Take this an important step further, and we see that there is a not-so-subtle subtext that the contemporary inhabitants of this area, recently named Israel, belong there. And the victims of the Nazis and the Romans equally are the Jews. The Romans are presented as the evil colonizing empire, greeting each other by raising their arms in what I grew up calling the 'Nazi salute.' Their colors and even their symbolism (a big eagle) are Nazi echoes.

Context matters here, just a decade or so after the defeat of the Nazis. It isn't clear he is a believer in particular, other than his deep rooted faith in his people, the Jews. He wins in the end not by killing, but by setting a good example, by being deeply good in the face of unfair hardship. He then goes on to show mercy to the very people who want to abuse and kill him (that is, he turns the other cheek). Hur says early on that he rejects violence, which was not an especially contemporary attitude, especially as the Romans are occupying his home town. We need to see that Hur himself is a kind of Christ figure, but a flawed one, a secondary man by comparison (which elevated the primary one further). His affect on Hur in their brief encounter is touching and pointed. We only see Jesus from behind, or from a distance, or in small part (his hand is shown nailed to the cross, for example), yet we feel his aura in the few scenes where his is present. Yes, the movie is supposedly about Prince Hur but in fact it's all aimed at illuminated Christ, always indirectly, but in the end with surprising power. The story is of a Jewish man named Ben Hur who survives persecution from the Romans, including his boyhood friend, and becomes a master chariot driver and a believer in the peaceful ways of his contemporary, and upstart Jesus of Nazareth. And with cinematographer Robert Surtees (look at that man's film list!) it's certainly an exquisitely beautiful movie, and very very widescreen, shot with double sized 65mm film, the IMAX of its day. And he takes a huge story with grandiose necessities and makes it really watchable. The director is none other than the consummate professional, the ever-versatile and polished William Wyler. But it also is filled with secondary actors to support the dubious leading man, Charlton Heston (who gives one of the performances of his life, for sure, and has openly credited the director for that). Is it what you would call a good movie, or a great one? It has the credentials, including Best Picture. Is it also ponderous? Maybe-especially if you have seen other Biblical era epics ('Greatest Story' or 'Spartacus') or if you don't quite click with the material.

Gone with the wind bluray torrent