User Reviews

Remember, folks, this mini-Hur was made well over a century ago. It would be nearly two decades before the excellent 1926 version was produced. Still, this was a worthy effort for the time. It's a rare glimpse of Hollywood moviemaking in its infancy---interestingly, there are scene-change titles, but no dialogue cards---and this 13-minute incarnation gave audiences a taste of the 1880 Lew Wallace novel. (It also spares us the presence of the oft-overrated Charlton Heston.) If only for its historical value, this is worth at least one watch for film buffs.

It's true that watching this, the first version of Lew Wallace's monumental tome is a bit like watching one of those 5-minute condensed versions of the entire Star Wars saga acted out by enthusiastic amateurs in their mum and dad's back garden, but complaining about how amateurish it all is seems a bit churlish to me.

Sidney Olcott, who like the rest of the film-making community, was still feeling his way back in 1907, would go on to better things, but it's clear that he still has no real idea of how to handle such a massive challenge. Panning shots and close-ups had already been found in films before 1907, but neither are to be found here, which is a shame because you get the feeling that the filmmakers here are trying to create a spectacle of sorts. Even then, they were starting to realise that audiences were growing more discerning and didn't want to see endless variations on the same theme every time they sat in front of a screen.

To give the filmmakers credit, the sets are quite extravagant for the time. It's not exactly clear what's going on a lot of the time, even with titles explaining each piece of action that is about to take place, but a lot of the cast seem to spend a lot of their time raising their arms. Sometimes you can tell they're doing it on cue because every arm goes up at the same time. The big chariot race is something of a let-down: the camera focuses on the crowd (about 12 of them) while every now and then we see the occasional chariot go flashing past. You've got to wonder whether Olcott watched this in his later years and rued the opportunity that he missed.

Incidentally, this film was the subject of a landmark legal case when the estate of the late Lew Wallace took Kalem Pictures, the makers of the film, to court for failing to get permission from the copyright holder to film the story. Kalem, I believe, claimed it was based on the stage play (which also boasted a live chariot race with the horses running on a treadmill), but to no avail...

It's true that film makers were still feeling their way in the 1900s, but that's no excuse for a film to be boring now. Look at "Le voyage dans la lune" or "The Great Train Robbery", both of which came several years before Ben-Hur 1907. Even "Sherlock Holmes Baffled", a silly trick film from 1900, is still amusing.

The story is fragmented and would only make sense if you already knew it. (Which, to be fair, was likely at the time; Ben-Hur was as popular then as Harry Potter is now.) The chariot race is pathetic, being nothing more than the horses passing the camera several times until the movie ends. It would have been difficult to film an exciting chariot race within the limitations of the time, but this was not a good workaround. The only saving grace of this movie is that, like others of the time, it is short, barely ten minutes long.

Ben-Hur 1907 is proof that crappy cash-ins have been around even in the early days of cinema. We are fortunate it has survived, if only because that prevents any mystique from being attached to it, as has happened with films like "The Great Gatsby (1925)".

I saw the first (1907) Ben Hur about 25 years ago in a film society back to back double feature with the Charlton Heston version. My memories are therefore fragmentary.

The film should be called "Illustrated scenes from the life of Ben Hur" as it really doesn't try to tell the story in the time available. If you hadn't read the book you wouldn't know what was going on. One of my recollections is my wife nudging me and saying "there's the tile that's going to fall". Above the rather pathetic and bored looking extras (showing off their knees in Roman army costume) one roof tile was very different from the rest - it wasn't painted onto the set!! Sure enough, Ben Hur leaned rather obviously on this brick.

The chariot race sticks in my mind too. A bunch of extras starts jumping up and down and two chariots race by the camera. The extras calm down and look bored for a while then start jumping up and down for the next rapid pass of two chariots. I can't remember how many times this was repeated, we were all laughing so hard that tears were running down my face.

It is mercifully short, and interesting to compare with the 1925 big budget spectacular (also silent of course) which foreshadows the third version with amazing special effects.

In Biblical times, Jerusalem rebels under Roman rule. After an (unfortunately staged) accident fells a Roman soldier, Herman Rottger (as Ben Hur) is taken into custody. William S. Hart (as Messala) orders Mr. Rottger become a slave. Soon, Rottger wins freedom, and seeks revenge against Mr. Hart, in a "Chariot Race". For the famed Chariot Race, the two stars simply ride by a stationary camera, while costumed people cheer.

The good folks at Kalem (the film company responsible) were counting on viewers to have either seen "Ben-Hur" on stage, or read the Lew Wallace book. And, undoubtedly, most 1900s flicker watchers had the prior knowledge necessary to understand the action. This film highlights the inferiority of the medium, at that time. Director Olcott and Gene Gauntier, who was credited with having written the "Ben Hur" scenario, would have much greater artistic success with films like "From the Manger to the Cross" (1912).

** Ben Hur (12/7/07) Sidney Olcott, Frank Rose ~ Herman Rottger, William S. Hart

This movie shows how way behind France the USA was in 1907 in film-making. In fact, most of the movies being shown in the nickelodeons that had multiplied all over the US in that year were from France, and even most of the output of the American Lubin company were copies of or just pirated French movies. Pathe in France was the first real movie studio to be up on its feet. When you compare the sophistication their The Life and Passion of Christ, made the same year, with this Ben Hur, it's astonishing to think that things were going to completely turn around within a decade. This movie is really worth seeing though; it's an unforgettable experience! Particularly the chariot race where we see even more than ten, even more than twenty even, people wave their arms up and down for several minutes and there is a brief blur of a chariot going by every now and then, until the card suddenly comes up to say The Victory of Ben Hur. The camera is completely static and the actors just wave their arms around in front of a stage set, endlessly. The 'Ben Hur Goes to the Galleys' section is just that, people waving their arms up and down against each other interminably, when Ben Hur is being arrested, in a house. No boat. No sea. And then straight into the 'chariot race', which at least was filmed from an angle, to try and keep the chariot in camera for a fraction of a second longer. But at least they made something! And there they still are, and continue to be, though they have all died, gesturing forever in silence.

Silly short silent is NOT "Ben-Hur". It's highlights from the book with cards filling in the (many) gaps. The sets are cardboard cut-outs (pretty obviously), ALL the acting is bad and the "direction" is virtually nonexistent. I suppose it's got some historical value as the very first version of the story but is totally lacking in entertainment value. See it for laughs only.

This 'unauthorized' (i.e., made without paying proper royalties) version of "Ben Hur" is exceptionally early. I say this because huge spectacle films were still in the near future--so I was not surprised that this one came off as VERY choppy and the big scenes came off as ridiculously simple (such as the chariot race--it is VERY underwhelming). And, because of this, it's an incredibly unappealing little film. In other words, instead of telling a coherent story, it's like a very brief highlights reel--filled with a few brief clips from the famed story by General Lew Wallace but not telling any sort of narrative. If you think about it, the famed 1959 version by William Wyler was about three hours long. This 1907 version is about 10 minutes!! Audiences at the time could have only enjoyed it if they knew the story already.

With a book consisting out of 558 and other movie versions that last well over two hours, the creators of this movie thought that they could put the entire story of Ben-Hur into a 15 minute silent short. No big surprise here that the end result is very muddled and story, directing and acting is pretty much non-existent in this movie.

This movie version is known because it was the very first movie based on the 1880 Lew Wallace novel but its better known for being made without permission of the author's estate. This wasn't an uncommon thing by the way for its time and studios were constantly making movies based on novels without the proper permission of its copyright holders. As result of it, the author's estate successfully suit the studios for copyright infringement.

Needless to say that this movie is a waste of one fine story. The one moment Ben-Hur is enslaved, 10 seconds later he's a free man again and 20 seconds later he's right in the middle of the chariot race. Of course the story doesn't ever flow and it you aren't really familiar with the Ben-Hur story, you'll have a hard time understanding what is going on in this movie.

The movie mainly consists out of people raising their hands and walking around. The camera at all times remain at one position (yes even during the chariot race), making this movie looking very staged. It doesn't help much that the movie uses very limited sets and extra cast members. Basically its a group of, lets say, 20 people that are constantly on screen.

Nevertheless the movie credits two actors for playing the two lead roles of Ben-Hur and Messala. This doesn't however mean that there is being acted in this movie though. A bit of a shame maybe, since the actor portraying Messala is William S. Hart, who was a real Shakespearean actor and later became one of the earliest and best known western actors in the late '10's and early '20's. He actually was a real life friend of legendary Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson and was one of the pallbearers at Wyatt Earp's funeral, along with other and bigger early western movie star in 1929. Well, let me say that this little piece of history is actually far more interesting than actually this movie.

Hardly watchable for a movie, not even for historical sake.

3/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

BEN HUR might seem an ambitious undertaking for the early days of the cinema but consider that by 1899 there had already been 2 filmed versions of H. Rider Haggard's SHE and 1 of Oscar Wilde's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY. The early 1900's saw early attempts at A TALE OF TWO CITIES, THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO and or course BEN HUR. The costumes are nice but I doubt the painted canvas backdrops convinced anyone even way back in 1906. The story is intact, as much as a single reel (12 minutes) will allow. In this version Hur does not get sent to the galleys; it is the chariot race which will decide if he is condemned as a criminal or not. Oh yes, even this early version has a chariot race and it is set up to be the highpoint of the picture. Alas, don't expect much in the way of special effects. This race has only two participants, Ben Hur and Massala, and they simply run their chariots around and around a camera which never moves. We all know how the story ends. The panorama, or "pan" shot was in use as early as 1896 when it was invented by an Venitian gondolier named Promio who put a camera in his boat to take a long shot of Venice as seen from the canal. The closeup was around in 1907 as evidenced by a short called MR. HURRY-UP OF NEW YORK but neither accomplishment is seen in this film. It's almost a certainty that audiences were easier to please then, at least they were for a little while, and for its time this version of BEN HUR did indeed offer more than the average one reel short. We are lucky that this version, and so many other early films survive to show us that filmmakers even back then were willing to take chances. At the time nobody knew that a fellow named D.W. Griffith was waiting in the wings gathering experience and developing some ideas of his own.

What can be said about 1907 version of "Ben Hur", the first filmed version of the story? If I say something good it will never be good enough to make people feel interested on watching it; and if I say something bad it's gonna be the same sensation of kicking someone who's dead, pointless. With all that in mind I won't give any stars to this short film but I will do write about his failures, technical problems and the challenge this film has to really become a good work.

The story is reduced to a 15 minutes film so the director had the problem of filming a detailed account about Ben Hur; it is difficult to see or hear something, the quality of the lasting film is very very poor; the acting is invisible, although William S. Hart has a role in the film. The worst part of all is the editing of the chariot scene because during the silent film era that camera didn't move, it was sustained by a tripod and everything was so distant from it, so when the chariot race begins you see something laughable, the horses appearing and disappearing over and over again until Ben Hur wins the race.

And I must compare this little film with the 11 Oscar winner "Ben Hur" (1959). The classic directed by William Wyler is amazing in everything, and in every possible way you might want to watch it. DVD, VHS, downloading on the net, TV, cable TV, projection, CinemaScope, whatever, that is a truly great picture that is always good. The movie had everything better than this silent version. It's a fair comparison? Not at all but it's the only way you can have an opinion on things.

We must praise the 1907 film because it managed to survive (badly although) the time, the movie exists and even more than 100 years old people can watch it and say something about it. Back then when the movie was released it was just a form of taking money from people to see something different on the screen. I don't know if the producers got back the U$500 of investment, but all I know is that they were sued because they infringed author's copyright.

To me it was a boring experience to stare the screen for a few minutes. The movie didn't took off at all. For those interested in the early days of filmmaking it's an (un)interesting opportunity for you to see something different. Otherwise just laugh about it if you can.

Ben Hur (1907)

** (out of 4)

The first version of the classic novel has a bit of history behind it but the actual film doesn't hold up. We get Herman Rottger playing Ben Hur, the man who becomes a slave and will eventually revolt and go up against Messala (William S. Hart). For starters, if anyone tries comparing this to the 1925 or 1959 versions then they're really cheating all three films. This is a 13-minute short so there's a lot to get crammed in here and of course the story is going to have to bounce around and not spend too much time on one plot point. With that said, the end result here is pretty disappointing because none of the apparent five directors knew how to build any real suspense or to make us care about anything we're seeing. We can never really get into the actual story and it's hard to care for any of the characters. Another problem is that the film really doesn't even appear to try and do anything overly special. We get some very impressive costumes but that's about it. This movie remains entertaining as a curio if you've seen what films would follow. On the historic side, this was the first film to end up in court due to copyright violations so I guess all authors has this film to thank for filmmakers not being able to take their work without credit.