Skip to main content

Win the crowd and you will win your freedom.

Gladiator
(2000)

(SPOILERS) Ridley Scott’s Oscar glory. It must have left him feeling a little peeved, since he went away without the Best Director statuette. Was Gladiator’s winner deserved? How often are the Oscars actually deserved? Gladiator is solid, populist entertainment, the kind of picture that would have been wholly ignored if it hadn’t put bums on seats (which in some respects is a point in its favour). 


It wastes most of the ripe potential it has for commentary and self-reflexivity, as suggested by Russell Crowe’s general turned slave when he demands of the crowds “Are you not entertained?” Such lofty notions are never more than lip service. This is far too linear a movie for hidden depths. Gladiator works for two simple reasons. Firstly, there’s Russell Crowe, lean and matter-of-fact in his charisma; he hasn’t found a role that suits him so well since. Secondly there’s Scott, by this point a no-nonsense director who had long since forsaken artsy shit for processed, production line, and nuance-free visualisations. But nevertheless, one more than capable of adding the necessary thrills to those gladiatorial contests.


As noted, Gladiator was an example of the Academy stepping in line with the public opinion. This had been seen over the previous decade in both its basest form (Titanic) and most unlikely and potentially mould breaking (The Silence of the Lambs). More than the kudos, Gladiator opened studios’ eyes to the potential for the historical epic the way The Lord of the Rings (and the trilogy’s eventual Oscar endorsement) would for the fantasy film a year later. It’s probably not co-incidental that neither genre has seen success quite on that scale since. Troy actually made a bit more than Gladiator globally, but had none of the cultural impact. Mostly studios have just been grateful to break even, despite the high cost, low rewards nature of the genre; the likes of Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood, Exodus: Gods and Kings (all from Scott), Noah, King Arthur, Pompeii, Alexander, and even 300 on the comic/historical crossover point. You’d be lucky to claim two of those as unqualified box office champs.


It’s significant that, amid its Oscar splendour, Gladiator didn’t received an award Best Original Screenplay. That it was nominated is perhaps most surprising. Not unusually for the furious pace of movies Scott would churn out over then next decade and a half, the script is its least auspicious element. David Franzoni (credited only with other less than superlative historicals Amistad and King Arthur) had the original-ish idea, owing not a little to 1964’s The Fall of the Roman Empire (Livius there occupies a similar position to Maximus, just without becoming a gladiator). The spine of the movie is identified succinctly by Commodus, pretty much doing the ad men’s hard work; “The general who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an emperor”.


It wasn’t as smooth sailing as that sounds. John Logan (Bond, Aviator, Rango, The Time Machine, Star Trek: Nemesis; a mixed bag, basically) was brought into finesse Franzoni’s work, improving the dialogue and rewriting the first act by slaying Maximus’ family and so giving him added motivation. Then in came William Nicolson (First Knight, Shadowlands, Les Mis, Unbroken; more mixed bags) to make Maximus more sensitive, improve his friendship with Juba (Djimon Hounsou), and develop the afterlife elements. While I don’t think Maximus has been made too heroic, neither of the latter elements work especially well. The friendship with Juba feels grafted on without any real substance, while the afterlife theme is Scott at his most typically heavy-handed.


Crowe was instrumental in the changes, being a right pain in the arse and telling Nicholson he’d written a big pile of shit. Perhaps he was right, certainly he had the certitude and understanding to add weight to perfunctory/ improvised dialogue (“Unleash hell!”) and he is the movie, basically (first choice Gibson could have done it, no doubt, but he’d have done entirely familiar Mel things with the role). It may have done wonders for his bankability, but it didn’t help Crowe’s rep any. Certainly, if the reports of him screaming he was the best actor in the world are unvarnished, it sounds like was a right prima donna. But he looks, great, with his little hair curls and manly skirt, spinning his sword, sometimes two-handed. Most importantly he lends the proceedings utter conviction. He grounds the picture where it is (frequently) wafer thin, or pulls off lines that simply sound corny now (“My name is gladiator!”)


One might, if one were generous, see the picture’s arrival as prescient. A reflection of the need for heroes with a righteous cause in an age when leaders are waging wars for their own nefarious ends and seizing public feeling through the most bare-faced of manipulations. One such would be “elected” only months after Gladiator was released. It’s appealing to have some one noble and righteous and good to look to in such times. But, of course, we had a not dissimilar historical (although it’s abiding criticism arises from its inaccuracies) reminder of sticking true to one’s beliefs in the martyrdom of Braveheart only a few years before. This sort of thing is sweat off a warrior’s back, if it lands at all.


And it isn’t really Sir Ridley’s thing. Because, as simple as the premise is, it’ s rendered in a manner that is so unfinessed as to be almost perfunctory. This approach ultimately reins in its designs on being an epic. It’s a rudimentary affair, dressed up and polished. There’s not much going on, and the attempts at court intrigue via reliable British thespian royalty can only go so far. This is great art direction, and CGI work, but in a city with about five speaking parts. It feels undernourished, and to carry off political machinations there needs to be nourishment. Accordingly, it’s easy to see why aspects such as the shades of Elysium were added, Crowe’s double running his hand through a field of corn at intervals on his path to death. There are movies where such portents feel fitting and of a piece, but here it is merely mock poetic.


Likewise, the machinations of Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) are clodhopping. Phoenix goes right over the top, giving Commodus a lisp and a violent temper. His choices are probably shrewd ones all told, recognising the limitations of the part; his problem is partly one of design that cannot be surmounted. Commodus is a petulant child, cowardly, vain and given to fits of instability. It’s this that leads Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) to pass him over for Emperor; he instruct Maximus that Rome should become a republic again, giving power back to the people and ending corruption. Why couldn’t he have done that while he was alive, eh? And it’s this that leads Commodus to kill his father. But the consequence is, Commodus is never a match of personality for Maximus, despite Phoenix’s attempts to compensate by going bigger. He’s a weasel rather than a snake.


The real Commodus was assassinated, eventually strangled by his personal wrestler Narcissus (who, with Claudius Pompeianus, formed a very loose basis for the Maximus of the movie), but only after 12 years of rule (and having also co-ruled with his father). He was given to fighting as a gladiator, charging a million sesterces a time for the privilege, always winning because his opponents always submitted to their emperor. He built up an endemic level of unpopularity by the end (he was subject to a failed poisoning before he was strangled) and was widely known for his cruelty. Commodus would kill his practice opponents. He was also given to posing as Hercules in the arena, where he would kill the wounded and amputated, clubbing them to death. 


So the movie makes the Commodus appear almost benevolent in comparison. Even knowing such “truth is stranger than fictions”, the final arena showdown translates as overly contrived, particularly when the assorted nobles gather on the Colosseum floor and Gracchus asks, “Who will help me carry him?” There’s no final note admitting a republic wasn’t restored, as that might have been considered even more of a downer.


Still, Scott delivers with the action. The opening battle is overtly indebted to Saving Private Ryan with its suddenly fashionable use of high shutter speed. This creates a choppy, stop motion effect. It’s something that, like shakycam, can get old very quickly, but does create a certain visceral immediacy. It’s in the arena bouts that Ridley really comes into his own, though. They do indeed make you entertained (it probably would have taken a Verhoeven to really revel in the debasement, however), with the expertly calculated move from Maximus shunning sparring during the training to suddenly battling for his life; he and Juba turn the tables completely, leading to a Spartacus-inspired spear hurled into the gallery.


The chariot sequence obviously has a fair bit of Ben-Hur in there, and the strategic commander (“If we stay together, we survive”) leads to a surprise rout. Scott, despite my preference for the mad Dutchman, doesn’t stint on the limb lopping (he even cuts a woman warrior in half). This sequence is easily the highlight of the picture, even though the tigers follow (I can never not see the bit where a fake tiger flopping on Crowe’s back), and includes the picture’s best line as a slightly amused Commodus comments “My history’s a little hazy, Cassius, but didn’t the barbarians lose the battle of Carthage?”) It shows how long ago I’d last seen this, as I managed to credit the best line in Pompeii, where Keifer Sutherland says almost exactly the same thing about a gladiatorial upset, as original. Paul W Anderson, acting the hack? Say it ain’t so.  


The supporting cast can be relied on to do what they do well. Harris is old and wise and sad (he and Crowe got on together). Oliver Reed (he and Crowe didn’t get on together), his performance as Proximo curtailed in The Crow or Furious 7 fashion and CGI-enhanced at key moments, makes for a coarse and funny slave owner. He’s just what the picture needs (“You sold me queer camels. I want my money back”) and gives Maximus a fair helping of X-Factor advice (“I wasn’t the best because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me”). 


Jacobi’s a past master at playing Romans, so looks like he’s merely been exhumed after two millennia of idling. Connie Nielsen is (as always, it seems) excellent in an underwritten and reactive role. A very youthful looking Tommy Flanagan (Sons of Anarchy) is the loyal Cicero. David Hemmings gives good eyebrows.


The problem with Gladiator is that it’s merely good when it could have been great. This isn’t the modern day Ben-Hur, even if it has been proclaimed as such. It’s a greatest hits package of Roman epics with modern technical flair, when it should have been its own thing entirely. Ridley was now in the frame for providing the same kind of prefab sheen to any material to which he attached himself  (invariably with a solid but underwhelming Hans Zimmer score). He knew to tell Crowe not to try an Antonio Banderas accent, but being actually inspired was now beyond him. This was the point where he decided to stop spending years trying to get projects made and leapt from picture to picture. In one sense it’s an admirable repositioning, approaching your mid-60s (and, now approaching 80, he’s maintained his regimen), but are the results fruitful? He hasn’t quite made a terrible film since, but the majority have been mediocrities albeit with unfailing technical flair.


Perhaps The Martian will change all that. Perhaps he should have directed Nick Cave’s screenplay for Gladiator 2: Christ Killer. I don’t really think he should, of course (Maximus travels to the afterlife, is reincarnated, sent to kill Jesus and the Christians and meets his nipper, who he kills, and is then condemned then to forever gladiate through the centuries). But at least it wouldn’t have been as pedestrian as most of his script choices. It might even have ended up as likeably mad as The Counselor.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

All the way up! We’ll make it cold like winter used to be.

Soylent Green (1973)
(SPOILERS) The final entry in Chuck Heston’s mid-career sci-fi trilogy (I’m not counting his Beneath the Planet of the Apes extended cameo). He hadn’t so much as sniffed at the genre prior to 1967, but over the space of the next half decade or so, he blazed a trail for dystopian futures. Perhaps the bleakest of these came in Soylent Green. And it’s only a couple of years away. 2022 is just around the corner.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window.

Black Hawk Down (2001)
(SPOILERS) Black Hawk Down completed a trilogy of hits for Ridley Scott, a run of consistency he’d not seen even a glimmer of hitherto. He was now a brazenly commercial filmmaker, one who could boast big box office under his belt where previously such overt forays had seen mixed results (Black Rain, G.I. Jane). It also saw him strip away the last vestiges of artistic leanings from his persona, leaving behind, it seemed, only technical virtuosity. Scott was now given to the increasingly thick-headed soundbite (“every war movie is an anti-war movie”) in justification for whatever his latest carry-on carried in terms of controversial elements, and more than happy to bed down with the Pentagon (long-standing collaborators with producer Jerry Bruckheimer) to make a movie that, while depictinga less than auspicious intervention by the US military (“Based on an Actual Event” is a marvellous catch-all for wanton fabrication), managed to turn it into a parade of heroes pe…

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…