Gladiator

#76 in my ranking of Best Picture winners at the Oscars.

Let me preface this by mentioning that I am something of a Ridley Scott fanboy. I hold him up probably higher than I should in the pantheon of modern filmmakers, and I don’t mind admitting it. However, the one film that I seem out of step on in the other direction than most audiences, feeling more negatively towards it than positive, is probably the one film that he’s most praised for: Gladiator. I’ve had several viewings over the past couple of decades to begin to sort through why I’m disengaged through large swaths of the film, and I think I can write them down.

The story of the Spanish General Maximus (Russell Crowe) is built well, I’ll say that. The script by John Logan, David Franzoni, and William Nicholson has all of the structural points it needs to tell this story of revenge. There’s the early glory under Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), the unjust fall at the hands of Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), the rebirth through gladiatorial games in the provinces under the ownership of Proximo (Oliver Reed), the revelation, and the back and forth towards revenge in the end. And yet, I just can’t connect. I’ve been laying blame on the film’s tone for a while, but this recent viewing has refined some more of my criticism.

Firstly, that tone is remarkably dour. There are a bare few happy moments throughout, but they are exceedingly rare, leaving most of the rest of the film with this oppressive sense of dourness rooted in a few ideas the film is bandying about. Of course the beginning of all that is the fact that Maximus has had his family murdered by a corrupt emperor who killed his own father to gain the throne. I think one of the centers of my problem with tone is Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), Commodus’ sister. She and Maximus had a previous relationship years ago, and she seems to be some kind of feminine respite from the masculinity around her, but she’s almost written like a man. Outside of her look, she’s not terribly feminine, hard and cold even in the beginning, given one moment to smile and laugh (at Maximus’ expense) but is otherwise not much of a respite in any form from the misery around her. Even for Maximus, she’s never more than a potential ally in a dark and dangerous game.

The only time this film lightens up with its tone is in its action sequences, and those are generally pretty great. Scott is a quality action filmmaker who understands the point of spectacle and how to achieve it, and the battle in Germania, the fights in Africa, and the gladiatorial bouts in the Coliseum are all expertly staged and filmed. So, the film begins strong with its recreation of Roman battle tactics, helped by Hans Zimmer’s and Lisa Gerrard’s rousing score, and then it just gets lost in the dour tone and machinations of the Roman Senate.

And that leads me to me second main criticism: the politics. There’s a point later when Commodus is quizzing Lucilla about what the people of Rome like about distant victories, and she replies the Glory of Rome which is an idea (her definition). The larger plot of this film is about the return of the Glory of Rome to its pre-Imperial state as a Republic without an emperor. Okay, fine. It never, not once, makes the case that the pre-Imperial state was better in any way than the current state. It never once digs into how or why Maximus himself should care beyond the fact that it’s the dying wish of Marcus Aurelius (would the real one have wanted it? doesn’t matter, this is just a movie).

And that leads me to what I think is the core of my issues with this film: Maximus has no strong reason to want what the plot is actually about. He wants revenge against Commodus, which should be enough, but then there’s this effort to wrap him up with this effort by the Senate, led by Gracchus (Derek Jacobi) to have Commodus return power to the Senate (a perverse incentive that Commodus points out and we’re supposed to ignore for some reason). But why does Maximus care? Because Marcus Aurelius told him to care, essentially. It’s a real disconnect in how the film presents its characters and how they interact with the plot that the film never actually reconciles.

And yet, I think the film is pretty okay. It’s mostly a spectacle, and on that front, I give the film full marks. It looks great from beginning to end. There’s a painterly approach to the visuals, helped in no small part by Scott’s penchant for using smoke machines everywhere (if I ever make a film myself, I’m using smoke machines, and it’s all Ridley Scott’s fault). The action scenes are all top-notch. The performances from everyone are committed and effective with special mention to Phoenix who goes all in as Commodus, demonstrating his descent into a mad paranoia well.

I just do not engage with the story very much. It is this weird combination of super-seriousness, Roman politics, assumed presumptions (like shouting “Democracy” in a crowd and expecting a cheer), and an odd disconnect between the main character and the plot that’s unfolding around him. I know the film has legions of fans, all willing to go into the arena to defend the film’s honor from anyone who would besmirch it, but besmirch it I have done. It’s a weird story, man. I don’t think it really works, but it’s well-made, fun in spots, and looks great. That’s far from nothing.

Rating: 2.5/4