Ridley Scott’s sword-and-sandals epic Gladiator is all about winning the crowd. The film is a bloody and gritty epic, with well-rounded characters and good performances from a number of good-to-great actors. It is somewhat overwrought and clichéd, but it’s an entertaining piece of work overall that tries to make more than a few philosophical points worth remembering.
The first thing that many people note about Gladiator is the look and spectacle of it all. Much like the pageantry of Rome, Scott’s vision utilizes a mix of CGI and enormous sets to create his world. There are large battle sequences and big fight scenes that splatter blood on the camera and feature tigers. All in good fun, yeah?
Russell Crowe stars as Maximus Decimus Meridius, a loyal Hispano-Roman general. Under the favour of Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), Maximus just wants to go home after spending so many years fighting for the glory of Rome. The problem is that Aurelius’ son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), is vain and sociopathic to the extent that he kills his dad to ascend to the emperor of Rome.
Knowing that Maximus is the favoured one, Commodus sets out to have him killed. That doesn’t work out, of course, and the general winds up swept up in the world of gladiators and bloodsport fighters. He eventually works his way to Rome after Commodus decides to win Roman favour with the help of bloody sports in the arena. This is Maximus’ chance for revenge, but things don’t really go according to plan.
The central theme of Gladiator is the crowd. The Roman thirst for blood and action is examined as a political power point. Commodus acts the way he does, mercifully or otherwise, at the whim of the crowd. The filmmakers took these elements to bear as a modern morality play, with interests in how the crowd reacts to bloodshed and to heroism. Commodus offers the Romans blood in exchange for their ignorance, a point that is particularly vital to understand today in today’s apathetic culture.
We are, as a society, drawn to the action. We spend money each summer to see robots and CGI figures clank around on the big screen while we ignore what’s going on in the world. The point of Gladiator is much the same, but they struggle between the elements. While the point of questioning the violence and the adoration of it lies at the heart of the movie, Scott glosses it out with heavy action scenes that have us cheering for the hero more than anything else.
What we end up with is a picture that could have been more complex but is more than satisfied being an entertaining epic flick that gives us tigers and violence and other distractions. It’s an interesting and perhaps purposeful irony.
Scott is a skilled filmmaker. While he has an interest in the accuracy of the tale, he is more concerned with provoking a mood and producing excitement. Those looking for hard historical accuracy are best served elsewhere, like in a book and not a film. Films aren’t reproductions of history; they are interpretations of it.
I’ve seen Gladiator a number of times now and it always entertains. I would have appreciated more complexity, but the performances and the action are satisfying enough to recommend the picture. Crowe puts in a nice turn as a stoic, important hero and Phoenix is wonderful as a wacky and weird leader with incestuous desires. After the blood and dust settles, Gladiator really does win the crowd.
