The Depiction Of History In Ridley Scott's Film Gladiator
1002 Words5 Pages
Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator (2000) is easily one of the most popular depictions of Roman history. Beautifully rendered with elaborate costumes and complex choreography, this appears to be a faithful depiction of a crucial moment in the Roman Empire. The death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, the last of the so-called ‘Good Emperors,’ was followed by the rise of his tyrannical son Commodus, and the anarchic violence of the ‘Third Century Crisis.’
The principal plot, following the disgraced general Maximus who is forced to fight as a gladiator, is fictional and there is little to criticize on historical grounds. Meanwhile, due to a lack of evidence, we cannot evaluate with accuracy the aesthetic aspects of this production. However, where the film falls flat, is in its depiction of events which are historical, and which we do know something about. In particular, the film provides a superficial look at the grim Marcomannic Wars, minimizes the personality of Marcus Aurelius, ignores the harsh…show more content… Instead, we see an apparently healthy populace, with a vibrant urban life and contented farmers. However, if we examine the primary sources, once again emphasizing Cassius Dio, we learn that the Rome was swept by a virulent plague which returned with the victorious Parthian army. Indeed, the film doesn’t even acknowledge that Marcus is likely to have succumbed to the plague (as did Lucius), and it appears that the emperor merely died of old age. What a difference it would have made to this film, if the scenes depicting Rome had depicted both poverty and plague. The atmosphere should have been more like that of a medieval film, set during the Fourteenth Century. In other words, although Marcus may have been a good emperor, for people living at the time life was not good, and these troubles had started as early as 161 when the Tiber flooded (resulting in widespread