Gladiator DVD > Reviews > Another fine myth...

Author's product rating:   

Did you enjoy it?	Loved it
Story	Good
Characters / Performances	Outstanding
Special Effects	Outstanding
Soundtrack	Outstanding

Advantages:	/
Disadvantages:	/

Recommend to potential buyers:

yes

Full review

Historical dramas are a difficult genre to work in. There is always that balance between accuracy and entertainment and the point of harmony between them is different for each viewer. Most people just want to be entertained and so don't have a major problem with the films portrayal of past events. There are others, like myself, who think that one does not have to be sacrificed for the other, that an accurate portrayal of times passed can still be wrapped around a good yarn. Any film with a historical setting is obviously setting itself up for this sort of scrutiny, especially one that is set against known events and uses real life characters. Now don't get me wrong, I loved this Ridley Scott epic, but there are still a few points to be raised against it. Having said that it is still way above most of the other films that fall into this category. Mel Gibson, for example, has a way of rewriting the facts when he attempts this kind of thing. The Patriot took place in a clean cut, black and white version of the American War of Independence that would be unrecognisable to any historian and to say that Braveheart was a portrayal of William Wallaces life is like saying that Star Wars is a factual critique on space exploration. With Gladiator we are on slightly firmer territory.

The story is set against a factual period in Roman history. In the last year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (AD 180) the bulk of the Roman army is campaigning in Germania. In an opening battle scene that will go down in cinema history, Maximus has just completed a stunning victory over the tribes of the region, bringing the last of the barbarians under Roman rule. As Marcus Aurelius knows that he is not long for this world and fearing that his son Commodus will not make a worthy emperor, he offers the job of Protector of Rome to Maximus, a sort of caretaker role whilst the old Republican ways can be re-established. Commodus finds out the plan assassinates his father and orders the death of Maximus, who being the hero of the piece manages to escape. Eventually he is captured and put to work as a Gladiator, and as his masters fortunes rise, he finds himself fighting in Rome before, Commodus himself. The rest of the film is about Maximus struggle to stay alive against the machinations of the evil boy emperor and to try to manoeuvre himself into a position from where he can put Marcus Aurelius dying wishes into motion. As he gets nearer his goal the powers that be are set to thwart him and it all comes to a head in a final show down between the wronged ex-General and the young Emperor. This is the plot at its most brief as there are many twists and turns along the way, but to say too much would be a give away, and this is a film that, for all my criticism should be viewed by everyone.

Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are historical realities and they are portrayed ably by Richard Harris and Joaquin Phoenix respectively. Russell Crowe is like a young DeNiro in the lead as a brooding hunk, his body language and expressions saying so much that is dialogue doesn't have to. Maximus, as far as Im aware, is thankfully a created character and Crowe comes across as everything that you think a Roman Warrior should be. Not so much a supporting cast as a lot of A list players taking on lesser roles make every scene come alive. Connie Neilsen plays the old flame and is as regal and elegant as a member of the Roman nobility should be, even if its just an image of our own making. Oliver Reed is the slaver that Maximus is set to work for, and sadly passed away during the making of this film, but he will rest assured that he went out giving one of the best performances of his life. Derek Jacobi and David Schofield as the scheming senators pay some memorable scenes and even Omid Djalili (Irans only stand up comic) is in there adding a touch of humour.

Essentially though Gladiator is an action movie, and there is plenty of that. From the opening battle scene onwards the action hardly lets up, clawing his way up through the arenas of the backwaters of Empire, Crowe gets many opportunities to play the role that he is associated with, the action hero. The fights are hard hitting and hypnotic, the choreography makes each one unique, be it man on man, lion or against an array of chariots. The cinematography is stunning, most of the backdrops, especially when the story moves to Rome are created on computer and the shots of the coliseum are breathtaking. The irony is that Ridley Scotts work is normally dark and shadowy, Blade Runner, Alien and Black Rain for example and here he makes a stunning visual feast that goes against everything that he is associated with, and that is the sign of a gifted man.

The purist will find a few bits difficult to swallow, Commodus introducing one of the political rivals as Senator Gaius for example, is like calling Mr Blair "Prime Minister Tony not a big moan I`ll grant you but something that with a bit of care could have been ironed out. The big stumbling block is this plot device of re-establishment of the Republic a political system that was not only a thing of the past but also an idea that would have been so treasonous that to talk of such things would have meant arrest and probably execution. "Rome was founded asa Republic"claims Commodus at one point, well that's not true is it, the Republic came about as a result of a backlash against the rule of a succession of tyrannical kings. This idea of having Maximus become the Protector of Rome is also an odd concept and more in keeping with Cromwell's position in Seventeenth century England that anything found in the Roman world.

In 1964 Anthony Mann made a film called, The Fall of the Roman Empire, which is set very much against the same set of events. In fact Scotts film is seen by many as a remake of the film for the modern audience. The difference is in Manns film the conclusion is drawn that this is the beginning of the end for the splendour of the Roman Empire and the film ends with the Praetorian Guard, the real power behind the throne, auctioning the job of Emperor to the highest bidder. Scotts conclusions are less cynical and leave you with the vague feeling of a happy conclusion and the emergence of a Rome that was all sweetness and light. This obviously never happened, the Republic never got its second chance, but it seems that in modern film making the idea that the hero doesn't win through is something that hollywood just cant stomach and so they don't let the facts get in the way of a good yarn.

But that aside this is still a great story set against a recognisable time and place and as such portrays the period very well. The look and feel of the story seems valid, as far as we know, and there is no shortage of action. It is a long film at two and a half hours, but that seems to be becoming the norm these days and so wont seem too exceptional. Hans Zimmers soundtrack is also a fantastic and stirring classical undertaking, worth owning in its own right. Watch it as pure entertainment, enjoy the story, soak up the ambience and if you wish to really find out about the realities of the period, hit the history books.