agh, gladiator, why? (also: bonus Rome content)

[bedlamsbard]

I watched the extended edition of Gladiator last night, as you might have seen if you were on Twitter at about 7 pm to 10 pm CST, and oh my god, it gets worse the more I know about history. It's very pretty! It's got some nice (if historically inaccurate) fight scenes! Some lovely landscapes! IT'S JUST TERRIBLE. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS MOVIE WON OSCARS. (Although, predictably, a lot of the cut scenes in the extended edition REALLY EXPLAINED A LOT. On the other hand, it was almost three hours.)

Maximus: totes not a first name, kids.

Saying "Senator Gaius" has got to be the least specific thing you can say in imperial Rome. That's like saying "Mister John" in the modern world. As is going, "Huh, Lucius, well, there's only one kid in Rome with that first name!" I mean, I shall grant you that my period is the middle and late Republic, not the Principate, but STILL.

I am pretty sure that Mark Antony and Julius Caesar and Company watch this in horror. Mark Antony could eat Commodus alive and pick his teeth with the bones afterwards. (Even Brutus and Cicero would weep at that bungled excuse for a rebellion.)

While we're here, let's pause for a Rome clip:

This movie would have been a lot better and a lot shorter if Lucilla had just poisoned Commodus early on, since they clearly showed up that he would drink anything she gave him. Easy-peasy! Poison him, blame it on a praetorian or a slave or something, make Lucius emperor, rule as regent until he's all grown up. AND SPARE US THIS TRAVESTY.

Atia of the Julii does not freaking approve:

Also, I'm pretty sure they just grabbed medieval language and layered it onto ancient Rome, which doesn't really work. (I'm...again, my thing is Republican Rome, I've never done anything with Imperial Rome before 300 AD, but I'm pretty sure they didn't speak in terms of "heir to the throne." Or "your highness" or "your majesty.")

What's interesting, and infuriating, is that throughout the entire movie they never name the Roman gods. Not once. In almost three hours. Maximus calls on the "father and the mother," and we see Marcius Aurelius' lararium (can you have a lararium in a campaign tent), but they never name the Roman gods, which is...actually, I find it kind of insulting.

Interesting bits from deleted scenes: we get some more scenes with the gladiators, which is nice for personality, some more with the senators, which is good for plot but really just pretty boring. The famous "Are you not entertained?" scene actually has some deleted bits running up to it which make it make SO MUCH MORE SENSE. (Unless those were in the theatrical release and I've just forgotten -- Proximo trying to remind Maximus he's an entertainer? I don't remember them from the theatrical cut, anyway.)

I'm still really frustrated by that damned dog in the beginning. Like, does it die? I've watched this movie several scenes now, and I've never seen it die in the battle, but it never shows up again. I WAS REALLY HOPING IT WOULD BE IN THE DELETED SCENES.

I was really hoping we'd get Commodus shooting the heads off ostriches in the deleted scenes. Alas. ALAS. Instead we got the most boring method of execution ever. You are freaking ANCIENT ROME and the best you can come up with is a FIRING SQUAD? The arrows aren't even really on fire! Seriously, that's all you can come up with? I despair, kids. They could have died in the arena, it would have been awesome, you could have had Maximus kill them for added angst, but nooooo, instead we have a dramatic scene with a Commodus and a firing squad and a bunch of soldiers who don't have the balls to commit regicide.

One of Ridley Scott's problems is that he tries to make his movies pretty political and go, "YAY DEMOCRACY!" (see also: Robin Hood), so we get a very pretty ending that works great until you remember that the Roman Empire stuck around until 1453 (if you count the Eastern Roman Empire, which I do) or 476 (if you don't).

The best line in the movie is still Proximo's, though. "You sold me queer giraffes. I want my money back."

"There was a dream that was Rome. It shall be realized." As I said on Twitter: from your lips to Rodrigo Borgia's ears, kid. Where would Rome be without a good plot?

Comments

[starlady]

'Heir to the throne'? *headdesk* There's a reason I've never rewatched this movie. Though I am glad it existed because they cleaned part of the Colosseum Flavian Ampitheater for it.

But even in the later empire and the early eastern empire they were still using 'princeps' and flattering epithets, rather than anything else. I don't know when/if the Byzantines changed that. I should go read that book I have about the 8thC Byzantine empresses, maybe it will tell me.

[bedlamsbard]

You know. Because the natural imperial succession in Rome is father to son. OBVIOUSLY. And they have thrones and all! (They never showed a throne, thank the gods they won't acknowledge in the stupid movie.) It's a big deal throughout the movie that Lucius, Commodus's nephew, is also his heir to ~the throne

I'm pretty sure they didn't have fliers, either. I couldn't bear to go back and check if they had proper Latin on them. I'm reasonably certain they were just going around painting stuff on walls, not printing up fliers. (Or painting fliers, whatever.)

I'm still really bitter that it's a movie about gladiators and the most exciting method of execution they could come up with was a firing squad in private. I mean, they could have at least had actual fire! (This is from a deleted scene.)

[starlady]

That reminds me of a book called Detectives in Togas, in which the plot revolves around graffiti on a temple applied using a wax tablet. But definitely no fliers.

[bedlamsbard]

Or, my other favorite part from the insert, "This Renaissance painting was the perfect --" (Er, I was going to finish this with, "example of Roman violence." You know. From the Renaissance.)

OH MY GOD THAT IS THE MOST TERRIFYING THING I HAVE EVER READ.

Wow, there's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to how Gladiator is historically inaccurate.

I'm, um, going to stop now.

[sporky_rat]

Ooo, any pictures of what 8th Century Byzantine empresses wore?

[starlady]

The book is Women in Purple by Judith Herrin--there are some color plates, but the iconoclasm controversy was not yet entirely settled at the time, so the only actually contemporary images are from coins.

[aella_irene]

Oh, isn't it an awesome book! Don't think it says anything about titles, though.