Charlton Heston's films: your opinons

Interesting and eclectic selections, JoeK. Thanks for sharing them!

Judah tells Messala that suitors come and go but that Tirzah has waited for him all her life, but Messala interrupts him and says nothing about her; the next day at the Hur estate he says Tirzah is now quite a woman but nothing else -- made as a bare if kind observation, nothing even slightly romantic, and then...nothing more. Ever. By anyone. So much for this alleged romantic aspect.

In fact, it could be strongly argued that Messala in truth loves Judah but has not had it reciprocated the way he wanted, and that this is in part behind his furiously vindictive reactions to the "attack" on the governor.

And look at Messala's subsequent lifestyle. His one true friend is Drusis. The two are inordinately close, inseparable, more than mere friends. And not a woman in sight between them.

But there sure is evidence of Judah having an interest in Esther.

And yet all the dialogue presented in the film itself merely has Messala feeling let down and infuriated by his good childhood friend Judah, because Judah will not help Messala in his evil goal. Nothing whatsoever is stated about some unrequited gay love. If someone wants to imagine this, fine... but please do not insist it exists and that others either just refuse, or are to blind, to see it.

Let your imagination soar. The way I'm wired, I see Messala and Drusis as friends, or business partners. If I were to entertain a gay slant, it would only be on Messala's part toward Judah (not Judah to Messala). But I have often hung around with my male friends, and been close -- I have even been disappointed by a male friend and I felt betrayed and hurt, and angered -- and yet I'm still hetereosexual and never had any "unrequited gay love" for the friend.

But the cold fury Messala feels seems to me to be based on a lot more than merely being "let down". You don't become vengeful and vindictive, lash out at and kill innocent friends simply because you're let down, or even for the political reasons Messala cites to Judah (that by ruthlessly treating an old friend he will be feared).

Messala's reaction is all out of proportion, which could in part be ascribed to a betrayed love.

As for "insisting" that it exists, I did no such thing. I'm not even sure it exists myself.

Okay: prove that the straightforward interpretation is the "correct" one.

Well, we all use our imaginations. Just because one person doesn't see what another one is talking about, or disagrees with it, doesn't make the first person's idea invalid or simply the product of a soaring imagination. As I've said, I see signs of a gay subtext from Messala towards Judah. I don't claim this is a certainty, merely a possible undercurrent, but it doesn't come out of nowhere.

Again, this is in contrast to those who insist that no such theme could even possibly exist, that anyone who believes otherwise is imagining things that any clear-headed person would see are false, and that any other interpretation is not even possibly legitimate. That's where the closed-minds lie.

I thought we had exhausted this subject!

Again, obviously there wouldn't be any dialogue that could possibly be construed as making a gay-theme suggestion, for the simple reason that such a thing would not have been possible in 1959. It's inference. Lines like "Still close", but more, the body language between them, the way Messala looks at Judah, which to me carry a slight hint of sexual attraction. That's my interpretation, yes, and it may not be what was intended by William Wyler. On the other hand, Stephen Boyd apparently was gay and he may have been giving Charlton Heston a look that carried a bit of extra meaning for him. My point is that from an interpretive standpoint I feel this is a legitimate subtext. Gore Vidal, who helped write the film, claimed it was, and maybe he was making it up (though to what point I can't imagine). But the efforts to discredit this claim have centered on attacking him personally, which has no bearing on the accuracy of what he said. Maybe others just didn't pick up on it. In any case, it's no more a matter of "pretending" to think it's there than thinking it isn't there is pretending. Not every aspect of a movie is laid out blatantly and can only be taken superficially.

I don't have a problem with different people holding different interpretations of a film. I try to accept their POV even when I feel it's unfounded or ridiculous. What I reject is the notion that there's one "official" or "normal" way of looking at a film and that anything else is imagination or pretending or somehow unreal and hence discreditable.

Yes, I know you're new here, Joe, and had no part in the discussion heretofore. I was just expressing my exasperation at being back at the same old stand. Which may be a homophobic inference, I don't know.

Again, obviously there wouldn't be any dialogue that could possibly be construed as making a gay-theme suggestion, for the simple reason that such a thing would not have been possible in 1959.

On the other hand, Stephen Boyd apparently was gay and he may have been giving Charlton Heston a look that carried a bit of extra meaning for him. My point is that from an interpretive standpoint I feel this is a legitimate subtext.

Gore Vidal, who helped write the film, claimed it was, and maybe he was making it up (though to what point I can't imagine). But the efforts to discredit this claim have centered on attacking him personally, which has no bearing on the accuracy of what he said. Maybe others just didn't pick up on it. In any case, it's no more a matter of "pretending" to think it's there than thinking it isn't there is pretending. Not every aspect of a movie is laid out blatantly and can only be taken superficially.

I don't have a problem with different people holding different interpretations of a film. I try to accept their POV even when I feel it's unfounded or ridiculous. What I reject is the notion that there's one "official" or "normal" way of looking at a film and that anything else is imagination or pretending or somehow unreal and hence discreditable.

I have read many contemporary reviews of BEN-HUR when it was first released and not one mentions anything to do with homosexuality - the person who started this rumour was Gore Vidal in some documentary about supposed gays in movies. Now its all anybody seems to talk about the movie on the net - even though there is no proof whatsoever in any way that Messala is a homosexual.

http://www.secretoftheincas.co.ukhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

I really hope we can dispense with this conversation...yet again. My hoped-for-last comment is that you would of course never found any contemporary review in 1959 mentioning homosexuality because (a) the subject was taboo and (b) it probably wouldn't have occurred to anybody (or most people) since this wasn't a common line of thought.

Saying Vidal started "this rumor" infers that what he says is false. Since I thought I discerned this aspect years ago, long before I knew Vidal had had anything to do with the film, and I know others also got the idea, at the very least it seems a legitimate interpretation, or at any rate speculation. Knowing Vidal, it would not at all surprise me that he had in fact deliberately insinuated the notion into the script. Here again, it's something he would never have said aloud in 1959 because to do so would have killed his career -- people who expect 2014 attitudes and behavior among people in 1959 are being a bit delusional, or contra-historical. Also, in Vidal's case, he was planning a run for Congress from upstate New York in 1960, in a district which at the time was very conservative and Republican (today it's mostly Democratic), so Vidal would never have said anything that would have undermined his political ambitions, and having anything to do with gay themes would have eviscerated his political campaign even before it started. (He lost anyway, but homosexuality had no part in his defeat.)

Anyway, I don't know why anyone would expect such a subtext -- if it does exist -- to be spelled out. Again, one date: 1959! If anything's there, it's subliminal. Given the mores of the time, it could not be anything else. Most people wouldn't have even thought of such a theme, let alone caught it, and if it was there, of course the filmmakers would deny it. Again and again: we did not think the same way about such things in 1959 as we do in 2014.

No "proof" that Messala was homosexual? True. Messala doesn't run up and kiss Judah on the lips, he doesn't bring the family a salami, pickles and a model obelisk as gifts, Judah never says, "Take your grabby hands off me, you damn dirty queer!" But what "proof" is there that he's heterosexual? Actually, none whatever. So is it an entirely off-the-wall concept that he might have been a repressed homosexual who felt he'd been spurned by his would-be lover, given the need to be subversive in introducing such an idea? No, I don't think so. It certainly adds another dimension to their relationship. Now, maybe it's all in my imagination and doesn't exist. Or, maybe it really is in there, squirreled away by Gore Vidal. Maybe what he said wasn't some mischievous rumor. Maybe it really was the truth. After all, as one of the writers, he'd know better than most -- cast and director included.

And with that, may we please get back to discussing the subliminal gay themes in Secret of the Incas so we can drive Oswald nuts?

The problem Hob, is there is still no proof that anything Vidal wrote was used in the film. We have Heston's insistence that nothing Vidal wrote was shot. He made reference to this in "Actor's Life" without ever bringing up the homosexual angle dispute (in his contemporary 1977 annotations).

And you are also IMO overstating what people in 1959 would have been supposedly reticent to argue, especially when it comes to Gore Vidal who had already established himself on the whole gay issue with his novel "The City And The Pillar" which was published in the late 1940s. Showing tact was the last thing he ever knew how to do in his life (the idea of him trying to show sensitivity to people of conservative leanings really strikes me as a laughable thing to envision. Good old Bill I know would have had a witty comment about that) :)

No "proof" that Messala was homosexual? True. Messala doesn't run up and kiss Judah on the lips, he doesn't bring the family a salami, pickles and a model obelisk as gifts, Judah never says, "Take your grabby hands off me, you damn dirty queer!"

But what "proof" is there that he's heterosexual? Actually, none whatever.

I don't agree that there is no proof that anything Vidal wrote wasn't used in the film. Setting aside the alleged gay stuff, from what I've read Vidal made many dialogue changes and shifted the emphasis or importance of some scenes or themes, upon which Christopher Fry based some of his work. How much "pure" Vidal there is one cannot say, any more than one can definitively say how much of the script reflects "pure" Fry or Karl Tunberg.

If you were to go by the "experts" in the Writers Guild, the entire script was by Tunberg, with only isolated and incidental contributions by the others, which was plainly false. No one has denied that Vidal worked on the script and I never heard any suggestion that none of his work made it into the final screenplay, other than Heston's suspect and undocumented claim. Even the Guild, in reaching its unjust screenplay credit decision, acknowledged that Fry and Vidal did some work that was in the final script -- just not enough, in their biased opinion, to warrant any credit.

Incidentally, Vidal didn't care about getting any credit on Ben-Hur. He never claimed that he wrote large tracts of the script, or at least the final version. He did claim as his some ideas and dialogue. The original deal that Wyler thought Tunberg had agreed to was to share credit with Fry alone. Tunberg reneged, and the rest is a tale of cheaters not prospering. Now in later years Vidal may have changed his version of events and lied about or made up some things, or perhaps he believed some things that may not have been strictly true, but if so he would hardly be alone in such behavior.

One problem I have is that everyone else here takes Heston's word as gospel, as it were -- as if the man could not be, would not be and never was wrong. You mentioned Heston's "contemporary" notes in 1977 for "An Actor's Life", although anything written about Ben-Hur in 1977 is 18 years too late to be "contemporary". The fact that Heston insisted that nothing Vidal wrote was in the final script is not proof of anything. You're taking it as such because you like and want to agree with Heston, and dislike and want to discredit Vidal. Once again I see the usual recourse to insulting Vidal personally over entirely irrelevant matters as a substitute for actual proof about his work on Hur. What makes Heston's version so correct? Remember that by 1977 Heston had his own, very different, political ax to grind and was contemptuous of Vidal generally. The fact that Heston says there was no gay theme, or that nothing Vidal wrote was in the final script, doesn't mean he's not either ignorant, lying, in denial or just plain forgetful. Charlton Heston was a human being, after all, subject to his own mistakes, biases and personal issues, just like anybody else.

Heston wrote many things in his autobiography that were demonstrably wrong on the facts. Simply to say he'd written something in his diary and that therefore this constitutes unassailable proof of anything is ridiculous.

And people certainly would have been reticent to argue openly about any gay theme in a film in 1959. Sure, there had been some novels and plays with a gay subtext (usually disguised), even some allusions to homosexuality in films going back to silent days. (Hitchcock's Murder, a 1930 sound film, has a clear homosexual theme in it.) But this was most definitely not a topic of open discussion in mainstream circles back in 1959, at a time when homosexuality was against the law in many places and when gays were mostly underground. Many people were so clueless that they never even thought of such things, and certainly weren't of a mind to see them in a so-called religious epic. To cite Hitchcock again, how many people really caught on to the fact that the character of Leonard, played by Martin Landau in another 1959 film, North by Northwest, was gay? Few, and no one in any contemporary review I've seen mentioned it. This has only become an open subject in the past 25 years or so. You mention Vidal's "The City and the Pillar" but the vast majority of people never heard of the book, let alone read it. Another postwar novel, "The Brick Foxhole", about the murder of a homosexual by a bigoted Army officer, had to have the nature of the man's hatred changed to anti-Semitism when it was made as the film Crossfire because Hollywood wouldn't touch a gay theme in any outright or forthright, undisguised manner, and this held true for decades.

Incidentally, Vidal didn't care about getting any credit on Ben-Hur. He never claimed that he wrote large tracts of the script, or at least the final version

One problem I have is that everyone else here takes Heston's word as gospel, as it were -- as if the man could not be, would not be and never was wrong. You mentioned Heston's "contemporary" notes in 1977 for "An Actor's Life", although anything written about Ben-Hur in 1977 is 18 years too late to be "contemporary". The fact that Heston insisted that nothing Vidal wrote was in the final script is not proof of anything.

First, what's with this "your side" crap? I don't have a "side". I'm simply throwing some ideas into the mix for discussion.

Can Heston be mistaken when he insists in 1977 that the "latest version" of May 17 was Fry's work and that they had now gone away from Vidal's? You can certainly choose to believe it if you like, but the thing is Hob, now your side has to produce the hard-core tangible evidence to undermine Heston's point.

And I suspect Hob, that more people caught on to the allusion of what Martin Landau was in North By Northwest than you give them credit for, because for a lot of people, who see that kind of behavior as a moral sin, it wouldn't "shock" them on that point to see such behavior in that kind of character.

You see this is the point that gets overlooked, because the general idea of a villain as homosexual wouldn't have offended the audience.

First, what's with this "your side" crap? I don't have a "side". I'm simply throwing some ideas into the mix for discussion.

One problem I have is that everyone else here takes Heston's word as gospel, as it were -- as if the man could not be, would not be and never was wrong.

That's not a cheap shot at all -- that's ridiculous. I stated only -- and accurately -- that everyone on this thread simply accepts Heston's word on this matter regarding the script for Ben-Hur. I said nothing about any other topic, other than to note that Heston made a lot of misstatements on other things -- as you've just acknowledged. But I repeat that everyone here seems to be taking his word about the BH script at face value, citing his diary entries and annotations as "proof", which they are not. They're personal observations and opinions, and prove only what Heston thought, not necessarily the truth, in whole or in part.

If I'm wrong and there's someone on this board who isn't taking Heston's claims about the script fully and at face value, then I except that individual from my remarks, without prejudice.

Yes, nothing sexual is mentioned in the film at all. All this is inference -- either way. But not everything in any film is laid out with plain, heavy-handed obviousness. Thousands of films have subliminal themes or plot or character inferences. So to say we can only go by what's literally stated is silly.

My only point is that I infer an unrequited homosexual subtext on Messala's part toward Judah, and in general. I see aspects in the film that support this inference. It would help account for the degree of his fury about Judah not "naming names" to him and his subsequent treatment of him, which even in the context of his being ruthless seems overdone and pointless. It would also account for the utter absence of women in Messala's speech or presence. We only see him with Drusis, never with a woman (not even a slave girl), and he never mentions the opposite sex (save for one passing and incidental reference to Tirzah, which -- and whom -- he does not pursue).

Now, I could be wrong, reading too much into it. On the other hand, the rest of you could also be wrong and not see what's there. All a matter of opinion. But it wouldn't be blatantly spelled out, and the fact that someone else says it's not there doesn't mean they're right.

So that -- I hope -- is all I have to say on this subject...yet again!

That's not a cheap shot at all -- that's ridiculous. I stated only -- and accurately -- that everyone on this thread simply accepts Heston's word on this matter regarding the script for Ben-Hur. I said nothing about any other topic, other than to note that Heston made a lot of misstatements on other things -- as you've just acknowledged. But I repeat that everyone here seems to be taking his word about the BH script at face value, citing his diary entries and annotations as "proof", which they are not. They're personal observations and opinions, and prove only what Heston thought, not necessarily the truth, in whole or in part.

If I'm wrong and there's someone on this board who isn't taking Heston's claims about the script fully and at face value, then I except that individual from my remarks, without prejudice.

There are still a number of Heston films I need to catch up with. SECRET OF THE INCAs is a film I have yet to see.

Joe Karlosi
I hope you amend this gross aberration forthwith!



"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

As soon as an official US DVD arrives - I'm there!

Oh - so never then, Joe!

Just as a matter of interest then, if you've never even seen the film - what brought you to this SOTI board, Joe?

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

I'm a big Charlton Heston fan. Plus, I have been engaging in discussions with Hob, and have been checking out some other topics he's participated in.

I wouldn't say "never" for INCAS, though. Lots of movies we thought we'd never see of Chuck's have come out. Unless of course there's something legally preventing SOTI from being issued on DVD...?

There must be some logical explanation why Paramount have never released this movie onto sell-thru. There have been two internet petitions begging for it to be on dvd, but still no luck.

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

Paramount stopped releasing its classics about six or seven years ago. Since then they've farmed out such releases to other companies: first to Legend, which brought out one big batch, then stopped; then to Olive, which did two full batches, then diverted its attention to non-Paramount titles owned by Paramount; and now Warner Bros., which has been re-releasing out-of-print titles Paramount already issued in the 2000s -- nothing new. Not yet, anyway. Criterion also has a lease agreement with the studio and has issued a few Paramount films, but I'm not sure if that agreement's still in effect, and anyway few Paramount films have come out on that label..and I promise you SOTI won't be one.

I've heard that SOTI's film elements aren't supposed to be in great shape, but I tend to doubt that. Contrary to some claims, the film is not in the public domain. Paramount still owns the rights. But if the film is ever to come out here, at present it would likely come from Warner, and there's not the slightest indication of that.

But surely those Italian and Spanish SOTI releases are legit, hob?

They sure look professional .... so how come the movie can get a legit European dvd release?

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

Yes, nothing sexual is mentioned in the film at all. All this is inference -- either way. But not everything in any film is laid out with plain, heavy-handed obviousness. Thousands of films have subliminal themes or plot or character inferences. So to say we can only go by what's literally stated is silly.

My only point is that I infer an unrequited homosexual subtext on Messala's part toward Judah, and in general. I see aspects in the film that support this inference. It would help account for the degree of his fury about Judah not "naming names" to him and his subsequent treatment of him, which even in the context of his being ruthless seems overdone and pointless.

It would also account for the utter absence of women in Messala's speech or presence. We only see him with Drusis, never with a woman (not even a slave girl),

and he never mentions the opposite sex (save for one passing and incidental reference to Tirzah, which -- and whom -- he does not pursue).

Now, I could be wrong, reading too much into it. On the other hand, the rest of you could also be wrong and not see what's there. All a matter of opinion.

Quite a number of American films were legitimately released on Region 2 DVD -- mostly in Spain, for some reason, but as you say some in Italy, France, Germany and very definitely Britain too. South Korea is another big source.

What I don't understand is why many titles have come out in foreign countries but not in the US. These are legitimate releases, not public domain knock-offs or bootlegs. The studios either released them themselves or farmed out the rights to local companies (as with the Spanish SOTI). But they haven't been doing the same at home.

For example, one of my favorite films of all is Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole, which was never released in the US in any format until Criterion brought it out in 2007 under its arrangement with Paramount. But there was a Spanish DVD out years earlier (now out of print but still available). I own DVDs of many American films for some reason never released in the States but available on foreign discs.

Similarly, I've even run across a couple of British films not released in the UK but available in the US, though the number of such titles is small.

For some reason I can't shake loose of, I just have the wee suspicion this all may have something to do with money. Funny, isn't it?

Just imagine for a moment how amazing "Secret of the Incas" would look if released as a Blu-Ray dvd in its original ratio!

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

Stop torturing yourself, Os! We're all doomed to never seeing a legit release of any kind. You'd have better luck finding that sunburst for real.

Was there really a Sunburst in the Inca empire, or was it just made up for the film?

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

Well, I'm pretty sure the specific SOTI sunburst was made up for the film, but on the other hand primitive peoples like Incas or Italians always incorporated some form of sun worship in their cultures, and sunbursts are a common artifact in many nations, so it's likely they had sunbursts or something similar decorating the dwellings of Machu Picchu, and maybe some jewelry or other valuables in that form.

Some reviews of SOTI seem to call it a "starburst," when James makes a comeback perhaps he will tell us all about it.

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

Well, the sun is a star after all. On the other hand the Incas had developed a chewy, fruit-flavored candy that was famously popular on the streets of ancient Cuzco (especially when spat out onto the streets of ancient Cuzco, where it was immediately picked up by the poor), so the name "Starburst" was of course already appropriated.

 

I'm a bit surprised that James hasn't chipped in here with a history of the Sunburst/Starburst - if it existed, of course.

James tells me he'll be back soon, maybe after New Year's. In the meantime he's hung over, according to his latest PM. (No kidding!)

As to the other, never fear. If the sun- or starburst doesn't exist, James will invent it, along with the history to make it appealing to the rubes who'll be lining up to buy it.



🇵🇪 
🇬🇧 £££!!!
🇺🇸 $$$!!!

I'm back amongst the living after three days of impersonating Ray Milland in THE LOST WEEKEND. I will answer your query about the Sunburst when my head is a bit clearer, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

A much better choice of a Billy Wilder character than mine. I've spent several days doing an impression of Fred MacMurray's character in Double Indemnity. I suddenly have the feeling this is not going to end well.

I hope Catherine hasn't got the same hair style as Barbara Stanwyck though, hob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

Absolutely not, and I've also taken the precaution of hiding that blond wig she bought.

I am tired of meeting with her in the supermarket, though. Those shelves are higher than they used to be, and it's getting pretty noticeable when I have to climb up on one to speak to her in the next aisle.

If Barbara Stanwyck turned up in a British supermarket in that get-up she would be trailed straight away by the store detective! Did she pay for that box of cereal, btw?

She could be a cereal killer on the quiet.

You have store detectives in supermarkets? Jeesh! Every time I swipe something from a grocery it's the manager who chases me out into the parking lot.

That "cereal killer" remark is pretty flaky. Corny, without a shred of truth. Pure mush. I suppose it's okay in a crunch but you're on your oat to find something bran new, as long as it's not for personal grain.

hob, I work in a huge Supermarket (which the Queen shops at) and believe me there are thousands of thieving scumbags at loose in supermarkets, I have actually apprehended quite a few myself. Anybody who turns up dressed like Barbara Stanwyck in that blonde wig would be arrested immediately, I don't care if they haven't even nicked anything!

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

hob, anybody who turns up dressed like Barbara Stanwyck in that blonde wig should be arrested on the spot. There are store detectives everywhere in my supermarket, hob.

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

I hate to say this Os, but your kneck of the woods does have a bad reputation for stealing, I don't know if its true or not, I'm just repeating the general consensus.

So the Queen shoplifts, eh? I've heard that the Palace is slow to pay its bills and keeps storekeepers waiting months for their paltry £10, but I'd love to see your store dick tackle HRH when she stuffs a roast chicken in her handbag.

Os, where do you work, and why does Mrs. Elizabeth Regina Windsor Philip shop there? Does she still push the shopping cart (trolly) with Prince Charles dangling in it even though he's a big boy now? And what the heck's she doing up north with all those miscreants Haddock refers to?

Haddock, is "kneck of the woods" some sort of Geordian spelling? Like "Geordian knot"? And isn't a reputation for stealing by definition "bad"?

HCH's comment may seem sweeping but I understand his point. In Arizona, for example, the Hopi Indians have always had the rep of being a bunch of thieves. Elizabeth got even, though, when she swiped some turquoise jewelry on her last visit to the reservation. In fact, they're still waiting to be paid for keeping her reservation open an extra day.

💂 🐔 

I actually have two jobs now, hob. Part-time taxi driver and shelf stacker in the week at a huge store.

As for you Haddock ... are you a Sun reader by any chance?

The internet is for lonely people. People should live. Charlton Heston

What's the store then, Os? One thing I always do when in foreign places is not go to museums or monuments but drop into the regular shops and stores that everyone goes to every day. I find Tesco's more interesting than The Tower!

And that Sun jab at Haddock was a really low blow, there, Os!!!   