Who's she? . . .

Rating: 10/10 (12 January 2005)

I double-dated to "Ben-Hur" upon its original release, with a Jewish (and irreverent) friend.
Sitting spellbound in the Malco theatre as Miklos Rozsa's score and William Wyler's imagery washed over us, the figure of Jesus walked through the gently rolling hills of Judea, back to camera.
"Who's she?" my Jewish friend whispered, just loud enough to be heard throughout the Malco.
Being kids of 17 at the time, we (and most of the rest of the small-town theatre) cracked up.
By the end of the film, with Wyler's astonishing crucifixion and transformation sequence (and, again, Rozsa's magnificent score), not only was my Jewish friend in helpless tears -- so was everybody else.
It matters not if one is a "believer" in this ancient tale of the Christ.
William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" stands entirely on its own merits as the best biblical epic ever filmed.
In addition to its superlative supporting team -- 11 Oscars -- "Ben Hur" comes down to two actors and performances: Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd.
Arguably, this is the ONLY performance Heston ever gave.
Stiff and wooden in virtually every other on screen showing, from his college days in "Julius Caesar," to "Touch of Evil," and on and on in roles no one can remember because Heston was so busy being "heroic" -- whether as "Moses" in "Ten Commandments" or the ostensible comedy, "The Private War of Major Benson," Heston's long career seems to have depended on his being boringly butch, no matter the role.
Except for "Ben-Hur." William Wyler got the performance of a lifetime out of Heston.
He also paired him with a far better actor: Stephen Boyd.
Forget the "homosexual" subtext presumed to be in the script.
What Wyler sincerely captured was the genuine love between two men of that era, who grew from boys to men, without any hint of contemporary sexuality.
That Boyd was able to depict it far better than Heston was, I think, a matter of the characters rather than the actors.
Heston played a Jew in that era: a man who, by necessity, had to contain his emotions out of self-preservation.
Boyd, as Messala, a Roman, was far freer as a character to express ALL his passions, from love to hate to vengeance.
But all one has to do is watch the playing of these two actors in their scenes together.
Heston, really, is magnificent throughout his character's trials and tribulations.
It is the ONLY time, on screen, that Heston truly inhabits a character rather than "portraying" one (see "The Ten Commandments," "The Greatest Show on Earth," "Planet of the Apes," et al.).
Even so, Stephen Boyd delves even further, as an actor and a character. His physical charisma on screen stomps Heston into the ground. His emotional charisma -- look at Boyd's eyes; listen to his voice; watch his body language -- the same.
Boyd's final death scene after the chariot race -- brutally mutilated yet still defiant -- and STILL loving to Judah Ben-Hur -- after all he's put his childhood Jewish friend through -- is -- JOLTING! Your heart is with him until his last breath.
THAT'S an actor.
Heston was bone structure, torso, voice and "technique" -- derived from some acting school that bore no resemblance to real life.
Wyler cast Heston, finally, perfectly, as Judah Ben-Hur, and directed him flawlessly.
But it was Wyler's casting of Stephen Boyd -- and Boyd's talent at portraying Messala's love, jealousy, vengeance, hatred, malice, duplicity and weakness that made "Ben-Hur" work, emotionally.
Whether we realize it consciously or not, what we're crying for at the finale of "Ben-Hur," replete with Miklos Rozsa's glorious score, is not the resurrection and salvation of "the Christ" -- but the loss of childhood love and friendship to hatred and prejudice -- the loss of what might have been, between Judah and Messala. Between all of us.
Eternal friendship. Eternal love.
It's got nothing to do with "gay."
Everything to do with "human."