Gladiator

[Favonius Cornelius]

Glorify the empire? As fun as that would be for you or me, it is pretty much seen as un-American I bet, particularly in these current times.

[Zeke]

Gladiator......who became interested in Rome by watching that movie? I think my first intrest in Rome came along with that movie. In your opinion do you think it is a good movie? If you don't think its a good movie tell us why not.

 

I think it also got alot of other people thinking about the idea of Rome.

 

Comments?

 

Zeke

[Favonius Cornelius]

I always was interested in Rome, but Gladiator was a movie long in the waiting.

 

I think in no small way that the greatness of the movie caused a reanalysis of Roman history by all levels of western society. Soon after you see a great number of movies come out with a Roman theme, and also the Rome series on HBO. The history channels take new looks at the history and a number of games have come out since then during the times of the Romans. People in this decade are more familiar with the Romans than they have in probably decades, and even political pundits of various kinds compare today's American empire to the Romans.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I've been interested in Rome since I was a kindergartener (albeit a weird one), so I can't say I trace any interest in Rome to the movie Gladiator, but I do think the movie was significant for a few reasons.

 

First, like the mini-series "I, Claudius", it wasn't the standard "sandals and swords" epic. Movies like "Antony and Cleopatra", "Quo Vadis," and even "Spartacus" never really get into the truly personal lives, goals, and conflicts of all their characters. In contrast, the fabulous speech by Commodus to Marcus Aurelius on the Stoic virtues was a perfect illustration of what Stoicism was not and what was at stake in promoting it among the aristocracy. Until Gladiator, the only premise animating Hollywoodized Roman Emperors seems to have been "Be bad." With cardboard characters like the Nero in Quo Vadis, who could care?

 

Second, unlike most of the Cecile B. DeMille movies set in the ancient world, Gladiator did not have a single reference to the Biblical world. Consequently, Romans could be their full-throated, unapologetic, wonderfully pagan selves. From the opening battle sequence to the unveiling of the Colosseum, there was never any doubt who ruled the world and why--"ROME is the light" not some backwater Judaean mystic.

 

Third, like LOTR after it, Gladiator exploited CGI to create a visually-rich historical world. Again, dressing everyone in white togas and sandals is box-office suicide simply because it is boring to watch, and even the otherwise interesting "I, Claudius" suffered from a visual palette that more-closely resembled a pajama party at the Playboy Mansion (not that I've ever been) than the epicenter of the "grandeur that was Rome".

 

In the end, Gladiator managed to combine the best of what came before it, to avoid most of the tired cliches, and to foreshadow elements of even better movies to come. So, even if it doesn't lead to a second renaissance of Cicero-reciting schoolboys and Cato-admiring revolutionaries, it was a pretty damned good movie.

Edited December 26, 2005 by M. Porcius Cato

[Pertinax]

I had a long time interest in Rome, but Gladiator re-awakened that interest with a vengance, it was Quintus and Proximo who really made me think twice-Quintus because the charachter made me look at Marcus Aurelius' works again and Proximo because he seemed to be Roman in a living ,lusty way.Quintus is a stoic-he doesnt get it right first time because he doesnt know of the treachery of Commodus, but he comes good when its needed,not giving a sword to Commodus could have been his death ,but he didnt hesitate when he had seen the truth of the situation.I know the historical reality of the episode is unreal but I thought the idea illustrated the Stoic soldier excellently.Proximo was wonderful,venial, equivocal, human but he gave up his life without hesitation when presented with a choice between right and wrong, maybe he was an epicurean?

MPC said before this was Rome without biblical overtones ,and we saw Maximus as a man of action and reflection, he considered the Gods.

Also this movie was very modern in its look at crowds devouring free bread and entertainment, is this not TV and fast food? are you not Entertained?

[Ursus]

I've been interested in Rome since grade school, when my elementary school teacher showed an educational film on them. I think the rest of the class was bored silly, but I was hooked.

 

Strangely enough, about this same time, I fist saw the original Star Trek episode entitled "Balance of Terror." The Romulans were an enemy race that were supposedly based on what the Roman Empire would have been like if it had survived long enough to build interplanetary vessels. Science fiction is not history, but I still thought it was cool. And I think the Romulans of that episode really did capture the feel of "Romans in Space."

 

 

As Cato mentioned, "Gladiator" had great production values, and also had the virtue of not being Biblical. However, I thought it was otherwise nothing but a badly written action story. I'm still waiting for Hollywood to make a truly good Roman epic for the modern era.

[Princeps]

I've been interested in ancient Rome for as long as I can remember, I think that comes from my dad, but I began to truly love it when I watched the "I, Caesar" series by seventh arts.

 

As for the film Gladiator, it is exceptionally good. The ending is a real tear-jerker, there's only 2 films that can bring a tear to my eye, Gladiator and Watershipdown.

[Pantagathus]

I cannot add much more to what Pertinax said. I think that Ridley Scott did an excellent job & Proximo was fabulous (didn't he play tarzan back in the day?)

[phil25]

I am quite surprised to find that no one here has mentioned the fact that "Gladiator" is pretty much a modernised re-make of the 60s epic "The Fall of the Roman Empire", in which Alec Guiness was a wonderful Marcus Aurelius and Commodus was ably played by Christopher plummer (much more like the famous Capitoline bust than his later counter-part.

 

"Fall" is a much more complex and detailed attempt to depict the reasons why Rome fell - using a heightened version of historical reality to reveal themes.

 

It starts as with "Gladiator" on the danube, with a big battle (though with more "politics" to give context) and the death of Aurelius. between the two, we see a great gathering of Governors and kings representing the whole empire. The "Maximus" equivalent in "Fall" is Livius (Stphen Boyd - Messala from Ben Hur), who's under-developed part is one of the film's weaknesses. (If only Heston had played it as intended all might have been well!!)

 

Livius, appointed heir in private by Aurelius, hands the throne to Commodus (his former friend) to avoid civil war. There is a wonderful scene of Aurelius cremation, and then an incredible "triumphant" entry of Commodus into Rome, which utilised a full sized set of the Forum Romanum, and ends with the interior of the temple of Capitoline Jove.

 

Commodus descends into tyranny (he is shown as illegitimate son of a gladiator) while Livius brings peace on the Danube, and later in the east, fighting a civil war, and then the Parthians.

 

Returning to Rome, his attempt to subvert Commodus' rule is defeated by bribery on a colossal scale. He fights and kills a Dionysiac Commodus in the Forum, and refuses the throne once more, departing as it is put up for auction.

 

This bald summary does not do justice to the film's style, depth, design, or the performances. "Fall" is a very different, consciously more epic - and in my view, more accurate - film than "Gladiator". We deal with high politics and grandees, rather than with the raining and life of a gladiator.

 

Anyone who has been to Rome will immediately recognise the Forum set - I use film stills as guides to reconstruction for less-classically imbued friends when we visit the site. the interior of the Curia Julia is superb, as are the interiors imagined for the Palatine palace - the baths with the mosaics from the baths of Caracalla re-created and used as wall decoration; a elborate interior court; and the basilca/audience chamber.

 

The research must have been painstaking - the exterior of the senate house has the wooden portico shown on certain coins.

 

I hope what I have said is enough to persuade those of you who enjoyed "Gladiator" but have not seen "Fall" to look it out. Clearly the later is an older film which may seem dated to younger viwers (and those who saw "Gladiator" first) but if you love and are interested in ancient Rome, give it a chance and give it time, LOOK at it. It is, I think, the unrecognised masterpeice of 60's epic film-making - challenging, adult; informative - and rewards repeated viewings.

 

If others of you have seen "Fall" already, i'd be interested to hear what you think both about it as a film and by comparison/contrast to "Gladiator".

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

there is an existing thread "story wise I dont care much for Gladiator but.." in this forum, perhaps these two should be wedded together?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

My interests in Rome began when I first took Latin class and from there on, I joined the Latin Certamen team and has become the Latin geek that I am.

 

As for Gladiator, for some reason, I found a new respect for Commodus out of the movie's portayal of him. He brought a feeling of the insanity of Caligula, but I suppose its the actor who should be given the credit since he's the one portraying Commodus.

[phil25]

Flavius, you wrote:

 

"...I found a new respect for Commodus out of the movie's portayal of him. He brought a feeling of the insanity of Caligula..."

 

Was that a typo, or are you saying:

 

a) that somehow Jacquin Pheonix's portrayal of Commodus gave you an insight into Gaius Caligula; or

 

that you think Commodus and Caligula are the same person?

 

Grateful for clarification.

 

Phil

[Valerius]

I've always been interested in Roman history since I was a boy. Gladiator was a good film, thought the plot was a rip off of "The Fall of the Roman Empire" starring Alec Guniess, Stephen Boyd, Omar Sheriff and Sophia Loren. The ending was lame, however, and didn't follow the ending portrayed in the 1960's film which was much better. The Republic was not restored on the death of Commodus but, as portrayed in the earlier movie, auctioned off to the highest bidder. Commodus was also emperor for 12 years, between 180 and 192 AD, so poor old Maximus must have spent a long time in the arena. His sister, Lucilla, was executed in 182 AD after having failed in a plot to get her own son on the throne. Commodus was actually strangled in his own bath by a wrestler called Narcissus. Apart from these minor "Hollywood" infringements on history, it wasn't a bad film. Well, apart from the lack of referees during the fights in the arena that is and the exploding chariots.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Apart from these minor "Hollywood" infringements on history, it wasn't a bad film. Well, apart from the lack of referees during the fights in the arena that is and the exploding chariots.

 

Sorry if my sense of humor is broken, but there weren't really any exploding chariots were there?

[Valerius]

I'm afraid so. To make the chariot scenes more spectacular they actually placed charges under them. Don't you remember the shot where one of them takes off like a rocket and crashes into the entrance? The scenes in Ben-Hur are much more realistic since they didn't use charges and the chariots simply smashed up as you'd expect.