Hi guys, this is TIMOTHEVS!
I recently purchased and watched the 2016 remake of Ben-Hur so I thought I'd do another review.
I recently purchased and watched the 2016 remake of Ben-Hur so I thought I'd do another review.
I hope you like it!
As I'm sure a lot of you know, the most famous version of Ben-Hur is the 1959 version starring Charlton Heston,
but this was actually a remake of a 1925 film (and a 1907 film), which in turn was based
on a late 19th century novel by Lew Wallace.
Lots of comments and reviews I read praise the 1959 version, which is often incorrectly
described as "the original version" by the way, whereas the 2016 version is bashed
for lacking depth and relying too heavily on action scenes.
Before I state my opinion about the story and the characters, I should say that I only
saw the 1959 version for the first time a few months ago in anticipation of the new
one, so I didn't grow up with it like many people did.
That probably explains why I am a bit more critical of it.
I personally thought that both movies relied heavily on action scenes and both lacked depth
when it comes to characters.
Especially the character of Messala, Ben-Hur's Roman adoptive brother and later archenemy,
he was way worse in the 1959 version though.
He was such a caricature of an evil villain there that he was a bit hard to take serious.
Although the rest of the Romans were still depicted as one-dimensional evil bastards
in the 2016 version, at least the character of Messala felt somewhat like an actual human being.
in the 2016 version, at least the character of Messala felt somewhat like an actual human being.
The last thing I'll say about the story is that the storyline of the 2016 version
differs quite substantially from the book and the 1959 version so the makers tried to
do their own thing, which I thought was good.
For the rest of the video, I'd like to discuss the historical accuracy of props and things
like that.
The movie is set in Roman Judea, but as I am not too familiar with ancient Judean clothing
styles and artefacts, I will mainly focus on the Roman elements.
But first, about the appearance of the characters: The location being Judea, it would make sense
if the characters looked Middle-Eastern.
Although most of the Judeans were still portrayed by non-Middle-Easterners, at least Hollywood
seems to have gotten over its 20th century obsession with blonde hair as Juda Ben-Hur
is portrayed by an actor with dark hair this time.
Just to be clear, I'm not disputing that Charlton Heston deserves credit for his acting
– I just didn't find him very convincing as a 1st century Judean as far as appearance
is concerned.
When it comes to the props in general, I definitively feel like the moviemakers made an effort.
Nice details include the typical Roman fish-scale windows and sellae (chairs),
…the "Opus spicatum" or a herringbone pattern on the floor,
…earrings shaped like "peltae", the shields of the female warrior tribe, the Amāzonēs,
…and authentic-looking lanterns.
Quite a few oil lamps were shown, and that's also something I tend to notice.
A few of them looked quite good, better than in the average movie set in ancient Rome,
…but they couldn't resist using the brass Indian ones too.
In fact, I think it's the exact same prop I've seen in several movies and series,
like in "The Eagle" or on "HBO's Rome".
It doesn't look Roman at all, so I hope future moviemakers will omit this particular
prop.
Oh well, I've seen worse things I suppose.
To name one, those cuffs.
I've talked about this before, but what's up with male actors always wearing cuffs when
they have to portray Romans?
This is just pure fiction!
There are thousands of depictions of Roman men, and to my knowledge, not one of them
shows a man wearing these weird genie cuffs!
If someone involved in the production of a film or series set in ancient Rome ever sees
this, I beg of you!
Leave out the cuffs!
You'll save money, and it'll look way better!
Since I'm begging already, I might as well continue for a bit! (^_°)
Please stop with the Nazi salute!
I understand it looks powerful, especially if you want to depict the Romans as the bad
guys, but there's just no grounds for this.
In fact, it's been well-established that the misconception that this type of salute
was used by Romans originated from the painting shown here.
Related, but somewhat lesser known, is the so-called forearm handshake which was supposedly
used in the Roman army.
There are many depictions of Romans shaking hands, especially in a marital context, but
to my knowledge none exist of the forearm handshake.
It's become very common in Hollywood recently and apparently even among re-enactors.
Even the otherwise reasonably well-informed Youtuber METATRON talks about this gesture
as if it was actually used.
If any of you have proof that it WAS, by all means, let me know!
But I'd be very surprised to be honest.
One of the most famous scenes of the Ben-Hur movies is the scene where Judah Ben-Hur is forced
to become a galley slave.
In reality though, oarsmen were almost always free citizens and though there are records
of emergency situations during which slaves temporarily served as oarsmen, the concept
of galley slaves in ancient Rome is almost certainly a modern invention.
Then, concerning the equipment of the soldiers: Although it does not look perfect by any means,
I think it looks acceptable overall.
Most of the helmets look similar enough to excavated ones from that period, like this
Imperial-style legionary helmet, though there are some details that look a bit strange like
the shape of the peak above the face.
For the characters with a higher military rank, they went for helmets loosely based
on the Neo-Attic helmets one can encounter on Roman reliefs, like the one shown on the left.
on the Neo-Attic helmets one can encounter on Roman reliefs, like the one shown on the left.
Though this is not an indefensible choice in itself, the actual helmets that were used,
have weird proportions and almost look like they are made out of plastic, especially the
details, so I'm not a fan.
When it comes to the body armour, they equipped the actors with three types of armour that
we know were used at least to a certain extent during this period, so that's great, though
there are some authenticity problems with all of them.
Unfortunately, those weird and utterly useless leather segmented cuirasses you can see in
many movies also makes their appearance here.
At least the leather ones are tied up at the front like evidence suggests the originals
were, unlike the metal ones used in this movie.
Anyway, I'm starting to believe that there is one rental service for Roman props that
has some weird stuff, but as every movie and every series set in this period uses this
service, things like the cuffs, leather armour and Indian lamps keep popping up everywhere.
Perhaps someone should just take a look at the depot and get rid of some of the worst stuff.
Perhaps someone should just take a look at the depot and get rid of some of the worst stuff.
Maybe then -all of a sudden- the average authenticity of Hollywood depictions of Ancient Rome will increase spectacularly!
Maybe then -all of a sudden- the average authenticity of Hollywood depictions of Ancient Rome will increase spectacularly!
I've mentioned this before, but although some of you may think that
all these details don't matter and I should relax and enjoy, I do believe it is valuable
to portray history as correctly as possible in movies.
I personally love it when a movie entertains AND subtly educates at the same time!
If a historical movie succeeds in giving us an idea of what it was like to be alive back
then it definitively adds to the watching experience, I think.
Adding elements to depictions of ancient Rome that we know to be historically inaccurate
just muddies the water for people who want to learn more about this period!
After all, it is only thanks to systematic criticism that many people today know Romans
did not look anything like the people in these old paintings, so we've definitively made
a lot of progress in our understanding of antiquity.
But we're not there yet, so I suggest we carry on.
In conclusion, I'd like to say to ancient Rome-enthusiasts who haven't seen the 2016
version of Ben-Hur: it probably won't be the best movie you'll ever see, but as far
as accuracy goes, it could be far worse.
They clearly made more of an effort to do things right than the makers of say the Netflix
series "Roman Empire Reign of Blood".
(For a review of that series, check out the link in the description).
That's it for this time!
If you enjoyed the video, please like, comment and share, and if you would like to see other
reviews or get more info on ancient Rome, please subscribe to my channel!
If you would like some extra info and pictures, follow me on Facebook.
The links are in the description below.
This was TIMOTHEVS, thanks for watching!
For more infomation >> [번역] How to Fly the P 47 - High altitude flight and Aerobatics - Duration: 21:11. 
For more infomation >> How to Make a Man Fall in Love - Duration: 2:24. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét