Gladiator

[DecimusCaesar]

My opinion on Gladiator seems to change all the time. I think in terms of some of the action scenes its pretty good but it still lacks atmosphere in some places, I think that might have more to do with me being distracted by the historical inaccuracies. I watched it a few days ago for the first time in years and it was much better than I remembered.

I think one of the main reasons I was disappointed with it first time round was that I had been looking forward to the film coming out ever since I saw a preview of it in Empire magazine with the legions marching through the forests (It was in some ways the the first big budget Roman movie for decades) and when all the reviews and hype came through I wanted to see it even more (although I never got a chance to see it in the cinema).

When it came out on DVD I watched it and I felt rather disappointed (I turned it off halfway through, but that wasn't to do with me hating the film). Ursus has already pointed out how sterile the film seems and it is in a sort of way, plus it lacks some charm -something that effects most hitorical epic movies (that might be something to do with a lack of humour in a lot of them).

 

Either way, I liked it more the last time I watched it but I still prefer some other films to it.

Edited September 10, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[WotWotius]

Perhaps someone on this site beholden to this cinematic blockbuster could formally pen their praise in the form of a review? It does seem to me that "Gladiator" carries enough weight among the general public to deserve an official word on our front pages, if not from a Patrician than perhaps from one of our well-spoken Equites.

 

For my Film Studies coursework I wrote a hypothetical magazine article on whether or not the question historical accuracy actually matters in Hollywood 'Epics'.

[Ursus]

I'm sure that would be an interesting read, but it's a little beyond the scope of what we're looking for in a review for Gladiator. :-)

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I'll try to rent it this weekend for a refresher, and then I'll write something up.

[WotWotius]

I'm sure that would be an interesting read, but it's a little beyond the scope of what we're looking for in a review for Gladiator. :-)

 

If you would like to have a look at it, click on the link below.

 

You may need to zoom-in in order to decipher it.

Oh, and keep in mind that I had a horribly restrictive word count; I could not write as much as I hoped to.

Edited September 13, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

Decimus Caesar actually hits on a point ( previously made by Ursus) which is a valid critiicism of most of Ridley Scott's films; a sort of spectral beauty of filmatic light combined with an undefined feeling of emptiness.The appearence of the film as a whole is wonderful, the "Triumph of the Will" section (Commodus' return to Rome) hints at the epic but seems devoid of real emotion. I felt that a lot of the protaganists didnt seem to have personalities , but were plot devices and markers. Only Oliver Reed seemed to force his self onto the celluloid.

 

And I must ask (Northern Neil and I couldnt work this one out) why no Pilum discharge in the opening battle?

[Primus Pilus]

And I must ask (Northern Neil and I couldnt work this one out) why no Pilum discharge in the opening battle?

 

It would have interfered with the Legatus' individual cavalry charge through dense forest so he could singlehandedly engage the Germanics in some exciting free style action?

[Favonius Cornelius]

You know, there are instances in Roman battle history when pilum discharge was not possible. In fact, the barbs had a height advantage and the moment the Roman lines started to move forward, they rushed forward. Downward momentum could have easily not allowed the Romans time.

 

My gripe about the scene was the lack of Roman unit cohesion after the lines met.

[Primus Pilus]

My gripe about the scene was the lack of Roman unit cohesion after the lines met.

 

Same here. I understand that in battle some members of the line may have been put in a position where they were forced to fight free style. If the Romans were pursuing a fleeing enemy or if the Romans were being routed, it would be completely understandable, but the disengagement from the line happened immediately in the movie. I assume this was for dramatic effect.

 

I can't quite understand why Hollywood doesn't see that watching a unform battle line march on an enemy and engage it as a cohesive unit would be compelling on its own. 'Rome' portrayed it quite well in a much smaller scale. Imagine how impressive the cohesiveness of the Roman legion would've appeared if the opening scene of the series had been as large scale as the opening scene of Gladiator.

[DecimusCaesar]

I like the article Wotwotius, it's true that spectacle will always win over accuracy, but my main problems with a lot of historical epics is that they often change something interesting and make it much more dull, for instance they could take a real person with an interesting story and personality and just turn them into 2D character that lacks any sort of depth and who just exists as 'True blue Hero' or 'Evil villain' when in fact he was much more complex and interesting than that. A lot of it might have to do with the delivery and the script.

I for one thought that Orlando Bloom's character 'Balian of Ibelin' lacked humour and charisma that would have made him a much more likeable character instead of a man who couldn't get through a conversation without making a heroic, profound speech.

 

I will be checking the link you gave at the end of the article.

Edited September 13, 2006 by DecimusCaesar

[WotWotius]

I will be checking the link you gave at the end of the article.

 

I made it up to make my article seem tidier. I actually used a variety of websites which discussed Hollywood's inaccuracies.

Edited September 14, 2006 by WotWotius

[Primus Pilus]

I will be checking the link you gave at the end of the article.

 

I made it up to make my article seem tidier. I actually used a variety of websites which discussed Hollywood's inaccuracies.

 

Very nice article WW. I'm not completely sure I agree with the premise that spectacle will always beat accuracy, though. I only say this because there have been so few historical films that we might call accurate or at least semi-accurate, its hard to know if audiences would like them (provided there is some spectacle included of course ). For instance, Alexander could've maintained its reasonably accurate tone while removing some of the boring drivel and replacing it with some of the suggestions you make in the article. Though I do think that some of the WWII epics (some more accurate than others) did quite well at the box office.

 

I hope you received a good mark for it. The presentation is excellent!

[DecimusCaesar]

Though I do think that some of the WWII epics (some more accurate than others) did quite well at the box office.

 

True, the epics set in more modern times (20th century) and at least attempt to be historically accurate do make a lot of money at the boxoffice, and if epics set in the ancient world would find a balance between action and historical accuracy, they might do very well.

 

I have always thought that some WWII epics seem to drive for historical accuracy, while those set in the ancient/medieval era ignore the historical facts we know, and concentrate more on the drama. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is because there are a lot of people who are still alive that fought in the second world war and some directors (I think Spielberg for one) said that it might insult their legacy if they do not attempt to make the films as accurate as possible. In one interview Spielberg said that he didn't mind the historical inaccuracies in 'Lawrence of Arabia' but he would 'protest' against any film that would not attempt to portray the holocaust accurately, but when it comes to films like 'Lawrence' it is okay to skip over the accuracy because it's history that..."most people, certainly most Americans, know nothing about" (quoted from Spielberg's interview).

 

I don't know about the 'Americans' part (Spielberg was talking about the movie's impact in the US not in the rest of the world) but most modern people do not know about history, especially ancient/medieval history, which is seen as increasingly irrelevant. I think it was the historian/BBC brodcaster Michael Wood who said, when talking about 'Alexander', that it would have been great to see some of the social attitudes of the people of the ancient world in films - as they are very different to ours in someways. Thinking about it, this would know doubt put off a lot of modern viewers as a lot of their 'modern sensibilites' would be put off by the strange and often barbaric ways that people acted during this period. I think most of them when going to see a Roman epic would just like to see a guy in Roman costume, but has 21st century views on war, family, love etc. Perhaps only HBO's Rome and Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' have succesfully managed to give some portrayal of the attitudes of those times.

 

 

WotWotius, could you please be able to provide some of those links you mentioned? I would like to read up more on the subject.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

By the way, I think I've found the scenes where the Vestal Virgins are present in the movie. I have the pictures in the gallery.

[DecimusCaesar]

I have written a review for Gladiator (the Theatrical version). If anyone wants to look at it I could send it to the site, although It probably needs to be looked over and corrected first. I am not sure if it's adequate for the site.