Defensor Veritatis - Our Shabby Political Discourse

I’ve followed a little debate among family and friends in a social media concerning the level of our political discourse during this election cycle.  My wife (who is a Republican like me) took exception to people who began exchanges with phrases like “How can you be a Republican and believe……….”  Most of the respondents, left and right, were careful to distance themselves from extremist views; and curiously, talked more like independents than Republicans and Democrats.  So why be either in the first place?

This little exchange highlighted how narrow and infantile our media-driven (and I emphasize MEDIA-DRIVEN) political discourse has become.  Unwilling, unable or afraid to defend their political views in a logical and cohesive manner, extremists on both sides resort to name-calling and character assassination, to sound-bites and half-truths, and to declare (as Al Gore once famously did) that “the debate is over” (the implication of which was that if you disagreed with him, you had no right to your disagreement).  But I see these posts, and in the larger political discourse, an equally dangerous trend – while having someone disagree with your viewpoint does not necessarily make him an idiot, it also does not automatically make his viewpoint valid or worthy of respect.

Throughout the convention season this summer, we heard how utterly useless and empty were the parties’ campaign platforms (documents that ostensibly define what each party is) – they were to be ignored we were told (except as they bound various factions of the party together.)  But while in the practical machinery of government they mean very little, they have very real moral implications for the people who identify themselves with that party.  Those who think that they can attach themselves to a party while not embracing (and in some cases, privately repudiating) the major tenets of that party, deceive themselves and create both a moral vacuum in themselves and a public scandal amongst their countrymen; because the one thing necessary to the proper functioning of government and society as a whole is personal integrity.  Americans on both sides of the political divide assume quite rightly that on any issue there is a fundamental truth and a right course of action.  Indeed, in any true debate, one’s position must be put to the test of logic and reason, not emotion and self-absorption (if I believe it, it must be true!)

Truth, real truth, is the final refuge of the person who loves liberty – but truth is hard, it is often stark and uncompassionate – truth involves sacrifice and suffering to perpetuate its ideal, and yet without it, there is nothing to hang onto – we are at the mercy of our own government (it is astounding to me that anyone could look at the world history of the 20^th Century – the “Century of Blood”, dominated by totalitarian regimes, both left and right, who invented their own truths – and not see the very real threat when it is abandoned.)  Unfortunately, most of our leaders today find truth a very flexible thing.  Nowhere is this grievous fault better exemplified than in the politicians’ mantra, “I am personally opposed, but….”  If you can’t square your personal beliefs with your public persona, you’re not only lying to yourself, you’re a fraud and a coward.  Who wants someone like that leading the country?  So you self-proclaimed Republicans who favor big government when it’s pork for your district and free enterprise when you’re raising campaign cash and you self-professed Democrats who think you can be personally opposed to abortion in private, but support it in public – stop lying.  And it’s not just the leaders, it’s all of us, who say we're of a political party and then backtrack when it gets too difficult or don't have the courage to cut ties over principle.   A person, like a house, cannot be divided against themselves.  Be one thing or the other – that’s how we’ll solve our political problems.

Two thousand years ago, the Roman politician Pontius Pilate famously and contemptuously asked, “What is Truth?”  In today’s America, he could be elected to anything.

Silent Film - Ben-Hur 1907

Ben-Hur, A Tale of the Chirst was a novel written in 1880 by Lew Wallace, a Civil War general (on the Union side), later territorial governor of New Mexico and author.  Although Wallace wrote many novels and biographies, Ben-Hur is his ultimate claim to fame.

 

Almost immediately, Ben-Hur was adapted for the stage.  Wallace did his best to prevent a stage adaptation (he thought it blasphemous to have Christ portrayed by an actor.)   In 1899, a very famous production opened in New York (the producers had overcome Wallace’s objections by using a beam of light to represent Christ), whose major drawing card was a recreation of the chariot race (with real horses, no less).  A historian described the set-up, "four great cradles, 20 ft in length and 14 ft wide, which are movable back and front on railways. The horses galloped full-pelt towards the audience, secured by invisible steel cable traces and running on treadmills. Electric rubber rollers spun the chariot wheels. A vast cyclorama backdrop revolved in the opposite direction to create an illusion of massive speed, and fans created clouds of dust.”

It was a smash hit with audiences and critics alike.  "A marvel of stage-illusion" that was "memorable beyond all else.” “Thrilling and realistic ... enough to make the fortune of any play."  "The stage, which has to bear 30 tons' weight of chariots and horses, besides huge crowds, has had to be expressly strengthened and shored up.”  It was inevitable that the fledging movie industry would look with eagerness on the best-selling novel and its impressive stage production.  In 1907, the Kalem Studios produced a film version of the story.  At over ten minutes, a good deal of the story had to be sacrificed, but there was still plenty of spectacle.

 

The film version centered around the chariot race, which was filmed on a northern New Jersey beach.  The charioteers were all played by local fireman.  The horses were the ones that usually pulled the fire wagons (this was 1907 after all).

 

The film starred William S. Hart as Messala, a role he originated in the Broadway production.  Hart went on to be the first major Western star, appearing in scores of Westerns in the 1910s and 20s.

This 1907 film is not only famous for being the first movie adaptation of Ben-Hur, but it also set a precedent in copyright law in motion pictures.  The film was made without the permission of Wallace’s estate.  As the screenwriter, Gene Gauntier later noted, the early film-makers infringed on anything that might make a profit.  Shortly after the film’s release, Kalem Studio’s was sued by Wallace’s estate and publisher.  In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Wallace’s estate, thereby setting a legal precedent for the use of copyrighted material in film.

Fortunately, after all these years, the novel and the film’s copyrights have expired, which means I get to show it to you.  So, here it is from 1907, the first film adaptation of Ben-Hur.  Enjoy!

  And now another treat!  In 1925, the newly formed MGM Studios invested a lot of money and prestige in a new film of Ben-Hur.  At a cost of 3.9 million dollars, it was the most expensive movie made to that time (in real dollars, it was more expensive than the lavish 1959 remake with Charlton Heston.)  It starred Ramon Navarro as Ben-Hur and Francis X. Bushman as Messala.  I’ll write more about this fascinating production another time.

But I did want to show you the chariot race.  The director of the 1925 film, Frank Niblo shot over 200,000 feet of film for the chariot race alone (it was eventually edited down to 750 feet, or approximately ten minutes).  It is one of the most exciting film sequences ever captured.  If it looks vaguely familiar, there’s a good reason for that.  One of the assistant directors for the chariot race sequence was a young William Wyler.  He would go on to a great Hollywood career and was the director of the 1959 Ben-Hur.  The spectacular chariot race in that film is an almost shot-by-shot recreation of the 1925 chariot race.  In 1987, when the film was restored, a new music score was composed by the British composer, Carl Davis, which makes it even more exciting.  Enjoy!