WARNING! This post and episode both contain spoilers!
In case you somehow missed it, the hotly anticipated sequel to Gladiator (2000) hit the cinemas in November 2024. Gladiator II follows the story of Lucius Verus, the child of Lucilla and the hero from the first film, Maximus. Nope, we did not know that was a thing either.
Poster for Gladiator II, Source: https://deadline.com
After being separated from his imperial family following the death of his uncle (the Emperor Commodus), the adult Lucius ends up in the arena. His owner is Macrinus, an actual historical figure who served as emperor briefly in the third century CE. The film follows Macrinus and Lucius as they navigate the complicated political world of Rome under the Emperors Caracalla and Geta. Will Lucius be able to rid Rome of corruption, once and for all? (Dramatic music)
Joining us today to discuss the film is the delightful Lindsay Steenberg.
Special Episode – Gladiator II with Dr Lindsay Steenberg
Dr Lindsay Steenberg is currently a Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at Oxford Brookes University where she co-ordinates the graduate programme in Popular Cinema. Her research interests are violence and gender in postmodern and postfeminist media culture. If you like true crime, you should definitely check out her back catalogue. Whilst Dr Steenberg has published widely and regularly presents at conferences, our particular point of connection is her interest in gladiators. She is the author Are you not entertained? Mapping the Gladiator Across Visual Media, which was published by Bloomsbury in 2020.
We hope that you enjoy our conversation as we unpack:
- Arena action scenes
- The naumachia scene from Gladiator II
- Macrinus’ role in this film
- Gladiators and celebrity
- Historical inaccuracy on screen
- Our vision for Gladiator III: Tokyo Drift
Sound Credits
Our music is by Bettina Joy de Guzman.
Dr Lindsay Steenberg's book Are You Not Entertained? Mapping the Gladiator Across Visual Media.
We recommend it!
Automated Transcript
Dr Rad 0:00
Hello. You're about to listen to a special episode of the partial historians, which is all about gladiator two, a movie set in the reign of Caracalla and Geta
so
Dr G 0:12
so we are warning you in advance that this conversation will contain spoilers if you have not yet gone to the cinemapost haste, my friends get there soon and come back and listen. Or if you don't care about spoilers, and in fact, you thrive in an environment where you know all of the details before you see a thing, please continue listening and enjoying.
Dr Rad 0:35
And it pretty much turns out as we all expected. Dr G Maximus came back to life and married me in the future, just as I always wanted. Finally, a New Zealand man finds his Australian bride, that's right, and now on with the show you.
Music. Welcome to the partial historians.
Dr G 1:10
We explore all the details of ancient Rome,
Dr Rad 1:15
everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles wage and when citizens turn against each other, I'm Dr rad and
Dr G 1:25
I'm Dr G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories. Join
Dr Rad 1:36
us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Hello and welcome to another special episode of the partial historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr rad,
Dr G 2:00
and I'm Dr G
Dr Rad 2:02
And we are super excited because we're going to be talking about another gladiator movie today. Dr G, just when you thought you couldn't get enough,
Dr G 2:10
I can't get enough. That's why I'm here, exactly. And
Dr Rad 2:15
we are super lucky to be joined by an expert, an international expert, Dr Lindsay Steenberg is currently a senior lecturer in Film Studies at Oxford Brookes University, where she coordinates the graduate program in popular cinema. Her research interests are violence and gender in post modern and post feminist media culture. If you like true crime, you should definitely check out her back catalog. Whilst Dr Steenberg has published widely and regularly presents at conferences, our particular point of connection is her interest in gladiators. She is the author of, are you not entertained? Mapping the gladiator across visual media, which was published by Bloomsbury in 2020. Being astute listeners, I am sure that you have all correctly guessed that she is here to discuss gladiator two with us, which was at time of recording, just released in cinemas. Welcome Dr Steenberg,
Lindsay Steenberg 3:15
thank you so much for having me and for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of my favorite subject matters gladiator movies, you're
Dr Rad 3:23
in good company here. You know, it's one of the things I think that we do the most around here. So look, we are so keen to talk a little bit about gladiator two with you, and also the aspects that you have looked at in your work. So we thought we might start off with the part that people probably remember most vividly when they see a gladiator film, particularly a Ridley Scott gladiator film, and that is, of course, the arena sequences. So please tell us what is often the function of the arena in Gladiator films.
Lindsay Steenberg 3:54
Okay, again, favorite subject matter within my favorite subject, yeah. So I've spent more time than really any human should, thinking about arena fights. And I can say that when it comes to the almost the genre of gladiator movies, they're the most important part. You can't have a gladiator movie if there's not any gladiating So I have spent quite a bit of time over quite a few different films, looking at the kinds of conventions, the way that the arena works. Why we keep going back there again and again? So in terms of what the function is really, it kind of defies the logic of a lot of action movies, which is, it isn't just story or spectacle, it's both at once. So you get them in a handy little place. The Arena fights almost a movie within a movie, it has a beginning, it has a middle, it has an end. You enter the amphitheater. You have some looking around to see what's there, some spectacle over architecture and bodies. You get the quality violence in the middle. And then you sort of exit the amphitheater, and that's the end of your of your. Little mini film within a film, they often are great places where you come to understand how power works in the film itself. It's a nice little structure. I mean, if you think about the way an amphitheater is designed in that in that oval kind of shape, it means everybody can see everybody else. So the kind of layers of the way that the looking works. It's like we in the cinema are looking at the amphitheater. The people who are in the audience are looking and being looked at. You've got the sort of authority figure sitting there watching, and we're watching them. Then you've got the people down on the sands doing their thing. So it really it becomes a way to further the plot, to show who's good, who's bad, who's skilled, who's dead. It also sort of provides an opportunity to raise the stakes of the plot. So you've got sort of Concerned Women are often there in the audience, rarely on the sands, and they can kind of look and look worried, or look very desiringly at the gladiators on the sands as well. That's a bit of a spectacle, in that sense, as well. And then the Gladiator, of course, is looking at the audience as well. And that's why you get are you not entertained? He's judging us for watching him. So it kind of does all of that at once, very economical kind of spectacle,
Dr G 6:10
a bit like an ancient panopticon where viewing is happening in all directions.
Lindsay Steenberg 6:15
It absolutely is. And that and the sort of really seamless functioning of power works. You know, you don't have to work for it. The shape almost guarantees that. And you know, the movies love that. They love that shape. You can do some amazing things just with a nice little pan across the audience with a nice aerial establishing shot to see the shape of the amphitheater, so you can see, see deliberately, the way that power works in a very spatial sense. I
Dr Rad 6:39
must admit, I do love a good camera pan around the arena. It's
Lindsay Steenberg 6:45
got to be done. It's it's hard to tell who that gaze belongs to when you do the full kind of almost 360 probably to the gladiators on the sand. But it just get lets you see questions what the spectacle is. Maybe it's the audience. Because if you've seen, if you've seen the stars show Spartacus, the crowds and theaters are as much they're frequently naked. One wonders why? Well, I guess one does,
Dr Rad 7:10
yeah, they kind of
Lindsay Steenberg 7:12
look around and they're like, oh yes, look at the audience. So, you know, you get to do everything with that 360 pan.
Dr G 7:17
I think this sets things up really nicely, because you you've described it as this sort of miniature film within a film. And I do love that that kind of MIS on a beam aspect of it, and that leads us really nicely into thinking about what some of the conventions might be for these arena sequences. What are audiences expecting, and where have those expectations come from in cinematic history?
Lindsay Steenberg 7:39
Oh, I've got stuff on this. Let me tell you, it is a kind of mise en a beam. And one scholar describes it as a mise en spectacle. So, you know, a spectacle within the spectacle of the film. So the kinds of conventions that you get, it's really interesting. As somebody who studies film, I hate saying that, like, oh, it's universal. It's always the same. Because films, you know, reveal a lot about the time and place they were made and the time and place they're watched. But a gladiator fight is remarkably consistent. So the conventions are really, really sticky. We really like them. We're not giving them up as to where they came from. It's a little bit hard, you know, there's a there's a myth that may have basis in fact that when Ridley Scott was going to make the original gladiator film. Someone showed him a picture of the painting pelica verso, which has a gladiator waiting to kind of decide if he for the Emperor, decide if he's going to die. And it's, you know, so this neoclassical, sumptuous painting, and someone held it up and said, I want to make this painting into a movie. And that was how they kind of worked. So like in the Colosseum with those conventions. So the way the sort of typical, the typical arena fight goes is that you always want to have the pre fight sequence down in the backstage area, bonus points if it's in that nice little basement beneath the trap doors, kind of area that's very exciting. It always it often sounds really similar, like there's like whisperings of gladiators in the corner, this kind of metallic clangings, and then you have that beautiful from the dark tunnel into the amphitheater sequence. It's often sort of backlit, so you can see the outline, the silhouette. And then all of a sudden, you get the spectacle and that pan of of the arena and who's watching and who's there, the way that I sort of tend to shorthand describe what are the conventions of a gladiator fight. Are from the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. So Tina Turner's there, Mel Gibson's there,
Dr Rad 9:29
two men into. One man leaves, two men enter, one man leaves. You know, how
Lindsay Steenberg 9:33
do you do a gladiator fight? That's it. That's what you do. It's just two men enter. That's the scenario. That's the setup. But within that, of course, there's nuance, there's always a moment where the camera is going to spend a little extra time looking at the gladiator who wants you to have time to enjoy that he is part of the spectacle. You know, you're going to have a moment where, if the gladiator fight is between more than just one versus one, you're going to have a moment where the men bond, you know, where Maximus is like, you know, if any of you. Been in the army. Stick with me the same in the second film, like, Okay, guys, we're going to do this together. So you get the bonding, the Brotherhood of the gladiators. You sort of do that. You get that moment of the salute, which I know historians, it makes them a bit itchy, because it never happens, but Hollywood says it did, and apparently we love that. We want the gladiatorial salute. I noticed that in the second gladiator film, they don't really do that. I think they're sidestepping. They're trying not to get them themselves into some historical trouble. But the we who about are about to die, salute you is, is part of so many gladiator movies that we really like that, that part. So you normally get the salute before or the presentation of the gladiators before the fight. The fight is interesting because I am currently also writing a book now on fight scenes, so I spend a lot of time watching fighting. There's not as much fighting in an arena fight as one might expect. A lot of it is talking, planning, staring at rhinoceros, thinking about what you're going to do next, you know, giving a nice little speech to the crowd. How very dare you watch me staring at the Emperor? So, you know, the actual percentage of sword on shield action is quite small because it's, it's a narrative spectacles, whether as well as a violent spectacle. So you'll always get that talking the moment of sort of dialog in there. And then, of course, you always have the thumbs up or the thumbs down again. I think it's something that makes historians itchy, but it's something that Hollywood says, Yep, we want it. We want thumbs up, we want thumbs down. It's really easy and where it all comes from. I mean, I've probably, I've probably watched more gladiator movies than than most humans. Any human it comes from. The beginning of cinema, you get these kind of biblical or historical epics that were made in Italy. I mean, Hollywood loves a biblical epic. So you know, right down, even in the in the silent era, or the early era of cinema, that you still got these kind of conventions. You still would have somebody fighting animals inside of an amphitheater. You would still get the thumbs up, thumbs down. So it's, I'd say, that the gladiator fights on screen are as old as cinema, so they often involve Pompeii. That's that's a place we like to fight, and
Dr Rad 12:07
we like it when the volcano erupts during a gladiator we
Lindsay Steenberg 12:11
really do. If you can get gladiators fighting for their lives behind the volcano exploding, we get disaster movie. We get action movie. It's all
Dr Rad 12:17
happening exactly, and what are they going to do to finish the fight or run?
Lindsay Steenberg 12:21
I think you'll find both. They're running, fighting what's happening, and
Dr Rad 12:27
they should grab their romantic interest as they leave, because you
Lindsay Steenberg 12:31
don't want to leave her. I mean, you do. A lot of ladies have been killed in Gladiator movies. They Yeah, in movies that were we watch now. Sometimes she doesn't even get a name. Maximus, wife has no name. She she's the dead wife, the murdered wife who who prompts him to vengeance. That didn't always used to be the case in an old Italian pedlum film, you often had the ladies had names. But in the millennial sort of moment, it was all about the sort of the gladiators trauma rather than any kind of romance. It seems that, you know, after Maximus, there's no love story anymore. We've abandoned that which is one sadness and violence. We want
Dr Rad 13:14
those Wistful glances. You
Lindsay Steenberg 13:16
know, so much wistful yeah,
Dr Rad 13:18
now I am so curious to ask you now what you thought about the arena sequences in Gladiator two. Because I must admit, I really quite liked the first gladiator film, and I remember when it initially came out, there was a lot of talk, obviously, about the way that they'd staged those arena sequences, particularly the ones that involved the Tigers and that sort of thing. And there is a really curious thing that Dr G has often picked up on, which is the picking up of the arena sand and the rubbing between the hands that Maximus and now Lucius does spoilers, everybody. But yeah, so we'd love to know what you think. Yeah, we'd love to know what you think about the arena sequences in Gladiator too.
Lindsay Steenberg 14:01
I mean, I was, I was in it for the arena sequences. That's what I was there for. So glad that there were sharks involved. It was, I don't know too much, I think it was delightful. In terms of the arena sequences. I did do the kind of slightly nerdy film thing. I brought a notebook to the cinema hoping that no one would notice, because I wanted to count the arena sequences, because in the original film, there's five arena sequences, and they range from that first one in North Africa, where he fights in that wooden structure, and it's quite sort of homespun, I guess, the amphitheater, and then up into the logical Yeah, just a little a baby, baby amphitheater, and then he goes to the Colosseum, and part of the shock and awe of that fight is the structure, the architecture itself, like this is Rome. So I was quite curious to see how many there would be and where, and they echo each other so closely. We get the first fight sequence with Lucius and this terrifying CGI, apes, monkeys.
Dr G 14:58
Yeah, we. CGI baboons
Lindsay Steenberg 15:01
aliens. Like, why didn't they have fur? I find
Dr G 15:05
it was a shocking choice. It
Lindsay Steenberg 15:07
was such a strange choice. And I find monkeys very frightening. So I was like, Whoa, I would I'd rather they would be, yeah,
Dr Rad 15:12
they were frightening, but also so unreal, like, so unrealistic for the first fight, like you said, like the first film. It seemed right that we started off in that sort of humble, provincial setting. Yeah, with this one, it feels like we started too big and
Lindsay Steenberg 15:28
and then with a with a strange, almost science fiction element. So yes, what I think marked the Coliseum or the the amphitheater fights of the first film was the combination of this digital spectacle like the crowd generation software was state of the art at the turn of the millennium, and people were really impressed with it, but it was also that it was rooted on the sands in that authenticity of like face punching action. So this in that fight, I thought, okay, here we're going to get that lovely combination of digital augmentation, but authentic, like corporeal authenticity. And then I don't know, crazy bald monkeys came, so I was sort of like, okay, I'm willing to I'm it was okay. But then that they was, soon as they got back to Rome, I felt okay. We can recall, we can recover this the arena fights were pretty spectacular. I'd say the choreography of the violence within the amphitheaters was probably more nuanced. It speaks to a franchise based American cinema that demands very sophisticated fighting. It doesn't just want your John Wayne walk up, punch a guy in the face and leave no it doesn't want that thing that they used to do in sort of Hollywood swashbucklers, where you sort of gently slice somebody, they bend over and they die. They wanted to have that kind of brutal realism, and it did deliver. So I haven't, I haven't crunched the numbers on the density of the violence, but I suspect if it follows the pattern that all other Hollywood movies do, there will be more violence, Less talking, more fighting. And I would say that kind of I loved the naval battle, probably just for the spectacle rather than, I don't know where the boats were gonna go. It was a pretty tight space,
Dr G 17:08
a tight space with artificial islands. So where were
Lindsay Steenberg 17:13
they gonna go and the sale? Did they need a sale? They didn't need a sale. But, you know, they crashed together. And we did get some some fighting there. And it, I kind of it felt like the sequel to 300 which was sort of 300 but in water, this was sort of like Gladiator, but in water speed. So I felt like that's, that's what they were doing, like now it's not safe to get in the water. The sharks were great. I loved them, and so were the kind of battle they had the rhinoceros, which I have to admit, I I felt very emotionally attached to that Rhino, and the little sad noises it was making, oh, poor Rhino. And then Pedro Pascal brings his mustache into the amphitheater for some quality, sort of like Oedipal father surrogate son kind of moment. And it that that sort of like that was a good kind of way to wrap up a narrative moment, but make it violent so that you get plot moved lots of violence. And then, of course, it was a little disappointing that Denzel Washington and Paul Mescal didn't fight each other in the Colosseum, but I understand that they wanted to fight in water and beyond Rome, so I forgave them for that. I just kind of wish they'd brought it back into the Colosseum for the final point. Oh, that
Dr G 18:25
would have been a moment, yeah, because it did feel like the river sequence, if we can call that body of river, is maybe the smallest tributary of the Tiber I've ever seen. It
Lindsay Steenberg 18:37
was a modest, little, very
Dr G 18:39
modest, yeah. I'm like, Guys, are you sure this is where
Lindsay Steenberg 18:44
you want to have your final fight? Yeah, I
Dr Rad 18:46
think you put your finger on something there. I actually was not that enamored of Lucius as a character. I think that you did a good job in the action sequences. There was enough brawn there and everything. But I must admit, I found Pedro Pascal and Denzel Washington much more compelling to watch. And I agree. I would have loved to have seen them come together rather than what we actually got, which is, of course, is Lucius and Macrinus coming together after his confrontation with his stepfather. I'm going to call
Lindsay Steenberg 19:22
him Pedro Pascal, is the surrogate dad we all didn't know we needed. Yeah, he's always picking up something like whether it's a little Yoda or, you know, video game character,
Dr G 19:34
finding the child in all of us along the way. I want to hone in for a little moment on the nomarchia sequence, because I think this is one of those things that as a lover of Roman history, even though I'd be I'm very willing to pick up on the detail. I was super excited that this was something that was included in this film, because I feel like it's highly unlikely that I'm going to get to see a sea battle. People in the Colosseum, again, in any film in my lifetime. And I'm interested in your assessment on how well Ridley Scott is bringing that idea to life, and how his conception of it sort of compares to some of the ancient evidence we have for this kind of thing happening. Well,
Lindsay Steenberg 20:18
I was very excited about it as well, and it has been the foremost question that I've been asked, you know, by colleagues, by students, just interested, friends, going there, they didn't flood the Colosseum, how that's so unrealistic, and they kind of see it as this way over the top spectacle. And when I say no, they they did. This was a thing that happened. There were naval battles. People watched them. People are a bit astonished. Now, I
Dr G 20:41
can't, I can't
Lindsay Steenberg 20:43
testify to any evidence that sharks were involved. I think they're sort of quite how did they transport the where was the tank? There's many, many of this would mean
Dr G 20:52
that the salt the water in the Colosseum would need to be salt water. It seems very unlikely. A
Lindsay Steenberg 20:58
little tricky, a little tricky, but the fact that it's within the realm of possibility, I think that is something that is I was like, Yes, I want to see this. I want, I want all that CGI has to offer to bring this spectacle to me. Because I have seen naval battles in other gladiator films. I think I can only recall one I looked at my list before speaking to you, there is a 19 I've wrote it down, 1962 film called The Last Days of Herculaneum, or the destruction of Herculaneum, depending on the translation and they have, they stage a naval battle. Our hero is going undercover as a gladiator for reasons we we don't need to know. There is a lot, it doesn't matter. But he goes and they have this, and it is a low budget Italian- French co-production. So this is the days of those cheap muscle men, Italian films, which are kind of joyful and really fun to watch. And he goes and there's a pond, and they stage a full sort of canoe battle with, you know, all the finest that you know, homespun low budget gladiator movies had to offer. So I found that was one of the most memorable gladiator moments that I recall out of all the Italian movies that I watched, Steve Reeves, the former Mr. Universe, Breaking Chains and stuff and throwing trees. I'm like, no, no, I was in it for that pond battle. That was great. It was slightly awkward as they all tried to fight on tiny boats, but that sort of shows you the what if you just got together, grabbed a camera and some rafts and tried on the pond, versus Ridley Scott's imagining of all the tools and the toys and the spectacles and the islands and the sharks and the arrows and the fire. So I, sort of part of me, wanted it to be even more over the top. We're here. We're on the water. Let's make it happen. I mean, we know that it's a possibility, so let's just roll with that. But I expect he had to sort of temper his his shock and awe vision to be able to still tell a story, because it's hard to make the human element stand out in that kind of a naval battle. Naval battles, I think, are often quite tricky in terms of staging a fight scene. You have to be on the two sides. If they're just shooting at each other from their opposite boats. That's a different kind of scenario. If you want the stakes to be personal, they have to go on each other's boats. They have to get close enough. So I think in that sense, it did work. People who I saw the film with suggested that it was very video game like that. That moment seemed a little bit like an Assassin's Creed video game. So I think there was something kind of like, this is the next level to it as well. But I think they, I think they did a good job. I enjoyed it. I like I said, I would have liked even more just, I throw it all, throw it all at a water fight scene. I
Dr Rad 23:45
have to ask, What? What is more? What is more? On top of islands and sharks and ramming, it could have
Lindsay Steenberg 23:49
been islands. It could have been sure. I mean, we could have brought some, some women right into the amphitheater, and perhaps an emperor could have fallen at least one of them. I mean, there were two. There's a spare. Let's get, let's get Caracalla.
Dr Rad 24:00
Let's have one of them drown. Yeah, maybe
Lindsay Steenberg 24:03
some
Dr G 24:04
nunchucks falls onto a boat. Yeah?
Lindsay Steenberg 24:08
An explosion or two, like, bring Michael Bay on to consult, something could explode.
Dr Rad 24:12
You're right. You know, we've also had the Colosseum actually start to collapse and the crowds start to fall into, you know,
Lindsay Steenberg 24:21
the crowd falling in later. So that was, yeah, more, maybe more sort of Errol Flynn style, like ropes, a little, little swinging in there as
Dr G 24:31
well. Yeah, missed opportunity that one. So, yeah, it was, it
Lindsay Steenberg 24:34
was enough. It was definitely excessive. But somebody could have ridden a shark,
Dr Rad 24:38
yeah, you say Right? Because that was the main thing that people have said to me, they're like sharks gamma.
Lindsay Steenberg 24:43
I mean, yes, like I said, I don't think there were sharks, but there could have been other that they have reported, other animals, look
Dr G 24:50
but the thing that I've talked to people about, and I firmly stand by, is that if the Romans could have put sharks in there, they would have
Lindsay Steenberg 24:59
that's a. Exactly what I said. I'm like, Look, if they could find a way to get a shark into an amphitheater, they would have been 100% behind it. They've been a yes,
Dr G 25:09
very keeping in the spirit of the Romans, could
the sharks fight each other? They would have found a way to make this happen. So
Dr Rad 25:15
really, the great tragedy of this is that the Romans themselves will never see this movie. They will
Lindsay Steenberg 25:20
never see the movie about themselves, although, I mean, when it comes to sort of Rome on screen, the interesting thing is that that, of course, it is, is rarely about Rome. Gladiator is as much about America as it is about Ancient Rome and what we think it was like. So the heroism we see there is very American. Yes,
Dr Rad 25:38
it's okay. So now that you brought this up, I definitely would love to probe a little bit more about this, because one of the things I felt after seeing gladiator two, I didn't like it as much as the first film, and I felt that it was because it was kind of a typical sequel, you know, and that the villains were worse, the explosions were bigger, you know, There was more action, but I felt there was a little less heart and soul and story, and like the main character, for me, was lacking. I mean, as kind of laughable sometimes, as Maximus is, in some ways, there's something so strangely compelling about him, as characterized by Russell Crowe, which I did not find with Lucius so much as I did with fake characters like Macrinus. And I also felt that the first gladiator did have a more obvious commentary on contemporary America and that sort of thing with its I always got the impression that it was sort of talking about how the American people are distracted from politics and what is really going on by entertainment and those sorts of messages, which actually sort of stem a little bit from, obviously, what some of the critics of ancient Rome said as well about their own society. So I'm curious to know what you think about gladiator two and what it speaks to at this moment in time.
Lindsay Steenberg 26:57
Yeah, absolutely. The first one did seem to be a very kind of, you know, it's putting a toga on something, but it is commenting on, what is it like to live in a spectacle driven society? What's it like to kind of worship celebrities, to create a celebrity who becomes so powerful that even the Emperor can't give them a thumbs down. That idea, the sort of the Oliver Reed moment where he says, You know, I didn't succeed because I was the best. I succeeded because I was the most loved. I was most famous. To me, that was an excellent kind of way of thinking about how this fighter performer worked, and how celebrity can be built and manipulated. Whereas there was, I thought that there was going to be a little bit of the similar kind of thing, you know, Lucius would be built up as this celebrity gladiator and and that celebrity would be something that we could think about that seemed to have been emptied a little bit. Yes, he was famous. They were chanting. They liked him, but that didn't seem to make much of a difference. They also quite liked Pedro Pascal's character as this heroic general, but that didn't seem to be something we were thinking about. So it did seem to be a little bit emptied out of some of the more poetic, allegorical moments that the film had, which I found a bit disappointing, because, you know, a nice ancient allegory worked so well, and that idea that the barbarians are at the gate, or, sort of, you know, something is falling, we're under threat. That's something that that gladiator really wanted to think about, you know, what happens when the Empire Falls? What happens if we imagine something beyond this kind of rule? Whereas I found that sort of Lucius speeches were sort of, they don't end tyranny, which is, yes, nobody wants tyranny, but it didn't seem to be very specific. It didn't seem to speak to the moment of what would happen after. So I was a bit disappointed for that missing satire commentary. I was sad when Maximus died. I mean, he was a bit funny sometimes, you're right, he was a bit over the top, and his trauma was so over the top. My name is Gladiator, and I loved it. I loved that melodrama, and I did feel moved when he died. And you know, he was this dream of Rome. Could it ever be good enough to sort of be worthy of his death? Of course not. There was no, no real sacrifice that we were meant to mark in the second one, because Lucius didn't die. Maybe it would have been better if he died. Do I sound horrible, because then he would have fallen again for Rome, and you know, Pedro Pascal's general didn't that that moment didn't have enough gravity and weight to really make us be like, oh, oh, okay, we've lost something here. And you know, why was he there? Why did they want to stop their takeover of Rome to save Lucius? It some of the things were sort of missing in that it was, I think, standard run of the mill, mid level gladiator Movie. Yeah, what it didn't do was chew the scenery too much that I was expecting. I thought that Denzel Washington was going to go full Oliver Reed. He didn't like, like Kiefer Sutherland in Pompeii. I thought he was going to go, yes, he he sort of held a kind of emotional center in the movie that. So it didn't spin out of control. But yeah, I think I don't know whether it depends on when you see it. You know, if I saw it when I was younger, and I hadn't seen a film like it, does that make it more impactful? So maybe if I were 15 years old, seeing this film, knowing Paul Mezcal from other shows, like normal people, I would feel like I did in sort of watching the first film. I'm not sure if it is, but I do feel it was a bit a bit more superficial than the first Yeah.
Dr Rad 30:46
And it felt like it was divided between Lucius, Lucilla and the general, as he's so often called, Pedro Pascal character, gotta have a call in the game, just the general. Yeah. It just felt like it was maybe more divided between them, whereas the first film, it was really all centered on Maximus, even though there were other people who got involved, like Gracchus and Lucilla and that sort of thing. This one, I felt like it was, again, like a typical sequel. There were more distractions and rabbit holes, and there was just, there was just less to root for, I think, with Lucius, you know. And it was just Yeah, I was that was actually the main thing that disappointed me. It wasn't so much the you know, as you say, the arena sequences were executed really well in terms of their cinematography and the spectacle and that sort of thing. But I just felt I was lacking that, that classic gladiator message that films like Spartacus and glad he had to have, yeah,
Dr G 31:42
if I may, I think the reason why you might be disappointed is because the general represents the kind of vision that Maximus was attempting to pursue but was unable to fulfill through his death in the arena, and for him to exit the film so suddenly means that actually, that that narrative aspect is completely lost, and all we're left with now is what we now know is the idea of the natural Imperial inheritance that has already been laid out by Marcus Aurelius through Commodus. And we know how that goes, and it doesn't go well, so there's not a lot of optimism Fauci is coming into this. No, even though he's very angry and he's filled with rage, he's still a prince of Rome. And are we supposed to go for those guys? Because the other ones that we've got on show in this movie, Caracalla and Geta, not, not great, exactly. They're
Lindsay Steenberg 32:39
not, they're not great. They're standard Roman villains. They're, you know, excessive and effeminate, which, you know, classical Hollywood often equates with sort of perversity. Yeah, the notion that it is this ATRA lineal kind of inheritance, like he's his destiny is to be Prince of Rome. It felt like what I kept thinking, what Weren't we going for a republic was that I thought we were talking about a republic. No, yeah, we're good.
Dr Rad 33:04
And there's so much that's left unexplained about, you know, they just have this, you know, this scene where Lucille hurries Lucius out of the arena after Maximus and Commodus both die to get him to safety, to explain how he exists and how this whole storyline is possible. But there's no explanation about Well, why didn't Gracchus and the rest of the senators step up and do what they wanted to do in that power vacuum moment? How on earth did Caracalla and Geta ever get into power where did they come from? Exactly, there's a total lack of any, you know, connecting the dots there, which, which is why it's so frustrating. Because you're like, I don't understand. It seemed like Maximus was getting there. I felt like the only moment where there was a possibility for something similar was when the general dies. Although I didn't really love the timing of that. When Lucius says, Is this how Rome treats its heroes? I'm like, Okay, well, that's a little that's something a little bit different. There was maybe some possibilities there in terms of some, you know, some commentary about how, you know, people can be treated, particularly how good people are treated in more corrupt societies. But again, it never went anywhere. He just, he just died. And that was that it wasn't really followed through in any major way.
Lindsay Steenberg 34:22
I think some of it, too is down to the shorthand that Marcus Aurelius has as a good emperor, and the sort of recent movement towards sort of popular or vernacular stoicism. So, you know, there are places on the internet where it's called broicism. It is this kind of popular, populist philosophy where, you know, it's used a lot people like martial artists or MMA fighters. So you've got the sense that Marcus Aurelius is a good philosopher king, and that Lucius, you don't have to answer the questions because he is. Angry and stoic at the same time. So it isn't that you want to get rid of the kings, it's you just want a good one, not a bad one, which I think to me, even though I knew that Commodus wasn't going to die and leave a republic in his wake, because we may have studied a little bit of history here, I loved that. That's what they went for, that they were like, You know what? We don't want a good king. We don't want a bad king. We want no king, no king. So this one kind of backpedaled on that a little bit. So I thought, Oh, you could have, especially since the two emperors were awful and, you know, have this interesting moment in US leadership there, there was, there was room to do some interesting things that they sort of
Dr Rad 35:39
picked away Exactly, yeah, and Caracalla and geta don't have the backstory that Commodus does as much as Commodus is obviously Caligula 2.0 in the way that they've presented him. You understand very clearly that he has this tortured relationship with his father and never living up to expectations and so and he just has this desperate desire for love and family and connection and so. And maybe it's also partly down to how Joaquin Phoenix obviously played him, because he's a brilliant actor, but you have a certain amount of sympathy and understanding for Commodus, even whilst you totally know he's the bad guy wheras Caracalla and Geta again, there is nothing redeeming these guys nothing, and they have such interesting back stories in real life. It's crazy to me that that none of that was used a real
Dr G 36:30
missed opportunity. I
Lindsay Steenberg 36:31
was gonna say you could hear the difference in the two films too, because in the first film, the the music that you know, the scoring, had the really, meaty themes for Commodus and for Maximus. And, you know, I've read a really interesting article about how the entire film, you hear it, and it is these two motifs coming together and then moving apart. And it's this struggle between two interesting men struggling for power and paternal love, whereas the scoring in the second film, I heard the ghost of some of the classic themes from the original, but didn't quite set up its own unique motifs and identity for its characters. So in some ways, you could hear the difference in the story as much as you could see it. You didn't get those really notable kind of kind of motifs sliding through the film.
Dr G 37:23
I think, yeah, this is one of those things where it's like, do you have Hans Zimmer and his team on board, or do you not have
Lindsay Steenberg 37:31
he's some some film music. People don't care for him very much. But the score of gladiator was really and then Lisa Gerrard, I think that her contribution there, I think really raised it. It just makes a big difference for how you remember the film, and how the film kind of prompts you to feel, and for the scoring in that, yeah,
Dr Rad 37:49
I shouldn't really venture an opinion here, because I'm I cannot to be unbiased, because I actually walked down the aisle to the theme from Gladiator.
Lindsay Steenberg 37:58
It's a very memorable theme.
Dr Rad 38:00
It is
Lindsay Steenberg 38:02
the the much talked about similar melody to the Pirates of the Caribbean fight theme to the to the music and Gladiator I mean, you just have to kind of hum that, and people are ready to find their swords that it's, yeah, it's not exciting. So it was a huge part of that. And I don't recall kind of fight moment with the same musical kind of weight to it. It felt a little bit, you know, I'm not a musicologist, but it felt a lot like the kinds of scoring that you used to see in biblical epic epics from Hollywood, quite orchestral. And I was sort of like, okay, I recognize this. It's just I can't remember it once it's over. And I like to remember the music and think, okay, yeah, that makes me feel like I'm I'm ready for an amphitheater fight. Well,
Dr Rad 38:45
when you think about some of the more notable gladiator films from the past, and I am going to go to Spartacus, just because it's the one I know best, yep, but should Spartacus has that very memorable scoring all throughout it from Alex north, and I know that for some younger people these days, it's a bit much, because there is music every single moment, yeah. But they have, as you say, they've, they very clearly had themes for each character. You know, virinius theme is beautiful. It's a really lovely piece of music. And even though I can see it, I can see that, okay, yeah, that maybe it's a little too much music, but at the same time, it gives the film such a signature, and I only have to hear a few notes, and I'm I'm right back watching that movie, because it does just work like that, I suppose, in our brain. So yeah, I think that there is a lot to be said for scoring, even though it's kind of a bit of an invisible, yeah, part of a movie,
Lindsay Steenberg 39:38
the scoring. And then the other thing that's quite invisible, which I'm always paying attention to, is the stunt performance. So I'm fascinated by the way that that spectacle it, you know, it wasn't just Denzel, Washington, Pedro, Pascal and Paul mescale. It was all of the stunt performers who did an astonishing job of jumping out of boats and, you know, grappling on the sands. So you. I thought that part of it was, was pretty astonishing, but there would have been no point in fighting the twin emperors. They weren't, you know, they're not like Commodus, who we, I think we all know, or most people know, wanted to be a gladiator. So he has, like, you knew it was gonna, it was all coming to that we are gonna find this final battle in the Colosseum. Whereas, you know, not, not so much the similar kind of sort of gladiatorial backstory for the for the
Dr G 40:28
one. And to hone in a little bit, because I think Macrinus is my favorite character in Gladiator and my theory is that he's actually the protagonist of this film. Yeah, he's the one who is demonstrably acting in ways that further plot points, and we see his whole arc across the course of this film as well. And I'm wondering if when we're thinking about it, rather than focusing on our disappointment with maybe what felt like a bit of a flat Lucius, unfortunately, despite, I think, a really workable performance from Paul Mescal. Instead, we get a really sort of shining light with Macrinus, who seems comfortable in his costumes, and, you know, is owning every room that he moves into, and is finding ways to make things happen for him rather than against him, when it could go either way, really, before he gets there. I'm wondering how this might be a useful way to think about this film. I
Lindsay Steenberg 41:25
think so. And I think Denzel Washington's performance really did stand out in this film, like he was interesting, he was baffling in some ways, because at one point I thought, well, he wants the same thing as Lucius. Let's topple Rome. Let's do it. Let's go and I think that's what he wanted. We're not sure why, and I sort of like that. They never gave him a tragic backstory or tried to kind of bulk that up. It was just, this is what I'm doing. This is politics. I am the puppet master. I, you know, I will manipulate everybody to get what I want. So I think if you look at it from that journey, at first I thought he was going to be the Oliver Reed. He was going to sort of give him a pep top, be the coach, you know, get in there. But he wasn't. And he was, he was evil in a pretty great way. So I think that it was that one performance that all the other ones sort of circulated around. He did not, though, have that kind of physicality where it was going to end in a fist fight, even though it ended in a sword fight, I guess so. I think that if you look at it from he is this canny, disappointed, cynical, almost motiveless kind of angry revolutionary. I think that that makes it a much more interesting film. That makes it something to go. What, whoa, okay. What? Okay, Denzel take us along for the ride. So I do think he was the more interesting character. And he did own all the rooms, although sometimes I it did seem like he was wrestling his his clothes a little, and I was sort of like, okay, and I found that a lot of the upper class people, with the exception of Connie Nielsen's Lucilla, did seem to wrestle their clothes a little. And I sort of figured that this must be deliberate, and that, you know, the gladiators with their almost no clothes, they can move, they can stand, they can be embodied, whereas the upper class characters are struggling with togas and and trying to kind of manage themselves, whereas, you know, the Denzel mostly just sat there looking like, yeah, okay, unfold in front of me. I've made this Yeah,
Dr G 43:31
I look I feel like the toga is a bit of a constraining garment at the best of times. It's a bit awkward, it's a bit heavy. Does get in your way? So it does make the Senate an easy target if you're planning a revolution, but it doesn't seem anybody's taking real advantage of that. Unfortunately.
Lindsay Steenberg 43:48
I mean, I almost missed it that they paraded the senators with Lucilla into the amphitheater for execution. I almost missed that. I was like, Who are they? Oh, okay, those are the senators. Okay, like they seem to be less important than they were in the first one and that no, you know, nobody. None of the senators were fighting. None of them seemed very good at puppet mastering. They were outmaneuvered completely by Denzel Washington's character, by the monkey, even like they they didn't have
Dr G 44:17
a clout. Their job seemed to be to roll over when required to
Lindsay Steenberg 44:22
do what somebody said. You know, Lucilla said this, okay. You know, Denzel Washington says this, okay.
Dr Rad 44:28
You got well, Macrinus is such an interesting choice because this is not my area of specialty, this time period. But from what I am, from what I know, Macrinus is a bit of a blank slate of a historical figure. I mean, we know some things about him, but we don't know as much as we would like. So And certainly, there were problems when he became involved in Imperial politics because of his lowly background. But he certainly wasn't as low as the movie seems to indicate. You know, they've, I think they've tried to heighten the drama by I think it would be hard for a modern audience to really get. On board with the idea that, Oh, he was equestrian and not from a senatorial family, or how disgusting that he was really equally rich class.
Lindsay Steenberg 45:08
Is he middle class? Can we do that? Yeah, exactly.
Dr Rad 45:12
Whereas trying to give him this other backstory where he, you know, came from nothing, and then, you know, took himself to the top. I think that was meant to be the drama of it, the self made American man, exactly. Americans love a bit of rugged individualism, you know? They
Lindsay Steenberg 45:27
really do. And he, yeah, the hold himself up by his bootstraps. This, this is, these are heroic qualities. They've come to be villainous qualities as well, but often in action films where we're supposed to wonder about the motives of the villain. I'm thinking about Black Panther, or something like that, villains who, you know, made something of themselves from nothing in an unjust system. So he has that kind of backstory. But yes, it would not have worked if they were like, actually, he had a house like this. He didn't need to steal the other guys. Yeah, and that would have been okay for him, and he had power, just not as much. So, you know, we need the story. The underdog is a really important character archetype, and often in cinema, people have to work really hard to make their characters be underdogs. So, you know, you can just throw them in an amphitheater, and that works because they're automatically on the sand, not up in the stands, but giving them that pull themselves up by their bootstrap story is a good one that
Dr Rad 46:28
might, that might turn to our earlier conversation about America. Perhaps, maybe that was meant to be something there and just wasn't emphasized enough for it to come through.
Lindsay Steenberg 46:36
Yeah. I mean, heroic kind of conventions are so interesting, what we think of as a heroic quality and who we want to be our heroes that is very, very specific. Even if a the kind of gladiator as a man forced to fight against his will is pretty standard, who he is and what he get represents, does shift quite a lot depending on if you're looking at an Italian story from the 50s or the 60s, are you looking at like an Asian tournament film from the 1980s so much changes into in what we think is heroic that it's interesting to kind of trace it back to that, that kind of national specificity of where that hero is made and who he's supposed to appeal to.
Dr Rad 47:17
That's actually a perfect segue for us to talk about the idea of the gladiator and celebrity, which you did allude to before, when we were talking about Maximus and that sort of thing, but we would love to know a little bit more about the relationship between gladiators and celebrity on film, especially because we know that gladiators had a very interesting position in Roman society as someone who was both disgusting but also embodying certain Roman values that were much admired and were meant to kind of inspire in terms of when they were performing
Lindsay Steenberg 47:51
absolutely that that double status of them. I think that that speaks to exactly how we view celebrities, from a Kardashian to a sports celebrity. The idea that somebody is both, you know, a bit of a train wreck, but also somebody to admire and imitate is, I think, you know, a kind of quite an ancient formulation that stuck that notion that a gladiator is sort of the best and the worst of a society and somehow mixed together. I think that is also really interesting, and that's something that I've wanted to analyze and talk about, because over, you know, quite frankly, hundreds of films, television shows, adverts, the gladiator is when you see a gladiator character, you know right away that you're in a world that's corrupt and falling so you see him, you're like, oh, barbarians are at the gate. The Apocalypse is going to happen. That's Maximus. That's katnius, Everdeen, whoever it is, you see the Gladiator, like, Oh, we're forcing people to fight for fun. It's the end of the world. But they're also simultaneously the best of their world. If you're facing an apocalypse, whether it's Vesuvius or a nuclear war, you find a gladiator, you make friends with them, and they will see you through because they they say that the apocalypse is happening just seeing them, and that they're the one who can, uniquely with their particular set of skills, survive the apocalypse. So they're the best and the worst at all times. So I think that there is something that remains the idea that a celebrity is somebody who we want to imitate and admire and even who has influence over us, but at the same time we're deeply suspicious of that's really easy to talk about when we have infamous celebrities and the whole True Crime boom, and how we've come to elevate serial murderers as celebrities. That's like the tail end of that spectrum. That's way over there. Whereas a gladiator uses violence to make themselves famous, we love them. We admire them. Sometimes, maybe even the Romans wanted to be them. So there, I believe that there are records of aristocrats really wanting to try their hand at being a gladiator, but at the same time to. Put yourself and your body on display for entertainment is kind of quite taboo, and I love that they often found themselves in the same category as actors and even as sex workers, because that is something that has continued and many gladiator fictions, from the sort of television Spartacus to the Pompeii film they do enmesh the kind of sex work and gladiators as a similar category, and that's often another moment of spectacle that's layered on top of the violence is the sexuality of the believing that when
Dr Rad 50:33
I get to see it, there is an allusion to it in the first gladiator film, obviously that scene between Maximus And Lucilla. And obviously, at some point they did have relationship, although not when he was Gladiator, to be fair, as we now know, because of Lucius, all revealed. It's all revealed. I actually, genuinely did not see that coming. I didn't think that that was a thing. I mean,
Lindsay Steenberg 50:55
it, they kind of dropped it like it wasn't a thing, but it was, I mean, maybe hinted in the first movie that Lucilla and Maximus, they definitely had a relationship at some point, totally, but I don't know that we were ever supposed to believe that Lucius was Maximus son. But this one, they were just like, yippee. Is
Dr Rad 51:12
totally Yeah. No, exactly, I thought so too. I was like, Whoa. Okay, you seem very certain about this all of a sudden,
Dr G 51:17
yeah, if you weren't paying attention, yeah, exactly.
Dr Rad 51:21
There's trinkets being passed down.
Lindsay Steenberg 51:25
There's heirlooms. What? Yeah, did this happen? Just
Dr G 51:28
to recap on the first season, he's the son.
Lindsay Steenberg 51:32
Spoilers, he's the son. I mean, in some of this is when I was researching for the book on Gladiators, I came across the unrealized screenplay for a gladiator two that was written by Nick Cave,
Dr Rad 51:45
oh yes, I did see this referred to in your book, and I was so intrigued.
Lindsay Steenberg 51:50
I mean, I'll be honest that no gladiator two could ever live up to the absolute insanity that was part of that screenplay. And Nick Cave, I think he has said, like, I wrote it because I knew they'd never make it. I just knew they wouldn't. And Lucius was in it. He was in it. He was not Maximus son, but he was in it. And if I recall the screenplay correctly, the afterlife, there's gods, and it ends with like a 25 minute montage of Maximus fighting in every single war in history, like from the trenches of World War One to Vietnam, to the Civil War, like, just, let's give up. Let's just put this celebrity gladiator in every battle ever, and sit back and watch. And I was like, you know, and win. I would have watched that,
Dr Rad 52:34
you know. I saw Lucius being a character. I did. I thought as soon as I heard that there was going to be a secret, which I never thought there would be because of the way that the first one ended. But as soon as I heard I thought, yeah, for sure, Lucius is going to be a character. But never thought he was going to be a character in this way. I again, kind of wish they'd done something different with him. But thinking about Lucius, and again, going back to this idea that he was not quite the same as Maximus. Why is it you think that Maximus was built up so successfully as this sort of celebrity fighter, and yet in Gladiator two, it's, again, it's a little bit more muddled. You know, he is, as you say, he does earn his stripes in the arena, but it's just never quite as focused and clear as it is in the first film,
Lindsay Steenberg 53:22
I think it maybe is that they gave up on thinking about celebrity a little bit. So the first film they did have, you know, win the crowd. Win the crowd. You'll win your freedom. This is what you want, the dream of Rome. Win the crowd. In the second one, that wasn't quite as much a part of it. He was a good fighter, and that was enough, like it was, he was good at fighting, but he the kind of theatricality of what the battle was, and the fact that Maximus spectacle was that he hated them all and that he blamed them for the spectacle like that itself was a spectacle that we loved. We loved him being angry at us. That was great. Lucius was just kind of diffuse force of anger. He didn't it wasn't for a reason. It was just, I'm angry. I do all the fighting, all the fight. You just put someone in front of me, let a fight him. Whereas Maximus, I think that we often kind of read a lot of hesitation, like, I don't want to kill all you guys, or I'm protecting my friends, you know, stick with me. We will, we'll. We'll fight this battle. I saw that they wanted to build Lucius up as a leader, you know. They kept saying, you know, you need to lead your men. He gave the speeches. But that didn't seem to it didn't seem to stick as well as I think it probably did in the first film, you didn't get the same side characters, I think, like even if the gladiators, I can't recall, I can't recall all of their names, but he did have his friend, his very good friend. And then we saw, you know, a few of the same figures again and again. And we got a sense that there was a fraternity, that he was becoming closer. And that's something like in Spartacus. I am Spartacus. You have that fraternity, that crowd gathering around them, whereas Lucius had the one friend who was the doctor, but I and the one who died in the first arena fight. But I didn't get the sense of his, his family of gladiators with him in the same way that I did in the first one. And of course, in all the Spartacus, the Sparta chi, the many Spartacus films, TV shows, retellings, just that, that that brotherhood didn't seem to be quite where it could have been. I think
Dr G 55:33
they, they did definitely try to shortcut that by having a Spartacus esque moment.
Lindsay Steenberg 55:38
They so had a Spartacus moment. And when I was in the cinema, everybody giggled. It was
Dr G 55:41
like, Yeah, and I think, I think that's a reasonable response, because the back work on the additional characters in the gladiator troupe wasn't there to justify them all sort of taking part in that moment and being willing to step in and defend Lucius in that way. We didn't have a reason for that to be true. So I think that's why it felt, felt flat and maybe a little bit comedic. Yeah,
Dr Rad 56:06
whereas Maximus is so clearly someone who's earnt the loyalty and the trust of the men around him, and they clearly, they clearly adore him. Same thing with Spartacus, but yeah, you don't ever really get that with Lucius. It's kind of like, Why does everybody care about this guy?
Lindsay Steenberg 56:21
We're just gonna follow him to our Yeah. Okay. I mean, sure. Why not? Gladiator movies are written in shorthand, so I you know there's, there's often not time. I guess what gladiator the original one was, wasn't a bit of an exception. It was a bit of a gladiator movie that did offer you a backstory, that did think through things like male friendship and things like that. Whereas most gladiator movies are sort of delightfully one dimensional, it's like, what are we fighting for? For fighting? That's why we're here. You know, why do you fight? Because I can, like, there doesn't need to be too much complexity necessarily behind the fictions. So I sort of, when I came out of the theater, I was like, Gladiator two is a gladiator movie, like so many others. It has the same things. It has the same conventions, the same short hands. Everything feels familiar. It's just, I think that they're the first gladiator film was a bit of an exception. The trauma was more melodramatic. You know, there's also theorists have sort of noticed a break around that time too. The sort of the world has already fallen and we're all doomed that comes from Maximus onward. So we just, you know, we've just accepted that our hero is always sad. He's never going to get another wife. He's too sad. She's dead. All ladies don't matter to him, because he only fights. He has no time for romance, whereas the kind of pre millennial Gladiator, even Conan, even Conan the Barbarian, is kind of being raised as a gladiator, still gets a little bit of romance. He still has a bit of joy. He gets a sequel as well. So you get a little bit more playfulness and joy in the pre millennial gladiator who bite gladiate because he likes it. Why do you fight? It's awesome. I love fighting. The second sort of iteration is, oh, I'm sad, and I have to, and they're making me and then I'll die. So there is a kind of break in there. Whereas, you know, I think Paul Mescal was enjoying himself. He looked sad, but it felt like he liked fighting. So it was a bit of a throwback to the more traditional, actually, and it's
Dr Rad 58:23
interesting that you bring up the ladies side of thing, because I felt that that was, again, another aspect that was inexplicable, and that was his relationship with Lucilla as his mother, because that was the real relationship. But it went from being completely one way where he was like, Get out of my set. You were banished me. You mean nothing to me. I don't even remember who you are, mother who I'm sorry you didn't raise me. And then all of a sudden it was like, I would die for you. I would do anything for you, just like, what is happening. And that is an unusual That's an unusual turn events, because we don't often have the mother of a gladiator as a
Lindsay Steenberg 59:03
there are no mothers in Gladiator movies. They have all been killed, all of them. Yeah, she was really interesting. And I did enjoy her performance. She had a kind of, you know, dignity that's normally lacking in a gladiator movie. So I thought Connie Nielsen did a great job reprising her role. He switched with her, the way he did with the Pedro Pascal character, with the sort of, all, you know, I hate you. You replaced my father, kind of very Oedipal sort of struggle, like, how very dare you come and steal my mom. But then was like, oh, but okay, in the same thing, I hate you, mom. Okay, no, I don't. So it was a very kind of strange turn of events. And they did have her, you know, all in white on the sort of sacrificial thing, so that it was clear that she was going to be this, this sacrifice, and she was going to be the tragedy that kept him burning for some time afterwards, although I was secretly hoping. Think that the ending would have been every man was dead, and she's like, well, Rome is mine. Obviously the best person for this
Dr Rad 1:00:08
job. It looked like that's where it was going for I thought it was going there. I
Lindsay Steenberg 1:00:11
got excited. Yeah, I also found it. You know, the most unrealistic thing that Hollywood did was not the sharks in the Colosseum. It was imagining a relationship where a woman was older than a man, so Connie Nielsen is a bit older than Pedro Pascal. That never happens. It happens so infrequently, and it's always such a big deal that people commenting, you know, Anne Hathaway is in a romance film with a much younger man. Oh, they didn't comment on it, and it was just there, and I was watching, going, are they going to say something? No, they're not. Okay, Googling it afterwards, just getting a very niche difference. She's just, she's just going to be the love interest of a younger man. Oh, she died. I'm not going to say it was because of that, but I found it was, like, one of those striking moments. I was like, okay, Gladiator, too interesting. So if they had let her keep her her Pedro Pascal and rural Rome, I would have decided that that was much more exciting at the end. I agree.
Dr G 1:01:12
It's a wrap up question, because I feel like we're heading in that direction now with with this sort of alternative ending, which that's a film I would love to see, was there any particular moments in this film that did drive you crazy in terms of historical accuracy?
Lindsay Steenberg 1:01:28
I mean, I think I'm probably better than most people at being able to put that on a bit of a back burner, because I'm a film scholar, and I'm a scholar who studies a lot of historical films, a lot of historical films that are so incorrect that it's you just, you get itchy, it drives you crazy, or you give up. So I do, I do know how to, you know, healthily, give up on historical accuracy. There are some things where I felt they missed a trick, because history was more interesting. I'm like, Why? Why didn't you go into the backstories of those emperors. That was a crazy stuff happening. I would have been really cinematic. Also, the why, where was their mom? I guess Lucilla was offered as a maternal character. Like at the end, Caracalla said, you know, do we? Do we have to kill her? So maybe. So they missed a few tricks, and also the the gender politics and hierarchy of the of the actual arena, like the way things might have been segregated, who sits where i It's so interesting, the way that a hierarchy can be written in space that way. I'm like, Come on, let's do it. Let's we're those Vestal virgins. We're always thinking about them.
Dr G 1:02:41
They seem to be in the Senate House. I'm sorry, but that's where they seem to be hanging out. Yeah, I
Lindsay Steenberg 1:02:46
guess so weird.
Dr Rad 1:02:48
Yeah. We both saw that woman and the dress the way that she was in the Senate scene. And we were like,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:02:52
is that a vessel? Yeah. And there were a few women sort of wearing white in the background, looking disapproving. And I sort of wondered, I'm like, is that? Is, are they the best? Is we could use her? She would be a great character. So I just, I think that it didn't, it didn't upset me that that, you know, there wouldn't have been sharks in the Colosseum, or that I knew that the story was different in history than it was in the film. It was more like history is such a wild ride in this time and in this place. Why wouldn't you want to go there? And I know that the historical consultant for the first film, I think she worked with them, and then sort of said, Could you not put my name on that? Actually? Yeah.
Dr Rad 1:03:34
Kathleen Coleman, yeah, she absolutely did. Like,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:03:38
I'm happy to be involved in films, but you might not have listened to what I was telling you, so I can understand that the first one was more accurate, and somehow it was more accurate. But yeah, so I think that the thing that that is is sort of often a disappointment is, is not necessarily the gladiatorial salute that never happened, or the the thumbs up, thumbs down. It's more like, oh man, you missed some amazing parts of history that would have been so cinematic. I do think, though, for my students, especially, the films are so visually arresting that they will replace history in our minds as a collective. So there's always when you watch these movies, it's not a risk, it's just an interesting function and effect that if you see something that is so astonishing, it kind of sits there in your brain and it's not going to shift. So even if you know there's no thumbs up, thumbs down, or you know that they weren't saying we are the moratorium, we are about to die, it's in there, and it's part of the myth, so it can replace so I don't get too mad when the history's off, but I do think there always needs to be a place where someone says, Actually, no, or actually, yeah, you could have, you could have brought the, you know, you could have flooded the Colosseum. So, yeah, that, I guess my fundamental thing is, movies are spectacle. They're not real. I love it when they do things that are over the top. They could bring more historical over the topness and. And But effectively, we always do have to have the moment of conversation where we say that Rome is beautiful, but that's a Rome that the American imagination in 2024 built out of computers and, you know, martial arts trained bodies. It's not necessarily telling us too much about Rome. Yeah, I
Dr Rad 1:05:17
think that's the thing. I also am very forgiving of historical films, because it's also what I like to focus on. But I must admit, when I see a film like this, where I feel like the major issue was the story and the characterization, because the technology was there, the money was there, the talent was there, both, you know, both in front of us in terms of the actors, but also behind the camera and putting all the bits and pieces together. There was just so much talent actually in this film. And I'm just like, why did you make it harder for yourself? Like you obviously struggled with the story
Lindsay Steenberg 1:05:52
more than anything about plot points, you were exactly your plot is all
Dr Rad 1:05:57
over the place. So why wouldn't you use what is actually there, because, you know what, it's already been crafted into a story by ancient historians who are probably making stuff up to and
Lindsay Steenberg 1:06:07
they knew their audience wanted to hear that as well. And they they knew how to tell a good story.
Dr Rad 1:06:12
Yeah. And I was a bit disappointed, actually. And I don't, I don't think of Ridley Scott is someone who is, I don't really know how I feel about this, actually, but Caracalla and geta being portrayed the way that they were in that white face makeup, given their ancestry, I was so confused as to why those actors were cast, and that was the makeup choice they went for, especially, again, in a film with Denzel Washington playing the krius. It just didn't make sense to me.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:06:44
What yet they did make it harder for themselves, and could have kind of Lent back on some of the stories that were or the mythology that's already there. I wonder if they felt shackled to the first film, because the story, you know, had that like and then he was a leader, and then the wife died, and it was captured, and he came to Rome, and he fought for Rome. So I wondered if they were thinking that they needed to stay so close to the film that they forgot that they're telling historical story.
Dr Rad 1:07:16
Yeah. Look, as you say, it's a fascinating addition, because Ridley Scott being someone who is an older director, and someone who grew up watching the original, like golden epics of Hollywood, you can definitely see those reference points in there if you know the history of film. But I think again, that's the weird thing. Like Gladiator, to me, is just the love child of Spartacus and full of the Roman Empire, you
Lindsay Steenberg 1:07:39
know, yeah, and Anthony Mann's film Fall of the Roman Empire does not get nearly enough credit for having influenced that film and for for just being an AWESOME film, really. So yeah, it absolutely was kind of those biblical epics, sort of those those Hollywood epics stuck together, but sad. So
Dr Rad 1:07:57
you think you'd think, really, Scott could therefore take his own film turned into something good too.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:08:03
It's like, What happened, man, what were you doing? And I mean, when you watch a Ridley Scott film, you often whatever you think about what's happening, you're like, Yeah, but it was visually amazing. And I yeah, I did think this one was arresting and spectacular. I'm glad I saw it in a big screen, but I think it did miss a little bit of its own stylization, like when you watch kingdom of heaven, you were like, Whoa. You know, I don't, I don't know why Liam neesons here, but I'm enjoying what I'm watching, and it's stylish and it's interesting. For this one, it was spectacle. It was good, but I sort of felt like it. It missed a little bit of what Ridley Scott used to be really good at, yeah, Blade Runner good at, yeah, that kind of esthetic that belongs to its own world and makes its own visual language. So this, this felt like I said, mid range gladiator film, which I will always watch,
Dr Rad 1:08:58
yeah, very watchable. Yeah, very watchable. But I think, to be honest, that actually was the same issue with his Napoleon for me, because that was so visually stunning.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:09:10
Yeah, amazing. No matter what you think of what's happening in that film, you're like, well, it looks amazing.
Dr G 1:09:18
I was so angry
Dr Rad 1:09:21
about it, because the acting was terrible. And again, it came down to the plot being a total mess, trying to do way too much.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:09:29
And again, history had a great plot there. Yeah,
Dr Rad 1:09:32
exactly it's, I don't know how he made Napoleon so dull it was, it was crazy. Yeah,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:09:43
I'm gonna keep in my pocket his reaction to historians watching the film, which I think is one of the funniest things a director's ever said, is, you know, people like, oh, it's not very accurate. It's not this. And he just said, f off. It's a movie. Yeah, guys, I was like, Okay. Ridley Scott, I see where you're going. I. Yeah,
Dr Rad 1:10:00
and it's, it's not that, as you say, it's not about the accuracy, per se. It's more that. I'm like, Well, if you can't come up with something better, then why wouldn't you go to the original story, which is good. That's why people want to see a film about Napoleon. You know that that's the issue I have. I'm like, well, by all means, go. Be fictional. Make it up. But yeah,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:10:19
make it crazy. Yeah, exactly. Give us a bit of bridgerton, sure. Fine. Yeah, absolutely. Why not? Yeah.
Dr G 1:10:25
I think this draws our attention to the really important role of the screenwriters and the creation of screenplays in general, and maybe what is going on inside the Hollywood system at this current epoch with script writing and the way these things get changed and altered to suit what seems to be like a committee like structure of like what needs to be in this film. And so instead of being able to tell an original story of gladiator two, which is a natural continuation of the point where the first film ended instead, what you get is a film that is trying to hit the same notes exactly, because that's what made that film a blockbuster, and that's what that's what made it great. So we've got to do that same story again, but now we've just got to have some slight alterations to see if we can enhance that spectrum. Repetition
Lindsay Steenberg 1:11:16
with variation. Works in movies. It works in myths. It works in novels. You know that must make that's a genre repetition with variation. But you have, you have to vary. You have to surprise people, even just a little as you give them what you want. So I don't, I mean, I've spent a lot of my career studying big franchises like Mission Impossible, like John Wick, even Fast and the Furious. And they have that. They're an ecosystem. They have that committee logic, where, you know, you have the one, and then you have to have this, but more this, but more, you know, now with nunchucks now on water, so you do have the logic. You just
Dr Rad 1:11:51
got to go to Tokyo drifting. Yeah, we're gonna get gladiator
Lindsay Steenberg 1:11:55
three. Tokyo Drift would still watch the chariot. There'll be chariot. There's got to be, like, a take on this, like, I want to see that. But then you do feel like what is missed, what loses is that what made the first one special was its variation, and you haven't varied it, so you've given me tried to make literally, what is the first one. And I think you're right about the screenwriters as well. I mean, in an era where, you know, Hollywood is striking because of things like AI, an AI can write a script to gladiator two, it will not be like Nick caves. It will not it'll probably be a little closer to this film that we saw. I'm not saying that an AI wrote this. They absolutely didn't, but the notion that you feed in the kind of familiar tropes and it pops out what you wanted, I think that's often just not enough for us as viewers, even though, historically, often the sequels do make more money than the first. So I'll be curious to see how gladiator two performs at the box office, because when I went to go see it. It was sold out. I have not gone to a cinema where I've been turned away and they've said, No, it's sold out. Or since the 90s, like, I couldn't believe it. I'm like, wow. Okay, that's amazing. So I will see it. Might be enough of a same thing we wanted, but slightly different this time on water that it makes a lot of money, in which case, even if we are feeling a little disappointed that we might get gladiator three Tokyo Drift too fast to gladiator something I would 100%
Dr Rad 1:13:35
like today, Gladiator film where they're too fast and too furious. I would watch that. Well, I think that's probably a perfect note to end up on with our wishes for the future. Dear Ridley, Scott, do you have another one in you? Thank you chariot racing, exactly. Yep. Thank you so much for coming and chatting to us all about the gladiator movies, and Gladiator two in particular, it has been a complete delight. Is there anything that you'd like to tell us about that you are working on that we should keep our eyes peeled for in terms of articles or books or anything like that? Okay,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:14:07
a little shameless self promotion time. Yeah. I guess I think what has been so interesting for me that I'm working on right now is modern interpretations of gladiators that kind of stand out as metaphors for precarious workers in our kind of gig economy. So I've been very interested in things like squid game, very interested in reality TV shows where people gladiate, there's a there's a British show called Romans, Oh,
Dr Rad 1:14:35
yeah.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:14:37
Quite interested in the way that like metaphors like freelancer and stuff like that have become so entrenched in the way we talk about precarious employment. So yeah, I'm, I'm quite interested in writing about things like squid game and and finding out how gladiators have really kind of embedded themselves in our in our in our lives, in sort of like Anglo American and Australian culture.
Dr Rad 1:14:58
Well, that sounds fascinating. We are here for that excellent
Lindsay Steenberg 1:15:01
look forward to squid game two.
Dr Rad 1:15:03
Yeah, it'll come. Thank you so much for coming on the show, and we look forward to perhaps talking to you again when gladiator three eventually makes its appearance on our screens. That would be my pleasure.
Thank you for listening to this special episode of the partial historians. You can find our sources sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina and joy De Guzman. You too can support our show and help us to produce more lively content about the ancient world by becoming our Patreon. In return, you receive exclusive early access to our special episodes. And today, we would like to thank all of our wonderful Patreons and Ko fi supporters for helping us to cover the cost of making the show and taking it in new directions. However, if you have overindulged and blown all your cash on Jaguars earlobes and Wolf nipple chips whilst watching the games, then please just tell someone about the show or give us a five star review. You have no idea how much that kind of stuff really helps these days, Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
For our full show notes and edited transcripts, head on over to https://partialhistorians.com/
Support the show
Patreon
Ko-Fi
Read our books
Rex: The Seven Kings of Rome
Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
