Ben-Hur ( 1959): Does the gay storyline make it a better film?

Homophobic nonsense.

Come on - this is a serious thread - have some more respect.

Of course the gay storylines with Messala and Arrius makes it a better film. What's an epic film without some sort of romantic conflict to give it humanity?

The silent film is better and that is the film in which a stuntman died. And I'm sure a few horses.

The gay subtext would've been more interesting had both actors known about the gay angle and played the scenes with slight winking nuance. You could sense that Boyd was in on it by the glimmer in his eye and knowing smirk, but Chuck Heston was so clueless that he played it straight and wholesome, generating zero heat. Despite his Oscar win for this, Heston was not only wooden, but he also had the charisma of cardboard.

Heston was one of the luckiest actors of his day, a marginally talented actor somehow cast in big roles in BIG movies.

I watched BH on TCM last night. Hadn't seen it in years. Heston was actually much better than I remembered. He certainly had a striking presence and a great voice. The scenes at the end when he's reunited with his mother and sister (LEPERS!!!!!) are quite touching.

Boyd was gorgeous.

Period.

The gay story line is the ONLY thing that makes it the tiniest bit interesting.

(I hate this movie, truly.)

IMO, it certainly did, OP. Chuck was a hot daddy but he was conservative. As we know, according to the story, the director told Stephen Boyd to play it as a gay love affair unrequited, but not to let Heston know.

I have no idea what went on with Jack Hawkins' character, but he clearly saw his way around the ban on same sex marriage by offering to "adopt" Ben Hur whom he obviously was hot for. The gay subtext in that film was so obvious you'd have to be blind not to notice.

"Ben-Hur" really needs to be seen on the big screen; a local theater shows classic films every Tuesday and this one was shown last year and it was breathtaking on the big screen.

And, yes, the gay subtext helps a lot -- it really gives a deeper motivation to Messala's actions and Stephen Boyd acts the hell out of the film (he's the one that should've won the Oscar, but, ridiculously, he wasn't even nominated).

For a comparison, I got to see an advance screening of "Pompeii" (to be released this weekend) and it's utterly lacking in any deep emotion -- some kind of subtext, even gay (the relationship between the two gladiators, or between the senator played by Keifer Sutherland and the general played by Sasha Roiz) would've helped give the film some edge.

Was the book "Ben Hur" written by a straight person? Because the central relationship in the book is between Judah and Messala, there are no meaningful relationships with women, it's all about the love and hate between two men. Two men who just can't quit each other.

"You could sense that Boyd was in on it by the glimmer in his eye and knowing smirk"

He looked like he was on the verge of orgasm in some scenes! Boyd was a good actor. RIP.

Boyd was truly handsome and good looking, the old Hollywood movie actor's look. Sadly he passed away so young.

r11, Lew Wallace wrote Ben-Hur; former Major General during the Civil War, married. At the link is an analysis of the book's popularity and what prompted him to write it:

"Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ" (1880) was written by Lew Wallace, a Civil War General (Union) who later served as Governor of the Territory of New Mexico. As far as I know, he was straight.

Always loved Heston. Worked with him on Omega Man. Great, stand up guy. Whatever his acting chops he, IMO, managed something that Channing won't: he was a star presence. In some ways, he's become iconic.

"Great, stand up guy"

Nope.

Did you know him? Something tells me you didn't.

I find it interesting that Gore Vidal has discussed the gay subtext in the Judah-Messala relationship and how he suggested to William Wyler that Boyd should play that subtext, but, as far as I know, he hasn't discussed Arrius's lust for Judah, which is INCREDIBLY obvious in the movie -- ESPECIALLY in the scene where Arrius orders that Judah be brought to his cabin on the ship, and the two of them have a scene alone there with Judah wearing only a loincloth. HOT!!!

Actually, in the late 50's and the 60's Charlton Heston was a great Liberal and he was very active in the Civil Rights movement. He was not always the horse's ass Conservative, NRA, Dementia-addled POS he was when he died.

Should be remade as "Bareback Hur".

"Did you know him? Something tells me you didn't."

Just because you were an extra on one of his films doesn't mean you really know him. He was a homophobe and a gun nut. Good riddance.

Who said I was an extra, R22? Don't project your station onto others.

You're making a pretty poor, and simply asinine argument, whether you have the capacity to realize it or not. You have no idea who I am, or to what degree I knew the man. But somehow you *think* you know 1) that I really didn't know Charlton, and 2) that you do - even though you likely never knew him personally in any way. But you "know" his worth as a person...because you dislike his political associations. Reductive and pathetic.

How low does your I.Q. have to be to miss the irony and hypocrisy? How low does it have to be to be so full of hubris and ignorance that you can't see the central self-defeating idiocy in your argument? Some questions are rhetorical.

So many all-knowing empires of one on the internet. A G-d complex from an internet troll; are you even aware enough to be proud about it?

What a gasbag, R23. Say it in ten words or get out.

I saw Joseph Morgan in a CW-ish television version of Ben Hur last night. He was some sexy Ben Hur. Wish we could have seen his dick and not just his ass. I was so impressed with the hotness of Joseph Morgan that I tried to watch an episode of the Originals, but it was dreadful and I backed out in ten minutes. Has he ever been in anything good?

Gonna watch Charlton Heston again next. One of my favorite childhood movies.

I'm watching it on Channel 5 right now in the UK and I must say to r5, that if the actors aren't aware of the gay subtext, their performances speak otherwise! Lots of longing looks.

[quote]That is the one good thing about Chuck Heston -he was handsome. If not very aware. His acting is wooden, and that's kind. Channing Tatum is a better actor. And more aware of his limits.

Well, who where they supposed to cast, Dick Van Dyke?

"Heston was one of the luckiest actors of his day, a marginally talented actor somehow cast in big roles in BIG movies."

He was not "marginally talented." He was a good actor, but some people overlook that because of his overwhelming screen presence. That voice, that body...for some people that's all they could see.

As for Charlton Heston himself...well, during the sixties he marched for civil rights along side James Baldwin, Harry Belafonte and Sidney Portier. In his autobiography, he describes traveling to Oklahoma City to picket segregated restaurants During the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom held in Washington, DC, in 1963, he accompanied Martin Luther King, Jr. He opposed the Vietnam War. Later, he did a complete turnaround and became a conservative Republican and behaved rather bizarrely ("from my cold, dead hands!"). His behavior may well have been the result of the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

Although there were those who hated him for being a conservative (like the twat at R22) there isn't really much bad to say about him. He was "a square."

And I think that when R22 dies this is exactly what people will say about HIM: good riddance.

And I think that when R22 dies this is what people will have to say about HIM: good riddance.

Charlton Heston on the beach in 1961 with a hard on. I wonder who took this picture. Any guesses?

His wife, Lydia?

I LOVE Ben Hur! One of my favorite movies! Heston and Boyd were great. The gay subtext is obvious and really adds a lot to the story. The *girlfriend* played by Harareet was just a boring addition to pacify the religious, conservative viewers. The story is ALL about Judah and Messala! Didn't bother to watch the remake with Tatum because I was sure they would fuck it up. Was it any good? Any gay subtext?

The only time CH was attractive was in the Bible Epics, sweaty, dirty and slaving.

I am not sure that pic is a hard on or an uptuck.

According to a closeted Old Hollywood Male Stars thread on some gossip site, Charlton Heston allegedly used to keep a black gay chorus guy in New York. Its alleged Charlton Heston also purchased an apartment for the chorus guy as well.

Charlton Heston was allegedly good pals with Roddy McDowell. Not that that means anything.

"Charlton Heston was allegedly good pals with Roddy McDowell. Not that that means anything."

It certainly doesn't "mean anything." EVERYBODY was friends with Roddy McDowell. He was well liked and a good friend to his Hollywood pals.

I'm trying to imagine this film without the gay subtext and I just can't. Without the homoerotic tension between the two leading characters, what's left? It becomes an episodic "Adventures of Ben Hur" film, where he travels from place to place and has his ups and downs, but there's no central relationship, no emotional drama without Masala. Would the chariot race have any meaning, without a love/hate relationship given its intensity by the sexual vibe?

Now I suppose an actor with more skill than Heston could have made an episodic film about a man with no sexual involvement wanting to be reunited with his mother and sister work, even with the mother and sister absent, but Heston was not that actor. He's extremely charismatic and competent enough in the style of the period, but he's not someone who can let the camera read a character's inner life in his eyes. He needs someone to play against, someone who can provide him with the humor and openly sexual presence he lacks, which is why his relationship with Masala is what makes the film work.

Come to think of it, did Vidal write the script around Heston's deficits? Because it actually does work that way.

Vidal wanted beautiful Burt Lancaster to play Ben Hur, but Burt turned it down. Lancaster was his first choice.

Burt and Boyd together. Folks would have OD ed on their combined beauty. Lots of lawsuits from survivors.

Lancaster turned down the role because he was an atheist, and either didn't want to make a religious film or didn't think he could do a great job in one.

Personally, I don't think he would have been as good as Heston. He could be better than Heston when he found the right role, but He always seemed angry or full of himself, his best roles were playing assholes like Elmer Gantry and B.J. Hunicutt. The thing about Heston's Ben Hur is that even though he's really put through the wringer, he still keeps enough good nature to stay likeable, as well as a dopey sincerity in the religious stuff. Plus he was younger and hotter than Lancaster, although Lancaster was still damn hot.

There's actually very little of the Vidal screenplay the made it into the final draft. In the end it's Christopher Fry's contributions that really elevated the picture to something beyond the other Biblical epics of the period.

Love Charlton Heston! A true movie star. Handsome and still sexy in middle age as he was in the original Planet of the Apes. His Ben-Hur is timeless. I watch it every time it comes on plus I have the blu ray to watch when the mood strikes me.

They don't make em like this anymore.

Lancaster would have made a poor Ben-Hur, he wasn't sincere or likeable enough. He actually would have made a much better Massala, with his intense charisma and rather threatening presence.

Not that Stephen Boyd wasn't fantastic in the role! Sexy and charismatic, with yes, that amused twinkle in his eyes because Heston didn't have a clue what he was doing. That really worked for the character.