A shamelessly bad film *SPOILERS*

Rating: 2/10 (14 December 2004)

Gladiator has little to teach us about the past. In fact, it has little to teach us about anything save what not to do if you're trying to make a thoughtful film of artistic merit. The beginning has some promise. We are presented with the main character, a general named Maximus, who has seen battle for untold years and desires to resume his humble life as a farmer with his wife and daughter. If it weren't for his unshakable sense of blind civic duty he would have done this long ago. We see Marcus Aurelius, the old, passive emperor known for his stoicism. The movie does not paint him as the relatively aggressive imperialist he actually was, and perhaps we wonder why it doesn't, until we realize that the movie is following a simple rule: all characters must be one-dimensional. Our first impression is the correct one. There is no more than meets the eye; these people are either good or bad. For example: Maximus is good. Anyone trying to kill him, e.g. other gladiators, a.k.a. people who have probably been forced into exactly the same uncomfortable position as him, is bad. It's that simple.
Gladiator does have an attention to certain historical details. The costumes, including the armor, for example, that the soldiers (Maximus included) at the beginning of the film are wearing is likely what Romans of the time would have been wearing. This is a departure from previous Roman epics, which tend to use the brass breast plate with the muscles etched into it for Roman soldiers regardless of the time period. So, score one for Gladiator, right? Maybe. But who cares, when we consider the absurd battle that follows? It quickly breaks down to a chaotic melee, with a lot of slashing, that looks completely uncalculated and un-Roman. The Romans win it easily anyway, but if they had actually fought like this they would never have been the consistent victors that they were. They had a method, and they used it, and it definitely wasn't 'every man for himself!' Another perfect example of the film simplifying history comes when Marcus Aurelius says that he wants Maximus to succeed him, so Commodus, Aurelius' son, murders him before he can tell anyone else. In actuality, the succession of the throne to Commodus was not in doubt. The film wanted to make it clear, however, that Aurelius is good, Maximus is good, and Commodus is bad.
To examine the character Maximus in detail, we ought to look at his deeds. In the eyes of the filmmakers, he is without flaw. But look how he behaves!
He spends the film ruthlessly seeking revenge on Commodus for the murders of his wife and daughter, and eventually his revenge is satisfied. There are no negative consequences for his brutal, murderous revenge. In fact, he gets exactly what he wants: on one hand Rome is handed back to the senate and thus becomes a republic again as Aurelius wished (and what Aurelius wants, Maximus wants because of his sense of duty). On the other hand, he is reunited with his family in death. The movie never tires of telling us that this is his ultimate goal, and then has the nerve to show it literally instead of knowing that it is understood! Remember the moment when Maximus is first handed a sword at the gladiator training camp. He throws it down in protest, either because he refuses to obey his captors or because he is opposed to gladiatorial combat (or both). Roughly two minutes later, though, he is in the arena fighting, though his life never appears to be in immediate danger, because he is so much stronger than his opponents, and such a superior strategist and swordsman; it seems more likely that he enjoys the killing. The movie refuses to acknowledge this completely, because Maximus is the hero, and a necessary condition of being the hero in this movie is flawlessness. Consider also the people he is killing. They are just like him, probably abducted or born into slavery against their will, and forced to fight, yet somehow the movie pretends that they are evil or inhuman. It masks them and makes them out to be the aggressor. At one point Maximus spares a man's life against Commodus' thumbs-down (which should have been a thumbs-up, but that's merely a historical point), but he isn't being merciful out of compassion. As a matter of fact, he is not being merciful at all! All he is doing is showing that he and he alone has complete control over whether a man lives or dies. It is sadistic.
The contemporary relevance of Gladiator that I was able to uncover is its warped political perspective. Its sentiments are republican, in the Roman sense of the word, and in the sense of the Republican Party in America today. It values things like civic duty, being a manly man, a family man, a strong man, someone who isn't afraid to kill to defendwhatever. It views liberalism as controlling, preventing Maximus from living the humble farm life that he might enjoy in the state of Montana or thereabouts. It opposes sexual irregularity, and seemingly with it homosexuality. If it were aware of stem-cell research, we could guess that it would oppose it. Essentially, its year 2000 release was the perfect kickoff to eight years of hilarity with the Bush gang. A better way to be contemporarily relevant is to make a thoughtful film that asks deep questions about human nature, or the best way to govern people, or something like that, instead of flaunting some obviously hypocritical moral code.