Cameron H.

I completely agree with Paul that Heston looked to old to play the “young Ben-Hur.” I’ve been trying to think of someone I’d like better, and I think I would have maybe liked Rock Hudson. I know he’s only two years younger than Heston, but I think he would have been pretty good...

Yay!

That's funny, because I was going to say it gave me a lot of Ben-Hur vibes (Episode 2 of Unspooled) in that the filmmakers seemed more interested in spectacle than storytelling. As if people would be so busy "oohing" and "awing" over the technological achievement that they would ignore the fact that the story was paper thin. Now, we need to tie it in to The Wizard of Oz, so we can hit the Unspooled trifecta!

Du Jour means: we watched

Thanks, Taylor! I didn’t love it, but I’m glad I watched it.

This was discussed in the episode, but seriously, was Charlton Heston good? I think I’m of the same opinion as Paul in that Heston wasn’t exactly “good,” but I couldn’t really look away either. I’ve watched quite a few Elvis movies lately and it’s kind of the same thing. It’s this crazy, ineffable star quality that some people just seem to possess. It’s pretty amazing really.

I don’t think you’re wrong. It was definitely dumbed down, but it moved surprisingly well. Like I said above, in the 2016 version, it’s an actual zealot, that Judah has brought into his house, that tries to kill Pilate - which is a little more exciting than “Oops, dry rot...” It also helps as a kind of shorthand to illustrate (quickly) the political climate in Judea at the time and makes Messala’s turn a little more understandable (i.e. “The assassin shot at the governor from *your* house, Jude!”) My biggest complaint about the new one was that Messala survives and he and Judah fully reconcile! If I’m remembering correctly, this is after the movie has implied that, not only were Miriam and Tirzah imprisoned and lepercized, but that they were raped and torture, as well. It’s just such a big ask to forgive Messala after all of that. Maaaaaaybe a person might be at peace with it, but total forgiveness? I don’t know... I feel like the movie even ends with them leaving Jerusalem together as one big, happy family! I guess you could say that Ben-Hur forgiving Messala is the big “Christian” moment of the movie. Essentially stating that a good Christian forgives a penitent man, no matter how heinous his crimes, can you? (Spoiler Alert: I can not.)

I mean, Jesus is in it, but it’s not really about him. It doesn’t start with the nativity or anything. There’s also no Sermon on the Mount. It also cuts out Judah going to Rome. He goes right from escaping the galley to meeting Ilderim and learning how to race. Governor Gratus is also cut and just replaced with Pilate. Also, it was a legit attempt on Pilate’s life and not just rogue tiles bonking him on the head. If anything, the movie probably needed *more* Jesus. It was adorable because some of the reviews I read had a problem with people being cured of leprosy - lol. I mean, Jesus is still in it. That was kind of his thing. Maybe they misunderstood who he was..?

Me too!

I hate commenting before listening (because they probably already said this in the episode), but I felt like the filmmakers were just so pleased with the scale that they allowed shots to linger than they needed to. Kind of like, “Drink it in, plebs! Look at the detail!” And I’m sure, at the time, that probably worked. However, from a modern perspective, while I can respect the hard work that went into it, I still need the movie to move. I mean, I hate to say it, but I watched the 2016 version last year and found it to be - not necessarily better - but a more enjoyable experience. It was also a full hour and fifteen minutes shorter and included a lot of what was in this movie. And, yes, it did cut a lot of the Jesus stuff and kept the focus more on Judah.

Agreed! I watched Spartacus for the first time a few months ago and enjoyed it much more than Ben-Hur.

I mean, I don’t know that for sure, for sure. I’m just guessing. It just seems like Intolerance doesn’t fit much of the AFI’s criteria on its own. Personally, I could do without either of them being on the list, but from a film history perspective, I guess I get it. Maybe. Sort of...

I didn’t like Intolerance either. According to the site I visited, it sounded like it was the same deal. Wikipedia says that AFI is supposed to be doing one every ten years to account for new releases. That means we should see a new list pretty soon (I guess...)

You probably know this already, but the 10th Anniversary List replaced Birth of a Nation with Intolerance. I guess AFI felt like D.W. Griffith had to be represented on the list somewhere and Intolerance was the less controversial choice..?

Lol - That might be from before your time. When they did Streets of Fire, someone on (I think) the first page of the thread said that the music was written by Jim Steinman - which was totally fine. But then, on like every subsequent page, some rando would write the same exact thing. I mean, they would be, like, literally right on top the other. It was ridiculous. They would post it with such authority, too. Like, “nobody’s pointed out this yet! I can’t believe it!” (See also: ”Mee-la not My-la” [as Fister pointed out] and “that’s not how maxi pads work” from Jupiter Ascending; and the definition of “disaster” from Lifeforce. There were a few others I can’t remember right now.) Anyway, it became kind of an inside joke to make fun of people that don’t read the thread and just want to post their shit. It’s just kind of rude. Be a part of the conversation, you know? Don’t just shout into the void hoping to get a C&O read.

I love Giant! Although, I’m not a huge fan of 2001 or Clockwork, so yeah, that double feature would be tough.

I can’t believe how badly I Jim Steinman’d that...

Wow! I totally missed those posts! I’m glad we both immediately thought of Ben, though!

I just found out Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo was Josie's "voice."

A few weeks ago, Paul said they were going to be doing another movie, like Freejack, that couldn’t be found anywhere. Maybe he was talking about Rad. I’m pretty sure they found a volunteer to host it like last time.

Paul mentioned in the episode that he was initially put off by the film’s structure, and I totally get that. However, what I did like - although I didn’t necessarily appreciate at the time - was the opening news reel. Yes, it was an exposition dump, but when the movie gets going in earnest, it proved to be a sort of Rosetta Stone, allowing the audience to grasp where they are in Kane’s life without interrupting the flow of the movie. By getting it out of the way at the top - in a type of bulletpoint-y way that wouldn’t have seemed entirely alien to it’s contemporary audience - it allowed the movie to unfold more organically and shift its focus to where it needed to be while providing a bit of dramatic irony.

OMG, guys! I'm not suggesting that they should "die penniless" or that you don't have to pay your dues to get ahead. It's one thing if you get into, say, photography because you love photography. If that's the case, there's absolutely no reason not to try to achieve as much as possible and get all the renown that comes with that. However, it's an entirely different thing to get into photography if your goal is to be a *famous* photographer. So while we can say, "For all we know...," in the movie, I never actually saw them want anything other than be famous. Let's put it this way. Taylor, what if someone tomorrow said that they want you to shoot the cover for Vogue, but they had never seen your portfolio? All they ever saw was you walking across the street with a camera. And when you are like "you should probably see my work," they're like, "No, that isn't necessary" Even if they are on the level, if it's not based on your own talent as a photographer, what's even the point of achieving your dream? Sure, you can tell yourself that "you deserve it," but if you accept that offer under those terms, you're implicitly stating that being famous is more important than being a serious photographer, or in the case of J&TP, musicians.

The way I saw it she definitely has some raw talent, but she doesn’t necessarily have the chops - nor the desire - to go pro. It’s like you can be a funny person but that doesn’t necessarily mean you have what it takes to be a comedian. She was good singer in a “singing for friends in the parlor” kind of way.

I wasn’t being clear. I have no idea why NFG got together. Maybe they’re super deep artists. I have no idea. I meant, J&TP only care about being famous. They accept a record deal from someone who hasn’t even heard their freaking music. That’s not creating something because you have something to say; that’s creating something to be used as a commodity. Contrast this with, say, Jimmy in That Thing You Do. Nothing is good enough for him because he feels like he’s creating “Art.” Yes, he wants to be successful, but on his terms. And he ends up throwing everything away because they won’t let him do things his way. He might be a dick, but at least he was able to write that hit song “Alone With My Principles.” And, yes, I would say everything you all described is “punk.”