Certainly an interesting point of view, but one with a few turns of logic I don't think I fully grasp:
First, you say, "... and there's nothing wrong with that." But, then you say, "... a Jewish prince would certainly be aware of Jewish law in this regard." So . . . isn't it true that from Judah's point of view (and many others even today who accept "Jewish law") there IS something wrong with that?
Second, you say, "... there is surprisingly plenty to suggest ..." (Personally, I don't see the "plenty".) "... something more than a non-sexual relationship between Ben-Hur and Arrius, and Ben-Hur and Messala." Hmmm. You go on to say, "the characters don't have to actually have sex for us to know this.", and "It would be nearly impossible to show in this 1950s film." (It would be "nearly impossible to show" it in a 2010s era film too - homo OR heterosexual.) So . . . how DO we know? We can "speculate", which is what this thread has been about, but -- how do we "know" as you seem to "know"? Btw, some gay posters on this board have, also, said they don't see the "plenty" either, nor do they feel the question has much to do with the dramatic proceedings in any case.
Third, you say, "... the homophobes of the past are to blame for disagreements over which characters were gay or had sex ...". Now, I would think that such uncertainties must be laid at the doorstep of the film's creators, not with the social mores of the viewing public's culture (in this case, a Judeo-Christian culture principally). Art CAN do that. Other films of the era, and before, have been pretty clear about such relationships without being graphic in their depictions (Eg., "The Sign of the Cross", 1930's and "The Uninvited", 1940's, etc.).
"... by putting everything in doubt."
Perhaps the film's creators wanted "everything" to be "in doubt"? . . . In the drama events/moments/character motivations are often presented to best effect precisely because they "do" leave the audience in doubt, or because the dubious moment is, from the director's point of view, entirely inconsequential to the story.
"If writers and directors could have been honest ..."
But, they COULD have. And, as for myself, I think they WERE honest -- a very talented team. (Wyler's "The Children's Hour", focusing on deceit, malicious gossip, AND lesbianism, was released one year after "Ben-Hur".) Anyway, this "homophobe" sees nothing in the subject relationships to indicate a physical connection (or "desire" for same) between any of the male characters that could have had any important bearing on either the events or the themes of this picture.
reply
share