all take place in the secret garden when it's in full bloom.

Mary Lennox (Margaret O'Brien) recently became an orphan while living with her family in India. After her parents death, she's shipped off to England to live with distant relatives. Mary is thrust into this oppressive mansion, with a dower and mysterious uncle, Archibald Craven (Herbert Marshall), an even more dower staff and an unknown screaming voice that echoes throughout the hallways. The screams come from Colin Craven (Dean Stockwell), Archibald's son and Mary's cousin. He's been made an invalid from too much coddling and emotional neglect. Colin and Mary are both brats in their own ways and have met their match with each other. Mary befriends both Colin and the neighbor boy Dickon (Brian Roper). Behind the back of gardener Ben Weatherstaff (Reginald Owen), Mary and Dickon break into a secret garden that has been closed up ever since Colin's mother was killed there by a falling tree. The kids revive the garden bringing color (literally and figuratively) and hope back into everyone's lives.

The dark oppressiveness of the mansion is matched by the neighboring moors however these are no match for the vitality of nature (gardens, animals, etc.) and the youthfulness of the children. Whatever is wrong inside that mansion will be made right with the healing powers of nature and youth. I have always thought The Secret Garden is a great stories for kids. The three children in the story prove to be receptive and triumphant as they outsmart the adults. The kids are the heroes and even without the inherent powers that come with adulthood, they are able to change their own worlds. My favorite scene is the one where Mary and Colin have a screaming contest during one of Colin's tantrums. It's hilarious and I think kids would appreciate it! All three child actors do a wonderful job in the film.

Elsa Lanchester has a notable role as the jolly maid Martha and I enjoyed watching Reginald Owen play the gardener. I wonder if Dickon's Raven is played by Jimmy the Raven. I haven't been able to confirm that but if you are interested Terry of A Shroud of Thoughts has a great post about that bird's career in film.

My only complaint is that the film is far too short at only 92 minutes! Some aspects of the story are rushed because of it. If the film were just a bit longer, maybe some more time could have been spent developing some of the characters.

Take a listen to Warner Archive's recent podcast interview with actress Margaret O'Brien.

The Secret Garden (1949) is available on DVD MOD from Warner Archive. I highly recommend it especially if you are looking for a good way to introduce kids to old movies.


Warner Archive Wednesday - On (random) Wednesdays, I review one title from the Warner Archive Collection. I received The Secret Garden (1949) from Warner Archive for review.

A Song in the Dark: The Birth of Musical Film

A Song in the Dark: The Birth of the Musical Film
Second Edition
by Richard Barrios
Oxford University Press
Paperback 9780195377347
2009

Amazon
Barnes and Noble
IndieBound
Powell's

"By inviting us to behold vestiges of our past, these movies allow us to revel, if only momentarily, in a time in which the world appeared less fraught, optimism was an option, and song and dance mattered immensely." - A Song in the Dark, Richard Barrios

I have had many long conversations with Jonas of All Talking! All Dancing! All Singing! about early talkies and I always found myself as the weaker half of the conversation. I really wanted to learn more about films from this era, particularly musicals, and Jonas had recommended a book for me to read so I could be well-informed on the subject.

A Song in the Dark: The Birth of the Musical Film by Richard Barrios is a comprehensive and thorough examination of the early era of musicals. It focuses specifically on films from 1926-1934 starting with Don Juan (1926) and ending with The Gay Divorcee (1934). The book is well-organized which is crucial for the reader because otherwise we would get lost in the vast sea of information.

The book follows the story of early musical film chronologically however Barrios adeptly groups the films in each chapter into individual themes. This makes the book very readable. Chapter themes include Hollywood Revues [there were several: King of Jazz (1930), Hollywood Revue of 1929, The Show of Shows (1929), Paramount on Parade (1930), etc.], the Mammy theme [The Jazz Singer (1927), etc.], Comedies, the exotic, films that were not quite musicals, etc. There are also chapters on different specific time periods as well as one on The March of Time which is the most interesting chapter of them all. It focuses primarily on early musical failures and why they failed. It ends with The March of Time which is a Hollywood revue that was never finished and thus never released. A lot was already filmed and those musical numbers were chopped up and released in other movies, revues and shorts.

Barrios isn't afraid to share his opinions or judgements. It is necessary to know this going into reading the book because otherwise it might come as an unwelcome shock. It does add something extra to the text which could have been quite dull without Barrios' voice shining through. Although, I have to admit it took some getting used to. I almost set the book aside to pick up something else until I got 170 pages in and found my stride. I'm so glad I stuck with the book because boy did I learn a lot!

A special thank you goes out to author Richard Barrios for writing this about Ruby Keeler, a performer who I think is very misunderstood by modern audiences:

This particular performer needs her context, for Keeler will strike many as across-the-board incompetent.... As her primary identity apart from Jolson was as a tap dancer, viewers may be surprised by the flailing arms, leaden footwork, and the fact that the top of her head is more visible than her face; she's staring down at those feet to make sure they do her bidding. [Her heavy-footed technique, which seems absurd to those accustomed to Eleanor Powell or Ann Miller, is part of an older dancing tradition. The shoes had wood soles, not metal taps, and produced more sound the harder they were banged down.] 

Barrios explained this so perfectly! So for those of you who make fun of Ruby Keeler, you can go stuff it.

It does help if you are familiar with early musical films. Make sure you watch some early classics like The Jazz Singer (1927)  an early revue like Hollywood Revue of 1929, Gold Diggers of 1933, Sunnyside Up (1929), Madam Satan (1930), The Broadway Melody (1929), Hips, Hips, Hooray! (1934), etc. When I read the book, I already had some familiarity with early musicals but when I did come across an unfamiliar film that was talked about extensively, I took the time to watch a clip online. YouTube has lots of the musical numbers (and oftentimes entire films) available to watch at any time. I recommend Jonas's YouTube channel which has quite a number of early musical gems.

A Song in the Dark is an essential guide for anyone with a keen interest in film history and musicals. I highly recommend it. Thank you to Oxford University Press for sending me this book for review!

Below are a few of my favorite early musical numbers: