Analysis

Richards was pretty much on point with analysis of Ben Hur (1926).  As most people have pointed our he did make the pigeon/dove mistake, but overall I thought it was a solid analysis.  There were some areas in which I believe Richards could have delved into a bit more, as well as areas I think he spent a little too much time.  For example, he first makes the claim that the movie "best exemplifies the continuity between the nineteenth-century stage and the twentieth-century screen" (44).  However in my opinion he spends too much time comparing the 1926 Ben Hur and the 1959 version rather than giving reasons that support his original claim.  Richards could have gone into more depth explaining the reason why the film makers chose only to show parts of Jesus and not his entire face.  One component of Richards analysis I thought was particularly effective was his use of outside quotes to support his opinion.