Gladiator (2000)

GLADIATOR (2000)

Grade: C+

Director: Ridley Scott

Screenplay: David Franzoni, John Logan, William Nicholson

Starring: Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Neslson, Djimon Hounsou, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi,Richard Harris, David Schofield, John Shrapnel, Tomas Arana

GLADIATOR is one empty spectacle. But damn, what a spectacle it is. The film is Ridley Scott's attempt at a post millennial sword and sandals epic akin to SPARTUCUS or BEN HUR though the final product bears a closer resemblance to CONAN THE BARBARIAN plus some added pretension. With GLADIATOR it's obvious that Scott really wanted to make an important film rather than an exploitive action yarn like CONAN, though his expository scenes are dull and lacking in the charge of his spastic action sequences. Still, even those sequences really don't work on quite the level they're supposed to.

The opening battle (easily the worst action scene in the film) is a hodgepodge of pompous Hans Zimmer patriotic marching crap that sounds like a Puff Daddy remix of the composer's scores from CRIMSON TIDE, BROKEN ARROW and THE ROCK, sped up film stock, and quick cuts of graphic carnage all building up to a long slo-mo digression complete with much gratuitous howling. It must also be mentioned that the scene is so murkily downcast for no reason other than Scott's seemingly fetishistic attraction to grungy palettes. (Remember it was Ridley Scott who filmed his GI JANE training sequences like lessons in stylistic masturbation complete with, yes, Hans Zimmer, rain, lightning, mud, saliva, sweat, everything but semen). This makes the screen appear as if Scott and his crew smeared shit over the camera lens in order to create some sort of epic sword and sandals-noir!?!??? It wants to be all moody and fill us with ominous dread, but all it did was make me want to hose the screen down with a vat of Windex.

Thus begins our supposed epic: Maximus (Russell Crowe in what would have been the Jean-Claude Van Damme role had this film been made a mere seven years ago) is picked (for very hackneyed political reasons) by the emperor of Rome (Richard Harris, seething with Shakespearean glee) to be his replacement, but the emperor's son Commudus (Joaquin Phoenix) will have none of that. He's a greedy, whiny brat who wants to rule so badly that he kills his own father, takes his throne, then orders his guards to lead Maximus out into the woods and have him killed. The plan goes awry for Commodus when the mighty Maximus (I smell a HERCULES spin-off waiting in the wings) escapes in a rousing and appropriately brutal getaway. He races on foot back to his picturesque commode hoping to be greeted by his family, only when he arrives they've already been killed by Commudus' minions. Our hero passes out and is eventually picked up by slave traders--the kind of slave traders who roam the countryside searching for unconscious victims of those corrupt Romans. You know the kind. He's sold to Proximo (Oliver Reed, sharper than ever in his final performance), a former gladiator and current trainer. After Maximus endures some qualifying bouts under the reluctant guidance of Proximo, he makes his way up to the much-dreaded Coliseum.

Everything seems to be in place for one helluva an epic, the sort of epic that will be cherished forever amongst many generations to come. And don't get me wrong, for many this will be just that. Allow me to elaborate: before dolling out a review I customarily scan those of other film critics, in a search of opinions that clash with my own. I looked far and wide for a negative review of GLADIATOR and all I could find was Roger Ebert's pithy write up. Judging from a quick scan of that review (I make it a habit never to read an entire review before writing one of my own because I'm so darn serious about my craft…pathetic, no?) I noticed that the portly critic seemed to be all up in arms about historical inaccuracies, none of which (to show how awful I was in History) I even noticed. Others are calling it the best film of the year, a sure Oscar contender, and audiences definitely like it as well; the crowd I saw it with reacted just as positively to the film as the crowd I saw STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE with reacted negatively. However a promising story, good performances, and decent art direction does not a classic make.

My biggest caveat with the flick is how hollow its script is. No emotion feels true; it's as if the screenwriters poured over BRAVEHEART in an attempt to transport that story to the time of the Coliseum. And with no help from Ridley Scott who seems to think that he can compensate for that lack of depth by giving us lengthy expository scenes and making his characters overly gloomy (I think Russell Crowe smiles maybe once throughout the entire film).

Those expository scenes are akin to (sorry to bring up Lucas's steaming pile of celluloid waste, but I must for I am far too lazy to think of a better example) the political trial scenes in STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE, which virtually everyone will agree were dramatically inert, passionless, and, well, boring. GLADITOR's expository scenes are just as tedious, and while the dialogue is mostly decent and the performances are above par, there's nothing behind it all, no subtext, no character. Instead of becoming involved in the picture I found myself stealing glances at this very attractive blonde woman sitting below me to my right. She seemed so into the film. I wish I could have been that involved.

When I wasn't gazing at the blonde I was hoping for more of Scott's stylistic excesses, which probably would have annoyed the piss out of me in any really good movie, now, at least they kept me attentive. Those action sequences try to enthrall us the way SAVING PRIVATE RYAN did, and Scott employs a similar technique, choosing to film his action up close rather than from afar. But RYAN grabbed you by following its characters through the nightmarish obstacles of war in a documentary like fashion that made the audience feel as if they were a part of the horrific undertaking. Scott, instead, opts to film his battles as a series of jerky movements and quick cuts. While RYAN drew you into the action, GLADIATOR continually flinches away from it.

Much has been said about how Scott is filming this old-fashioned epic with all the modern technology at his hands. Sure the film is always nice to look at (though not nearly as nice as that blonde…) but we are always aware that the Rome we see is an effect (while I'm positive the blonde was real). Nobody in the audience will mistake the Coliseum for the Coliseum. The structure we see looks about as authentic as textbook art placed up on the big screen. Which isn't to say that it looks bad, it just doesn't look authentic.

Where Scott really goes wrong is not in the design but in the conception. He seems to believe that all he needs to make a great movie is the ingredients of one; scorned hero, duplicitous bad guy, parables of today, ad nausemum. What he neglects to include is the passion that is essential to become involved on a deeper level. Some may think the film is deep because everything is in place for it to be. But look closer as the tag line for AMERICAN BEAUTY screams. And if you do all that you will see is an abundance of Scott's fabricated rage.

http://www.geocities.com/incongruity98 Reeling (Ron Small)