Mitchell Lewis – Movie Musings

Sumptuous silent-epic, full of exciting set pieces that was basically the model for the more famous version

Director: Fred Niblo

Cast: Ramon Novarro (Ben-Hur), Francis X Bushman (Messala), May McAvoy (Esther), Betty Bronson (Mary), Claire McDowell (Miriam), Kathleen Key (Tizah), Carmel Myers (Iras), Nigel de Brulier (Simonides), Mitchell Lewis (Sheik Ilderim), Leo White (Sanballat), Frank Currier (Arrius), Charles Belcher (Balthazar)

Of course, General Lew Wallace’s tombstone historical novel is now best known as the Heston-led, Oscar-winning behemoth Ben-Hur, the self-proclaimed most epic epic ever to arrive on the screens. But it was not the first time this novel had made its way to the screen. Wyler’s film owed a vast amount to this 1925 epic, which inspired so many of its key sequences you’d have to call his version a re-make. This gigantic silent film was itself the second attempt to screen Ben-Hur, but with all the strengths of the 1959 film (namely the set-pieces like that chariot riot) but without some of its weaknesses (its crushing length and heavy-handed self-importance) it’s the better film.

Opening with the birth of Christ, the story is, as always, that of wealthy Jewish noble Judah Ben-Hur (Ramon Novarro) whose old friendship with Roman Messala (Francis X Bushman) collapses into life-long loathing when Messala has Ben-Hur arrested on trumped-up charges and, for good measure, chucks his mother Miriam (Claire McDowell) and sister Tizah (Kathleen Key) into a dungeon. Judah becomes a galley slave until he saves the life of Roman General Arrius (Frank Currier). Adopted as Arrius’ son, Judah returns to Jerusalem for revenge against Messala and to find his missing family. With the best revenge possible being defeating Messala in a deadly chariot race.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is gargantuan in a way only the great silent epics could be. It features huge reconstructions of ancient Jerusalem, crowded with armies of extras – in its opening shots alone, elephants ride through the gigantic gates of the city. Sprawling sets, shot with perfect wide scale to hammer home their size, run throughout the whole film, with the chariot race set a towering grandstand further increased by a skilfully used matte painting. Its set pieces – the naval battle and the chariot race – are both awe-inspiring in their scale, the match of anything in the 1959 film. It’s impossible not to be slightly taken aback by the weight of what it thrown up on screen here.

In this grand-scale, the expressive pose-striking of Ramon Novarro actually feels rather fitting. Particularly as his moments of distraught guilt and fear feels earned, considering the misery of the galleys and the emotion-packed struggle of his family to try and escape unjust arrest. But also, because Novarro has the handsome, matinee-idol looks of a guy you can root for (he replaced George Walsh, who was deemed insufficiently heroic looking). It works because Ben-Hur, for all its ‘Tale of the Christ!’ background, is basically a great big Roman-era soap, an entertainingly, rollicking tale through the turn of the millennium ups-and-downs of a handsome prince who always lands on his feet.

He does so via some truly excellent set-pieces. The naval battle, where Judah wins his freedom, is set on a truly impressive scale. Naval ships crash into each other, soldiers and pirates flood the deck of the flagship. During the battle limbs are hacked off, bodies are skewered and crushed (including one poor soul, tied to the head of the pirate’s ship batting ram, as it ploughs into the Roman flagship) and a newly released Judah escapes the watery doom of the galleys to spray pirate-defying death left, right and centre. It’s a gripping sequence, told on a huge scale.

Even more impressive though is the marvellous chariot race, a sequence so compellingly edited and assembled it not only was essentially used as a shot-for-shot reference in the remake, but its arguably inspired countless race sequences since. From its camera tracking alongside and in front of the racing chariots, low angles that see the chariots racing above, the frantic cutting that keeps momentum flying without ever losing narrative clarity, and the skilful way it keeps returning to Judah and Messala’s very personal battle, its masterfully done. In a nice touch, Judah drives the only white horses meaning we can always spot him. As chariots rip round bends, leaving dust spraying, crash into terrifying pile-ons or leaves competitors mangled and crushed on the track, it’s impossible not to feel impacted by the relentless momentum (certainly Willaim Wyler was – he was one of the assistants working on the sequence).

Away from these dramatic highlights, Ben-Hur remains a soapy, melodramatic tale. The tragic force is dialled up, with Judah’s family suffering for years in a blue-lens-tinged prison, succumbing to leprosy. Bushman’s Messala is devoid of complexity, embracing his role as pantomime villain with relish. Iras (Carmel Myers) bats her eye-lids to seduce both Judah and Messala, playing the two off each other. Its one of two soft-focus romances, that the film frames with unabashed sentimentality. Judah throws himself into a passionate advocacy of the coming of the Lord, the film frequently throwing him into military garb (at the head of a self-funded army to fight the Good Fight) that looks bizarrely like he’s stepped out of Fritz Lang’s Die Nibelungen.

What makes this nonsense work is the film doesn’t take it too seriously and, unlike the 1959 version, doesn’t dwell on it all at great length. However, what it does share with the remake is the reverence for the story of Jesus. Some things never change, and Hollywood worked out an action epic could seem far loftier if it was marketed as “truly the film ever Christian should see!” The Messiah is a frequent just-off-camera figure (just as he would be in 1959), his hand heading into shot to heal the sick or pass a dying Judah some water. The final sequence plays out with the crucifixion front-and-centre and a grieving but rapturous Judah telling us all He will rise again.

Many of the recreations of the Bible – starting with its nativity opening – are filmed in a post-production painted early colour, with the references for the colour clearly being the very best religious art of the Renaissance, most clearly in its beatific Mary complete with halo-like effect. The film returns to these time-and-time again, taking a break from the soap opera to give us worthy shots of the history of Jesus, that look rather like reverent stained-glass windows. It’s all part of adding an important spiritual purpose to the film, to cement it as more important than just sword-and-sandals epic.

In that it’s not dissimilar from the remake. What it does though is manage to wear this slightly lighter and slightly less of an air of bumptious self-importance. Match that with the film’s compelling action highlights and truly stunning scale and you might have a leaner, faster and perhaps just as entertaining version of the story – even if it is in silent and black-and-white. It can certainly claim to be the finest version of Lew Wallace.

Well made Dickens adaptation, that manages to streamline the novel very successfully

Director: Jack Conway

Cast: Ronald Colman (Sydney Carton), Elizabeth Allan (Lucie Manette), Edna May Oliver (Miss Pross), Reginald Owen (C.J. Stryver), Basil Rathbone (Marquis St. Evremonde), Blanche Yurka (Madame Therese De Farge), Henry B. Walthall (Dr. Alexandre Manette), Donald Woods (Charles Darnay), Walter Catlett (John Barsad), Fritz Leiber (Gaspard), H. B. Warner (Theophile Gabelle), Mitchell Lewis (De Farge), Claude Gillingwater (Jarvis Lorry), Billy Bevan (Jerry Cruncher), Isabel Jewell (Seamstress)

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” and “It is a far, far better thing I do now…”. Are there more famous openings and closings in literature than these from Dicken’s A Tale of Two Cities? The novel is bought marvellously to life by David O Selznick in his follow-up to David Copperfield. It still might just be definitive. With several impressive actors embodying some of Dicken’s most memorable characters, grand sets and a fabulous mix of faithfulness and pacey condensing, A Tale of Two Cities stands as one of the finest Dickens adaptations.

The plot sticks faithfully to the book: Lucie Manette’s (Elizabeth Allan) father Dr Manette (Henry B Walthall) is recalled to life and released from the Bastille in the 1780s. They travel to England where Lucie Manette falls in love with the heir to the Maquis St Evermonde (Basil Rathbone), Charle Darney (Donald Woods) who has forsaken his families wealth and cruelty. But she is also loved by dissolute-but-brilliant lawyer Sydney Carton (Ronald Colman). When the French Revolution strikes, Darney returns to France to rescue an old family retainer only to be arrested and condemned to death by a mob whipped up by the vengeful Madame De Farge (Blanche Yurka). How far will Carton go to save the man who has the wife and family he has dreamed of?

A Tale of Two Cities pretty much perfectly captures the atmosphere of Dickens’ novel, from its mist-filled opening with a carriage rattling through the French countryside via its vivid bringing to life of a gallery of Dickensian eccentrics through to its closing sections, deep in the heart of Revolutionary France. The novel has been skilfully condensed down by WP Lipscomb and SN Behrman’s script, so that every beat is recognisably in place without the film stretching out with overwhelming length.

It manages to capture the humour in many of Dickens side characters, from the corrupt chancer Barsard, the puffed-up lawyer Stryver to the surprisingly decent graverobber (or Resurrectionist as he prefers) the brilliantly-named Jerry Cruncher. Sequences, such as Darney’s early trial (on trumped up charges of treason) and his brilliant acquittal by Carton (working silently through Stryver) are perfectly executed. The homely gentleness of the Darney family life, that so crucially melts Carton’s cynical heart, are perfectly captured. The heart of the novel is very effectively bought to life.

So is its portrait of a France crammed with injustice, righteous anger and murderous, indiscriminate fury. The trampling of a young boy by the Maquis’ carriage (the Maquis a perfect portrait of imperious arrogance from Basil Rathbone) is shocking, echoed later when a cavalier’s horse tramples a woman at a food riot (an effect only marginally weakened by the fact it’s clearly a dummy). In impressive, Eisenstein-inspired sequences that cut between grand scale and enraged, impassioned faces, the revolution takes full effect with an impressive storming of the Bastille. (These grand sequences, were directed by Jaques Tourner and Val Lewton).

Among the French it’s easy to feel sympathy at first for the De Farges, Mitchell Lewis’ Ernest a genuinely decent man moved to violence after years of provocation. His wife, brilliantly played by Blanche Yurka, is a similarly impassioned witness to cruelty and abuse, but whose fanaticism and unbending fury tips her from a sympathetic if cold figure into a relentless killer who doesn’t care who pays the price of her quest for a personal revenge. Yurka’s grim-eyed obsession is perfectly portrayed in a low-key performance which bubbles with menace. She also has one of the most striking fights in 30s cinema with Edna May Oliver’s (who is outstanding as one of her patented Maiden Aunt figures) Miss Pross.

Finest of all is Ronald Colman, in a role he was so desperate to take he even agreed to shave off the iconic moustache. Colman superbly brings to life the cynical, sardonic lawyer with a real relish but gives his playful drunkenness a deeply melancholic sense of loneliness. When he speaks with Lucie, Colman’s sadly resigned pleasantness expertly communicates both his live, regret and acceptance that he can never speak of his feelings. Colman insisted that he not, as is often the case in adaptations, also play Darney (the book’s crucial plot point that the two men are all-but identical is completely written out) so he could focus on this crucial character, and it pays dividends with possibly a career-best performance.

Colman is essential to the film’s powerfully affecting final sequence, that follows the fate of those condemned to die at the guillotine, his brave acceptance of his fate, expertly tinged with a little touch of fear and a genuine contentment that in sacrifice his life finds meaning. Isabel Jewell makes a fine companion in this sequence as a wrongly condemned seamstress, she and Colman forging a tender and genuinely moving bond. The film finds a real nobility and tragic force in this sequence, while not shirking in the horror of mechanised death or mob rule.

Not everything works perfectly. Jack Conway, who directed most of the dialogue parts, is not the world’s most inspired visualist and while he draws fine performances from the cast, these sequences are strikingly flatter and more theatrical than the more epic sequences. Donald Woods, as Darney, admittedly given very little to work with (also from Dickens), makes a particularly bland Darney while Elizabeth Allan’s Lucie is also less of a dynamic presence than the story really needs.

But these are gripes in a production that is actually both an very effective film and has some striking performances of an expert Dickensian nature with Ronald Colman in particular outstandingly and richly humane, funny and moving. It’s telling that no adaptation since as ever managed to so effectively capture the tone of the novel, communicate the story so skilfully or carry as much pathos, tension and even humour as this one manages. As a Dickens adaptation, it very much the best of times.