Ben Hur

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

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)".

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.

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.

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.