Ben-Hur: 1959

There's something about ancient Rome that bores me. Of all of Shakespeare's plays, Julius Caesar is the most boring to me. Seeing Roman ruins in England was somewhat interesting but hot enough to hold my attention for long. So starting Ben-Hur, I was bored within the first 30 minutes. Actually, the film is currently running right now on my TV as I write this post. This is the moment when I really wish my library had had Gigi, the 1958 winner, on the shelf when I went in today to get my next film. Instead, I thought I'd skip ahead to 1959 and get this one over with.

I think the most intimidating part of this film for me right now is the run time: 211 minutes. I keep thinking about how much longer I have to watch this. I'm checking the clock more often than I ever checked it in high school chemistry class.

That being said, I don't necessarily think Ben-Hur is a bad film. When I searched Ben-Hur on IMDB, I found out that a new one is in production to be released in 2016. Considering the rising popularity of Biblical stories, it makes sense that a remake is underway. I wonder if it will be as long and as epic as this one.

The film starts with the question of loyalty. Judah (Charlton Heston) must decide if he should be loyal to his people, the Jewish living under Roman rule, or his boyhood friend Messala, a Roman soldier. Judah sides with his people, clearly being the virtuous and noble one, while Messala views this as a betrayal, and at the first opportunity to punish Judah, Messala does, sending him to a prison camp falsely accused of attacking the governor. Overall, the film seems to be more about Jesus, as the opening scene was the story of the birth of Jesus, but Jesus is not an essential character. Instead, perhaps the film is more about faith, keeping faith alive in the most dire of situations. At least, that's what I'm getting at this point (although the whole Judah as slave reminds me of the opening scene in Les Miserables:

Les Miserables

Ben-Hur Rowing Scene

I have to be honest...I'm not sure I'll be able to finish this one. For one, it's just not interesting to me at all. For another, I keep thinking the Roman's helmets have brooms on them, which is really distracting.

Ben-Hur (Heston) with Roman commander

UPDATE: I finished the film (I'll admit to skipping some scenes...watching only parts and then moving on to the next chapter on the DVD). Judah's story is interesting, but to put it simply, it didn't need to be nearly four hours long. His story could be told in a few hours.

Birdman: 2015

What was the Academy thinking this year? An egotistical, self-fulfilling film about an actor whose career is washed up is really the Best Picture of 2015? I'll admit...I didn't see that many new films this past year, but everything I saw was definitely better than Birdman, including the Best Picture nominee The Grand Budapest Hotel (which is clever and hilarious and has an excellent cast).  Watching Birdman made me question the entire purpose of my blog; am I really watching the best picture for each year? Or should I instead watch all the other nominees and avoid the winner?

My main issue with Birdman was the story. Yes, getting old sucks and realizing that maybe you're not as important as you thought you were is difficult to accept, but this is life. Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) faces this reality in Birdman, and it's ugly. What's worse is he never fully realizes what is important in life, that the people he should matter to are the people who actually matter, like his family and friends. Instead, he's so focused on regaining his career that he loses sight of what matters. And this is the story of his life. It's all about his career. I can handle a story like this but only when there is some sort of realization at the end. Yes, there is some, albeit brief and undeveloped, but in contrast to the rest of the film, it's insufficient. Instead, Thompson comes off as pathetic and whiny. I don't really care that the world doesn't take you seriously as an actor. Get over it.

As the film wallows in this "woe is me" mood, it continues on a downward spiral when it explores the Hollywood versus Broadway cliche. Thompson is Hollywood, that makes him incapable of doing Broadway well. The conflict grows in the film as a "real" Broadway star, Mike Shiner (Ed Norton), is hired in the play that Thompson adapted from a Raymond Carver novel, directed, and, naturally, stars in. What I want to know is why is this conflict still used in films today? It's a complete cliche, overused and discussed far too much. Broadway, in this film, comes across as snobby. Maybe that's why the Academy picked Birdman; they wanted to stick it to Broadway.

I will say that the way Birdman was filmed was interesting; the director hardly used any cuts. The scenes would be one long take, and the camera would move from room to room as characters moved, even up and down staircases. The fluidity created by these shots suggested that life moves on without giving us a chance to stop and change things, which is why Thompson struggles. As interesting as this cinematography was, it wasn't enough for me to enjoy the film as a whole. I needed a story and characters that I wanted to spend two hours with.

Really, what I want to know is what makes a Best Picture? Should it be a film that changes the way we see films, like Boyhood? Should it be a film that captures the feeling of the world or nation for that year? Should it be a film that is enjoyable, that actually had box office revenues that covered the cost of the film? Or should it be something that makes the Academy feel better about their own lives? That last question seems to be how Birdman was selected, and if that's the future of the Academy Awards, then maybe it's time for me to stop watching the ceremony and thinking that the Academy actually hast taste in films.

The Bridge on the River Kwai: 1957

Starting The Bridge on the River Kwai, I thought I had seen it before, but as the film progressed, I realized I had confused this film with another World War II POW film. I expected to watch the story of a group of men working together to escape the prison camp, and instead, the film was more about the psychological effects of war and how principles are not always the best way to live one's life. One must use principles in addition to common sense and a desire to survive.

Alec Guinness stars as Colonel Nicholson, a by-the-book British officer who refuses to give in to Colonel Saito, the brutal commander in charge of the prison camp.

Colonel Nicholson with Colonel Saito

Despite threats and punishments, Nicholson remains firmly rooted in his principles. He will not allow Saito to break the Geneva Convention. He will not let his men slack on the job, even if their job helps the enemy. At the end of the film, however, Nicholson does seem to realize that blindly following his principles is not the way he should have been. Watching Nicholson at times can be frustrating because he seems so stubborn, yet he is logical in what he says. Often, though, I found myself siding with the medical officer, Major Clipton.

The film includes one escape, which is early on in the story. Of the three men, one survives, the American soldier Shears, who fits the role of the unwilling soldier. Shears didn't want to go into the war in the first place, and having spent months in a prison camp, he's moved further away from being a soldier in a unit to someone who looks out for himself. In ways, he is the voice of reason, explaining to Nicholson that without the hope of escape, what do the men have to live for? Shears is despicable throughout most of the story, but he does redeem himself at the end. He provides an interesting contrast, as the British soldiers and officers seem dedicated and noble while Shears, representing the Americans, seems frustrated that he's even a part of the war, perhaps reflecting some Americans' unwillingness to enter the war until America was attacked.

Although long, The Bridge on the River Kwai moves quickly, and while I had planned to split the viewing into two nights, I found myself completely hooked. I knew what was going to happen, but I didn't know exactly how the story would get there or the outcome of the characters. The film doesn't disappoint.