Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Richards' Commentary on Ben Hur
I think that for the most part Richards' commentary on Ben Hur is highly accurate and well thought out. Although there are a few areas where I wish he had gone into more depth and others where I disagree with some of his conclusions. For instance I believe that the movie is not structured only around the "conflict of values between Christianity and Imperial Rome" but also around the conflict of values and desires between the Jews and Imperial Rome. Because while it is true that ultimately the movie tells a biblical story it does not begin that way. It is only as the movie progresses that the focus comes to rest on Christianity. We must remember that at the beginning of the film all Ben Hur wants is freedom for his people. I think Richards could have discussed the depictions of Jesus more deeply and drawn attention to the reasons behind this depiction (beam of light, hands etc.). In general I would have enjoyed reading a more in-depth analysis of the movie's events but overall I agree with Richards' summary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Literally, though, the movie does indeed begin as a biblical story, with the Nativity scenes showing Jesus' birth. But I agree that we shouldn't just lump Christians and Jews together, and that the film slowly changes its focus just as Ben Hur turns from a Jew yearning for freedom from Roman oppression into a peace-loving, forgiving Christian.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree about the depictions of Jesus. If Richards had discussed why only the hand and feet were shown, then important information about the time period would have been noted and a fuller understanding of why things were done the way they were would have been brought to light.
ReplyDelete