Beware modern slang in historical writing

True, but the Roman senators only thought of Commodus as mad because he enjoyed dressing up as a gladiator and participating in gladiatorial games ... which was definitely an undignified thing for an emperor to do.

There's a certain snobbery at play here: "Only slaves and criminals are allowed to be something as common as a gladiator!" etc. (The "criminal" class, by the way, includes people who defaulted on a loan).

Given that, the basic premise of the "Gladiator" movie -- Commodus forces a senator to become a gladiator -- is certainly ironic, but makes a strange kind of sense; other so-called 'mad' emperors did the same, e.g. Caligula forced senators and equestrians to fight as gladiators.

The thing that annoys me about the "Gladiator" film is how Commodus comes to the throne at all, i.e. he murders his father (Marcus Aurelius). In reality, Aurelius died in his military quarters not far from Vienna, of unknown causes. Commodus did join him at the front, but there is no evidence at all that he killed his father. Commodus may have been lacking in judgment, but that doesn't make him a murderer. *shrug* Still, I guess it makes for a good story.

 

In the 1996 John Travolta movie Michael, it takes them three days to drive from an unnamed small town in Iowa to Chicago. Council Bluffs, IA, is about as far from Chicago as you can get, and Google maps says it's a six hour and thirty-six minute drive.

 

And maybe unrelated, but there's also no evidence that Aurelius wanted to restore the republic.

 

*** WARNING: RANT. SO SORRY ***

So, look, I'm very sorry to have to rant ... so sorry, but ... what?! <blink, blink; hysterical laughter> What is this, wish-fulfilment? Fantasy dressed up in togas? Because, clearly, this was written by (or for) people who had no idea about the Romans. (And now there's a Gladiator II coming out, gods help us). <facepalm>

I mean, why in the name of the sanity, should the emperor -- the SUPREME &@%@ING RULER -- dismantle the political system that put him into power, and return to the Republic? The last 100 years of the Republic were marked by almost incessant foreign wars or civil wars -- Marius vs. Sulla forever, the incredibly vicious 16-year Social War (Rome vs. its Italian vassals), and more powerful families against each other: Pompey and Caesar vs. Lepidus, the Catiline Conspiracy, Octavian vs. Everyone, etc.

Game of Thrones was a doddle compared to the last 100 years of the Republic. Everyone was like "F@&% the public, I wanna be top dog! You wanna be top dog too? F&%@ you!" <stab stab stabbity!!> "Oh no, your son killed me! Avenge me, son!" <dies>

And Marcus Aurelius should want to go back to that? Are you kidding me? Why should switch off his own life-support system? Why kick away the ladder that brought him to power ... while he's still standing on it? See? It makes no sense ... and Commodus is the hero! He stabilized the government, he brought peace to Rome! Hooray!

So, why? Because:

1. It's a Hollywood film, and in Hollywood, producers ignore the most basic historical truth, and listen to marketing instead; and

2. Marketing says that "The truth, i.e. that Marcus Aurelius was essentially a complex man, a mostly benevolent and philosophical man but also brutal military dictator, didn't rate well in our focus groups!! So we better write some piece of [censored] to sell to the ignorant masses!! And who cares if it's all a lie, no-one will know!!!"; and

3. The Hollywood producers say "What a wonderful idea! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!" and they go away and produce some miserable, highly-simplistic, barely-literate piece of [censored] to sell to people who wouldn't know Marcus Aurelius from a freaking hole in the sodding ground!!!

And that's the story of Gladiator. There, I said it. I feel better.

 

If I wanted historical accuracy, I would watch a documentary. Or read a history book. Maybe literary historical fiction.

Films are entertainment. So is most historical fiction. Or do you want everyone speaking Latin?

 

Of course not. I'm not saying that a film ... or a book, or whatever ... should be completely accurate. That's impossible. Anyone who wants complete accuracy might as well wish to reconstruct Rome (or whatever), down to every rock and every tree. So, no; that's not what I mean.

But what Ridley Scott did to Marcus and Commodus in Gladiator is equally bad. He took two human beings -- complicated and self-contradictory (which is what makes them fascinating!) -- and made them into caricatures: Marcus the Goodie and Commodus the Baddie. Overly ambitious son wants what daddy has, but can't handle it, and becomes a tyrant. How many times have we seen that?

Sure, films are entertainment. They're not a history lesson. Fine. But ... could we have an entertaining film that doesn't become a cliché? Is that possible? Maybe? I don't know.