Richards' Analysis: Agree or Dissagree?

Richards does a very good job describing the plot and preparation that went into making the movie "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ". I agree with Richards' analysis of the movie for the most part. When he states that the film is "structured around the conflict of values between Christianity and Imperial Rome" I fully believe that this was one of the main themes of the movie. The conflict between Christians, or even the Jews, and the Romans is seen in multiple scenes in the film. The scene that sticks out to me is when Messala is reunited with Ben-Hur at the beginning of the movie and Messala shows his true colors by belittling Ben-Hur for being a Jew, because he has fully adopted the Roman mentality of superiority. Richards also describes the film as gruesome and gory, when compared to the 1959 version, which I would also agree with since I have seen that version as well. I also agree with the statement Richards made about the 1926 version being "visually superior" to the 1959 version. You see this is the realness of the action scenes and the fear that comes along with that. It creates a more real and human reaction to the chariot scene and the war at sea. One thing I wished Richards would have touched on is Ben-Hur's character development through the movie. His character shifts dramatically after he is taken in and adopted by the Romans. You see another change in character as he comes in contact with Jesus at the end of the movie, after Jesus had cleansed his mother and sister of their leprosy. Other than the lack of the character development, I agree with Richards' description of the film "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ".