Hey everybody!
It’s been so long since I wrote anything, I almost forgot my password. But, we’re here now, so let’s go!
I’m calling this dual review a “Shandy” because I’ll basically be reviewing both movies at the same time, as opposed to writing individual reviews.
Now, naturally, I saw both of these films on a big screen at the Alamo Drafthouse Theater [Yonkers]. Alamo is awesome; you should totally go if there’s one near you (I swear they’re not paying me to say this).
I had seen bits and pieces of both movies on television while in my youth, but I have to admit I was too young to appreciate them at such a young age. These days, I’m in a much better position to identify their strengths and weaknesses.
But why review these movies together at all? Well, other than taking place in pretty much the same era of history, and having the Romans as the bad guys, and being released theatrically within a year of each other, and both being over three hours long (Intermission!), there’d likely be no Spartacus had Kirk Douglas not been turned down for the role that Charlton Heston ultimately occupied as Ben-Hur (he didn’t get to be in one epic, so he just went and made his own; that’s pretty epic). So, yeah, I think it makes some sense.
Just to quickly sum up the plots of these films, Ben-Hur stars Charlton Heston as a Jewish prince who is at odds with his Roman occupiers, and because of this ends up in all sorts of shenanigans until Jesus comes and and makes everything better and is also crucified. Spartacus stars Kirk Douglas as a slave who is at odds with his Roman occupiers, and because of this ends up in all sorts of shenanigans, but is unfortunately unable to make everything better and is also crucified (SPOILERS! Oh, wait, I should have put that before. Whatever).
If I only had one sentence to compare Ben-Hur and Spartacus, it would be this: Ben-Hur is a better film, but Spartacus is a better movie.
What I mean by that is that Ben-Hur, from an artistic standpoint, is more complete in the execution of its vision. The writing, acting, direction, and visuals work in near-perfect concert (it didn’t win 11 Academy Awards for nothing). But, it’s largely slow-paced, which means you do feel it’s massive length. Spartacus, on the other hand, hardly ever lingers, its plot almost constantly in motion, which makes for terrific viewing, but it does suffer at times from strange creative decisions, mostly casting-related (I’m so sorry, John Gavin, but I don’t buy you as Julius Caesar one bit).
This contrast largely has to do with the men who directed these films (and produced, in the case of Spartacus). William Wyler, director of Ben-Hur, began directing shorts and some features in the Silent Era, so his overall style is highly reflective of “Old Hollywood” (other than Ben-Hur, perhaps his most famous film is ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’, another epic-length Oscar-grabber). Although it wasn’t his last hit, Ben-Hur essentially is the beginning of Wyler’s twilight, as he would direct only five more movies afterward (out of roughly seventy career credits).
Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, has roughly one-fifth the career credits of William Wyler (he would only direct eight more films after Spartacus), but with Kubrick it truly is about quality over quantity. Kubrick is a quintessential “New Hollywood” director, having started his career in the 1950s and pretty much directing two or three highly influential films in each of the following three decades. However, Spartacus is something of an asterisk film for him, as it was not his project from the outset, but rather he was brought on by Kirk Douglas (the executive producer as well as lead actor) after his firing of the original director. The lack of complete creative control (which Kubrick would maintain for the rest of his career) is evident; there are scenes which feel as if they could be perfectly inter-cut with Ben-Hur. Because of Kubrick’s involvement, Spartacus is a movie which often but not always feels ahead of its time, but for him it feels like a overall step back compared with his previous film, ‘Paths of Glory
Overall, I have to rather strongly recommend both epic movies, particularly if you’ve never seen them before. And if you’re into the history of film, then you definitely need to see them. Although Ben-Hur is slow-paced overall, the Chariot Race is a wonderful centerpiece; quite frankly it’s one of the most visually stunning action sequences ever put to film. I don’t know if I can say much more about it that hasn’t been said already, but I have to give William Wyler credit for making a rather progressive creative decision by not adding any music to the scene, giving it an even greater sense of realism (he could have easily asked composer Miklós Rózsa to “Mickey Mouse” it, but he made the right choice). And Spartacus, well, it’s quite a lot of fun, and although there are some questionable casting choices, overall the performances are quality. Kirk Douglas’s natural screen presence and likability do a lot for the film, and having an old pro like Laurence Olivier as your main villain is never a bad thing.
Go watch ’em!
Ben-Hur:
★★★★½
Spartacus:
★★★★★
