This case addresses the adaptation of a novel to the big screen.  It is between the makers of the 1907 version of Ben-Hur, the Kalem Company, and Lew Wallace's estate, The Harper Brothers. 

For us, the piece of this case that is important is "whether the public exhibition of these moving pictures infringed any rights under the copyright law." 

If the court were to side with Wallace's estate, then movies would not be created without the author's permission because they "have the exclusive right to dramatize their works."  If the Kalem Company were victorious, then any novel could be made into a film based on the current copyright law because no one knew film would exist upon the law's creation.  The difference between a stage play and a motion picture is that each shot of a film was a still frame--hence a piece of art in its own. 

The Supreme Court said that "drama may be achieved by action as well as by speech," and that "action can tell a story, display all the most vivid relations between men, and depict every kind of human emotion without the aid of a word."  With this, the court found "that Ben-Hur was dramatized by what was done" meaning that the Wallace estate was the victor. 

For my question, "How can one scene effect a studio?" we can start by saying that this case established that MGM could buy the rights to the novel Ben-Hur.  Moreover, this case establishes that all authors' rights are protected in adaptations and led to all studios having to buy rights to make films. 

For MGM, seeing the build-up and hype from the novel to the stage play, helped them decide to go forward with the purchase of the rights that would lead to their movie that would end up costing them around $4,000,000.  And as mentioned in this bibliography, Ben-Hur led to a series of first in US popular culture.  The epic proportions of the chariot race scene are no exception, and because of this case we got to see the 1925 version, the 1959 version, and all of the grandeur of the imitators that followed.

In this book, Stephen Wylen explores the history of the Jews and emphasizes the parts of Early Judaism that are significant to Christians who want to understand the state of the race during Jesus' life.

For us, the important part of Wylen's book is the chapter titled "Hellenism."  Here he describes the taking over of Judah by the Roman general Pompey.  The highlights circle around Pompey going into the Jerusalem Temple and claiming that the Jews' religion was fake because there was no idol to worship.  The Jews "thought of themselves as citizens, in every way equal," but they didn't participate in "public civil...ceremonies because all of these things were formally dedicatd to the gods of the city."  Wylen says that this fact led to a "constant source of tension between Jews and Gentiles." 

The tension remained in Jesus' time.  Wylen brings forward the stories of the New Testament to illustrate the feelings the Jews and Gentiles had for one another.  In 66-70 AD the Jews failed to rebel and in 115 a "full-scale war broke out between the Jews and Gentiles."  This was under the Roman emperor Trajan who was responsible for the expansion of the Circus Maximus. 

Relating all of this to my question, "How can one scene effect a studio?" we can start by looking at the basics of Ben-Hur.  First off, Judah is a Jew who is friends with a Roman, Messala.  The story starts off with the two being friends, but later Judah Ben-Hur is arrested and Messala, who now has power, makes sure Ben-Hur is casted away.  This follows the history mentioned above and brings the tension between the Jews and Gentiles into our film.  As a side note, Ben-Hur also encounters Jesus--an encounter any Christian would like to see visually through an art form like film.

But back to the tension between Jew and Gentile, being that there was a massive, well-documented war among the two, it would be great for a studio to capitalize on the magnitude of the recorded history.  To do so, a film would have to find a way to dramatize the conflict between its two developed main characters--enter the chariot race.  As noted in other articles in this bibliography, the chariot race in Ben-Hur was the climax of the film. 

So a studio had to decide whether or not to push for an epic scene with grand architecture, massive numbers, intense drama, and a showdown between two former friends who represent two races that historically fought.  While the saying goes, down put all of your eggs in one basket, the success of Ben-Hur in both the stage play (mentioned in the bibliography) and the film was based on whether or not the producers had the guts to go a scene that had a lot of positive qualities going for it.  The only downsides I see, have already been highlighted--time, money, and resources.

In this book, Allen Guttmann takes a look at all aspects of sports' spectators from a historical standpoint.  He starts with Ancient Greece and Rome.  He then moves through the Renaissance and concludes with modern, professional sports.

For us, the important points come in the chapter, "Greek and Roman Spectators."  Here Guttmann describes the importance and popularity of the circus and its arenas.  He does this by citing the religious calendar which shows "10 days of gladiatorial games and 66 days of chariot races" in the fourth century A.D.  That's right, 66 days of chariot races!  

Guttmann then continues and reminds the readers that the "material cost of mounting...[the] games was enormous."  Moreover, the "economic factor was more important than moral considerations" when determining what events to hold.  And one event, no matter what the economic stance, can be proven popular, as Guttmann says, by simply looking at the architecture.  The Circus Maximus, which housed the chariot races, held "five times more spectators than the Colosseum." 

Guttmann even found a quote from Ammianus Marcellinus regarding the chariot races:  "the mass of the people, unemployed with too much time on their hands...For them the Circus Maximus is temple, home, community center and the fullfilment of all their hopes...They declare that the country will be ruined if at the next meeting their own particular champion does not come first of the starting-gate and keep his horses in line as he brings them round the post."

With all of this popularity among the people of the time, one could only imagine how the hype could be lived out forever on film.  So for my question, "How can one scene effect a studio?" we can ponder the thought process of the crew that had to capture all of the historic glory of the chariot race.  Pointed out more so by Guttmann, is the cost of the event at the time.  If it was expensive to have the games back in Ancient Rome for 66 days, a studio executive could predict that it would also be expensive to stage a race that had to be captured on 200,000 feet of film.

On the other side, the same executive could see all of the excitement generated by the Romans and create an epic scene which would propel his studio into the future.  And, as we know, Ben-Hur (1925) succeeded in shooting an amazing chariot race scene that setup MGM for years to come.

In this book, D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingly explore the depth of Roman society as they focused on family structure, gender identity, food supply, religion, and entertainment.  The most important part for us, is the chapter "Amusing the Masses" where our authors focus on the Circus Maximus.  

Under Trajan, "the biggest transformation" of the Circus took place.  It went from a seating capacity of 150,000 people to 350,000 people and with "the racetrack and seating [areas], the structure was six hundred meters long with an average width of over one hundred meters."  Potter and Mattingly inform us that "a maximum of twelve charioteers could compete in any one race."  The races just reached three miles in distance as the "racers travleled counter-clockwise...circling seven times around the spina."  Being that the chariot races were very popular, "crashes were common, especially at the start of a race and on the turns" because riders "jostled for positions."  

For my question, "How can one scene effect a studio?" we can look at this description of the Circus Maximus and apply it to the actual footage from Ben-Hur (1925).  Audiences of the time wanted to see the 'real' thing, and studios, therefore tried to create it for them.  With this, history would be a good place to start for MGM.  

For any studio, committing the amount of money that would create an arena that could seat 350,000 people with the length of over six football fields and the width of one football field is crazy.  But, as noted in this bibliography, the scale for the film was nearly 1:1.  With all of the resources necessary to create an atmosphere that would accurately portray history, it is pretty easy to see that this one scene alone--the chariot race--could have a huge impact on MGM.  And of course, with all of the crashes, money, and time spent, MGM was definitely effected.

In this article Gordan Thomas talks about the adaptation of Lew Wallace's book, Ben-Hur, to the big screen.  It is written with the 1959 version in mind but accurately discusses the stage play and the 1925 version of the film. 

Thomas starts off by explaining the author and his novel.  With this, he quickly points out that Wallace seems to underwrite "a mythic set-piece of the film"--the chariot race.  He then moves on to talk about how the stage play "put all of its eggs in the basket of massive spectacle."  He states that the stage play used new technology to create the chariot race with "as many as five chariots pulled by real horses galloped upon a giant treadmill that, to complete the illusion...backed by a massive, revolving scenic backdrop.”  With this, the audience accustomed to Ben-Hur would have to see a chariot race that "looks real enough to kill one or two of the charioteers."  Thomas also suggests that placing a rumor in the press that a few stuntmen died would be beneficial too--something that sounds eerily similar to what Niblo told the press about Novarro.  So in the 1925 film, the scale was nearly 1:1 as grand columns and a swollen multi-tiered stadium created the set.  Thomas also tells the reader that Karl Struss, the cinematographer who worked on Ben-Hur, was a follower of Alfred Stieglitz in the Photo Secession.

In answering the question of "How one scene can effect a studio?" here we see that numerous attributes from the 1925 chariot race scene were carried over into the 1959 release.  The film, as noted before a success, capitalized on the grandness associated with the chariot race.  William Weyler, the director of the '59 remake, worked with Niblo on the original and implemented the tactics.  One shot was even duplicated, and as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  So the chariot race scene can then be said to have had a huge effect on MGM's success into the mid 1900s.  Moreover, the story is solid--it's being used by movies like Braveheart and Gladiator--but "it's a shame the rest of the film never lifts, at best, from the level of the well made and tasteful,” according to Thomas.  And Thomas' dismay with the rest of the film, added to the success of the film overall, makes it acceptable to say that the chariot race scene effected the success of the movie, and therefore MGM.

Anne Lancashire "The Phantom Menace: Repetition, Variation, Integration". Film Criticism. . FindArticles.com. 29 Nov. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3076/is_3_24/ai_n28790171

This article has Anne Lancashire paying serious attention to the film Star Wars Episode I:  The Phantom Menace.

Lancashire starts her comparison of this installment of the Star Wars saga to Ben-Hur on page 7.  She claims that the storyline of Phantom Menace follows very closely with Ben-Hur suggesting that Star Wars is "a film about a hero whose loss of his mother (and sister), in a clash with the (Roman) Empire, turns [the hero] to despair and revenge, until miraculously Christ's crucifixion changes his anguish to peace through love."  Moreover, Lancashire mentions slavery as she compares Anakin to Judah. 

Most importantly, "the comparable allusion in The Phantom Menace is to...Ben-Hur" as Lancashire tells us that our film is the source for the podrace Anakin partakes in against Sebulba.  Too she claims that this idea is a "much noted" conclusion.  Within this thought arises again, the notion of slavery and the concept of losing one's family.  Anakin is set up as someone who will seek revenge because of family losses and this follows along with Ben-Hur who loses his family after being arrested.  But to sum this paragraph, Episode I is most remembered for its podrace scene.  It was a major scene and even had a videogame made from it.

So for my question, "How can one scene effect a studio?" we can see an even further projection of the chariot race to other studios, not just MGM.  As mentioned, the podrace is a definite play on the chariot race from Ben-Hur.  And other movies, not just Star Wars, like Grease and the Little Rascals to name a few, also take bits from the horse drawn chariots. 

As one scene gains recognition for being the staple that held together an epic film like Ben-Hur, it would be beneficial for any studio looking to shoot a similar action sequence to take some of the ideas and/or parts that helped make the chariot race a success, and implement them into their film.

2006 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The article addresses the use of technology in stage plays.  Producers needed a way to show "spatial freedom" and a way to simulate depth.  Waltz examines the history of the used techniques. 

Ben-Hur's chariot race, in the 1899 play, implemented the "panorama-and-treadmill combination...a three-part moving-panorama system: one upstage, placed parrellel to the front of the stage, and two wing panoramas, angled outwards from either side...six cylinders supported and turned the painted canvas."  The cylinders were driven by a motor.

More and more detail is delved into by Waltz as she explains how the eight treadmills were operated by the horses, and how the effect of Messala losing a wheel at the end of the race is executed.  Scientific American, as quoted by Waltz, tells the reader that "ingenious" methods were used to create the desired effects--the sense of "motion perspective."  The scene was successful and created a precedent for later Ben-Hur's.

For my question, "How can one scene effect a studio?" we can start by saying the precedent set effected the audience of the film.  Everyone was expecting to see a magnificent chariot race because of all the technology used in the stage play.  MGM and the Kalem Company (who made the 1907 version) felt the pressure.  MGM especially had to spend money and other resources in order to meet the audience's expectations.  Overall, the scene had a lasting effect, and the descriptions outlined by Waltz added more details that a filmed version of the chariot race would have to call their attention too.

In Juilian Stringer's book she talks about how big-budget movies target the mass audience.  She addresses the production and exhibition stages of blockbusters and her arguments span from film's history to movies like Star Wars and Titanic.

For our case, she examines and tells the reader about the "bigness of Ben-Hur" by showing us a photograph of the chariot race's set on page 4.  Moreover she quotes a 1926 critic for "Life" who says that he had to consult a thesauras when searching for words to describe Ben-Hur:  "In 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 thesauras which offers synonyms of 'big'."  Undoubetdly, Stringer feels that the 1925 version of Ben-Hur was a huge success at what it tried to accomplish, that being a story that didn't "stimulate the imagination" but instead "gorge[d] the senses." 

In relation to my question as to "How one scene can effect a studio?" we can turn to the part where she tells the reader that movies like Gladiator, the 1959 version of Ben-Hur (a MGM release), and Spartacus are all "hugely indebted to the 1925 version of Ben-Hur" because of its special effects and magnitude.  Furthermore, the movie was one which set a number of precedents as noted in the St. James Encyclopedia citation and was a success.  Though not directly mentioning the chariot race scene, her book puts forth another quotation which could be used to analyze my question which states, "'[it is] a source of wonder as to how photographs of such drama could have been taken...'."  So the chariot race, with all of its extras, and horses, and architecture, and expenditures, and difficulties, definitely effected the audience in this manner and successfully gorged the senses in creating a huge scene which is a remembered piece of Hollywood's history.

Scott W. Hoffman " Ben-Hur". St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture. . FindArticles.com. 30 Nov. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100110

This article outlines the history of Ben-Hur.  It was written by Lew Wallace and started "an amazing series of first in American popular culture."  With its publishing in 1880, Ben-Hur slowly became a very popular book.  It only sold 2800 copies in its first seven months, but it sailed over a million in 1911. 

In 1907 the Wallace estate ended up suing the makers of a film based on the novel which led to the "first recognition of an author's rights in film adaptations."  However, in 1922, the Goldwyn Company purchased the rights to the film and set the epic in motion.  The most notable attribute of the epic which was released in 1925 was the chariot race. 

The chariot race nearly broke the studio because of its massive budget and demands on both human labor and population.  Hoffman says that the race "changed the face of filmmaking," and because of that, the audience of the time flocked to see the premiere.  Hoffman further tells us that the critics of the time "praised the film (more for its 'grandeur,' however, than its 'story')."  

For my bibilography I'm going to focus on the chariot race scene and how it affected the studio.  How its shooting changed the face of filmmaking and why the history of the situation leads to an epic rush of emotion that led to the chariot race being remembered throughout Hollywood's history.  Hoffman starts off answering my question of "How one scene can effect a studio?" by telling us that the film was known more for its grandeur and that "its considerable expenditure of money and horses made this sequence a brilliant tour-de-force that established...lavish production values."