 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They had a guy with a whip for that, just to keep you in the mood. 
good to see you posting, pp. thats funny. These threads on movies before 1975 bring out all the best posters!
I never noticed if it had an intermission. but then i was so busy knocking sandals with Gina i never noticed how bad the film was.
. In those days - as somebody pointed out - most films had an unofficial intermission and invariably if there wasnt Proper intermission music then the projectionist replayed the main theme or something.
A little later than solomon i saw where eagles dare when they played the main theme twice for the break music. similarlarly Wild Geese is another i can recall doing this. mustve hapoened on hundreds of occasions in hundreds of cinemas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It came right after the destruction of the temple when Yul Brynner carries Marissa Pavan out.
There was a "fade to black" and then the Intermission tag.
'The destruction of the temple' ..... 'of the TEMPLE ...???'
I mean that says it all!
Let me guess, Gina does a striptease, God lets a thunderbolt, and in steps Billy Graham in the final reel. Tell me if I'm wrong.
When you load up all the great significance that the Temple in Jerusalem has had through history (and myth), dear God, everyone knows it was destroyed by the Babylonians, and then by the Romans and ransacked a few times else, but those are great historical events that, back when this film was made, every SCHOOLBOY would've known about. Only the dumbest, crassest, exploitation screenwriter could think this could be set up for an audience in Solomon's context, no matter how allegorical. And a screenwriter furthermore who despises his audience's taste.
I don't know to what extent the early Theda Bara movie influenced this (I'd bet it was a dumb remake ...) but it's no more than cheap adolescent tat. The funny thing is, today, for all their faults, they wouldn't try this approach to history: they'd at least try to get THAT significance right.
You don't do this with material of this kind. There IS no big story from the Solomon & Sheba event. Even as fiction, it's a crock.
I actually hate most 'peplum' epics, apart from a very few. 'Genre' people need to know who's slipped a hook under the duvet to EXPLOIT.
There'll be those who say, 'It's a democratic world; many people liked it'. For myself, Ive never been one of the leather-fetish epic film fans. It needs to be GOOD. Be careful what you enshrine in your revisionisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you load up all the great significance that the Temple in Jerusalem has had through history (and myth), dear God, everyone knows it was destroyed by the Babylonians, and then by the Romans and ransacked a few times else, but those are great historical events that, back when this film was made, every SCHOOLBOY would've known about.
Well, though hardly as crass, there's that eclipse in BARABBAS. Surely most people know that Passover occurs during the full moon, when no solar eclipse is possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A movie like this would not get made nowadays, except by some fringe, fundamentalist outfit. No, this story would end up as an hour-long episode on some History Channel series. And, even then, it wouldn't have much of a budget, the costumes would be a lot more spare, and the hootch-cootch mostly missing. As for music, any background score would probably include woodwinds, brass, and percussion, and also the (requisite) wailing woman sound, just to accent things.
The era of spectacles like SOLOMON AND SHEBA was nearing its close even when this was made. As I recall, it wasn't that much of a success, certainly not as a roadshow.
Such things were overwhelmed by the impending mass-market, mostly low-budget sword-and-sandal epics, which had their day and were gone, heralding an end to ancient world films for decades, until GLADIATOR single-handedly revived the genre.
This year alone, I've actually gone to theatres to see the new HERCULES film, POMPEII, and the new 300 thing, all in 3-D, which is the only reason I saw them in theatres, on a screen bigger than anything I've got at home.
But none of them has the panache of those 50's spectacles, which were much more serious, and, as a result, more fun. And had much better scores...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 13, 2014 - 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ed Lachmann
(Member)
|
Of course, every snot nosed half-witted muttonhead knows that Lucilla, the sister of Commodus, attempted to have him assassinated and was exiled to Capri early in his reign. And every slobbering nincompoop knows that Marcia first poisoned Commodus and, when that didn't work, had his wrestling partner, Narcissus, strangle him to death in his bath. Of course in GLADIATOR, Lucilla was there when Commodus was killed by Russell Crowe in the arena, and that film won Best Picture in 2000. Don't get on your high horse with "historical accuracy" problems when almost every film ever made in Hollywood, either schlock or masterpiece, had them in spades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful whose old favorite you trash because someday somebody will trash some crap you like and trash it good!
Let me save you the trouble.
In the Prologue to BEN-HUR, the opening narration by Finlay Currie states that "In the seventh year of the reign of Augustus Caesar an imperial decree ordered every Judaean each to return to his place of birth to be counted and taxed." Well, that really should be something more like the "twenty-seventh year of Augustus Caesar," which would bring it closer to the birth of Christ (around 4 B.C.). Nevertheless, according to Josephus, the actual census took place in A.D. 6 ("the thirty-seventh year of the reign of Augustus Caesar"), when Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, was deposed by Augustus, and Herodian rule in Judaea came to an end. Judaea became an imperial province to be ruled (and taxed) directly by Roman prefects.
Immediately after the Main Title in BEN-HUR, the card "Anno Domini XXVI" appears, and in the background Messala and his legions march through Nazareth on their way to Jerusalem to secure the way for the new governor Valerius Gratus, who a couple of reels later parades through Jerusalem only to be thrown from his horse by a tile that has fallen from the roof of Ben-Hur. Well, in the year A.D. 26, the ten-year prefectship of Valerius Gratus actually came to an end, and Gratus was replaced by Pontius Pilate who would govern Judaea between A.D 26 to 36.
But, as William has said above, few, if any, audience members at the time would be aware of such historical details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 13, 2014 - 12:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
philiperic
(Member)
|
Of course, every snot nosed half-witted muttonhead knows that Lucilla, the sister of Commodus, attempted to have him assassinated and was exiled to Capri early in his reign. And every slobbering nincompoop knows that Marcia first poisoned Commodus and, when that didn't work, had his wrestling partner, Narcissus, strangled him to death in his bath. Of course in GLADIATOR, Lucilla was there when Commodus was killed by Russell Crowe in the arena, and that film won Best Picture in 2000. Don't get on your high horse with "historical accuracy" problems when almost every film ever made in Hollywood, either schlock or masterpiece, had them in spades.
Well said, Mr Lachman -
You want historical accuracy ? Better to watch a documentary. All these films take liberties with the "truth" or "history".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 13, 2014 - 5:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
But, as William has said above, few, if any, audience members at the time would be aware of such historical details.
Or care. I personally would much rather they get it right, but it's not going to ruin the film for me to know it's wrong.
But the odd thing is, they stuff up dates (stuffed dates, get it?), which would be so easy to get right, but then go to a lot of trouble with details of dress, architecture, food etc. I remember mention of a debate about (historically incorrect) tomatoes appearing at a meal in the Hur house. Now who would know that tomatoes were wrong for that time and place? So they worry about tomatoes but get historical timelines all wrong. It's weird.
The errors in B-H are especially surprising when you consider that Christopher Fry and Gore Vidal were present--men who would have known better. Did no one bother to point out the mistakes? Did no one, like Wyler or Zimbalist, say, "Hey, guys, you sure all this stuff's right? Anybody got a Roman history book--we are in Rome, right? If we get this wrong it's going to be up on the giant screen, like, forever."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful whose old favorite you trash because someday somebody will trash some crap you like and trash it good!
Don't even try that one. Don't even presume to. Nor would I care.
Anybody who can't see the difference between artistic licence and historical telescoping in movie scripts and out-and-out shite (yes, I do believe I used that word) is part of the problem.
This is not about 'historical accuracy', but about what some producers do to make an easy and patronising buck on something that has very profound significance for many people. It matters not a jot what the intricacies of dates in Marcus Aurelius' diaries reveal to ANYONE and he'd say so himself. It matters a HELLUVA lot that audiences might just go away, God help them, thinking the Queen of Sheba tried to seduce Solomon, God smashed his temple in anger, and then the good fairy turned up. Will I start on allegory, religion, the whole immense epic tale of what the 'Temple' represents, not only in Jewish history, but in spiritual metaphors in religion and psychology throughout three millennia.
Did any great prince of Feisal's camp ever shoot from the hip at an oasis where T. E. Lawrence was taking water? No, but Bolt wrote a very effective scene that SAYS something about arming developing nations with weapons, and some great dialogue about tribal prejudices and Lawrence's inflation. It doesn't have to be 'authentic'. It has to be GOOD.
You can't do that with stories like the Old Testament unless you don't give a damn. And as a rule, these guys didn't. And as a rule, they ruined a whole generation of epic films so that people gave up on them in the '60s.
Don't pull that quasi-Declaration of Independence bull about 'freedom' on this. Everyone's entitled to their taste or lack of it.
I though this was the music side anyhow? Where did Nascimbene go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, though hardly as crass, there's that eclipse in BARABBAS. Surely most people know that Passover occurs during the full moon, when no solar eclipse is possible
George, George.
There's a HELLUVA gulf between S&Sh and what you're describing.
The eclipse is a metaphor for the darkening of the soul, the blotting out of the Sun by by the witch moon goddess. Good is 'eclipsed' by darkness for a time. The light is extinguished and then returns, as in the sulphur mines scene, the dungeon scene, the final persecution, and iof course the resurrection scenes. Barabbas keeps saying so. He surrenders himself to the darkness he knows so well, and each time the light comes for him.
Any director seeing that eclipse announced in the papers, given that film script in front of him, will rush to get it in.
That's art.
What's more, Christ didn't die on Passover, but before it.
I'm beginning to hear that old Carl Jung Chinese mantra again. 'You can point at the moon, but many will just stare at your finger'. 'Same goes for eclipses it would seem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A movie like this would not get made nowadays, except by some fringe, fundamentalist outfit. No, this story would end up as an hour-long episode on some History Channel series. And, even then, it wouldn't have much of a budget, the costumes would be a lot more spare, and the hootch-cootch mostly missing.
I know what you're saying, Manderley, but it's not quite as you're painting it. I want to agree but I can't entirely.
Firstly, this film WOULDN'T get made today ANYWAY, because there's no story to make. There never was. Anything you make about Solomon and that queen has to be invented hooey. There's no story, no moral, no allegory, nothing. How many other stories DO exist that need treatment?
The costumes MIGHT be more authentic today. Less gaudy.
As for music, any background score would probably include woodwinds, brass, and percussion, and also the (requisite) wailing woman sound, just to accent things.
I really, really hate to say this, but it sounds like Mario Nacimbene you're describing ... think about it point by point!
The era of spectacles like SOLOMON AND SHEBA was nearing its close even when this was made. As I recall, it wasn't that much of a success, certainly not as a roadshow.
But epic films were made in every decade. Could it be that had they been made better and less cheesily, they'd not have died out so quickly?
Such things were overwhelmed by the impending mass-market, mostly low-budget sword-and-sandal epics, which had their day and were gone, heralding an end to ancient world films for decades, until GLADIATOR single-handedly revived the genre.
What you're saying is that they were overwhelmed by crap versions. But where did the crap start? In the '70s there were some very successful mini-series like the Lew Grade Jesus and Moses series, there was 'Masada', there were films like 'Clash of the Titans'. It depends why they were made, and who made them.
This year alone, I've actually gone to theatres to see the new HERCULES film, POMPEII, and the new 300 thing, all in 3-D, which is the only reason I saw them in theatres, on a screen bigger than anything I've got at home.
But none of them has the panache of those 50's spectacles, which were much more serious, and, as a result, more fun. And had much better scores...
I'm not sure. I LOATHE '300', the original, and haven't seen the sequel. But I can't claim it's 'not serious'. It has a sort of political message re freedom and priestcraft and conformity. I just don't like how it goes about telling that story, the sheer repulsive blood of it. These aren't warriors but thugs. Vicarious killing and an elevation of brutality. The scores nowadays are easy to edit digital hamburger, that's for sure. But the films often do have better content in terms of the message and symbolism, just crudely presented. The macho nonsense has replaced what for instance Greek myth was really for. Perseus was a callow but idealistic youth, on a journey to manhood, not a crew-cut bovver-boy in his '30s from down the East End. The AESTHETIC is wrong. But the aesthetic in Sol and Sheb was much worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 13, 2014 - 8:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
A movie like this would not get made nowadays, except by some fringe, fundamentalist outfit. No, this story would end up as an hour-long episode on some History Channel series. And, even then, it wouldn't have much of a budget, the costumes would be a lot more spare, and the hootch-cootch mostly missing.
I know what you're saying, Manderley, but it's not quite as you're painting it. I want to agree but I can't entirely.
For the record.....Manderley didn't say this.....it was John Archibald.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
