Gladiator (2000)

                             GLADIATOR
                  A film review by Mark R. Leeper

               Capsule: The sand-and-sandal epic film
          returns to the screen with a tale of one of the
          less familiar Caesars, the Emperor Commodus.
          Ridley Scott plays with the genre by adding
          surrealistic images and annoyingly tampers with
          the visuals digitally to throw the viewer off
          balance.  It is original, but the film works in
          spite of his enhancements rather than because of
          them.  Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4)
          Note: some discussion of the historical accuracy
          follows the main review.  It has spoilers.

It has been many years since we have had a film about ancient Rome of the sort we have gotten from Ridley Scott, and in some ways we have never had a film like this. This is a sort of post-modern ancient Rome. I expected to love the giant battle scenes. But they start early in the film and my eye kept rebelling at what it was seeing. Something was wrong with the images I was seeing. Scott has always played with his visual images. He used to shoot through incense to create an odd filtered effect. In GLADIATOR he was doing a lot more. I cannot authoritatively say what Scott was doing but it looked like images in the background were filmed normally, images in the foreground were moving more jerkily. I could be wrong, but it seemed that instead of the foreground images being different each frame, they were kept on the screen for a count of two or perhaps even three frames each. This is impossible to do with normal filming but it is quite possible with digital processing of images. For me the irritation is about the same as if there was a buzz on the soundtrack. I suppose Scott may have felt that it enhanced the mythic effect. Time and again images in the film felt like they had been tampered with and were somehow off-kilter. Perhaps I was over-sensitive, but it was an annoyance that just had to be ignored.

Of course, Ridley Scott does odd experiments with the visuals. In this film he frequently plays with fog or smoke. Other times he uses backgrounds that look more like postcards than reality. The film is heavy on sunrises and sunsets. Other scenes play with color.

The film covers the same historic interval and figures as THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (1964) and some of the incidents of this film are borrowed from that rather than history. Even the fictional character Livius in the 1964 was carried over as the hero Maximus. The emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) is off in snowy Germania where he is in the last stages of victory over the barbarians. His general Maximus (Russell Crowe) is "unleashing hell" against the last stronghold of resistance. Unleashing hell is releasing the kind of power one probably would have thought required modern weapons. The scene fully justifies the fear that most of the world at that time had of the Romans. But the most powerful position in the known world is about to change hands.

Philosopher and gentle soul Marcus Aurelius wants to restore the Republic that Julius Caesar abolished. He knows his son Commodus is too anxious for power to restore the republic so Marcus plans to name Maximus as his successor, entrusting him to return the republic. But when Marcus breaks this news to Commodus, Commodus murders his father. To complete the task he also has a contingent of men take Maximus to be murdered and another to kill his family. The general does not die so easily, however. The attempt to kill Maximus only leaves him wounded and wandering, then collected as a slave. The slave is purchased by a wise old gladiator-turned- freeman and gladiator-dealer Proximo (Oliver Reed in his last and probably best role). The gladiator, now called "the Spaniard" is sent to Rome to fight before Emperor Commodus, where he hopes he may work his revenge. Tired of the war, tired of seeing death, and disillusioned about the causes he has fought for, the gladiator is sent to Rome to fight and die in front of audiences anxious to see death.

The plot borrows from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS the ruler who creates jealousy in his son by choosing another as an heir. It borrows from BEN HUR the blood feud of old close friends. There is even a line borrowed from THE UNTOUCHABLES. Of course, there is a lot of SPARTACUS and THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. The major plot elements are not new. But most of what is borrowed is from films of the last generation. And some of what is new, like the Ken- Russell-style surrealistic scenes, seems far more out of place than they would seem in a film of modern setting.

Ridley Scott is a reasonable action director with a good feel for integrating actors with special visual effects. Somehow Russell Crowe seems out of place in an ancient setting. It took a while to get used to him. Joaquin Phoenix is actually a little too dignified and reserved the psychotic Commodus. For once an actor could have chewed the scenery and been more faithful to the history books. It seems almost cliche to say that an actor who died in the production gave one of his best performances, but it is true of Oliver Reed who finally has overcome the stiffness of his earlier acting. Connie Nielsen as Lucilla is appealing, though it is a little strange to see the demure actress cast in the role that in 1964 went to Sophia Loren. Derek Jacobi plays a Senator trying to preserve the Senate. The score by Hans Zimmer is not one of his most memorable. He is quick to capitalize on a minor location in Africa, probably because the LION KING composer is not known for his German or Latin musical themes.

With a few reservations for Scott's visual style this is pleasant return of a type of film we have not seen made since the 60s. I rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.

     Note on historical accuracy:

This film grossly misrepresents the Emperor Commodus whose actual wacko quotient rivaled Caligula's and Nero's. The real Commodus renamed the months of the year to be his twelve titles so that he might be worshipped each month. He renamed Rome "The Colony of Commodus." He identified himself with Hercules and he would dress for the role in lion skins and would beat prisoners to death with a large wooden club. He would fight in amphitheater as a gladiator, but would give his opponent a nearly useless lead sword. Commodus would slaughter animals in the ring, including elephants and giraffes. He would behead ostriches with arrows headed with crescent razors. All this could have been shown in GLADIATOR and would have been quite cinematic. Instead he is reserved and almost dignified. As Roman Emperors go, Commodus as portrayed in GLADIATOR might almost have been respectable.

It should be noted Commodus showed far more tolerance of Christians than his father Marcus Aurelius had. His motives are open to speculation.

Eventually those closest to him grew tired of living in the fear of his capricious displeasure and the immediate death that might follow. A conspiracy, likely headed by his mistress Marcia, poisoned his drink one day on his return from hunting. When he fell asleep rather than dying a young wrestler, Narcissus, strangled him without him resisting.

Both GLADIATOR and THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, however, have him die in a dramatic sword fight with the former general of the German campaign. In both that general was also a former friend of Commodus favored for emperor by Marcus Aurelius over Commodus. Actually Marcus Aurelius had publicly named Commodus his heir and there is not likely to be any historic record that Marcus favored anyone else.

As has been pointed out in the arena the signals were not thumbs up or thumbs down, it was thumb hidden in fist for life, thumb sticking out for death. But the first responsibility of the director is to communicate hat is going on. The actors are speaking English, but they have to speak the audience's language. The audience knows thumbs up and thumbs down.

So there are inaccuracies, but if one waits to the end of the credits the film clearly says that some of the characters are real but that the story is fiction. With that in mind the accuracy of this film is not at all bad.

                                        Mark R. Leeper
                                        mleeper@lucent.com
                                        Copyright 2000 Mark R. Leeper