This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ben-Hur (1959 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ben-Hur (1959 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone have a citation for the "largest film set ever" statement? I have seen plenty of conflicting reports over this claim. Shipguy 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
* {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} * {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} * {{PAGENAMEE}} * {{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} * Please never use: : {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} : {{fullurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} : {{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} : {{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}
generates:
Plot makes is sound like Judah wants to marry his daughter Esther:
"In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O'Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah but is betrothed to another. "
I corrected and softened the language regarding the 'island,' since the spina is well-known as a feature of most circi.-- TjoeC ( talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "33 million today" bit because what's "today" mean in an undated encyclopedia? And where was this information from.. a 10 year old source maybe? It's at best meaningless without context, at worst misleading. A cited source and date for this trivia would make it worthwhile. -- Stbalbach 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This page had a few citations to the Internet Movie Database's trivia page as a source for information. However, these pages are not trustworthy: they are made the same way as Wikipedia, through contributions by anon users, and are often inaccurate and half-remembered, or even untrue. DVD commentaries, documentaries and books are much better sources. Cop 633 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, having discovered for myself that both the IMDb "Trivia" page and "Goof" page can be inaccurate O Murr ( talk) 00:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article says of the word hortator, "(Curiously, the word hortatator, although known to everyone who has seen this movie, and actually defined in the eponymous book, does not appear in either the American Heritage Dictionary or the Random House Dictionary." It may be in the Oxford English Dictionary.""
It is sort of in the OED. It is not in my fourth edition (1993) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, although it is possible that it was included in the fifth, I suppose. It is in the electronic OED, where the only reference given is to the book of Ben Hur. I can't think how to reword the article at the moment. The OED definition is not "drum-banger" or "speed-setter" or anything you might guess from the film, btw, but "one who exhorts". Skimming over the chapter "At the oar", the definition seems to be "chief of the rowers".
Telsa (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you check a Latin dictionary, you'll find that the word hortator means inciter; encourager, exhorter; urger which is completely in keeping as a descriptive title for the person who gives the time for rowers. The Latin stem is: hortator, hortatoris N (3rd) M.
See the online Latin lexicon Words by William Whitaker URL is http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?Hortator
4.153.248.63 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Lucia
I've seen Ben-Hur several times. It's quite a good film -- if you can ignore Charlton Heston's wretchedly stiff performance. It's hard to understand how anyone as self-deprecatory as Heston can be such a bad actor.
Anyhow, the story given here that Gore Vidal posited an earlier affair to motivate Messala's hatred of Ben-Hur is not only unlikely (given the Romans' discomfort with homosexual behavior, and the Jews' detestation of it), but psychologically implausible. As strictly heterosexual men can and do have intense emotional relationships with each other, it's perfectly natural for Messala to be upset -- even outraged to the point of hatred -- when his close childhood friend refuses to do as he asks. There's no need for sex.
And this story is almost certainly untrue -- we have Gore Vidal's word on the matter! In a interview in the supplementary material for the multi-disk edition of Ben Hur he says that the story is a misrepresentation -- that what he really suggested was that Stephen Boyd play the part as if Ben-Hur and Messala were lovers or spouses who'd had a falling out. This is hardly the same thing as them actually having been sexual lovers.
As for whether this is visible in the film... I don't see it, and I'm looking for it! Stephen Boyd was an actor of minimal talent; I doubt he had the skill to convey anything so subtle.
Regardless, someone should review the DVD interview and update the material accordingly. I don't have the time, and I don't really like to make such substantial changes to someone else's work.
WilliamSommerwerck 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Vidal's opinion can be kept. However, I advise to people to stop commenting on each other's opinions, per
WP:TALK.
Alientraveller (
talk)
13:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem like every single article that is even remotely related to stories in the Bible (especially Christ) has a section on a possible homosexual subtext? Is this really necessary since no sources are cited? 68.205.145.219 ( talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is as of this moment no mention of the homosexual theory at all?? In this case, I AM going to comment on other people's opinions. Because William S. here seems opinionated. Saying "well this and this is clearly not so, in fact everyone knows it is such and such" doesn't make it a fact. It all sounds like a bunch made up arguments to me, collected to enforce a personal opinion. Wether one likes it or not, the story about the homosexual meaning is there, coming from someone who could have known. Personally it doesn't really bother me what people think they can discover in a movie made 50 years ago. We can't dismis the story as if it never happened. Anyway, there is no way to deny or verify it. But it is impossible to deny the rumour exists. The controversy is real, so this story should be mentioned, in a neutral way. Spiny Norman ( talk) 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
210.213.140.244 (
talk)
14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)I would like to know why the cross used for Ben-Hur's passion scene was shaped like capital T, instead of the usual Latin cross (used commonly for King of Kings, Passion of the Christ, etc).
The "Casting" paragrpah states (last line) "Out of respect, and consistent with Lew Wallace's stated preference, the face of Jesus is never shown. He was played by opera singer Claude Heater, who received no credit for his only film role."
However, Lew Wallace (the author) died in 1905 according to his Wiki bio. How or why would Wallace stipulate that Jesus's face not be shown, given that Wallace died some time before the proliferation of movies? Was he talking about plays? And what is the source for his having stated this?
Engr105th (
talk)
17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Lew Wallace was a conservative Christian who strongly believed that showing Jesus' face in the movie would violate the 2nd Commandment. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.111.159.182 (
talk)
15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Judah Ben-Hur as article on wikipedia (I didn't know where to put it). I was surprised the character wasnt mentioned here and underlined (like a hyperlink) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 ( talk) 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency, at least in the plot section, as to how the main character is referred to. Sometimes it is written Judah, and sometimes Ben-Hur. This makes it difficult to read. It would be much better to just stick to a single reference or write the whole name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.208 ( talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Any info on this? Amazon still invites you to "Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available" after almost 2 years (http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray-Charlton-Heston/dp/B0013MYB9K/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263591970&sr=8-9). Other sources such as www.Blu-ray.com don't give more details other: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray/756/. Can anybody find a more up-to-date source stating when it will be released? I know this is not supposed to be a forum, but I can't believed MGM missed the 50th anniversary of such a title... 81.96.125.246 ( talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are some links to the 50th anniversary Blu-Ray products: http://www.amazon.com/Anniversary-Ultimate-Collectors-Exclusive-Figurine/dp/B006ENQU10/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427481082&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=ben-hur+50th+anniversary+ultimate+collector%27s+edition+blu-ray
http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Hur-Anniversary-2-Disc-Blu-ray-Combo/dp/B0074JOW5Y/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427481082&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=ben-hur+50th+anniversary+ultimate+collector%27s+edition+blu-ray
Philiptheaccountingprof (
talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)(
talk)
18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The scene between Esther and Judah is meant to depict their realisation that they are in love with each other, not simply attracted to each other. The tenderness shown between them in the seen clearly demonstrates more than mere attraction, and it is the basis for the growth of their relationship throughout the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.212.57 ( talk) 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a quote from Donald Sinden's memoirs congratulating Charlton Heston on the chariot race. It's a direct quote from the book. While a source was given, no page number was given. I tried to find this book in Google Books, but it is not online. If this were a fact but not a quote, I think we could leave it in and wait until someone added a page number. But since this is a direct quotation, I think it needs to come out of the article until a page number can be found. I hope someone can do that! (I think the quote should also be moved from where it was added to the paragraph that talks about Heston training for the chariot race. It belongs there, rather than hanging out bare where it was.) - Tim1965 ( talk) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ankitbhatt ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
An iconic Hollywood film, I was wondering when this would get a GA nomination. Sadly, one look at this article is giving me strong quick-fail vibes. Some broad problems (and I am usually very nit-picky) are :-
Such wide-range problems will be very difficult to rectify. I am not in any way saying that information should be cut from Wikipedia, but some sections need to be moved out to separate daugther articles. Other than that, thorough copy-edits and a lot of referencing improvement is needed. While I feel a withdrawal is the best option, I'll AGF and see how much improvement can be made in a week. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Some observations:
Hello Betty! I thought you had left Wikipedia, but anyways, glad you're here :) By splitting, I had not referred to completely removing the sections. As per WP:FORK, the original article must summarize the split parts in a thorough manner. Under the present circumstances, summarizing would be the best option but I don't know if it will be entirely possible. In addition, the Script development section is confusing or abrupt in places, which needs work. Same goes for the other sections as well. I'm sure we could all come to a compromise, so I would first suggest a complete copy-edit and re-writing so as to make the information more condensed. After that, we could take a call on splitting. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Did Wyler really wish to "out DeMille DeMille"? -- Regression Tester ( talk) 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely the remark attributed to Kevin Brownlow referred to the 1926 version? Brownlow's book is about the Silent Era. Rozsaphile1 ( talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding MGM as the distributor against the source. Loew's was the distribution arm for MGM who just produced the films, but originally did not distribute them. The AFI catalog clearly indicates that Loew's was the distributor in this case.
From the AFI source we have:
And also this quote:
Furthermore, the United States Copyright Office confirm that Ben-Hur was submitted to them by Loew's and not MGM: Copyright catalog (Registration Number: RE0000331201)
If there is further evidence to the contrary can it be discussed here please rather than just editing against source. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=|listas=Wagner, Alexander von}}
"Chariot Race" - I saw this painting in Manchester Art Gallery yesterday and it is a very important piece as it obviously forms the basis of the set design/cinematography for the 'Ben-Hur' films by Fred Niblo (1925) and then the re-make by Wyler in 1959.
1. The art gallery records claim that it was painted in 1882, two years after the book 'Ben Hur' was published.
2. Niblo seems to have used Wagner's composition for the race scene - see www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnW2Pz-61U&t=3m56s
3. The wide aspect ratio of Wagner's work was adopted in the 1959 film remake.
4. The idea of the intact wheel spinning off intact to one side was adopted in the movie, despite the fact that in the original book "he caught Messala's wheel with the iron-shod point of his axle, and crushed it" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2145/2145-h/2145-h.htm
5. Lew Wallace, author of Ben-Hur, provided the introductory text for the Columbian Exposition (Chicago Fair) book of engravings of 1893 at which the painting is claimed to have been shown. http://www.abebooks.com/Centennial-Exposition-Engravings-Introduction-Lew-Wallace/1077221778/bd
6. Wagner's massive painting was donated to Mancheter Art Gallery in 1898. http://www.manchestergalleries.org/the-collections/search-the-collection/display.php?EMUSESSID=0dce7f1f54356e42439299f17bf659b3&overview=1&r=837735145
Brian London
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Krimuk90 ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well-spotted haha! Thanks for taking on the review! Look forward to seeing your comments :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tone is overcooked here. It is true that he worked on the most successful epics, it's not like I say greatest. Agreed on several of though.
Note: I have to say that the article is gigantic. I really feel that the 'writing' and 'production design' sections can be trimmed. If not, there is no harm in starting a new article on it's production. I have written this above, and I repeat that the "Chariot race sequence" section definitely deserves a new article. Also, Blofeld, other than the comments that I have mentioned above, the prose tends to be quite excessive and informal at times, and it needs a nice, long look from you. I am sure that when you read through, you will realise that you can trim out some excess info. It's impossible for me to list all such instances, due to the sheer size of the article, and I will place this on hold with the good faith that you can help improve it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Yeah I think you're right that it would be best to split production and then condense. My feeling though was that for GA length wasn't a major concern and that if at some point it was going for FA then it would be seriously cut. May take a few days responding to this. @ Tim1965: on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed most of your points and spent the last few hours trimming down to just below 100kb and removing some of the less encyclopedic words and phrases. It could still be more polished of course but I think it's adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks Krimuk, and that was a great and much needed review which has considerably improved it since earlier!! The prose could still use a polish in parts but the article should be OK for GA now. Further copyedits by anybody are welcome of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now, the article claims that the score has only a single leitmotif (the 5-4#-2-3-1), but in my review of the the film, it seems that the score makes use of several recurring leitmotifs. Does anybody have any source for this claim?
Thanks for all the fascinating information O Murr ( talk) 23:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
„Principal photography began in Rome on May 18, 1958. [...] Shooting took nine months, which included three months for the chariot race scene alone. Principal photography ended on January 7, 1959...”
The period between May 18, 1958 and January 7, 1959 isn't nine months, it is only seven and half months! 195.56.250.155 ( talk) 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The first thing I am going to do is request that you stop reverting each other and discuss the issue here. Now for the actual information, Template:Infobox_film states "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film in its theatrical run (home media sales should instead be covered in the article body). This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount". Clearly this instructs us to only use the domestic amount if the worldwide figure is not available. Looking at Box Office Mojo page, it clearly only provides a domestic figure of $74 million. I happen to have the Block & Wilson book and can corroborate that it gives a global worldwide figure of $146.9 million (with a domestic figure of $74.7 million), so clearly in accordance with the guidelines, and unless we doubt the veracity of the book (written by a Hollywood Reporter writer) there is no reason to select the BOM figure over the Blockbusting figure. As for the budget, the Block & Wilson book puts it at $15.9 million, Box Office Mojo at $15 million (which to be fair doesn't contradict the $15.2 million figure), while the Sheldon Hall book along with the Mannix ledger put it at $15.2 million. Now, the Mannix ledger is actually created from the MGM accounts so will generally have the most accurate information, so in my opinion trumps any other source on the subject for MGM films. While I have neither of these available to me to check the information, I will presume they are cited accurately in a GA rated article. While I agree that it is more convenient if the source is available online, it is not actually a requirement for reliability per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If a book source provides more accurate or complete information than an online source then we should defer to it. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has been repeatedly adding this film to adventure categories, such as here. Ben-Hur is a biblical epic, as categorized by the American Film Institute. While it may contain elements of adventure is not an adventure film, at least in the principal sense. Likewise, we wouldn't classify it as an action film on the basis that it has some sword fighting and a chariot race. Categories must be verifiable and defining per WP:CATVER and WP:CATDEF. At the moment verifiable content in the article does not support the category, so please refrain from adding it. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I was shocked after reading the bulk of the article under Ben Hur that the Producer died during its filming. It was only when I went to Zimbalist's page that I learned the date of his death, so I went back to Ben Hur's page to see whether perhaps I'd missed the mention of it. The only one I found, surprisingly, was a box on the lower right (next to "Accolades", I believe) listing the awards which the film eventually won. There it acknowledges that Zimbalist was awarded posthumously. There is, however, no other mention of his death in connection with the movie. That seems rather odd, especially when I'm sure that it must have had a notable impact on others. Could information on this be included? It should be mentioned somewhere and, I would venture, be a good subject for a little research - showing how it did (or did not) effect the film and those connected with it. To not mention it at all seems as odd and dated as not showing Jesus' face. :) Possibly a well-meant but misguided type of respect or, short of benign conspiracy, just an oversight! :) :) 98.118.94.222 ( talk) 12:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who Betty Logan is and don't care. She doesn't seem to know the difference between necessary research and original research , and she seems to be savaging this page. She has undone all my recent work which I must now reconstruct. In the meantime I suggest that she takes a look at the original "Ben- Hur" brochure - does she even have a copy ? I do. Let her look at the brochure cast list. Then compare it with mine. It includes numerous credits that are not in the film's on-screen credits. Can she see anything? Or is she blind? I hadn't finished my reconstruction of the cast list and didn't have time to source it - when she descended on it and destroyed it . Has anyone else had trouble with this harpy? What can we do about her? I assume that Betty is female, but in an age of gender-reassignment I can't be sure. In any event - what's wrong with her/him/it?
O Murr ( talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I really like to know why this movie has a 6:30 minutes long intro song showing only the word "Overture". Was this usual for this time?
I eliminated the phrase about the 1959 film's portrayal of "early Christianity" for the simple reason that Christianity did not exist at the time. The film ends with the death of Jesus and the reunion of the Hur family. Christianity emerged only years later, when the followers of Jesus embraced gentile converts and separated from the synagogue. This is uncontested history, as you can see from the Wiki article on Christianity. Since the careless phrase came from a quoted reference, I thought it best to simply eliminate the reference. Why bother to debate that topic in an article on the movie? How would Betty Logan address the matter? Rozsaphile1 ( talk) 22:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
4k UHD + Blu-ray release seems to be due: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-4K-Blu-ray/251140/. Errantios ( talk) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
is that an editor here is reverting changes with the... unique... idea that 3 images for 5 paragraphs of 850 words of 5200 characters is "image overload" for a Wikipedia article on one of the most important motion pictures in American history, principally because of its spectacle. Specifically... the 5 paragraphs of 850 words of 5200 characters about the spectacle. (Sure, no one needs a montage of Gore Vidal or the producers.)
If this does end up becoming an edit war, someone please talk some sense into the editor ( who is of course well meaning but entirely mistaken editor on the topic) and restore Chuck Heston's shoes and the link to the Roman footwear they accurately represented for those of us actually interested in learning more when we visit pages like this. — LlywelynII 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ben-Hur (1959 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Ben-Hur (1959 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone have a citation for the "largest film set ever" statement? I have seen plenty of conflicting reports over this claim. Shipguy 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
* {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} * {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} * {{PAGENAMEE}} * {{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} * Please never use: : {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} : {{fullurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} : {{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} : {{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}
generates:
Plot makes is sound like Judah wants to marry his daughter Esther:
"In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O'Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah but is betrothed to another. "
I corrected and softened the language regarding the 'island,' since the spina is well-known as a feature of most circi.-- TjoeC ( talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "33 million today" bit because what's "today" mean in an undated encyclopedia? And where was this information from.. a 10 year old source maybe? It's at best meaningless without context, at worst misleading. A cited source and date for this trivia would make it worthwhile. -- Stbalbach 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This page had a few citations to the Internet Movie Database's trivia page as a source for information. However, these pages are not trustworthy: they are made the same way as Wikipedia, through contributions by anon users, and are often inaccurate and half-remembered, or even untrue. DVD commentaries, documentaries and books are much better sources. Cop 633 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, having discovered for myself that both the IMDb "Trivia" page and "Goof" page can be inaccurate O Murr ( talk) 00:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article says of the word hortator, "(Curiously, the word hortatator, although known to everyone who has seen this movie, and actually defined in the eponymous book, does not appear in either the American Heritage Dictionary or the Random House Dictionary." It may be in the Oxford English Dictionary.""
It is sort of in the OED. It is not in my fourth edition (1993) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, although it is possible that it was included in the fifth, I suppose. It is in the electronic OED, where the only reference given is to the book of Ben Hur. I can't think how to reword the article at the moment. The OED definition is not "drum-banger" or "speed-setter" or anything you might guess from the film, btw, but "one who exhorts". Skimming over the chapter "At the oar", the definition seems to be "chief of the rowers".
Telsa (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you check a Latin dictionary, you'll find that the word hortator means inciter; encourager, exhorter; urger which is completely in keeping as a descriptive title for the person who gives the time for rowers. The Latin stem is: hortator, hortatoris N (3rd) M.
See the online Latin lexicon Words by William Whitaker URL is http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?Hortator
4.153.248.63 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Lucia
I've seen Ben-Hur several times. It's quite a good film -- if you can ignore Charlton Heston's wretchedly stiff performance. It's hard to understand how anyone as self-deprecatory as Heston can be such a bad actor.
Anyhow, the story given here that Gore Vidal posited an earlier affair to motivate Messala's hatred of Ben-Hur is not only unlikely (given the Romans' discomfort with homosexual behavior, and the Jews' detestation of it), but psychologically implausible. As strictly heterosexual men can and do have intense emotional relationships with each other, it's perfectly natural for Messala to be upset -- even outraged to the point of hatred -- when his close childhood friend refuses to do as he asks. There's no need for sex.
And this story is almost certainly untrue -- we have Gore Vidal's word on the matter! In a interview in the supplementary material for the multi-disk edition of Ben Hur he says that the story is a misrepresentation -- that what he really suggested was that Stephen Boyd play the part as if Ben-Hur and Messala were lovers or spouses who'd had a falling out. This is hardly the same thing as them actually having been sexual lovers.
As for whether this is visible in the film... I don't see it, and I'm looking for it! Stephen Boyd was an actor of minimal talent; I doubt he had the skill to convey anything so subtle.
Regardless, someone should review the DVD interview and update the material accordingly. I don't have the time, and I don't really like to make such substantial changes to someone else's work.
WilliamSommerwerck 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Vidal's opinion can be kept. However, I advise to people to stop commenting on each other's opinions, per
WP:TALK.
Alientraveller (
talk)
13:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does it seem like every single article that is even remotely related to stories in the Bible (especially Christ) has a section on a possible homosexual subtext? Is this really necessary since no sources are cited? 68.205.145.219 ( talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is as of this moment no mention of the homosexual theory at all?? In this case, I AM going to comment on other people's opinions. Because William S. here seems opinionated. Saying "well this and this is clearly not so, in fact everyone knows it is such and such" doesn't make it a fact. It all sounds like a bunch made up arguments to me, collected to enforce a personal opinion. Wether one likes it or not, the story about the homosexual meaning is there, coming from someone who could have known. Personally it doesn't really bother me what people think they can discover in a movie made 50 years ago. We can't dismis the story as if it never happened. Anyway, there is no way to deny or verify it. But it is impossible to deny the rumour exists. The controversy is real, so this story should be mentioned, in a neutral way. Spiny Norman ( talk) 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
210.213.140.244 (
talk)
14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)I would like to know why the cross used for Ben-Hur's passion scene was shaped like capital T, instead of the usual Latin cross (used commonly for King of Kings, Passion of the Christ, etc).
The "Casting" paragrpah states (last line) "Out of respect, and consistent with Lew Wallace's stated preference, the face of Jesus is never shown. He was played by opera singer Claude Heater, who received no credit for his only film role."
However, Lew Wallace (the author) died in 1905 according to his Wiki bio. How or why would Wallace stipulate that Jesus's face not be shown, given that Wallace died some time before the proliferation of movies? Was he talking about plays? And what is the source for his having stated this?
Engr105th (
talk)
17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Lew Wallace was a conservative Christian who strongly believed that showing Jesus' face in the movie would violate the 2nd Commandment. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.111.159.182 (
talk)
15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Judah Ben-Hur as article on wikipedia (I didn't know where to put it). I was surprised the character wasnt mentioned here and underlined (like a hyperlink) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 ( talk) 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency, at least in the plot section, as to how the main character is referred to. Sometimes it is written Judah, and sometimes Ben-Hur. This makes it difficult to read. It would be much better to just stick to a single reference or write the whole name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.208 ( talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Any info on this? Amazon still invites you to "Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available" after almost 2 years (http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray-Charlton-Heston/dp/B0013MYB9K/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263591970&sr=8-9). Other sources such as www.Blu-ray.com don't give more details other: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray/756/. Can anybody find a more up-to-date source stating when it will be released? I know this is not supposed to be a forum, but I can't believed MGM missed the 50th anniversary of such a title... 81.96.125.246 ( talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are some links to the 50th anniversary Blu-Ray products: http://www.amazon.com/Anniversary-Ultimate-Collectors-Exclusive-Figurine/dp/B006ENQU10/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427481082&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=ben-hur+50th+anniversary+ultimate+collector%27s+edition+blu-ray
http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Hur-Anniversary-2-Disc-Blu-ray-Combo/dp/B0074JOW5Y/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427481082&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=ben-hur+50th+anniversary+ultimate+collector%27s+edition+blu-ray
Philiptheaccountingprof (
talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)(
talk)
18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The scene between Esther and Judah is meant to depict their realisation that they are in love with each other, not simply attracted to each other. The tenderness shown between them in the seen clearly demonstrates more than mere attraction, and it is the basis for the growth of their relationship throughout the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.212.57 ( talk) 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a quote from Donald Sinden's memoirs congratulating Charlton Heston on the chariot race. It's a direct quote from the book. While a source was given, no page number was given. I tried to find this book in Google Books, but it is not online. If this were a fact but not a quote, I think we could leave it in and wait until someone added a page number. But since this is a direct quotation, I think it needs to come out of the article until a page number can be found. I hope someone can do that! (I think the quote should also be moved from where it was added to the paragraph that talks about Heston training for the chariot race. It belongs there, rather than hanging out bare where it was.) - Tim1965 ( talk) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ankitbhatt ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
An iconic Hollywood film, I was wondering when this would get a GA nomination. Sadly, one look at this article is giving me strong quick-fail vibes. Some broad problems (and I am usually very nit-picky) are :-
Such wide-range problems will be very difficult to rectify. I am not in any way saying that information should be cut from Wikipedia, but some sections need to be moved out to separate daugther articles. Other than that, thorough copy-edits and a lot of referencing improvement is needed. While I feel a withdrawal is the best option, I'll AGF and see how much improvement can be made in a week. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Some observations:
Hello Betty! I thought you had left Wikipedia, but anyways, glad you're here :) By splitting, I had not referred to completely removing the sections. As per WP:FORK, the original article must summarize the split parts in a thorough manner. Under the present circumstances, summarizing would be the best option but I don't know if it will be entirely possible. In addition, the Script development section is confusing or abrupt in places, which needs work. Same goes for the other sections as well. I'm sure we could all come to a compromise, so I would first suggest a complete copy-edit and re-writing so as to make the information more condensed. After that, we could take a call on splitting. ~*~ Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Did Wyler really wish to "out DeMille DeMille"? -- Regression Tester ( talk) 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Surely the remark attributed to Kevin Brownlow referred to the 1926 version? Brownlow's book is about the Silent Era. Rozsaphile1 ( talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding MGM as the distributor against the source. Loew's was the distribution arm for MGM who just produced the films, but originally did not distribute them. The AFI catalog clearly indicates that Loew's was the distributor in this case.
From the AFI source we have:
And also this quote:
Furthermore, the United States Copyright Office confirm that Ben-Hur was submitted to them by Loew's and not MGM: Copyright catalog (Registration Number: RE0000331201)
If there is further evidence to the contrary can it be discussed here please rather than just editing against source. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=|listas=Wagner, Alexander von}}
"Chariot Race" - I saw this painting in Manchester Art Gallery yesterday and it is a very important piece as it obviously forms the basis of the set design/cinematography for the 'Ben-Hur' films by Fred Niblo (1925) and then the re-make by Wyler in 1959.
1. The art gallery records claim that it was painted in 1882, two years after the book 'Ben Hur' was published.
2. Niblo seems to have used Wagner's composition for the race scene - see www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnW2Pz-61U&t=3m56s
3. The wide aspect ratio of Wagner's work was adopted in the 1959 film remake.
4. The idea of the intact wheel spinning off intact to one side was adopted in the movie, despite the fact that in the original book "he caught Messala's wheel with the iron-shod point of his axle, and crushed it" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2145/2145-h/2145-h.htm
5. Lew Wallace, author of Ben-Hur, provided the introductory text for the Columbian Exposition (Chicago Fair) book of engravings of 1893 at which the painting is claimed to have been shown. http://www.abebooks.com/Centennial-Exposition-Engravings-Introduction-Lew-Wallace/1077221778/bd
6. Wagner's massive painting was donated to Mancheter Art Gallery in 1898. http://www.manchestergalleries.org/the-collections/search-the-collection/display.php?EMUSESSID=0dce7f1f54356e42439299f17bf659b3&overview=1&r=837735145
Brian London
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Krimuk90 ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well-spotted haha! Thanks for taking on the review! Look forward to seeing your comments :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tone is overcooked here. It is true that he worked on the most successful epics, it's not like I say greatest. Agreed on several of though.
Note: I have to say that the article is gigantic. I really feel that the 'writing' and 'production design' sections can be trimmed. If not, there is no harm in starting a new article on it's production. I have written this above, and I repeat that the "Chariot race sequence" section definitely deserves a new article. Also, Blofeld, other than the comments that I have mentioned above, the prose tends to be quite excessive and informal at times, and it needs a nice, long look from you. I am sure that when you read through, you will realise that you can trim out some excess info. It's impossible for me to list all such instances, due to the sheer size of the article, and I will place this on hold with the good faith that you can help improve it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Yeah I think you're right that it would be best to split production and then condense. My feeling though was that for GA length wasn't a major concern and that if at some point it was going for FA then it would be seriously cut. May take a few days responding to this. @ Tim1965: on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed most of your points and spent the last few hours trimming down to just below 100kb and removing some of the less encyclopedic words and phrases. It could still be more polished of course but I think it's adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks Krimuk, and that was a great and much needed review which has considerably improved it since earlier!! The prose could still use a polish in parts but the article should be OK for GA now. Further copyedits by anybody are welcome of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Right now, the article claims that the score has only a single leitmotif (the 5-4#-2-3-1), but in my review of the the film, it seems that the score makes use of several recurring leitmotifs. Does anybody have any source for this claim?
Thanks for all the fascinating information O Murr ( talk) 23:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
„Principal photography began in Rome on May 18, 1958. [...] Shooting took nine months, which included three months for the chariot race scene alone. Principal photography ended on January 7, 1959...”
The period between May 18, 1958 and January 7, 1959 isn't nine months, it is only seven and half months! 195.56.250.155 ( talk) 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The first thing I am going to do is request that you stop reverting each other and discuss the issue here. Now for the actual information, Template:Infobox_film states "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film in its theatrical run (home media sales should instead be covered in the article body). This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount". Clearly this instructs us to only use the domestic amount if the worldwide figure is not available. Looking at Box Office Mojo page, it clearly only provides a domestic figure of $74 million. I happen to have the Block & Wilson book and can corroborate that it gives a global worldwide figure of $146.9 million (with a domestic figure of $74.7 million), so clearly in accordance with the guidelines, and unless we doubt the veracity of the book (written by a Hollywood Reporter writer) there is no reason to select the BOM figure over the Blockbusting figure. As for the budget, the Block & Wilson book puts it at $15.9 million, Box Office Mojo at $15 million (which to be fair doesn't contradict the $15.2 million figure), while the Sheldon Hall book along with the Mannix ledger put it at $15.2 million. Now, the Mannix ledger is actually created from the MGM accounts so will generally have the most accurate information, so in my opinion trumps any other source on the subject for MGM films. While I have neither of these available to me to check the information, I will presume they are cited accurately in a GA rated article. While I agree that it is more convenient if the source is available online, it is not actually a requirement for reliability per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If a book source provides more accurate or complete information than an online source then we should defer to it. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has been repeatedly adding this film to adventure categories, such as here. Ben-Hur is a biblical epic, as categorized by the American Film Institute. While it may contain elements of adventure is not an adventure film, at least in the principal sense. Likewise, we wouldn't classify it as an action film on the basis that it has some sword fighting and a chariot race. Categories must be verifiable and defining per WP:CATVER and WP:CATDEF. At the moment verifiable content in the article does not support the category, so please refrain from adding it. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I was shocked after reading the bulk of the article under Ben Hur that the Producer died during its filming. It was only when I went to Zimbalist's page that I learned the date of his death, so I went back to Ben Hur's page to see whether perhaps I'd missed the mention of it. The only one I found, surprisingly, was a box on the lower right (next to "Accolades", I believe) listing the awards which the film eventually won. There it acknowledges that Zimbalist was awarded posthumously. There is, however, no other mention of his death in connection with the movie. That seems rather odd, especially when I'm sure that it must have had a notable impact on others. Could information on this be included? It should be mentioned somewhere and, I would venture, be a good subject for a little research - showing how it did (or did not) effect the film and those connected with it. To not mention it at all seems as odd and dated as not showing Jesus' face. :) Possibly a well-meant but misguided type of respect or, short of benign conspiracy, just an oversight! :) :) 98.118.94.222 ( talk) 12:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who Betty Logan is and don't care. She doesn't seem to know the difference between necessary research and original research , and she seems to be savaging this page. She has undone all my recent work which I must now reconstruct. In the meantime I suggest that she takes a look at the original "Ben- Hur" brochure - does she even have a copy ? I do. Let her look at the brochure cast list. Then compare it with mine. It includes numerous credits that are not in the film's on-screen credits. Can she see anything? Or is she blind? I hadn't finished my reconstruction of the cast list and didn't have time to source it - when she descended on it and destroyed it . Has anyone else had trouble with this harpy? What can we do about her? I assume that Betty is female, but in an age of gender-reassignment I can't be sure. In any event - what's wrong with her/him/it?
O Murr ( talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I really like to know why this movie has a 6:30 minutes long intro song showing only the word "Overture". Was this usual for this time?
I eliminated the phrase about the 1959 film's portrayal of "early Christianity" for the simple reason that Christianity did not exist at the time. The film ends with the death of Jesus and the reunion of the Hur family. Christianity emerged only years later, when the followers of Jesus embraced gentile converts and separated from the synagogue. This is uncontested history, as you can see from the Wiki article on Christianity. Since the careless phrase came from a quoted reference, I thought it best to simply eliminate the reference. Why bother to debate that topic in an article on the movie? How would Betty Logan address the matter? Rozsaphile1 ( talk) 22:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
4k UHD + Blu-ray release seems to be due: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-4K-Blu-ray/251140/. Errantios ( talk) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
is that an editor here is reverting changes with the... unique... idea that 3 images for 5 paragraphs of 850 words of 5200 characters is "image overload" for a Wikipedia article on one of the most important motion pictures in American history, principally because of its spectacle. Specifically... the 5 paragraphs of 850 words of 5200 characters about the spectacle. (Sure, no one needs a montage of Gore Vidal or the producers.)
If this does end up becoming an edit war, someone please talk some sense into the editor ( who is of course well meaning but entirely mistaken editor on the topic) and restore Chuck Heston's shoes and the link to the Roman footwear they accurately represented for those of us actually interested in learning more when we visit pages like this. — LlywelynII 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)