Ben-Hur (2016) is better than Ben-Hur (1959)

Clearly, this is all subjective, but it sure makes a nice clickbait-y title. To explain why I'm taking this stance, I will have to go through some of the most major differences in the plot of these two films. Specifically, I want to talk about the following three things:

1. Juda's escape from the galleys;
2. The role of Balthazar and Jesus in the greater narrative; and
3. The final scene between Juda and Mesalla.

I want to state out front that the cinematography of the 1959 film is much stronger. The film is simply pleasing to watch. Meanwhile, I do feel the 1959 film is much too long. To me personally, the length of the film actually removes all tension. However, I am much more interested in the themes of the films and how they were executed. So let us start.

Juda's escape

Juda, our protagonist, gets sent to the galleys to serve as a slave by his own brother. This event is the linchpin that starts the whole revenge cycle that takes centre-stage during the story. Though I think the manner in which the two films present Juda's defiance to Rome is fascinating, I think the method in which Juda escapes from the galleys is even more so. In the 1959 film, Juda forms a complex affiliation with the ship commander, Quintus Arrius. The protagonist ends up saving his slaver during a battle, and as a result, Arrius not only frees him, but goes as far as to adopt him as a son. This automatically puts Juda in a powerful position. 

In the 2016 film, Juda escapes the ship by his own means during a badly-directed action setpiece. It is impressive to watch Juda take the lead after all the commanders were slain, and watching Juda drifting on sea for days on end made you understand his pain quite well. But more vital is that once he finally stranded, Juda still wasn't free. Instead, he had to win the favor of Sheik Ilderim. By the time he would compete in the race, Juda still hadn't truly won his freedom back. This is what gave the film its dramatic tension. Where in the 1959 film, Juda is fully driven by his rage, his rage could never destroy him. Competing in the circus in the 2016 film could cost him his life, but Juda doesn't care. He'll get his revenge.

Balthazar and Jesus Chris

A particularly vital difference between the 2016 film and all other Ben-Hur media before it is that it doesn't feature Balthazar, one of the Three Wise Men of the East that supposedly visited Jesus Christ as an infant. The character is entirely absent from the film based on a book titled Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. The 1959 Ben-Hur film is ultimately about believing in Jesus. It is a celebration of the sacredness of God. In the film, Jesus' face is never shown, raising Him up to a position above mortal men. Meanwhile, Ben-Hur (2016) features Jesus not as God, but as a prophet. He has an incredibly strong presence whenever he is on screen, and is recognized as a vital person by every character. But He is still a man, with a face and a voice. Many miracles happened upon His death - including an awfully ridiculous curing of leprosy - but this was more as a Deus Ex Machina to advance the plot.

It is incredibly interesting to see how 21st century Hollywood adapts a deeply religious work. It does this by changing the primary theme of the film to something strongly related to the original and somewhat obvious. Where the theme of Ben-Hur (1959) was a love for Christ, the theme of Ben-Hur (2016) is love in general - or a bit more specifically: brotherly love. And Jesus plays a role in this as well.

Brotherly love

In the 1959 film, Juda's brother Messala was nearly killed during the chariot race in the circus. As Juda meets his brother on his death bed, he asks for the location of his sick mother and sister. Frankly, he finally got his revenge. Messala dies and Juda lives on happily ever after once his mother and sister get healed. This is not so in the newer film.

In the 2016 film, Messala was nearly killed during the race as well, but Juda doesn't come and meet him again. Instead, he hears of Jesus upcoming crucification and decides to attend. As he watches Jesus being nailed to the cross and witnesses the character's love for the very people that were impaling his flesh, Juda cries. In this film, Jesus isn't important as the Son of God, but as a symbol of love. Earlier in the film, when the viewer can still feel a general hate towards the Romans for what they have done to Juda, prefect Pontius Pilate notes that "Rome" in this film isn't the state: it is an idea. With the line "They are all Romans now," Pilate communicates to the viewer that it is chaos and hate that define the "villain" of the film. Jesus, as an actor of love, is depicted as a perfect opposite to this outlook.

Juda recognizes this when he comes face-to-face to Jesus hanging lifeless on the cross. But it was already to late, wasn't it? Juda returns to the mangled Messala, who threatens to kill him with a knife if he comes any closer. The film ends... with both Juda and Messala finally giving up their feud. Juda hugs his brother, saying he doesn't want to fight anymore, and Messala drops the knife and hugs him back. The camera zooms out and fades to black.

Conclusion and final words

I think the 2016 adaption is the better film because it strays away from the source material not just to focus on a theme that feels dear to me, but because it does it so well. Anything not related to the feud between brothers is either brought to background, removed outright, or changed in such a way to reinforce this theme. It is sad that the new film doesn't feature the same kind of long scenes that made the older film so well-regarded, but the film makes up for that in other places.

Supplementary opinions

I liked the strategizing for the race and the lack of focus on Juda's wife, even if the writing, acting, and cinematography were all rather clumsy. It was clear that the director knew that they couldn't create the same kind of atmosphere as the original had, and he changed the plot to accordingly, such as by showing the two brothers together before Messala left to serve the Roman in order to understand their relationship.