When the trailer for the new Ben-Hur was released, the internet went a little silly. There were people complaining that the classic 1959 version was being remade (scandal!) and then there were people who pointed out that the beloved Charlton Heston flick was itself a remake. (Guess which club I belonged to.)
Then there were the wags who proclaimed that all Ben-Hur films were remakes of the 1907 version. While they were clearly just being silly and having some fun, these remarks inspired me to revisit the 1907 film and clear up the remake misconception. This is one of those half-myths, something that gets spread around because the real story takes a bit longer to tell. However, the true story is really interesting so I thought this would be a good time to share it. Please forgive me for being pedantic but I absolutely love this topic!
You see, the 1907 movie from the Kalem studio is not a proper version of Ben-Hur. Director Sidney Olcott admitted as much to Motion Picture Magazine 1925.
In the wild wild east days of early film, copyrights were interesting suggestions and Olcott spotted a way to cash in on a smash hit novel and its stage adaptation at very little expense. Inspired by Ben-Hur‘s popularity, chariot races were staged all over the country. Firemen especially enjoyed putting them on as it allowed them to show off their ability to steer at high speed. (Fire engines were still predominantly horse-drawn in the United States.) Finding a convenient race would not have been a challenge.
(Kalem did not secure the rights to Ben-Hur and the company was promptly sued by the author’s heirs. The result was a case that defined copyright law for movie adaptations.)
This also leads us to bust another myth. Future western superstar William S. Hart did indeed play Massala on the stage but he was almost certainly not in the Kalem production. A shoddy affair by the admission of the film’s director, it would have been bizarre for Hart to risk his stage career to appear in such a production. He had just finished a successful run with The Squaw Man and was starring in a new play, The Virginian; his finances were quite healthy and his performances were given glowing reviews. In short, he had no reason to enter films. Movies were looked down on already and the chintzy Kalem Ben-Hur would have done little to enhance their reputation. To put things in modern terms, would an award-winning actor quit a prestigious cable series to appear in someone’s ripoff YouTube videos?
(Surviving prints are so poor that the myth of Hart’s involvement will likely never be properly killed. My guess is that Sidney Olcott played Massala but please remember that I am only speculating.)
Was a film called Ben-Hur released in 1907? Yes. Did it attempt to cash in on the popular stage show? Most certainly. Was it a proper adaptation of the novel and play? No. This film can be better compared to an Asylum film. The Asylum is a low budget studio infamous for Sharknado but is also is in the business of releasing so-called mockbusters, movies that are, ahem, rather close in both title and content to major blockbusters. Pirates of Treasure Island, Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls, Transmorphers: Fall of Man, The Day the Earth Stopped, Terminators… you get the idea.
I would definitely place the Kalem production in this class. Viewers unfamiliar with the films of the 1900s may feel that it represents a typical production but to anyone who has seen a few movies from the era… well, it is clearly on the shoddy side. Listless extras wander around and lift their arms a few times. The revolt in Jerusalem looks more like an early morning aerobics class and the city is a painted bedsheet with a few potted houseplants strewn around. Not on par with French, English or even other American productions of the 1900s, that’s for certain. Further, almost no effort is put toward telling a story or even to present a string of vignettes. The attitude is very much “Here’s your chariot race, jerk.” (It’s likely that the “sets” were really backdrops for the race and the Kalem crew had limited time to make use of them.)
And just forget about any trumpeters!
The first Ben-Hur film may have been made in 1907 but were subsequent versions remakes of this film? Not at all! We can consider the 1907 film to be an early mockbuster and say with confidence that the movie lineage of Ben-Hur properly starts with the 1925 film. (By the way, you can read my review of that film here, in which I compare the 1925 and 1959 films.) While the 1925 version continues to influence all screen adaptations (the new film seems to borrow the “tie a Roman soldier to the ship’s ram” scene) the 1907 film is more notable for its influence on copyright law than anything that actually appears on the screen.
Oh, and here’s the trailer to that new Ben-Hur. I’m calling it Inception of the Ben-Hur of the Rings.
Movies Silently 
Great research, insight and good humour! Kevin Brownlow would be proud!
IIRC, both the ’25 & ’59 versions were subtitled “a Tale of the Christ.” Maybe the new one could be subtitled, “A Revisionist Tale with loads of CGI?”
Have you seen the 2010 version? If so, worth seeing? Thanks, Dave
Thank you so much! No, I haven’t seen the 2010 version but I have heard other people say it is pretty poor. It was a TV miniseries, yes? That does not bode well.
I was thinking if it could be intelligently done, and well-done, and had fantastic production values, a fascinating and hopefully boffo 3-to-4 hour film or TV mini-series could be made of the behind the scenes and making of the ’25 BEN-HUR.
Oh, absolutely! The making-of details are so juicy that no screenwriter would dare invent them. Meryl Streep for June Mathis!
The remake looks hilarious. Is it just me or does every trailer nowadays feel homogeneous, from the editing to the music? Then again, that may be the case with every era, so I’m no expert.
Yeah, they’re definitely using a formula but then again, I think the film itself will probably be incredibly generic so…
Saw someone talking about how they did not see what the big deal was about hating Gods of Egypt because it’s “a typical medieval film.” The statement is silly, of course, but it illustrates how generic the “guys in kilts” movie trend has gotten. Egypt, Israel, medieval Europe, pre-history… Same!
Dear Lord, nitrateglow, but you are so right. It’s all the same. And it’s not thrilling enough now that Ben-Hur’s ship is rammed and that there’s an exciting chariot race…now there has to be constant CG debris flying contstantly. Instead of Ben-Hur and Messala, why not just stick Superman behind one chariot, and Batman behind the other?
Hah! I kind of incorrectly noted the 1907 version was first in a post I made about not liking that new trailer and I totally forgot about the 2010 version (it had to be a TV or cable flick because if it WAS in theaters, it’s the stealthiest epic ever released and I never heard about it).
Time to reedit and link here, as this is a nicely informative post. Heck, I should have asked you if you knew the scoop before I found that too short “original” on archive.org!
Thank you! Yes, there is not much information about the 1907 version online but the background is absolutely intriguing. This is one of those films that is not so much fun to watch as it is fun to discuss.
I think the 2010 version may have been trying to cash in on the gladiator thing that was going on with cable TV. Never heard of it before starting my research for my review of the 1925 Ben Hur.
Why am I not surprised that Morgan Freeman is in this…and with dreadlocks no less. Oh boy….Gotta love Hart with his little skirt:) This was a great way to discuss the 1907 film with the 1925 version. So many kids don’t even know the 1959 film…which i love
Yeah, I’m not going to begrudge Mr. Freeman taking a few money roles. Gotta think of his retirement! And, yeah Hart definitely could rock the kilted look. It’s not available but his film The Captive God features quite a bit of short skirt action for Mr. Hart. He battles Aztecs in the picture. It’s weird.