Gladiator

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

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

 

I suppose I confused you with my thoughts. To clarify, I thought Jacquin Phoenix did a great job of portaying Commodus, but I thought that he was acting more like Caligula(well the script made it more that way), i.d. the attempt at a pure bloodline by incest with his lovely sister. Instead of more like a Commodus portrayal, the script and the actor brought out the Caligula insanity instead.

Hope I clarify things, bc there was only one time when I confused Commodus and Caligula, I mixed up their deaths.

Edited December 27, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Lost_Warrior]

Exploding chariots? wow...

 

I just bought that movie today. So I will soon finally be able to say I've seen it

[WotWotius]

When i first saw galdiator I thought it was a good film but it didn't get me interested in Rome.

 

What did that was studying Ancient History at A-level.

 

Oh and isn't Russel Crow great; he has so many quotable lines. I even made a song about gladiator which i'll submit if you want...

 

'ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED'

Edited December 28, 2005 by WotWotius

[Pantagathus]

It would have been really interesting if they threw in what the real Commodus did in respects to likening himself to Hercules and dressing up in a lion skin carrying a club...

[Lost_Warrior]

I watched the movie last night, and it was great. I was looking for those "exploding" chariots, but I didn't see the "exploding" part

 

Was Commodus really as much of a......as they portrayed him as? I don't know if he really died in the arena but by the end I was practically praying for Maximus to win (lol I didn't care about history at that point)

 

I liked the attention to detail in this movie. I was looking closely at the gladiators' costumes and quite a few of them were really accurate. Some I think weren't, but then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did in fact have those things in the days of old which were uncommon and never made it to the history books.

 

I'm also happy to see that Roman religion was well portrayed, not glossed over or blown out of proportion

[phil25]

...but then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did in fact have those things in the days of old which were uncommon and never made it to the history books.

 

That would allow almost anything to pass - "Oh, electric street lighting in first century Rome. Well, maybe they had it and we just never read about it!!"

 

One of the problems of history in the C21st is the anachronism that is creeping in. Show Henry VIII as a gangster, and we'll all understand. Never mind that it's neither accurate nor in the spirit of its period. In historical terms, "Gladiator" was pretty appalling in almost every regard - I'm not saying it wasn't a powerful film - but neither the depiction of events, the sensibility or the look of rome was as it would have been.

 

Perhaps Ridley Scott should be taken at his word that it's more about modern Hollywood/California than second century Rome.

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

Perhaps Ridley Scott should be taken at his word that it's more about modern Hollywood/California than second century Rome.

 

Phil

 

Agreed. I liked the movie for pure entertainment value, but was generally appalled at the history.

[Lost_Warrior]

...but then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did in fact have those things in the days of old which were uncommon and never made it to the history books.

 

 

That would allow almost anything to pass - "Oh, electric street lighting in first century Rome. Well, maybe they had it and we just never read about it!!"

 

lol that's not what I meant. I mean, that's clearly out of the question. But is it not possible that somewhere, in some ampitheatre, there was a gladiator who happened to fight with a spiked flail? I think it's entirely possible, even likely. But that one isolated incident may not have made the history books.

[frankq]

Phil

 

Agreed. I liked the movie for pure entertainment value, but was generally appalled at the history.

 

 

That pretty much sums up my reaction, too. I, however, find the abuse of history so insulting that I can't watch the film anymore.

 

My two biggest gripes are watching Richard Harris, one of the great drunks of the film world, play sober and serene Marcus A., and spit off post modernist ***** about returning Rome to the Republic. Closer to the mark was Alec Guiness' portrayal. In fact Guiness nailed it. Second and an even worse offense was tampering with Commodus' character in the script. Instead of the effective portrayal we got in Fall of the Roman Empire, where Commodus is portrayed more like he truly was, a megalomaniac, we get now instead a wimpy little cry babying ''daddy doesn't love me'' psycho. What a waste of a good actor like Phoenix whatever his name is.

 

A third gripe, attached to the Commodus thing, was the end fight. Commodus was known to engage in gladiatorial duels and he was a good swordsman, in Fall of the RE and as played by Christopher Plumber (Plummer?) he gives our hero (Stephen Boyd) a run for his money, and the fight takes place surrounded by a wall of Praetorians (where you think Gladiator got the idea?)...

 

Fall of the Roman E. was actually a great picture that never got the limelight it deserved and never got ranked up there with Ben-Hur, Spartacus, King of Kings and El Cid (they all came out the same year basically, between 59 and 60). Fall of the R.E. came out in 68 I think.

 

By the way, since most of you weren't born around that time and since the film has not been released in years, get a chance to see El Cid if you can. It ranks up there, even if it isn't about Rome.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

By the way, since most of you weren't born around that time and since the film has not been released in years, get a chance to see El Cid if you can. It ranks up there, even if it isn't about Rome.

 

I haven't seen any of those old movies. But I do know all about El Cid from a History Channel documentary. Didn't he remained undefeated and ruled peacefully over whats that city?

[phil25]

El Cid is a remarkable epic - one of the best.

 

Interestingly made by Samuel Bronston - he also produced "55 Days at Peking" (another must see) - the film Heston made in preference to "Fall".

 

There are some connections between "Fall" and Cid" too. The tent which Livilla uses in her rebellion is the same as used by King Sancho in Cid, just redressed. A rocky landscape with huge grey boulders also features in both films.

 

Some of the armour in "Fall" was made for "Cleopatra" but refurbished, and the breastplate used by Commodus during his "triumph" (based on the Prima Porta statue of Augustus) was worn by George Baker as Tiberius in the first episode of the BBC "I Claudius".

 

I don't think timing was the only reason "Fall" failed at the box office. It is a subtle film that is VERY long even by epic standards, and never manages to find the tension that serves Ben Hur so well (Judah/Mesalla). It thus rambles somewhat. Livius is also a weak and unfocused character - this is where i think Heston would have insisted on and sought clarity and strength (even in adversity). Boyd make Livius a rather boring and staid personality and is never quite at the centre of events, more often their victim.

 

I still think it an adult, deep, entertaining movie though, and my favorite among the epics of that era. the first half (Rex Harrison) of Cleopatra comes close behind.

 

Phil

[frankq]

El Cid is a remarkable epic - one of the best.

 

Interestingly made by Samuel Bronston - he also produced "55 Days at Peking" (another must see) - the film Heston made in preference to "Fall".

 

There are some connections between "Fall" and Cid" too. The tent which Livilla uses in her rebellion is the same as used by King Sancho in Cid, just redressed. A rocky landscape with huge grey boulders also features in both films.

 

Some of the armour in "Fall" was made for "Cleopatra" but refurbished, and the breastplate used by Commodus during his "triumph" (based on the Prima Porta statue of Augustus) was worn by George Baker as Tiberius in the first episode of the BBC "I Claudius".

 

I don't think timing was the only reason "Fall" failed at the box office. It is a subtle film that is VERY long even by epic standards, and never manages to find the tension that serves Ben Hur so well (Judah/Mesalla). It thus rambles somewhat. Livius is also a weak and unfocused character - this is where i think Heston would have insisted on and sought clarity and strength (even in adversity). Boyd make Livius a rather boring and staid personality and is never quite at the centre of events, more often their victim.

 

I still think it an adult, deep, entertaining movie though, and my favorite among the epics of that era. the first half (Rex Harrison) of Cleopatra comes close behind.

 

Phil

 

I'm not so sure it failed at the box office, but it never recouped the vast investment it required to put it on the screen. Critics today hail Fall as a winner all around. It has one of the best scores in film history, too, by Dmitri Tiomkin.

 

I didn't find Boyd too stiff at all. And, IMHO, Heston had he played the role would have ham-dominated the script. (By the way, Heston was not originally slated to play Judah Ben-Hur, Burt Lancaster was. Zimbalist wanted Heston to play Messala. But Lancaster, an agnostic, thought the script was religious drivel.)

 

It is religious drivel, I can't watch it anymore because of its Sunday school mythology and its typical Rome bashing.

 

While there are certain loose ends to Fall's screenplay, it stayed true to the one issue that Gladiator avoids, Rome being up for grabs now to the highest bidder. Toward the late 60's and early 70's Hollywood tried to get closer to historical fact, it was sadly a trend to end all too soon. Now we're back to all kinds of propaganda b.s. Compare The Three Musketeers from the 70's to the one made in the 90's by Disney. Now we have Gladiator with post-modernist nonsense about restoring freedom and democracy. Give me a break.

 

By the way, one thing I did find repetitive in Fall was everyone getting killed by spears. Omar Shariff gets a javelin chucked through him, James Mason, too.

 

 

One last note on Bronston, after El Cid and 55 Days he got raked by the law on some kind of business deal stuff and never produced any films again. sad, too, he was a bold producer. (The critics hated his films. But what do they know? Ben-Hur got praises sung up its kazoo, while they lambasted Spartacus.)

 

Oh, and one last last note, Phil, about Cleopatra. Though the critics tore it to shreds, they did agree with you, the first part of the film with Rex Harrison was so good they felt it belonged to an entirely different project.

[phil25]

Great post Frankq

 

Bronson's last project was to have been one about (I think) Colombus, in which Glenda Jackson was to have played Isabella of Castile. Costumes had been made but he went bust.

 

There were calls for the Forum set from "Fall" to be preserved as a tourist attraction, but it was torn down to make way for a circus (big-top kind) set.

 

On Heston, I'm not sure he is a ham, but one thing he always did was to ensure that he was clear about what his character represented and what his "journey" was (in terms of character arc). I can't agree with you on Livious (though I like Stephen Boyd and some parts of his portrayal) as I feel he meanders through the plot in a rather indecisive way. Heston would have had more presence (he could certainly pull together tableaux dominated films like de Mille's "10 Commandments").

 

In my view Heston could have made Livius a more tragic figure, bringing a greater equality to the relationship with Commodus (Plummer might have stood out less or had a better foil to act off) and a better rapport with Loren (with whom he had starred in "El Cid"). Look at what Heston did with the pretty non-descript role of the US Marine officer in "55 Days".

 

But I am pleased to see you argue the merits and desserts of the film so well and so strongly. I return to "Fall" time after time and always find something new, and that it never stales. You are right too about the score, which often reverberates in my head as I day-dream about ancient Rome.

 

I wish someone would publish some of the designers' notebooks (as they have done for Lord of the Rings) - they would be a wonderful reseach tool. There are so many subtle points to notice:

 

Guiness in a philosopher's dress when in his private quarters; Commodus' subdued Bacchanalian gear in the last scene); the use of the Hand from which he emerges illustrating the changing nature of Roman religeon (yet never commented on or mentioned); the dress of the lictors and the presence of secretaries in the Senate chamber - I could go on...

 

except... have you noticed the tiny detail of the man who claps his hands for luck over Commodus' head as he enters the Temple of Jove?

 

I could discuss this film for ages, but enough for now.

 

Thanks for responding and for the additional info Frankq - much appreciated,

 

Phil

[frankq]

Phil, enjoyed your post!

 

By the way, Bronston actually winded up in jail because of his financial misdeeds.

 

I'm actually weighing your argument about Heston instead of Boyd. To be honest, I haven't seen Fall in many, many years. So many of the fine nuances you mentioned I do not recall. But what I do remember was how formidable Plummer's performance was as Commodus and how, in the end, I kept squirming in my seat and saying to Boyd ''come on, waste this nut case, would you! What's holding you back?'' And the more I think back to the film, even after the scene where Commodus institutes the decimation sequence, he's all over Boyd's ass. Maybe you're right. Heston would have been better used. Then he and Plummer as performers could have really gone at it. Stephen Boyd was a fine actor (and died all too young), but he wasn't an aggressive performer like Heston.

 

Since we're on about films concerning Rome, what's your opinion about Quo Vadis? I find the religious slant of the film more tolerable today than in Ben-Hur (save for the ending of Quo Vadis). Of course, Nero really gets raked over the coals, but you can't help but deny that as a personality he really set himself up for posterity. A fun film with another splendid soundtrack, this one by Miklos Rosza. And an even better novel!

[Guest claudius_sp]

Talking about Gladiator, I used to hate it due to the historical incongruencies. I can't stand films that exploit the past and give the audiences a false idea of historical events (and Hollywood seems to love doing that... Gladiator, The Mummy, Troy, Anastasia... blargh!).

However, by seeing the previous posts and how this film actually aroused interest about History on some persons, I started changing my mind. It's got a purpose and a good use, after all!