Victory of production over a lousy script

Rating: 7/10 (22 October 2006)

There is an unwritten rule in movie making that if you have an excellent script it doesn't matter how you film it. If you have a lousy script - then everything else matters, the direction, the cinematography, the acting, the music... "Gladiator" is an epitome of the latter half of that rule. The case where direction, music, acting and art direction completely redeemed a crappy story.
For me it took watching it in German overdubbing. As I don't speak German there was nothing to detract me from visuals and music. And it's a new experience on another level. But more on that later. First the crappy part. The story.
Make no mistake, whether you care about history or not, this is a horrible script. It's taking huge (and quite unacceptable) liberties with the period it purports to portray, it's unconvincing even on its own terms, the dialog is pretty much high school and in its core it's a predictable revenge story told a zillion times before. Apparently (according to a documentary about Hollywood screenwriters) only Russell Crowe didn't know what turd the script was so he contributed himself with the juvenile "husband of the dead wife" speech.
Ridley Scott and his crew apparently knew what stinker they had to work with and did their best to defeat it with excellence in all areas and actually made two films in one.
On the surface it's a revenge story. The hero, a favorite army general turned gladiator, seeks revenge against a young emperor, who had general's family killed during the tumultuous succession to the throne. The military battles and the gladiatorial bouts required for this aspect of the movie are done both to tremendous detail and on a grand scale. With the help of CGI they are seen in all their glory and gore. Some accuse Scott of shying away from action but his direction shows everything one needs to see. Yes, the cuts are brief, the camera sometimes doesn't follow through, but the editing is pure poetry and you miss nothing. Cinematography-wise every frame is shot in a way that you could just hang it on a wall as a nice picture. Costumes and scenery are impeccable. A revenge story, yes, but well worth watching.
But on another level "Gladiator" plays out like a remake of "Fall of a Roman Empire". But it's not in the script. It's in the mood set again by production. This other story is about the decline and death of classical Rome and its ideals. There is simple yet effective symbolism to express it, the play on dark and light and the sunrise-sunset arc. The movie starts with a battle at dawn, the way the Rome itself had once dawned, fighting. There is an ideal Roman hero, valiant and dutiful, there's a typical Roman villain, clandestine and scheming. Hero does his best in the light, the villain does his worst in the dark, whenever they swap environments during the movie they fail miserably. The story ends at sunset, symbolizing the end of the Empire itself, and although an uplifting speech is given at that point it is defeated by the setting sun.
The feeling of the doom is constantly emphasized by melancholic music. The dreamlike experience of the main character who is already dead but doesn't yet know it is enhanced when he finally visits Rome and the city is an idealistic, blown in proportions version of itself. The script may be a complete falsification of history, but the feeling of decline one gets when watching those scenes is probably completely faithful.
So forget the story and the closing speech. Watch and listen the movie. The Roman Empire is living and dying once more before your very eyes.