The Gladiator II Line That Broke My Brain

As a seasoned cinephile with an insatiable appetite for historical epics and a degree in Classical Archaeology, I find myself incessantly captivated by the intricate dance between cinematic grandeur and historical accuracy. The latest installment of the Gladiator franchise, Gladiator II, while visually stunning and action-packed, is not exactly a beacon of historical authenticity – much like trying to find a Roman with a smartphone in the Colosseum.

In “Gladiator II”, despite its elaborate set design, it’s not a film known for historical accuracy, even though Ridley Scott argues about the sharks in the Colosseum. He hasn’t mentioned anything about a printed newspaper, nor about the inconsistent combat strategies in the movie. The film takes liberties with such details, and the original “Gladiator” also had its fair share of historical discrepancies. However, there’s one scene in the new film – just a single line – that I can’t shake off. It’s an insignificant moment, easily removable, but for some reason, it has stuck in my mind. This seemingly trivial detail has caught my attention, perhaps because it could have been left out without much impact on the movie.

It occurs relatively early in the film, when our hero, Lucius (Paul Mescal), is flashing back to his childhood and his flight from Rome. Lucius is, secretly, an heir to the throne, and we understand that he was sent off by his mother, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), to protect him from those who would seek to kill him. In the scene in question, young Lucius is hiding in a small African village when Roman soldiers come looking for him. As he runs away, we hear one of them asking the villagers, “Have you seen this boy?”

At that moment, my mind wondered, “Hold on, what exactly is this soldier indicating?” If he’s asking if the villagers have spotted “this boy,” then it seems he’s displaying something to them. What could that be, given the era? The Romans didn’t possess sketchbooks or photographs. (Though it would be quite amusing if Scott suddenly showed a Roman soldier brandishing a Polaroid. Some viewers today might believe Polaroids are as old as Rome.) I find it intriguing to imagine that these soldiers were exhibiting a finely carved, miniature statue of the boy. Or, why not, they could be transporting a full-scale bust from one village to another.

Historical accuracy in movies can be a strange, slippery thing, and the way we respond to it can be even stranger. I’ve never been bothered by the inconsistencies in Hollywoodized period action movies like Braveheart, The Mask of Zorro, or assorted adaptations of The Three Musketeers. (I grew up reading Asterix comic books, which derive much of their fun from such anachronisms.) And I’m not bothered at all by Gladiator II’s more out-there ideas; the aforementioned sequence with the sharks inside the Colosseum might actually be my favorite scene in the movie.

Films sometimes intentionally mix modern elements into historical settings for a broader commentary on current times, as seen in films like “Gladiator II”, which deviates significantly from its predecessor in this regard. However, if you’re going to blend your movie with the contemporary world, I believe one should fully commit. My favorite example of this is Alex Cox’s 1987 film, “Walker”. In it, Ed Harris portrays an American adventurer who invaded Nicaragua in the mid-19th century. Released during the peak of the Reagan administration’s involvement with the Contras, “Walker” was a biting satire of American foreign policy and featured modern items like Coca-Cola bottles, Zippo lighters, Marlboro cigarettes, helicopters, despite being set in the 1850s. Unfortunately, this innovative film was a commercial failure and may have hindered Cox’s mainstream filmmaking career. I was among a select few who watched it during its brief theater run. So, what do I know?

Admittedly, I’m equally unfamiliar with the specifics of Roman forensic practices or their version of a police force. I wouldn’t dream of being the 97th writer to contact a historian about the historical accuracy of ‘Gladiator II’. While Ridley Scott might be able to provide insights, I suspect his response would not be particularly welcoming. However, it’s plausible that they had some kind of visual reference they could have shared. If they did, I would have appreciated seeing it as a fun trivia detail. The fact that we don’t see anything and the line seems casually added suggests to me that this aspect was not given much attention by the filmmakers.

It might be that’s why those widespread inaccuracies seem more noticeable compared to the bolder ones – it’s because they appear oddly meaningless. They don’t convey any profound messages about the present, nor do they subtly undermine and perhaps renew something honest but forgotten. Instead, they expose a lack of care on the part of the filmmakers.

2024-11-25 18:53

The Gladiator II Line That Broke My Brain

Read More

Minority Mindset