A film that opens the floodgates to what?

Rating: 1/10 (9 June 2006)

'Gladiator' received numerous awards and has attracted over 2000 largely favourable user comments on IMDb. Although my comments will not be well received by those who regard it as a great film, I believe this is an APPALLING film which should never have been released. A film can be appalling because of bad direction, bad acting, or just plain bad photography - none of these are the problem here. A film can also be appalling because it plagiarises an earlier film too closely without giving any recognition to it, because it is intellectually dishonest, because its contents are antisocial, or because its nature is such that it is highly prejudicial to the film industry as a whole - the last three of these concerns all seem to me to arise with Gladiator. Some IMDb users have expressed concerns about plagiarism - noting its very close structural similarities to 'Braveheart' (1995) and 'Tarkan' (1969), but these are not my concern. When the scenario of a new film is totally different to its predecessor it is hard to justify condemning it for plagiarism.
'Gladiator' features exactly the same scenario as the 1964 film 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' which is quite an elegant work that probably deserved to be more successful than it was. But it had one fatal flaw. It was promoted as an historically accurate account of the relatively short historical period when the Roman Empire appears to have undergone a fundamental transformation from an aggressive expansionist would be world empire to a survivalist mode where its main concern became the protection of its existing boundaries. This period, well documented by Gibbon and others, occurred after the death by disease of the stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius whilst on campaign in A.D. 180. His son Commodus, who had already been co-emperor for three years, assumed full authority at the early age of nineteen with the support of Marcus's trusted advisers, but gradually after four years rule he became increasingly cruel and capricious, showing many signs of insanity, and finally acting in such a way that he was murdered in a palace conspiracy. His successor tried to repair the damage done to the fabric of Roman society but ultimately proved too weak and was murdered in turn, leading to a long period of increasing instability. The highly respected Will Durant was listed as historical consultant for the making of this 1964 film, but his advice was clearly neglected as the film incorrectly showed Marcus rejecting his son as heir to the throne, and his son responding by murdering his father and seizing the throne. Later it showed Commodus killed in the Arena whereas he was in fact drugged and strangled in his palace. Incredibly, this totally fictitious story from the earlier film was repeated in Gladiator. To me this makes the film unacceptable for intellectual dishonesty. We are told it is just a film prepared for entertainment. Fine - BUT ONLY IF IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE A HISTORICAL FILM. 'The Sign of the Cross', 'Ben Hur', 'Quo Vadis' and 'Caesar and Cleopatra' were promoted as films of literary works not as historical works, and I have no problem with this. But a film has an enormous audience compared with a historical treatise and, if it is thought to be presenting real history, its inaccuracies can be very misleading. Most people who lived through the holocaust have now died and already a concerted campaign, making extensive use of the media to deny that it ever happened, is under way. If public perception of its reality is ever reduced to the status of a largely mythical event, it will severely handicap the chance of humanity learning essential lessons from history. YES, HISTORICAL ACCURACY IS OF IMPORTANCE, certainly in everything except a declared work of fiction.
'Gladiator' is also appalling because much of its appeal comes from the graphic killing of one human being by another in the name of sport. The Roman Games started as athletic contests with readings of literature and dramatic presentations, followed quite early by events involving the public punishment and execution of criminals. The latter evolved into gladiatorial contests where criminals who would be useful in the all important Roman armies could redeem themselves; and much later into the staging of public atrocities which sometimes even featured women and children being killed by wild beasts or burned alive. It has taken humanity many hundreds of years to totally reject such 'entertainment' and pogroms of various types still occur in many parts of the world with alarming frequency. The first step towards establishing higher standards is the banning of public executions, but 'Gladiator' makes extensive use of computer generated images which give all the vicarious thrills of watching whilst one person kills another. It also takes a giant step along the slippery slope of virtual reality which could eventually permit viewers to 'experience' actual participation in such events. IS THIS WHAT WE REALLY WANT FROM THE CINEMA?
The 1934 Hayes code which crippled the North American film industry for many years resulted from an overwhelming public demand to restrict films that overstepped the bounds of public acceptability. A third reason why 'Gladiator' is an appalling film is that it has pushed the limits of acceptability to the point where there will be demands for some new form of censorship. Today there is more and more emphasis being put on self regulation whether in government or in corporate life. If the film industry cannot face up to its need for some self regulation IT MAY LOSE ITS ARTISTIC FREEDOM AND BE RETURNED TO THE DARK AGES OF EXTERNALLY IMPOSED PRODUCTION 'CODES'.