The Directors: Sergio Leone

Our spaghetti western weekend goes on. Sergio Leone (1929-1989) was one of the very few visionaries who both have an instantly recognizable style, and also shaped the face of cinema so strongly that it never really was the same after he was done. Leone started out by learning filmmaking by being a trusted second unit director, and went on to almost single-handedly creating the spaghetti western genre. With the success he got, he sought to create bigger and bigger epics, each taking more and more painstakingly accurate work and years to complete. It's too bad we didn't get any more films from Leone, but at least each and every one of them is highly worth watching, and they all give unforgettable experiences to the viewer. Leone is also one of the manliest directors out there, women rarely have a big part in his larger scheme of things. Not to throw the word around lightly, Leone is an icon, having created numerous images that stay in the collective unconscious and still shape cinema today.

The Colossus of Rhodes (Il colosso di Rodi, 1961)

Early in his career, Sergio Leone did second-unit directing a lot, and even allegedly directed some films credited to other people. But we'll start out with the first film that is solely credited to the man. This historical epic came from a time when the Italians churned out historical adventure movies of sword and sandals genre. The industry would have hits from more interesting genres by the middle of the decade, but at that point the way to go was with peplum.

Rhodes is a peaceful island, that has managed to divide itself from the raging wars of the city states of Greece. The proud citizens of Rhodes have finished a giant statue of Apollo, called the colossus, that works as a lookout for any war ships coming in from the sea. Darius comes from the battelefields of Athens to seek rest and relaxation. However, he soon finds himself soon tangled in a feud between the island's King Serse (Roberto Carmadiel) and a group of rebels that claim that the king is a tyrant. The feud also spreads beyond the limits of the island as Darius finds out about a sinister plot to conquer the entire island.

Leone's film does actually reflect on his later films, as the protagoinist is no larger-than-life muscle man that would solve all the problems with his sheer strength. The hero, Athenian war hero Darius (Rory Calhoun) is as powerless to stop war and carnage as Leone's heroes later on would be in the face of war and bloodshed. One man doesn't weigh much in the grand scheme of warfare. Leone is also as sadistic as ever, and has devised quite cruel contraptions that the captured rebels get tortured with. By the end, he also has a grandiose natural catastrophy scene that spares no people. Leone manages to shoot with his minimal budget scenes that wouldn't look out of place from that period's high-budgeted Hollywood films. The group shots are particularly wonderful. The director is clearly still young, eager, relentless and perhaps a bit angry. Plot-wise the film doesn't offer anything too amazing, but as a starting point it is not without its charms.

★★★

A Fistful of Dollars (Per un pugnio di dollari, 1964)

Like many so-called firsts in cinema history, A Fistful of Dollars wasn't actually the very first western done in Italy, but it was the first significan piece and the first hit, which makes its mark. Genre filmmaking is funny in the way that certain elements go around the world as well as through different genres to come back where it started. The first film in the Dollars trilogy steals its plot ruthlessly from Akira Kurosawa's samurai film Yojimbo. Kurosawa himself was inspired by American westerns which featured one man against a system, such as High Noon.

A stranger (Clint Eastwood) rides into a town. He notices not a lot of people are around and even a small child by a well gets beaten for being at the worng place. Indeed, the town is terrorized by two criminal gangs, the Rojos (mexicans) and the Baxters (Americans). The tough and smart stranger (who is called Joe, but doesn't actually give his name to anyone) decides to earn as much from the situation as he can, and plays the gangs against each other. But the plan doesn't go flawlessly and leads to a massacre or two. In the end, "Joe" must face off against the leader of the surviving gang in a big face-off.

The film is notoriously violent and cynical but hey, that's the way I want my spaghetti westerns. Leone created an iconic cinematic look for the film, where everything from the sets to the actors themselves looks shoddy, dirty and badly sunburn. But at least for me, the film isn't yet a masterpiece. In following Kurosawa's film's plot too closely, the film is uneven and drags at parts, where Kurosawa would have his philosphy about nobility and sacrifice. Of course, Leone's film lacks such subtexts, and the only motivation for the characters is greed, which can lead to pretty ruthless businesses.

The spaghetti western genre, started by Leone here, would later go on to inspire the new American action film genre in the 70's and 80's. Leone has as little dialogue in his film as possible, perhaps because while Clint Eastwood acted in english, most of his cast were italian. With as strong as possible visual sense everyone would understand the film without language. That's also probably why the film became such a crossover hit acroos the world.

★★★ 1/2

For A Few Dollars More (Per qualche dollaro in piú, 1965)

The second Dollars film is the first one in Leone's career that feels completely his own. Instead of ripping off Kurosawa's Sanjuro, Leone decided to go with an original story and the world is richer because of that. Luciano Vincenzoni was his credited co-writer, but also acclaimed Italian screenwriters Fernando di Leo (director of Milano Calibro 9) and Sergio Donati worked for the script.

The stranger is back, this time he is called Monco (which means one-handed in spanish). For legal resons, Leone has had to explain that the protagonists in the two films were not actually the same person, but aside from the name, there's nothing that would separate the two. They are both played by Clint Eastwood, they both wear the same poncho, they both are low on words but quick with guns, both have a grim sense of humour and both are skillful bounty hunters, out to grab as much cash as they can. The cigarrillo-chewer sets his eyes on a group of bandits led by the notorious El Indio (Gian Maria Volonté). But he finds out that another skillful bounty hunter is after the same reward. Colonel Douglas Mortimer (Lee van Cleef) has also some personal businnesses to settle with Indio.

Also one of Leone's recurring themes is building his film on a three-way fight between characters. The embryonic Good, Bad and Ugly are at play here, but not yet as clearly defined and thus almost more interesting to follow. But the film is not merely a show for its three leads. With a bigger budget Leone managed to grab some interesting European character actors to play minor roles, not just any available italians. The most famous is of course Klaus Kinski as a hunchbacked henchman (try saying that as fast and many times as you can with a mouthful of chips) Wild. But other members of Indio's gang are also played by some greats, such as Mario Brega, Luigi Pistilli and Panos Papadopulos.

The key sequence of the film is the one where Monco and Mortimer attempt to intimidate each other to leave town. This includes scaring up a bellhop, stomping on each other's shoe, and shooting the hat off one another to further and further away. A group of children observes, noting "just like the games we play". Leone is having fun toying around with the western elements. Altough his films may be cynical and show that only money matters, it is the sort of ironic cynicism that should not be taken to be symbolic of the real world. Leone's films are pastiches, parodies and caricatures, distorting anything wholesome the American westerns may have had. They are in a sense, comic movies that work with the same logic as Italian western comics or pulp fiction would. The setting, characters and iconography is what's important. The rest is just for fun, and it's about as much fun as you can have with a movie.

★★★★1/2

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, 1966)

From the beginning you know what you're in for. The crude animation with stark colours plays as Ennio Morricone's iconic theme music is playing. All of the Dollars films have fine opening sequences and great music, but the one in the closing film takes the cake by not being as incredibly clumsy as before, and being properly cut to the main theme. The opening should tell you all you need to know: the film is sort of like pop art. It takes iconography that you know by heart and makes something altogether new with it. At the same time it makes fun of the original material and highly respects by raising it as a work of art. The end result should not be taken altogether seriously, but is not by any means a joke, either.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the first major epic in Leone's career. The previous two Dollars films work just as well from a TV set, but from now on we are talking ablout HUGE movies that only really work from a big screen when the sound is up! The film has been a major influence to almost all action films since. The film's tongue-in-cheek philosophy would do well with many movie villains as well: "When you got to shoot, shoot, don't talk!"

The film is set sometime in the American Civil War.  Clint Eastwood's character is this time named Blondie, but is still the same as ever. He still doesn't talk very much and he'll still do anything for a fistful of dollars. But the real focus and the protagonist of the film is the Mexican bandit Tuco (Eli Wallach), a cruel, stupid, vengeful, greedy, two-faced, but somehow also a very lovable character. He also shows some signs of character development during the film. Tuco is Blondie's best friend, partner in crime and also the worst enemy. The assassin Angel Eyes (Lee van Cleef) completes the trio. Angel Eyes is a ruthless man, who'll not only kill a wanted man, but also his family and take their money when he only needed to get was one name. When he gets paid, he'll kill his employer, because he reckons, the previous body wanted to hire him to do so. Angel Eyes also works as a deputy leader of a northern POW camp. All three are after a grave filled with gold bricks confiscated during the war, and willing to betray and kill one another to get it.

As you can guess from the characters, the name is strongly ironic. In fact, Leone had considered using Inglorious Bastards as a title before Enzo G. Castellari swiped it for his own war movie. Although Blondie's namely the Good, he's not really a hero you can look up to. In fact he's only the least bad of the three main characters, who are all greedy and ruthless men,  prepared to kill anyone who stands in their way. But what sets Blondie above the rest of them is that he seems to be the only character  capable of some sort of empathy towards dying soldiers. The Bad is really bad, unredeemably so, but The Ugly shows that while he may be a real bastard, there are some good sides to him, too.

The movie also has a strong anti-war message. War brings out the cruelty of men and the value of the human life drops to nothing. While there are some epic war scenes, huge explosions and realistic sets, Leone uses them to critize the loss of human life. The POW camp could be a concentration camp just as well, as prisoners get beaten near death as the choir is forced to sing, so the voices of the beating couldn't be heard. You are put to the camp for simply rooting for the wrong side.

But really, the film excels in sheer cinematic storytelling. The scenes near the end at a cemetary are some of the strongest examples of pure style ever committed to film. The showdown relies almost solely to Morricone's score building up the tensions, with Leone's unique skills of intervowing long, landscape shots and extreme closeups bring out the anxiousness of the main characters to settle the schism between them and find out who gets the gold. But the film is by no means a hard watch, even with its violence, cynicism and anti-war stance. In fact, Leone has upped the comedy in this one, which is witnessed from the first scene to the in the immortal final line.

★★★★★

Once Upon A Time In The West (C'era una volta il West, 1968)

After the success of TGTBaTU, Leone set out to make the ultimate western, his last foray into the genre. He hired film critics Dario Argento and Bernando Bertolucci (who would go on to become iconic Italian film directors themselves) to write a script about every western archetype they could come up with and honor the history of the genre. The initial draft was too intellectual, so Leone started with the story and rewrote the script with his trusted friend Sergio Donati. Once Upon A Time in the West is a western film that is both traditional and also iconoclastic at the same time. It is consistently voted as one of the best western films of all time by both the critics and the audiences. The American Library of Congress has also decided to contain the movie in its library for its ”cultural, historical and aestehical” significance.

Sergio Leone cast his film with various western archetypes, but managed to tell their worn-out stories in a fresh way. He started out with hiring his idol from John Ford's westerns, Henry Fonda. Fonda had played generally good and noble characters, but Leone saw something distant and cool even in these roles, and thus cast him against his type as a ruthless killer. Fonda's Frank doesn't hesitate to kill, but is looking to retire and begin life as a businessman. His past deeds, however, come to haunt him. A quiet gunslinger who refuses to reveal his name appears to settle his score with Frank. He is known only as "Harmonica", and is played by Charles Bronson. Harmonica arrives as Frank is working as a henchman for the railroad tycoon Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti), probably the most melancholic character of the film. Morton is crippled because of a bone illness. He is slowly dying and wishes to see the Pacfic Ocean befor he dies. This is why Morton needs to rely on ruthless means to gain the properties where his upcoming railroad tracks will go.

One of such properties belongs to the recently widowed (because of Frank) Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale). The adamant woman balances on whether she should sell her ranch or not, and thus lives in the threat of getting killed by Frank. She is being protected first by Harmonica and later, also the notorious bandit Cheyenne (Jason Robards). Cheyenne's part in the story is to have the basic redemption story. He starts out as a feared and dangerous outlaw, but his image grows softer during the movie (perhaps due to him falling in love with Jill).

Although these characters are archetypes, they begin to show signs of breaking their molds. Thus, they are a lot more three-dimentional than similar characters in many other westerns. The film strongly emphasizes the loss of the old-fashioned western gunslinger, as the railroad tracks will bring more physically weak, but cunning men of new order such as Morton. The alienated, isolated, archetypal Real Men of the film are simply incapable of the complex, subtle, emotionally and physically tortured inter-relationships which characterise bounty hunters in many other revisionist westerns. The characters are either friends or foes, although these alliances can switch once in a while.

Leone himself has stated that the characters know their doom is impending, with the only exception being Jill. Leone's interests are depicting this Dance of Death between the characters, the rituals leading to violence. Especially in these instances Leone uses a lot of extreme close ups of his characters, the ”face as a landscape”. It allows Leone to emphasize the underlying emotions and thoughts of the characters without too much dialogue. This is all a part of the rituals preceding action, and character types fulfilling their pre set functions. At the same time these rituals are the ones that link them into the larger vein of western movies.

The film is long, and everything in it is long-winded. Yet the audio-visual perfection, the grandiose operatic of it all make sure that the viewer won't feel a single moment of boredom and three hours just fly by. When it's all over, the viewer is left wanting to spend more time with these, essentially dead characters. The cast of Once Upon A Time In The West live and die in the middle of a transition. As in many westerns, this also will finish the old west, hence the title. The other reason for the title is to emphasize that this is a sort of fairy tale, a tale of myths. This may very well be my favorite film of all time.

★★★★★

Duck, You Sucker a.k.a. A Fistful of Dynamite a.k.a. Once Upon A Time ...the Revolution (Giú la testa, 1971)

Like Sergio Donati told in his Q&A, The initial idea of Duck, You Sucker was his and Leone had to be persuaded to direct after he couldn't find another suitable candidate for the job. The film is often dismissed as one of Leone's lesser efforts, and has only now begun to gain interest from film critics and historians. I think a lot of reason why this has gotten so little acclaim is that it was marketed as a good-natured romp, a buddy movie and a comedy (like the english title would imply), while in fact the subject matter is dealt as heavily as in the other two films in the America-trilogy, and also a lot more political than in any of Leone's other films. The only reason this didn't get its initial title Once Upon A Time ...the Revolution was that the producers feared the film would be confused with Bernando Bertolucci's Before the Revolution.

The film is set in the Revolutionary war of Mexico. An IRA explosives expert, calling himself John Mallory (James Coburn) is on the run from the british. He happens to meet the mexican bandit Juan Miranda (Rod Steiger), who figures that John's skills with dynamite might make him able to rob a few Mexican banks. But when they do, it turns out in the vaults there is no money, but rather prisoners of war. By freeing them, John and Juan become heroes of the revolution. John has been interested in aiding the revolutionaries from the beginning, but the father of a large family Juan has to adjust to being a freedom fighter a little bit more.

Again, Leone has created a true epic, with massive crowd scenes. In fact, the director openly idolized David Lean, and like him, always wanted to make the biggest epic known to man with his each subsequent film. The film has a great deal of comedy, coming from the awkward buddy relationship of John and Juan. Yet the film has a melancholic undertone, with John harboring sad secrets within him, and Juan realizing just how much his country is hurt with the bloodshed and carnage of the war.  The film returns to the anti-war message of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but also reminiscens more clearly actual historical war crimes, from World War II and the bloody history of Italy itself. Also the power-hungry politics of Italy of that day are cynically addressed, showing that things will not get better over time, but that the greed, wrath and selfishness of people will always lead to cruel wars.

Unusual for Leone, the film doesn't have a clear villain beyond this realization. The men of honor are a dying breed, and when they realize this, the film gains more melancholic undertones. The only problems the film has is the awkward union of this sad sack politization and Leone's goofy buddy-film humour. But otherwise, it's up there with his best.

★★★★

Once Upon A Time in America (1984)

Leone sought to make his grande finale, a gangster epic bigger than no other, for years and years. During that time, he also refused to direct The Godfather, which would ensure that his film would be compared to it. Perhaps Leone tried to bite down more than he could chew. His 4-hour mammoth of a film is still excellent, but not nearly the best gangster film ever made.

Once Upon A Time in America begins in an opium den, where the aging gangster David "Noodles" Anderson (Robert De Niro) reflects upon his life and his friendship with Max Bercowicz (James Woods). The entire thing can thus be seen to be a fever dream and the seeking of the American dream, whether by crime or by honest work, to be just a hallucination. The actual story spans almost 40 years and has three main decades we follow almost choronologically. First, we are taken back on New York in the 1920's, where packs of pre-teen hoodlums scheme to earn a few bucks and to pop their cherries. Eventually, the boys come into adulthood, and make the relationships that will form the rest of their lives. The ordeal, however comes with a price and the traumatic event of witnessing a violent death of a friend.

Almost ten years later, at the time of the prohibition, Noodles is released from prison and helped out by Max by allowing him to join in his illegal businesses. And those businesses come aplenty at the time of the prohibition and low morales. But altough money comes flowing in and the gangsters become successful, they aren't as lucky with relationships. Things cet even more complicated when the prohibition ends and the gangs has no work. For attempting to do a too outrageous bank job, Max is arrested and thrown into jail. In the late 1960's Noodles comes back to Brooklyn from hiding and tries to come to terms with the people he used to love.

The film sure is complex, but some of Leone's weaknesses start to shine once he's out of the comfort zone of shooting a film of a purely masculine world. He can't do good female characters, and the women in the film exist solely to be either fucked or pined upon. They don't have any other function to the story and remain flat. The gangsters also have a worryingly misgynistic worldview and we have to endure a couple of iffy rape-scenes that don't get punished within the film. 

But with the bank heists, planning of crimes and shooting the scenes of decadence, Leone is as apt as ever. However, the best sequence is the one set in 1920's, and it's like no other adolescent coming-of-age tale I know. Amoral, more than a little dirty, but at the time warm, nostalgic and highly credible, Leone has painstakingly recreated the 1920's New York. The entire film was shot in a studio, which makes some of his trademarked long landscape shots all the more impressive.

★★★★

Sergio Leone scores the staggering 4,14.

The Arnold Project, part I: Arnold Strong, Mr. Universe!

 
Everyone's favorite action star, Arnold Schwarzenegger recently left his office as the governor of California. No one is quite sure of what he'll do next. Many would like him to return to films. I, however am not one of them. The biggest reason is to watch Arnold's films from the time just before he chose to quit. No, we have plenty of good Arnold moments from the past as well. I hereby start a new series here in this blog, in which I will watch every one of Arnold's feature films (some TV movies and documentaries may be too hard to find so they'll have to be excused). They run mostly according to a certain subject, each representing a phase in Arnold's career. At this first part we look at Arnold's first steps on the silver screen. It was a time in which he was mostly cast as a body builder. This sort of exploitation is understandable, as Arnold was Mr. Universe multiple times, and more known from that than from his films. Arnold wasn't yet a fully grown into his later bad-ass persona. Many films used him as just an extra. I'll take a look at them later on. Here, I look at his first starring roles.

Hercules in New York (1969)
Director: Arthur Allan Seidelman

I'll be helpful and put a link here to the only part in Hercules in New York worth watching. Hilarious, isn't it? But don't get fooled by this premise. The rest of the film is as much fun as sticking pins under your fingernails. I would especially warn everyone from watching the film while hungover. The Greek elevator music that goes in a seemingly never-ending loop in the background makes anyone feel nauseous and the horrible "comedy" this film offers won't help things one bit.



The ancient Greek god Zeus sends Hercules (Schwarzenegger using an alias of Arnold Strong) to modern New York, as he wishes to have adventures on Earth. After a few unfunny fish out of water scenes Hercules meets a little weasel called Pretzie (Arnold Stang) who starts posing as his friend. He then starts promoting Herc as an unbeatable wrestler. Hercules also has a romantic interest on Earth. Zeus starts to get irritated on Hercules' adventures and orders one by one different ancient Greek gods to bring him home. They all fail. That isn't the only thing that fails in the film.

Arnold himself has expressed regret in making this film. I find it a fitting link to the bodybuilders of yesteryears who often got to making cheap sword and sandal (or peplum) flicks in Italy or Spain. But Arnold would of course deserve better. As a 22-year-old his accent was so incomprihensible that all his lines were redubbed by another actor for the film.

★



Hercules: Ha, ha, ha. You have strucked Hercules.

Stay Hungry (1976)
Director: Bob Rafaelson

Stay Hungry boasts of "introducing" Arnold Schwarzenegger, and won a Golden Globe for that to boot. In theory this is true, as Arnold did use a fake name in Hercules in New York. Most would want to forget that movie anyway. This is at least the first time Arnold's real voice is heard on screen, and his accent is still really thick. Although sadly Stay Hungry isn't much better, it is at least more entertaining.

This film is a real mess as well, with a stupid and clichéd story told unnecessarily confusingly. Jeff Bridges plays a rich young wannabe businessman Craig Blake that helps a big corporation take over a city block, estate by estate. The only one left is the gym Olympic that boasts of being the one that Mr. Universe wannabe Joe Santo (guess who) trains in. True to his name, Santo likes to wear luchador masks while pumping iron, although everyone clearly knows who he is. Blake infiltrates the gym as a new customer and soon becomes friends with Santo. Things get even further complicated as he falls for the gym's receptionist Marie-Tate (Sally Field). The simple way of life of the gym users (which consists of partying) turns Blake's head and he realizes how rotten the yuppie way of life is. He still has to stop the evil grinders of the syndicate before they force the gym out of business.

It's weird to notice, that as Hercules in New York resembles Thor a little, this film's plot is basically the same one than in Avatar. That alone tells how original this film is. It is supposed to be a comedy yet all the laughs come at inappropriate places. The hillbilly hoedown scene where Arnold plays the fiddle and Bridges dances is worth the admission price alone. There are also other irrational scenes that seem to fit poorly with the rest of the film, yet are a miracle to behold. These include every one of the bodybuilders participating in the Mr. Universe competition running down the streets of Birmingham, the drug- and alcohol-filled masseus's date with a hooker that goes awry, Scatman Crothers losing his shit from Bridges and Filed's antics in an antique house, and of course the fight between Bridges and the bug-ugly gym owner, where they throw weights and poles at each other in a gym. Best to see it drunk, you won't understand anything if sober.

★ or ★★★★★

Joe Santo (on why he doesn't go on another date with a girl he likes): I don't like being too comfrotable. Once you get used to it, it's hard to give up. I'd rather stay hungry.

Pumping Iron (1977)
Director: George Butler, Robert Fiore

Pumping Iron is such a big cult classic that it must be included in every list featuring Arnold's movies even if one would wish to focus on fictional films. The documentary follows Schwarzenegger as well as some other notable bodybuilders on the route to becoming Mr. Universe. At this point in his career, Arnold had been awarded the titles of Mr. Olympia and Mr. Universe multiple times and seemed to be unbeatable in the game. Steel worker's son Lou Ferrigno seems like an underdog conventional movie plots would have would beat the champion. However, Arnold went on to become the biggest star in the world whereas Ferrigno later became TV's Incredible Hulk. That may give a hint how things work out in real life.

For any Arnold fan, Pumping Iron is an essential part in forming an image of the idol. Arnold seems mostly a good sport, but he does have a more mischievous side to him. He admits to give his competitors false advice and feels a bit cocky about his art of posing. Arnold compares body pumping and posing to sexual release and it seems like he really means it. The film ends in him announcing his retiring from bodybuilding contests. He probably sook to improve his film resumeé. He still was a long way from being a big star, as anoter documentary, The Comeback documents his return to the sport he masters.

Arnold Is Numero Uno!

★★★★

Arnold Schwarzenegger: I was always dreaming about very powerful people, dictators and things like that. I was just always impressed by people who could be remembered for hundreds of years, or even, like Jesus, be for thousands of years remembered.

The Jayne Mansfield Story (1980)
Director: Dick Lowry

Make no mistake about it, The Jayne Mansfield Story is a clear TV movie. It looks cheap, it feels cheap and it acts cheap. In some circles, however, this is a real cult classic in bad filmmaking. I myself didn't find it interesting enough to worship, but I can see what tickles the funny ribs of some jokers in this.

In case you didn't know, Jayne Mansfield was Hollywood's biggest blonde bombshell, who took it upon herself to be bigger than Marilyn Monroe. She married (and later divorced) the body builder Mickey Hargitay. Her career took a big bump from the death of Marilyn that caused a decline in demand for blonde actresses in Hollywood. She resorted to being a Playboy model. She was killed in a car crash that decapitated her.

The movie itself starts with the car crash so it doesn't have anything interesting to build up to. Interestingly, after Pumping Iron it's the first fictional film that takes Arnold's role into the square centre of the film. He works as a narrator and you can probably guess how good it will work out. For one, he never even manages to pronounce his supposed wife's first name correctly, calling her "Chayne". Other than Arnold's ridiculous voiceovers, there's very little to like here. Mansfield (as portrayed by Loni Anderson) isn't really anyone you could relate to, and comes across the movie as a demanding and prissy little glamour princess. Hargitay, on the other hand, comes across as a dim-witted but well-meaning boy toy, doing sit ups by the swimming pool. And the movie doesn't really delve into Mansfield's other affairs or even the other marriages. The film is really way too clean cut, with hardly even references to drugs or sex, nevermind the depravities Mansfield sunk to careerless. On a better story this wouldn't be a problem, but really, the sinning is really the only thing worth any interest in the blonde actress. The death scene itself is a little moody but hopes for seeing a decapitated head are diminished both times the same sequence is shown.

★★

Mickey Hargitay: Ass Chayne always sayed apout her caweer...


Next Time on The Arnold Project: Arnold the Barbarian!

The Directors: Stanley Kubrick

Doing a blog post about Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999) proved to be (in scale) as harrowing and as long a process as his films were to make. So I could kiss my own deadlines goodbye. But to give tribute to one of the greatest directors this world has ever seen, one must be willing to stretch his schedule to think it out, sit and watch the films and hunt down his more obscure earlier work. I did leave out the short films he made, but maybe some other day I'll talk a little about them too. Most of Kubrick's movies are of course quite widely seen, and it would be cooler to intoduce lesser-known directors in this series. But seeing as I've recently rewatched several, it's as good a time to write about them as any.

Kubrick was originally a photographer by profession. That is why he is nothing short of a visual genius. Every single one of his films contain unforgettable images that pop up in pop culture and culture in general all the time. He cropped and lit his films like no one else. But he also understood that the art of cinema isn't only about making pretty pictures. That's why his use of music is also versatile and he directed some actors so good, they never managed to get a role even near of what they had accomplished in a Kubrick movie.

But the real meat in the Kubrick experiment lie in his films and how many-sided and open for interpretation they are. I give only a small piece of thoughts about every one of his films, but one could easily write an essay on each just by single watching (OK, post-The Killing perhaps). Kubrick specialized in examining the limits of moden civilization and culture. Does one have to accept the rules of society to be an individual? What's the limit of being human? His cynicism about modern society and in particular those in power of them are healthy thoughts to have to survive in this world. These days when the Fat Cats use us as tools, Kubrick's films couldn't be more recommended.

Fear and Desire (1953)

Kubrick hated a few of the films he made over the years, but none more harshly than his first, of which he purchased and destroyed every print he could find. Only one print remains in the whole world, and currently if one wishes to see the film, one must try to catch that in its rare public screenings or stoop to watching bootlegs. But it may well be woth it, as Fear and Desire is by no means an "unwatchable" film as panned by its creator. It contains a lot of good ideas, nicely shot pictures (Kubrick worked also as a cinematographer) and one can clearly see that a true master is starting to develop.

The film tells a story of a platoon in an unnamed war. They get caught between enemy lines and quarrel whether they should build a raft to get out of there or to try to destroy the enemy headquarters located nearby. As one can guess from the title, the men do their decisions based on their fears and desires.

Kubrick shoots this low-budget film like a pro, and there are plenty of striking black-and-white images throughout. The standout piece is when the platoon attacks a group of enemy soldiers at their supper. The stew getting caught up in the middle probably will remind everyone of the blood and guts, even if none are shown. Kubrick's pet themes of losing one's humanity for violence is surely at work even here. Also emphasizing the two sides of the coin are that the same actors play roles on both sides of the war - and then end up killing their doppelgangers. The biggest problems come with the scale of the film. Even though the actors and the photography are good, there's always a lingering feeling that it's all a movie just shot in a nearby forest. Some archive footage about tanks and aeroplanes and the like would have also made the war going on feel more concrete.

★★★

The Killer's Kiss (1955)

Killer's Kiss is another early film that feels like Kubrick mastering his art but at least he felt it was completed enough to allow to be shown. A boxer (Jamie Smith) falls for a dancer who has an abusive boyfriend. Thus he gets into a feud with a gangster (Frank Silvera) who attempts to kill him for sticking his nose into other people's business.

The film has a happy ending and the plot by Kubrick himself is oddly conventional otherwise, too. But the film shines in its cinematography. Kubrick seemingly enjoys shooting sharp film noir -contrasts. The finale in a warehouse full of mannequin limbs and torsos is the most memorable image from the film and it is beautifully shot. Pity it doesn't seem to have anything deeper to say than that the hero is willing to risk "life and limb" for his beloved.

There's nothing seriously wrong with the film, but it washes out of the memory pretty easily, which is why it's hard for me to try to analyze it here.

★★★

The Killing (1956)

The first Kubrick film that truly feels unique is still one of the best Heist films ever made. The film's crooks have a master plan to rob a racetrack cash register. The plot follows each of them seperately. First it seems that the plot will go wrong when one of the robbers tells his wife about the plan, but in the end the plot is ruined by some minor everyday nuincances, such as a nail on the road, a small yapping dog, an angry parking valet and airport security regulations.

Without a strong lead role in his story, Kubrick is allowed to move around the fringes of the story. And he does it with great ease as the film is incredibly entertaining to follow. The stakes get higher as the actual robbery is performed and by the finale viewers are at the edge of their seats. It's a fun entertainment movie, for sure, but it seems it doesn't have such grandieur themes as Kubrick's later masterpieces. Instead it opts for the pretty basic "crime doesn't pay""whatever can go wrong, will go wrong" and "women are treacherous and unreliable" messages as many of the other crime films of the same era.

★★★★


Paths of Glory (1957)

It's probably because the war stayed so still for years that we have quite few movies about the First World War. In the immortal words of Captain Blackadder the Allied Forces advanced since 1914 as much as "an asthmatic ant with two heavy shopping bags". The same goes for the Germans on the other side. Yet the war did have its drama and the futility at its core can translate into quite gripping anti-war stories. And sure enough, Kubrick directed one of the best of them.

The French military plan on an all-out attack on no-mans land. The reasonable Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) has his doubts about the plan, but tries to execute the orders the best he can. The result is a massacre, where most of the attacking forces get killed. A few soldiers turn away to save their lives. The Officers blame them for the plan's failure and have three of them court martialed. The soldiers are picked randomly and are as innocent as any, but the higher ranks demand satisfaction and are adamant to give the men the Capital Punishment to make an example.

Paths of Glory is one of the most cynical of Kubrick's films. The distrust to authorities is taken to its extremities as the Generals in the film are all after their own glory, which they intend to achieve without getting their hands dirty. Other than with blood, that is. The privates in this war are pawns to their games, yet privately just ordinary, simple men with modest pleasures. Poor and peasants, they only exist to be exploited by the upper class. By the end the virtuous Colonel Dax gets a small revenge on the system, but this just makes the big Generals to consider him to be cunning enough to be worthy of a promotion. He is naturally disgusted by the offer. The film is a plea for humanity. It appears there is still some left and it comes through the cracks at the end as a scared and kidnapped german maid starts to sing.


★★★★
Spartacus (1960)

Spartacus is my favorite sword-and-sandal -type epic, although I've got to admit I really doubt most of the thanks goes to Kubrick on this one. Kubrick wasn't yet a big name in art film circles and was just another director in Hollywood at this point. The Golden Age of the studio system was at its last, but still luring people from their new television sets to cinemas by promising epics larger than life. This system, where the producers cough up more and more extras and lavish sets and the director merely watches the cast knows their lines, would end with the huge financial flop of Cleopatra three years after Spartacus.

The story goes the star Kirk Douglas actually attached Kubrick to the project after firing the previous one. Douglas produces the film and plays Spartacus, a Roman slave drafted to become a gladiator. As his friends die for the amusement of Roman noblemen, one day Spartacus has enough and revolts against his oppressors. He gathers an army from freed slaves to take on Rome in all its might. For Douglas, the noble rebel just wanting freedom for his people was, of course the noblest character this side of the Bible.

The film resembles more other big-scale epics made at that time than anything other Kubrick ever directed. The melodramatic love story between Spartacus and the slave woman Viridia, for instance, has a certain wamth lacking from all other of Kubrick's works. The strong message of fighting for human rights was also too "moralizing" for Kubrick's taste, but of course he would prefer a more subtle approach. However, the film is not entirely devoid of Kubrickian themes. A lot of the film is spent on depicting the schemings of Roman politicians, who can't wait to double-cross each other to gain power. This fulfills Kubrick's knack of having mistrust about the people in power in his films. The Cinemascope photography is simply breathtaking and Kubrick also proves he can shoot dynamic fight- and battle sequences. This one's for the little people and how our spirits can't be crushed, no matter how much we're oppressed.

★★★★ 1/2

Lolita (1962)

Kubrick tried his hands next in directing a gripping romance for the modern ages. As proper romances go, the society will not accept the pair and its forces will drive it to end unhappily. Kubrick saw a problem in that the society in the swinging 60's would accept almost every kind of heterosexual pair. That's why he went to work with the controversial Russian author Vladimir Nabokov to adapt his book, Lolita. The book, and the subsequent film concerns an older man's (James Mason) lust for his landlady's teenaged daughter Lolita (Sue Lyon), which drives him into desperate acts. He, Humbert Humbert, will get a chance for a relationship with Lolita eventually, but then he gets paranoid about getting caught.

From the credit scene (and the poster above this text) on it's obvious that the romance is a quite soft one. The film's credit sequence features Humbert's hands painting Lolita's fingernails and caressing her foot. It sums perfectly how the relationship works: Humbert pampers Lolita but leaves her passive, waiting for him (to come home from work or just to act). Yet Lolita does have a mind of her own. As for the age difference, Humbert could be Lolita's father (and for a while practically is). That's partially also why he feels he should protect Lolita from outside influences and not allow her to grow adult. As he loves her as an adolescent, he wishes to store her like a butterfly.  But Lolita does act her age and does things on a whim, rebels, juvenily teases and misleads Humbert and later, escapes

Yet the film isn't quite as good as I feel it could have been. Part of this is certainly because Kubrick is so cool and cruel for his characters. The real warmth in the relationship is scarce and Humbert is a little too obsessive to be in any way relatable character. Not having a relatable lead character works in many other of Kubrick's films, yet the romance genre really needs it to survive. Another thing that bugs me is the role of Clare Quilty, played by Peter Sellers. Sellers is brilliant in the opening scene, as first hung-over, then bemused and finally desperate and frightful bohemian faces the enraged Humbert who threatens to kill him. The rest of the film is told in flashback. Sellers pops up only here and there, mostly in stupid disguises, which might work in a more farcical film. Here it doesn't really bring in much-needed comic relief but just an odd out-of place feeling. Kubrick would later find something more appropriate for Sellers's talent in creating great characters and strong improvisation abilities. Having such a great opening scene also waters the film's ending totally and I am actually flabberghast of how tacky the film ends. Maybe Kubrick should've waited a few more years to get to break the form of the film postmodernly a little more. With just one scene moved to the beginning, it's not a functioning solution.

★★★ 1/2


Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)

Ah, one of the finest satires ever crafted. Yet, you might argue about this, but I do think that some of the humour in this is a bit dated nowadays. Even though it's not a laugh-to-the-point-of-tears riot any more, one can still find some good belly-laughs and appreciate the ludicrous rules of nuclear warfare this film portrays. The film's dark humour was based on all too real books about the subject. Indeed, Kubrick first intended to make a straight-faced thriller, until he noticed how silly two great powers threatening each other with massive carnage basically is. The fact that he'd worked with Peter Sellers on his previous film helped a lot, too. I always wondered how they got along so well, the master craftsman who desired perfection with each of his films, and the crying-on-the-inside clown genius who insisted on improvising a hilarious line after another.

The plot concerns the race against time to reach Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), who has launched an unauthorized nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. President Merkin Muffley (Sellers) tries to find a peaceful solution with the Russian embassador, his generals and his scientific advisor Dr. Stangelove (Sellers). Like many other clashes between two big brutes, the war here is paraphased to be mostly of sexual nature. Ripper is impotent and believes the Russians have poisoned the water supply. Muffley is a big pussy, which is noted by his name which means just that. And one can interpret what one will about Strangelove's hand, which likes to stiffen up and face the ceiling when he's talking about saving just the most genetically superior people from nuclear holocaust. The pitch-black, abrupt end sequence is a fine one, and one to think when our nuclear power plants start to blow up any of these days.

★★★★

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Kubrick's (and probably anyone's) most ambitious film chose to have no fewer and no less than the entire human evolution as a subject matter. We begin at the dawn of history when apes learn the use of tools and thus come, by definition, human. A mysterious giant monolith is somehow responsible for it. The same monolith next crops up a couple of million years later when it's found in a dig in the moon. Some time after that astronaut Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) experiences technical difficulties on his trip to Jupiter as the ship's computer HAL 9000 becomes conscious and kills the other passangers. Dave ultimately proves that man is more worthy than its creation by shutting HAL down. He is rewarded by the monolith, which is now outside Jupiter. It allows him to step inside, which marks a  whole new era of human development.

2001's plot doesn't seem that grandieur when put to words like that, but it proves we are dealing with  cinema in visuals and audio more than in words. 2001 is Kubrick's most ambitious and challenging work, and at the same time most open to different readings. It help a lot to produce such a film in the '60s - the flower people might have not understood it all, but they admired the film's unique arthouse aesthetics and visuals. Which is to say, the end scene is like a giant drug trip. But it is mostly about us humans, and a little cynical at that, too. Notice how both major turning points in human civilization are triggered by a murder of a lowers species happening shortly before.

★★★★★

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

A Clockwork Orange is a strangely poetic name for a film. It tells that it isn't a very easy or pleasant experience for the viewer. As far as I can tell, it tells a story of a society where mostly everyone is working like clockwork. Everything is done bureaucratically and when there's a problem, no one questions why the problem has been formed, but rather tries to get rid of it in the most straight-forward way possible. This is not obvious as this is told in the fringes of the story of one such a problem for the society. The teenaged Alex (Malcolm McDowell) enjoys brutally beating people, stealing, lying, raping - and classical music. Society won't have any of it so they try to reform him by stripping all his wants alnd will away - bad and good.

It tells a lot form Kubrick's talent that he can introduce such a despicable main character, yet turn the tables on us in the middle and actually make him a victim of society. This doesn't make him quite symphatetic but the world is revealed to be vengeful and bitter. Former victims can be just as cruel when they get the upper hand. Alex is also used as a massive tool for different agendas. A cold resentment for the ruling class once again makes the film a harrowing experience. Along 2001, Kubrick was allowed to experiment with his story-telling methods, so the film has almost painting-like near-still moments as well as high-speed sex.

★★★★


Barry Lyndon (1975)

Kubrick tried a huge period movie again next, with a classic costume drama about a man's will to be a nobleman in the 18th century Britain. You can perhaps see some of what Spartacus could've been like, had Kubrick had more creative control over the film, in Barry Lyndon. For this is an epic story of one man who defied his heritage in a background of huge battles. But this time around, there's not a drop of sentimental melodrama, even if there is a sort of romance or two at the centre, but even more cold and calculating scheming with the occasional splashes of violence.

Like Full Metal Jacket later on, Barry Lyndon is a film of two halves. Of course the same could almost be said of any of his later films as Kubrick loved to put a whole new gear on for his films in the middle. The stylistic changes do work like a hand in glove for his films. Conviniently, in Barry Lyndon the halves are divided by an intermission, as this is a very long film. First, Irish countryman Redmond Barry's rise to power through a series of misadventures including fighting along multiple armies in the Napoleonic wars (another interest Kubrick harbored for years). Second, as Barry snatches the widow of a dying nobleman and consequently marries her he becomes Barry Lyndon. He then has to face against his stepson, who seems unnaturally attached to his mother and loathes his new stepfather.

Kubrick lets us take a peek behind the scenes of the luxury and glamour of the aristocracy. In the first half it becomes clear that their peacefulness is bought by common man's blood on the battlefield. In the second, the ambitions bite back. Barry is tormented by his past deeds and which subsequently lead him to lose the things he most desires and most cherises. Kubrick is a cynic and finds that too much ambition serves no one well. The film's exceptional beauty must also be marked here. Kubrick was influenced by the artists of that period to create his look. That's why the camera is placed so far away from the action from time to time, yet always in just the right place. The many candle-lit scenes also pushed the art of cinematography forward and look fantastic even today.

★★★★

The Shining (1980)

Stephen King doesn't agree, but Kubrick directed the best adaptation from his texts. As Kubrick had sense, he left the eerie opening scenes of the novel intact to build athmosphere, but made major changes towards the end. King always has a cathartic finale where evil is destroyed, but Kubrick realized the bigger horror comes from the uncertainty, hence a creepy-as-hell final shot on a mysterious photograph.

But I digress. If anyone doesn't know the plot already, here it is on a nutshell. Others can skip away to the next chapter as the film is better if one doesn't know too much about it. The Shining is about a family lead by Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson). Jack takes a job to be the winter caretaker of a large hotel in the middle of nowhere to get some peace to work on his latest book. He also takes with him his wife Wendy and his small son Danny. Danny is revealed to have psychic powers, which make him sense supernatural evil lurking inside the hotel. Eventually Jack starts to also see the hotel's ghosts, which bring out murderous thoughts inside him.

As I said, Kubrick selected just the right amount of ingredients from King's toolbox. The isolated venue, oddly quiet and tidy corridors of hotel are creepily shot. But he adds a lot of very artistic tiny details that don't quite make sense. His masterful handling of pace works wonders here. One of the scariest jump-scares is when the sign says "Tuesday".  The film's minimalist music is also important. As Jack starts to question his sanity, we as viewers might, too. King complained that Jack Nicholson seemed too crazy to begin with. He has a certain point, but Kubrick's point is not to make us scared of our loved ones lose their sanity. No, he has a lot larger questions concerning time repeating itself, bad auras and, crucially, emotional numbness. Once again, also our Freudian centres begin to flow out once we're in a hostile environment.

★★★★ 1/2

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Kubrick returned to direct another war opus, this time based on the war in Vietnam. A group of young men to be sent to fight in 'Nam have to go through an intensive training period firs. The tough-as-nails Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) torments his trainees with never-ending verbal abuse. His aim is to make his boys ready to kill. He succeeds a little too well: Private "Pyle" (Vincent D'Onofrio) who had gotten the short end of the stick from him, goes slowly mad and ends up killing Hartman and then himself. This all has been observed by Private Joker (Matthew Modine), who we then follow into the war itself. Joker works for the Frontline Newspaper, that has a double-faced policy on how the happenings of the war are to be depicted. This encourages Joker's odd sense of humour about all the madness going on in the war, which he also carries with him to battlefields.

The first thing everyone will ever say about Full Metal Jacket is that it's a film of two halves. The opening half about training is the one that is more fondly remembered. Indeed, how we train ordinary men to become killing machines is a subject most war movies tend to miss. I think the half is pretty much perfect, with its casting, R. Lee Ermey's inventive abuses, twisted reality and all. The film would've been a poignant masterpiece had it merely based on the training. But we do go to 'Nam too, and it is kind of anti-climatic. Kubrick touches upon the madness of war and the fear and boredom of risking one's neck every day, both themes that have been exceptionally told about Vietnam before. Kubrick stays away from the jungles and depicts mostly urban war. Deaths come suddenly and the fighting is mostly between only a handful of guerrillas. This could also be a depiction of Afghanistan or any other modern war. This emphasizes that unlike Apocalypse Now or Platoon, Full Metal Jacket isn't that much about Vietnam, it's about modern war in a conceptual stage. The end scene is particularly harrowing. Is all this slaughter just a kind of game to a group of sociopaths or is it that we're sending children to massacre on behalf of some weird concepts of society? 

When I was in the military I do believe many of the officers took a page on Hartman's methods. The quips from this film were not exactly rare among us privates too. I doubt that was what Kubrick had in mind.

★★★★

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Kubrick spent the 80's and 90's planning huge projects like Napoleon and what would later turn up to be Steven Spielberg's A.I. - Artificial Intelligence. One of his pet projects was also to do a softcore porn film with A-list actors. It's a groovy idea - too bad that Paul Verhoeven directed Basic Instinct 7 years prior and flooded Hollywood with "erotic thrillers" during the whole decade. Kubrick's film was unfairly compared to this genre and the shock value of boobies was long gone. Kubrick's film isn't very erotic nor very exciting. It is still about sex. After both of them have flirted with others at a party, Alice Hatford (Nicole Kidman) tells her doctor husband Bill (Tom Cruise) that he's been fantasizing about having sex with other men. This revelation makes the shocked Bill search for his own extreme sexual experiences. But he realizes he's gone too far when he's unmasked at an orgy and a woman may have to give her life to save him.

Many critics have turned to defend the film. Yet I myself find the slow tempo and a weird lack of mood off-putting. Most of the blame is on the central actors. The film contains simply too much of Tom Cruise moping and (poorly) acting shocked. His then-wife Nicole Kidman isn't much better. Her bursting up laughing might be the least convincing giggle in the history of cinema. But Full Metal Jacket veteran Ermey reportedly said that Kubrick told him on the phone that the scientologist couple ruined his final masterpiece. At least Kubrick's style remained intact, as the musical choices and eye to cinematography are still stunning.

★★ 1/2

I'm starting to feel perverse about this rating system, as I wouldn't give a numeric score to Van Gogh or Mozart. Yet, the show must go on. Kubrick scores 3,85.

Bye Bye Bristol

One of the best places in Helsinki was stripped away from us film fans last weekend as the film theatre Bristol was closed. The theatre had been viewing films since 1961. For me, Bristol was always something of a hidden gem in the city's theatre lineup. It was a big theatre, showing interesting films, but with kind of few other moviegoers. If I wanted to see a film on an opening night, Bristol was the best bet to get good seats. I remember seeing Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring there for the first time. However, the viewing experience then wasn't so pleasant, as people threw popcorn off the balcony, someone smoked in the matinee constantly and people didn't turn off their mobile phones. I've heard rumours that Bristol was also the theatre where Finnkino put it's worst employees to work.

Nevertheless, Bristols seats were comfrotable, there was plenty of leg space and the first row on the balcony was probably the best place to see a giant blockbuster in my home city. Bristol became a comfrotable place for me also because it held a great number of press screenings of films. So there I saw the Good (Where the Wild Things Are), the Bad (Big Momma's House 2) and the Underrated (X-Men: The Last Stand) for the first time.

The final weekend's programme consisted screenings of old classic films. It was ridiculously awesome to see Conan the Barbarian on a big screen, in a theatre packed to the rafters but me and my friend in my favorite place, balcony front row, centre. I won't do a Conan review now, as I have bigger plans for the barbarian epic in the future. Suffice to say, this story shall also be told. I hadn't time to see other classic films that weekend as I had something of a christmas rush at work. Seeing Back to the Future, Talvisota and Jaws on it's giant screen would've also been cool. But there was no way I was going to miss Bristol's final screening.

Ben-Hur (1959)
Director: William Wyler

The classic Hollywood Epic Ben-Hur was the film which was also the first film ever shown at Bristol. I give big props for the theatre staff for arranging the screening to be accurate, from the playing of the opening music for the first ten minutes and having the Intermission time. Minuses for the modern audience not aware of these old-time habits.

I hadn't seen the classic before. As the film itself features occurences running parallel to the story of Jesus Christ, it was also more than suitable film to be shown so close to Christmas. For a person who thinks Life of Brian is one of the best films ever made like myself, Ben-Hur was also a fun ride. The Pythons clearly got a number of ideas for their masterpiece from the classic poster to the opening and closing scenes. I just about could manage in the theatre without starting to shout quotes like "Blessed are the cheese-makers", "Welease Wodewick!" and "Alms for an ex-leper!" during the course of the film.

Sure, Ben-Hur was quite pompous. It shoe-horned its Christian message to the point of boredom during the last twenty minutes and in every now and then during its course of three hours and 45 minutes. At its core it starts as a simple revenge story of a man wronged, but rising up from his downfall to avenge his fate to his oppressor. It is a pure Count of Monte Cristo story in the beginning. The titular Judah ben Hur (Charlton Heston) is condemned for a crime he didn't commit by his former friend Messallah (Stephen Boyd). Messallah wants to rise up in the ranks of the Roman military and sees this conviction as a way for better circles. Ben Hur goes on from being a slave to a war hero and then to become an adoptive son of a Roman aristocrat Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) and a very powerful man himself. But he always keeps his vengeance and worry about the fate of his family in his heart.

I felt that the plot was oddly structured. Everyone has at least heard of the chariot scene in the film, but how it is glued to the actual story never makes sense to me. Why would a powerful Roman consul race lowly peasants often enough to be the best of the best in races which have a huge death toll? How convinient that Judah learns just the art of races during his time as an adopted son of a Roman aristocrat. The character motivations are also flimsy and switch from their goals bit by bit. The characterization isn't stable to say the least.

Nevertheless, the main scene itself is just as breathtaking as it had been promised to be. The stunt work is nothing short of marvellous, the editing, the sense of speed and of course the crashes made my pulse go from 0 to 200 in seconds. And to see it on a canvas as large as at Bristol. Wow! I can see George Lucas was inspires to make the pod race from Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace here. As it is shoehorned to the plot just as badly, Lucas makes the mistake that the viewers don't give two shits about anyone racing and the might as well be robots. In Ben-Hur, however, the antagonism of Judah ben Hur and Messallah culminates in the scene, as well as their worldviews. Messallah uses his horses purely as a mean for his own victory and constantly beats them to do a better job. Judah loves his horses and to keep them from harm is more important to him than gaining positions in the race. He fights Messalah only when he is attacked first and with Messalah's own weapons, the whip and the wheel. As he is shown to be such a good character I was waiting for him to forgive Messalah for his sins at his deathbed after the race. But Judah actually just gets even angrier.

One can see the Christian moral story of refusing the help of Jesus until it seems too late. Yet for the repenting one, redemption can still come. It is as flat as can be as long as morales are concerned, but at least Christ symbolizes here what he is supposed to: forgiveness to others and peace within oneself. One surely would need those qualities today as well as then.

★★★ 1/2