Quo Vadis

Book.  This was written in Polish by Henryk Sienkiewicz back in 1896.  I was alerted to this by the introduction to the Sears catalog of 1897 which mentioned that this book was popular back then.  Having digested Ben-Hur at length (the original novel by Lew Wallace, the 1959 technicolor masterpiece with Charlton Heston, and the 1925 silent version), I figured this was also worthy of attention.  And fortunately, much unlike The Golden Bough or Dante’s Divine Tragedy, I found it very much compelling reading and watching.

            Plot:  a brash, arrogant young tribune, Marcus Vinicius, returns from campaigns in Turkey or Persia and falls in love at first sight with a stunning German woman, Lygia.  It turns out she is not a slave, but a hostage: her father was a German king with whom Rome had a treaty, and as was custom those days, the sovereign gave up his potential heirs as collateral to ensure the treaty was upheld.  It’s a bit confusing: Lygia is both her name and the name of her “country”, really just a Germanic tribe from an area we’d now know as either eastern Germany or western Poland.  If she was from Germania they could have called her Germania, if from Switzerland, Helvetia, etc. 

            Lygia turns out to be a Christian, which was at that time a radical new sect in Rome.  This was AD 64, under the reign of Nero, long before Emperor Constantine converted the entire Empire to Christianity in the early 300s.  Nero is infamous as yet another of these decadent, corrupt, pompous tyrants we love to hate.

            Vinicius is counseled by his uncle, an elder statesman, the eloquent but cynical Petronius.  Petronius contrives to have Lygia transferred from her caretakers Aulus Plautius (Roman general and a pagan) and Pomponia (his wife, a Christian), with whom she has been living – they are childless themselves and have unofficially adopted her as their own daughter, and certainly treat her as such - to Caesar’s palace.  Somewhat confusingly, Nero is often referred to as “Caesar”; although the name is actually the rank of emperor, generally we associate that in Roman context with one particular Roman ruler, Julius Caesar…who never actually held that rank (the empire began with his adopted son Octavian, aka Caesar Augustus). 

            Nero has an official “mistress”, “Empress” Poppea (bottom left, above, from the 1951 film), but theoretically any woman within the palace is fair game for his affections should he choose to take her.  Lygia briefly experiences life in the imperial palace – witnessing, though not participating in, its extravagances (theme: “It’s good to be the King!”) – before escaping to a more run-down part of Rome.  She is “protected” by a huge German Christian named Ursus.  Poppea herself is particularly attractive but also extremely jaded and unfaithful; she apparently has free reign to fool around as she pleases.  She sets her eyes on Vinicius and is thus especially jealous and antagonistic towards Lygia. 

            Vinicius hires a particularly despicable scumbag, a Greek “soothsayer” (more like scam artist) named Chilon, who manages to track down Lygia and alert Vinicius to a huge gathering of Christians outside town.  Vinicius shows up and hears a sermon given by none other than St. Peter himself.  He is struck by the sincerity and honesty of the Christians and the words of St. Peter, and gradually finds himself becoming a Christian himself.  He later discusses this with Petronius, who is sympathetic to the Christians but rather too old, jaded, and cynical to adopt their religion himself.

            Meanwhile, Nero gives orders to Tigellinus, the commander of the Praetorian Guard (the Emperor’s elite bodyguard detachment) to set fire to Rome.  Much of Rome goes up in flames.  Nero’s motivation herein was (A) “performance art!”, (B) something “big and spectactular” for the Romans to remember him by, and (C) possibly razing the ground so he can rebuild Rome…but mostly (A).  Many Romans died and lost their homes and possessions in the fire.  And most dangerously, the widely spread and believed rumor – quite true, it turns out – that Nero himself was responsible for the blaze, raises the strong likelihood of a popular revolt.  It appears that the city’s population won’t come close to being cynical, or aesthetically discerning, enough to appreciate Nero’s “performance art”.  Seeking to deflect blame from himself, Nero is persuaded to blame the Christians.

            Now a huge orgy of violence and terror captures the Christians.  They are arrested en masse and plunged into dungeons and jails, to serve as sport for the audiences of the gladiatorial games.  A series of decadent and elaborate punishments are devised for the poor martyrs:

            1.         Hungry lions devour the Christians

            2.         Other carnivorous animals devour Christians who have been themselves disguised as wild animals by the Romans

            3.         Another series of Christians are crucified on crosses (nailed up, not burned)

            4.         A night-time spectacle of Christians burned alive on pillars

            5.         Finally, Lygia herself is chained to a bull, which Ursus manages to defeat through sheer strength.  The crowd loves the Lygia & Vinicius romance element, and is stunned and impressed by Ursus’ defeat of the animal, and insists on sparing their lives despite Nero’s strong inclination that they be executed anyway.  In fact, the Christians’ extreme patience and acceptance of death persuades the otherwise bloodthirsty Roman audiences that these people could not possibly have started the fires and most likely were innocent, which Chilon himself proclaims to the crowd, much to Nero’s embarrassment. 

            Meanwhile, Petronius falls out of favor with Nero and decides to kill himself – his slave, Eunice joins him in this – while dictating a particularly insulting final statement to be delivered posthumously to Nero.  He invites his closest friends and relatives to a “farewell banquet” where he addresses them; his doctor has slit his wrist and he and his “wife” slowly but peacefully expire among their friends and loved ones, depriving Nero of the opportunity to have him murdered on his own terms.  For his part Nero himself is eventually deposed and forced to stab himself to death.

 Quo Vadis vs. Ben Hur.  Those of us more familiar with Ben Hur might be tempted to consider Quo Vadis a poor relation, rip-off, or copycat.  I have to admit, BH gets a slight edge, emphasis on slight.  But here is why QV is not so bad.  First off, QV takes place about 30 years after BH, so historically it’s a sequel.  Peter, who was clearly alive when Jesus was crucified, is now an old man; Paul is his successor.  BH has its major elements: the sea battle with the pirates and the dramatic chariot race; plus the “redemption” of his mother and sister cured of leprosy by their faith in Jesus.  QV has the Fire of Rome, the persecution of the Christians in the arena, and both Chilon’s redemption and Vinicius’ conversion.  What QV has that BH most clearly lacks, though, is a central love story.  As touching as the Ben Hur & Esther story was, it was not front-center; in the book, Ben Hur gets sidetracked to Iras the Egyptian, a character completely absent in the 1959 movie.  The love story between Vinicius and Lygia is at the center of QV and really sets it apart from BH.  This is why it deserves attention on its own merits.

 1951 Film.  This came out several years before the 1959 version of Ben Hur and has since been almost entirely eclipsed thereby.  The movie was fairly faithful to the book.  The major differences: Vinicius is considerably more resistant to Christianity and converts much later than in the book; much of the subplots and characters, some incidental scenes, and a few of the nastier Christian persecutions are edited out, and Chilon’s role is considerably reduced.  Even pared down here and streamlined, the movie still clocks in at just under 3 hours.  Aside from Deborah Kerr (from “The King and I”) as Lygia and Peter Ustinov as Nero, I didn’t recognize anyone else in the movie.

 2001 Film.  In honor of the author, Sienkiewicz, who was Polish and originally published the book in Polish, Polish TV made a made-for-TV miniseries with fairly high production values.  Unfortunately it’s in Polish (with English subtitles) and all the actors and actresses are Polish; they appear competent, attractive, and appropriately cast, just unknown to anyone not familiar with Polish TV or cinema.  It’s longer than the 1951 film – about 4.5 hours - and is considerably more faithful to the story and dialogue of the original book.  I was initially tempted to consider the earlier film as more of the “definitive” movie adaptation of the story, until I watched the complete miniseries.  Despite its greater length, I can honestly recommend the Polish version to anyone interested in film adaptations, but simply be warned as to its duration.

            Having said that, there are a few elements of the Polish version I’d like to address.

1.         Chilon’s role is greatly reduced in the 1951 movie but just where it should be in the Polish version.  This is important because he has a major change of heart when he sees the Christians crucified.  As the nastiest and most cynical character, the change is dramatic.

2.         The Polish actor who portrayed Vinicius (Pawel Delag) is much younger than the Petronius actor (Boguslaw Linda) and in fact, quite handsome.  He was far more convincing than Robert Taylor, from the 1951 film, who bears no resemblance to Leo Genn (Petronius) and appears the same age as him.

3.         The Polish actor who portrays Nero (Michal Bajor) bears an unfortunate resemblance to Rainn Wilson, best known as “Dwight” from “The Office”.   While he does a decent enough job, I couldn’t help but thinking of him as a Roman version of Dwight.

4.         My guess is that modern Polish TV is more tolerant of nudity than US theaters were in 1951, because the miniseries shows much more skin than the movie.  Chalk that up to times, though; a contemporary American remake would probably be just as naughty, provided it was on cable and not network TV.  

Ben Hur

On Good Friday (for those of you who know what I’m talking about), this movie/movie/book should be an appropriate topic.

 I was first introduced to this story in the most mainstream fashion – watching the 1959 film in a movie theater on the Champs Elysees in Paris, sometime in the summer of 1980.  It’s a very long and very intense film – over 2 hours – and I ended up with a splitting headache.

 Very recently (27 years later) I watched the deluxe 4 DVD set.  Discs 1-2 are the 1959 movie (which is the format most people know about).  Disc 3 is the 1925 silent film, somewhat forgotten by now (interestingly impressive in its own right, but overshadowed by the 1959 version), and Disc 4 has the inevitable extra features – of which the most notable segments are Charlton Heston’s premiere appearances and Leslie Nielson (from the “Airplane” and “Naked Gun” films) auditioning for the role of Messala in full Roman gear.

 After digesting all that, I went a step further and read the original novel by Lew Wallace, written in 1880.  Wallace himself was a remarkable character: one of the few Union generals of the Civil War with any real talent and ability; Governor of the New Mexico Territory (met up with Billy the Kid in person); and US envoy to the Ottoman Empire (aka Turkey).  His own story is almost as remarkable as Ben Hur’s.

 Plot.  Judah Ben Hur, Jewish prince, meets his childhood friend Messala, a Roman officer, recently returned from Rome and intent on quelling an incipient Jewish rebellion in Judea, then a Roman province.  When a tile falls from the Hur estate and almost kills the new Roman governor, Messala makes an example of Ben Hur and his family: he has Judah himself sent to the galleys to certain death as a slave; has Ben Hur’s mother and sister locked up in the dungeon, to waste away forgotten; and confiscates the Hur estate, dividing the proceeds between himself and the governor.

 In the galleys, Ben Hur beats the odds and survives three years – when the life expectancy is one – kept alive by hate and vengeance.  His ship is engaged in a naval battle with pirates, yet he survives, and saves the life of the admiral, Quintus Arrius.  The admiral takes him back to Rome, adopts him as his son, and Ben Hur enjoys a lavish lifestyle in Rome, hanging out with the Emperor himself and future Judean governor Pontius Pilate, even gaining experience as a gladiator and chariot driver.

 He returns to Judea seeking revenge against Messala and to find his long-lost mother and sister.  He gets even with Messala by defeating him in a dramatic chariot race – both the 1925 and 1959 movies are great at this – and finds his mother and sister, now lepers.  He also hooks up with a slave girl, Esther.  In the 1925 film she’s played by Mary McAlvoy, a boring white actress.  In the 1959 films she’s played – far more convincingly – by Haya Harareet, an Israeli actress (who doesn’t appear to have done any other movies).  Esther is actually the daugther of Simonides, who was Ben Hur’s father’s slave, but she loves Ben Hur as a man.  Unfortunately for her (at least in the 1925 movie and the book), Ben Hur considers her as a little sister (similar to David Copperfield’s view of Agnes) until the very end.  His attention and affection, for the most part, are attracted to Iras...

 Iras, the Egyptian.  One of the Three Wise Men, Balthazar, is an Egyptian, and survives the other two (Gaspar and Melchior) to witness Christ’s crucifixion.  He also has a beautiful daughter, Iras, who is completely absent in the 1959 movie, has a minor role as Messala’s girlfriend in the 1925 film, and a major role as a competitor with Esther for Ben Hur’s affections in the book.  Basically she plays the seductive evil woman (with Esther the good, yet forgotten woman) plying secrets of out Ben Hur while secretly serving her true love, Messala.  

 Last but not least, enter Jesus.  He’s mostly in the background in the 1959 film (with the exception of his crucifixion, which is fully portrayed, though not with the crisp, pungent realism of Mel Gibson’s treatment), has a somewhat larger role in the 1925 film (the scenes concerning him, Mary & Joseph are colorized), and is most prominent in the novel – the subtitle of which is “A Tale of the Christ”.  He gives water to Ben Hur as the character is led off to the galley; and eventually his crucifixion comes to center focus towards the end of the book.  In particular, the hope Ben Hur and his followers have that Jesus will be a true “King of the Jews” and lead them to overthrow Rome and re-establish a glorious Israeli kingdom is dashed when Jesus is captured and crucified.  Only by inspiration and introspection – and some divine assistance – does Ben Hur realize what Jesus’ mission truly is.  For their part, the mother and sister have faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and thanks to this faith, their leprosy is cured by him (handled differently in the book, the 1925 film, and the 1959 film, but always with the same result).  For this reason, the story is very much an Easter story, which is why I posted this entry at this time.

 Book vs. Two Films.  The 1959 film is by far the best.  The naval battle and chariot race of 1925 are both extremely well done, especially by those standards.  In fact, this movie was compared to “Intolerance”, which I mentioned earlier.  It’s tempting to write off the silent movie, but taken in context it is damn good.  The director of the 1959 movie, William Wyler, was a cameraman for the chariot scene in the 1925 movie.

            The 1925 Ben Hur, Ramon Navarro, does an OK job, but Charlton Heston truly assumed and defined the role.  His Oscar for the role – the film swept the 1959 awards – was well and truly deserved.  Hell, he even learned how to actually DRIVE the chariot for the race scenes. It’s tempting today, particularly among liberals who can’t stand his politics, to write him off, but this was stellar acting on his part.  Forget Moses & the “10 Commandments”; forget “Planet of the Apes” or “Soylent Green” – THIS is Charlton Heston at his best, in a truly classic and epic movie. 

            Then there is Stephen Boyd as Messala.  In both the book and 1925 film, Messala is somewhat older than Ben Hur; you don’t really get a sense that they were ever really peers or friends.  The 1959 film actually changes this in a way that works BETTER than the original.

            With Stephen Boyd and Charlton Heston, they appear to be of the same age, and equals.  The friendship is so obvious and so strong, that it almost has some subtle homoerotic overtones.   In fact, Gore Vidal claims that Boyd had been instructed that the backstory was that Ben Hur and Messala were lovers as younger men, then when they met each other again, Messala wanted to resume the relationship and Ben Hur declined – thus spurned, Messala took his revenge against Ben Hur and his family.  Vidal also claims that Heston was not told about this, thus Boyd was acting on this subtext without Heston’s knowledge or participation.  Others, including Heston, dispute this story, but it seems plausible when you watch the way the actors play the roles.  There are also hints of this in the book, in which Messala describes Ben Hur as extremely handsome and “my Ganymede” (Zeus’ lover boy – a reference which is not only homoerotic but also puts Messala as an older partner to Ben Hur).

            A second improvement of the 1959 movie is Messala’s end.  In the 1925 movie we don’t see what happens to him after his chariot breaks apart.  In the book, he’s crippled, ruined, and dishonored, but doesn’t meet Ben Hur in person after that (Iras meets with Ben Hur on behalf of Messala).  The 1959 movie gives us the dramatic confrontation between Ben Hur and Messala, in which the Roman, with his last breaths, choosing death rather than to have his legs amputated, reveals to Ben Hur that his mother and sister are still alive.  Another remarkable departure from the original which works 10x better. 

            The book is somewhat long-winded and affects the stilted language of late 19^th century English and American writers.  But it also gives a substantial background on all the different topics, including, but not limited to, the Roman dominance over Judea, Judean politics, the city of Antioch, the circumstances of Joseph & Mary coming to Bethlehem, the Three Wise Men, among many other topics, none of which could nearly be addressed by any movie.  The three complement each other well.

 Rome & Israel.  This is a subtext which is fairly latent in the 1959 film, comes up a bit stronger in the 1925 film, but is full-blown in the novel.  Knowing that Jesus is “born to be King of the Jews”, Ben Hur and his comrades, his slave Simonides (a wealthy merchant) and Sheik Ilderim (the Arab whose horses and chariot Ben Hur rode to victory against Messala) plot to support Jesus’ predicted rise to power to overthrow the Romans and bring a Jewish kingdom back to glory.  Among them, only Balthazar realizes early on that the “kingdom” will be spiritual and not temporal. In the 1925 movie, Ben Hur even raises two legions in support of this short-lived rebellion, and appears wearing armor and carrying a spear.  Of course, Jesus’ “kingdom” is not of this Earth, and he is crucified.

            The irony of this is that much, much later, the Roman emperor Constantine first converted to Christianity, then made it the official religion of the (then-waning) Roman Empire.  Among the remaining pagans, a disgruntled theory was that Christianity itself doomed the Empire.  If that were true, then Jesus did, very indirectly, bring about the fall of Rome which they were hoping for centuries earlier; though Rome’s decline was due to far too many different factors to attribute its conversion to Christianity alone a significant factor, if indeed a factor at all.  In any case, Rome, in the form of the Vatican, is the capital of the Roman Catholic faith – de facto Christianity until the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church (and later Protestant schism in western Europe).  And Israel finally became a country in 1948, fighting off successive waves of hostile Arabs in 1948, 1956, 1967 (the Six Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), going right up to the present. 

             The book is long and difficult to digest, but contains far more information and background than either movie.  The 1925 movie is worth seeing simply by comparison, and it is a great movie of that era.  But the 1959 movie, with Charlton Heston, really tops all three.