Historical Baloney

Rating: 4/10 (1 July 2000)

For those who may care : this movie is historical baloney, pure and simple. It is true that, in the late 2nd century of our era, there was a wise Roman philosopher-emperor named Marcus Aurelius whom the unfortunate circumstances of his time forced to wage incessant wars on Germanic tribes and that, after his death, near the front, he was succeeded by his son Commodus, a madman who fancied himself the incarnation of Hercules and often performed in the arena. But the connection stops there, and that is a pity, for the true facts of CommodusÕ reign, which lasted some 15 years (A.D. 177-192), would probably have made a much better story than what we have here.
As for Maximus, he is a pure invention. The only character by that name in that period of Roman imperial history is the young son and heir of the short-lived emperor Maximinus Thrax (A.D. 235-238). There are, it is true, some similarities between the career of that Maximinus and that the fictional Maximus, for Maximinus was both some kind of a muscle-man and a good general, who won many victories on the German front. However, when you read more about him, you also find out that he was also a brutal tyrant who enjoyed killing large number of people, when he was not busy dispatching bulls with his bare hands - his favourite past-time... (I could never quite understand why Hollywood feels the need to change the facts of history when they are so sensational!)
Tons of money were poured into the making of GLADIATOR, and one wishes that the producers would have made better use of those resources. The sets are impressive, but hardly accurate - except for the reconstruction of the Colosseum, which corresponds more or less to the current scholarly consensus on what that extraordinary building looked like. (Notice the awnings on the top-tier. Their purpose was to provide shade to the audience. It is only recently that scholars have begun to work out the complex details of their structure and operation.) But the Roman skyline, full of elegant fluted domes, is all wrong. That is the skyline of SEVENTEENTH CENTURY Rome, as rebuilt by the Renaissance popes and their successors. In ancient Rome, the only large domed building was the Pantheon, which survives, and it did not at all look like that. Also, as anyone who has been there will tell you, Rome is located in hilly, not mountainous, country.
They also botched their Marcus Aurelius. Richard Harris is a fine actor, but a bit old for the part and there is a big problem with his hair, which is long and straight, whereas the hair of Marcus Aurelius, whose features immortalized on his coins are familiar to anyone who knows anything about Roman history, was short and curly. That may sound like an insignificant detail, but it would be like making a film of the life of Adolf Hitler and forget the moustache... For a spitting image of Marcus Aurelius, check Alec Guinness in THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
In my opinion, the best, and perhaps only true good, moment in GLADIATOR is the impressive opening sequence, a graphic illustration of the kind of ruthless and savage campaigns which the Roman emperors of the period had to wage over and over again to stem the barbarian tide on their Danubian border.
The rest of the movie is only slightly better than mediocre, with Derek Jacobi looking like if he were a guilty man, very embarrassed to be there and very anxious to take his money and run. I am sure that many people will disagree with that harsh assessment, for this film has clearly been designed as an audience-pleaser.
To those interested in more than well-packaged trash, I suggest to go to the nearest video store and rent a copy of Stanley KubrickÕs SPARTACUS, a vastly superior gladiator film, and one that will give you a remarkably accurate sense of the greatness that was Rome, Çan eternal thought in the mind of GodÈ.