Life, 1926-01-21 · page 26 of 36
Life — January 21, 1926 — page 26: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page reviews two major silent films: *Ben-Hur* and *The Sea Beast*. **Ben-Hur** receives praise despite its massive scale. The reviewer notes the film's enormous spectacle—colossal sets, crowd scenes, and technical effects—which sometimes overwhelms the original story's spiritual essence. Director Fred Niblo is credited with maintaining focus on the plot. The cast is mostly praised (Ramon Novarro, Claire MacDowell), though Francis X. Bushman is criticized as dated. The chariot race between Ben-Hur and Messala is highlighted as thrilling, with a baseball metaphor joking that Messala's "batting average" remains .000 despite repeated losses. **The Sea Beast**, John Barrymore's adaptation of *Moby Dick*, receives harsh criticism. The reviewer calls it "appallingly dull" despite occasional beautiful seascapes. Director Millard Webb's attempts at artistry are undermined by "glaring stupidity" and lack of continuity. Barrymore's overwrought acting—"wrything" dramatically when the whale attacks—is mocked as excessive and unconvincing.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
24 HeSILENT DRAMA _~. f. ao Kft a oe “Ben-Hur’ N casting about for adjectives with which to describe the long-awaited movie version of “Ben-Hur,” I find myself limited to that section of the thesaurus which offers synonyms of “big. Colossal—tremendous—gargantuan— and just the least bit overwhelming; that is a fairly adequate summary of “Ben-Hur.” Most of the time, this bigness makes for extreme impressive ness and visual thrill. At intervals it makes for confusion and fatigue. Ben-Hur,” as General Lew Wallace imagined and wrote it, was a compara tively story of the Christ When the novel was dramatized it be- simple came essentially a spectacle; now, on the screen, it is about one million times more of one—and the resultant orgy of huge sets, seething mohs and camera effects contains little of the spirit of the original story ] all other respects, however, “Ben- Hur” comes up to and surpasses the prevalent expectations. Fred Niblo, it seems to me, has done a fine job with the direction. Whenever the main char- acters are about tobe lost in the shuffle, Mr. Niblo drags them forth and re- turns them to the center of the screen, just to remind the audience that there is a plot, after all. Mr. Niblo has not been quite so wise in his selection of players. Ramon Novarro as Ben-Hur, Claire Mac- Dowell as his mother, and Nigel de Brulier as Simonides—these three are above reproach; but the rest of the cast is insufficient, particularly Francis X. Bushman, who appears from the past to remind us that the mo made n picture has great progress. LIFE - f- POLL ete There are many beautiful and ex citing scenes in “Ben-Hur”: the Na- tivity, photographed in color, with Bet ty Bronson at her loveliest as the Ma- donna; the frightful ordeal of the gal- leys; a rousing naval battle with a whole fleet of triremes in action; the Sermon on the Mount There is also, it added, a doubtedly the most terrific chariot race in history. Ben-Hur and Messala have need hardly be charic which is un- fi RAMON NOVARRO IN “BEN-HUR.” been arguing it out in the Circus Maxi mus for a matter of forty-five years Messala has been beaten all that, the old When Ben-Hur rival to bite the dust portrait at the crest of this page), now, and every time; but for thrill is still there. iorces his (see the cheers are frenzied For always the vague fear in the heart of every spectator that Messala m: The fact that the villain's batting aver- age, to date, is exactly .000 has no ef- fect on his big-league standing some strange reason, there is “The Sea Beast’ OHN BARRYMORE'’S new pic- ture, “The Sea Beast,” is also big— but it is not interesting. If all the cruel details must be known, it is ap- pallingly dull “The Sea Beast” is a rather free translation of Melville's “Moby Dic expressed in terms of pictures which are occasionally beautiful and more often downright ham. The director, Millard Webb, has tried hard to be artistic, and to paint some memorable seascapes on the screen, but the effort proved too much for ehim, Wherever he achieves a good effect, he neutral- izes it with some instance of glaring stupidity. There is no semblance of continuity in “The Sea Beast,” no le and the ramatic interest is excessively intermittent. Every so often an arti- ficial thrill will appea: nly to subside limply in the welter of general bo: dom. John Barrymore himself adds nothing to his dramatic stature. He acts as no one has ever acted before, writh- ing in when the whale bites off his leg and when he unspeakable agony kisses the heroine; he is obstreperous, but not impressive. Far more effectiv » behold —1s the quiet, restrained Dolores Cos- tello, who scems to possess the stuff of which stars are made. A for the sub-titles, of which there is a record number, they were writ- ten by my old buddy, Rupert Hughes, and I hesitate to pass any remarks on them lest I be charged with favoritism. Perhaps I may say that they are ‘od-awful and refrain from further log-rolling. —and certainly more pleasant R. E, Sherw comicbooks.com