+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: References & Reviews (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your (/showthread.php?tid=12824)
Pages:
1
2
"FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - FlaviusCrispus - 06-04-2008
OK, I just bought the restored Miriam version of "Fall of the Roman Empire" and just finished watching it. I already knew the overall plot was similar to that of "Gladiator," but this viewing really rammed it home. The first and third acts of each movie are essentially identical, with only the middle section differing greatly. Of course, the middle section (in which Maximus becomes "The Spaniard" and slices and dices his way back to Rome and toward a death match against Commodus) is why "Gladiator" is called "Gladiator" and not "General Maximus" or whatnot.
Anyway, I couldn't help comparing the two films, and particularly the performances of the various characters within, and declaring a "winner" for each matchup.
OVERALL PRODUCTION VALUES -- No question, FOTRE. Without CGI or other digital trickery, the 1964 production really conveys the enormity and monumentality of the Roman Empire in all its glory. Some of the costumes look a little more Byzantine than Roman, but it looks as though the costume and set designers did their research. "Gladiator" looks pretty good too, but the CGI Coloseum stuff (particularly the infamous overhead "blimp shot") looks, well, like CGI. The costumes look like they were designed by someone who was shooting for an Oscar, rather than really studying the period and trying to recreate it. The shots of Commodus' triumphal entry are too obviously cribbed from "Triumph of Will." WINNER: FOTRE.
MARCUS AURELIUS -- Richard Harris does a decent job in "Gladiator," but seems more like King Arthur than a Roman Emperor. Alec Guinness is absolutely perfect as the weary emperor. I especially love the way he cups his hand waving to the assembled masses, a la the Pope, before delivering his big speech. WINNER: FOTRE.
LIVIUS / MAXIMUS -- Russell Crowe absolutely blows Steven Boyd away. It's true that General Maximus is a much more compelling and better-realized character than Livius, but one gets the sense that, if the roles were reversed and they each spoke each other's lines, Crowe would still come out on top-- he's just a much stronger, more weighty presence than Bowd, who comes across as a rather thick-headed, dutiful lummox. WINNER: Gladiator.
LUCILLA -- Connie Nielson vs. Sophia Loren? You gotta be kidding me. Even with a woefully underwritten part. you just can't take your eyes off of Sophie, while Connie makes little if any impact overall. WINNER: FOTRE.
COMMODUS -- Joaquin Phoenix is actually very good as Commodus, particularly in that heart-rending scene where his father tells him he won't be emperor (of course he immediately crushes our sympathy by smothering the old man...); the only problem is, he has a tendency to rush through some of his lines and be a little mush-mouthed. Christopher Plummer is obviously having a wonderful time playing the deviant Caesar, but he maybe chews the scenery a bit too much. WINNER: Tie.
MINOR CHARACTERS -- I suppose James Mason's imperial counselor would have to be weighed again Oliver Reed's Proximo. I like Mason a lot, but Proximo is much more of an "impact player" and hey, he died making the movie, so you have to give him the nod. There's no real counterpart for the Gladiator part of Juba in FOTRE; maybe you'd match him up against Antony Quayle as Commodus' gladiator mentor. Juba wins that-- Quayle is a great actor, he just doesn't have enough to say or do. You'd have to say the supporting characters in Gladiator are overall, just a little more memorable and colorful. WINNER: Gladiator.
SCRIPT -- One of the big problems of FOTRE is that it's schizophrenic: The military-political scenes are pretty well constructed and the dialog is pretty convincing, but the love scenes between Livius and Lucilla can only be described as atrocious. Gladiator's script is a bit more dumbed down from a historical standpoint, but is just shot through with memorable lines and compelling one-on-one scenes and is more consistent overall. WINNER: Gladiator.
HISTORICAL ACCURACY -- Neither movie is really all that accurate, but you'd have to say FOTRE follows events rather more closely (at least the reign of Commodus seems longer than the few months seemingly portrayed in Gladiator). WINNER: FOTRE.
So I have FOTRE ahead in four categories, and Gladiator in three, with one tie. But I have to intervene here and say the importance of the central character (Maximus vs. Livius) is so great that this win counts for two, so we have a split decision.
How does everyone else feel? Who wins this death match?
Films - Graham Sumner - 06-04-2008
Hi David
I pretty much agree with all your comments. The Achilles heel of FOTRE was the script which as you say in the romantic scenes especially was quite dire! Probably the reason why Charlton Heston turned the role down. Both have huge plot holes. Why oh why did Livius go into Rome alone at the end and why didn't Maximus just go to his army and tell them what Commodus had done?
I disagree that the minor roles are better in Gladiator so would give that to FOTRE too. Plus an extra bonus that all their historical research was pre Russell Robinson but they had right equipment from the right era too. Guiness IS Marcus Aurelius, he even looks like him. Also as you point out the entry into Rome sequence in both films is interesting to compare. FOTRE wins that hands down, even the crowds cheer better! You missed out the soundtrack music. Zimmer's Gladiator is much easier to listen too than Tiomkin's FOTRE although the march into the forest in the latter is quite impressive.
Perhaps at the end of the day as you say it really boils down to the lead character and Crowe would have simply blown anyone away!
Graham.
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Narukami - 06-04-2008
Excellent analysis Flavius!
Crowe is impressive. We know from his earlier films that he can act and his performance here is powerful.
As beautiful as Sophia is her performance did not grab me where as Connie's did.
Both you and Graham are right -- Guinness IS Marcus Aurelius.
Oliver Reed is excellent and it was fun to see Derek Jacobi in a toga again.
On the other hand...
The legionnaire helmets in Gladiator really bother me, as do the Neo-SS Praetorian Guards. :evil: Black armor? Some signifier have animal skins on their helmets and some do not, and on and on ... We have all been down this same road several times now.
Both films have their moments to be sure and it is often the case that just as much hard work goes into a poor film as into a great one.
I am still waiting for the latter. :? cry:
Narukami
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - FlaviusCrispus - 06-04-2008
Grahm Sumner wrote:
Quote:I disagree that the minor roles are better in Gladiator so would give that to FOTRE too. Plus an extra bonus that all their historical research was pre Russell Robinson but they had right equipment from the right era too. Guiness IS Marcus Aurelius, he even looks like him. Also as you point out the entry into Rome sequence in both films is interesting to compare. FOTRE wins that hands down, even the crowds cheer better! You missed out the soundtrack music. Zimmer's Gladiator is much easier to listen too than Tiomkin's FOTRE although the march into the forest in the latter is quite impressive.
Very good point about the dueling scores-- that should have merited a mention. I agree with you about there relative merits: I don't get why people praise Tiomkin's score for FOTRE-- it seems screechy and formless, with a lot of running up and down scales instead of true melodies. The music too often just doesn't match the action onscreen. When Commodus makes his triumphal entry, for example, you see trumpeters riding along with tubas at their mouths, but don't hear any trumpets or brass instruments at all. Hanz Zimmer's music for Gladiator is much more memorable, melodic and atmospheric. So Gladiator wins on that score (no pun intended), putting it in the overall lead.
Minor roles better in FOTRE? Let's think about that for a minute. In FOTRE, you have James Mason as Timonides, the counselor, who is a nice, calm presence, whose main role is to present exposition and represent the "reasonable and civilized" part of the Roman Empire. You have a couple of generals (one named Victorinus, I forget the other) who are supposed to represent the gruff military types; they don't have much to say or do. You have the blind guy, Cleander, who ends up poisoning Marcus Aurelius, who remains rather puzzling-- why he turns against his beloved master is never really explained. You have an oily Senator, Niger, who (along with Commodus) represents the "decadent, corrupt" side of the Empire; again, his motivations are never really explored, and he comes across as kind of a mustache-twirling villain. Then there's Finley Curry as the revered old senator who gives the speech praising the Pax Romana; he has only one big moment, though, and, again, he's more of an archetype than a real character. Who else? Oh yeah, Antony Quayle's lanista character, who never really does much except back up Commodus, and John Ireland as Baldomar, the Barbarian king, who has a really bad fake beard.
In Gladiator, you have the aforementioned Proximo, world-weary lanista, and Juba, the African gladiator sidekick; you also have Derek Jacoby as Senator Gracchus (why is the good senator always named Gracchus?), who is always convincing and compelling; you have Quintus, the Praetorian Prefect who initially betrays Maximus but later backs him up at a crucial moment. There are a couple of other senators, Gaius and Falco, the latter of whom is sort of an oily counterpart to the Niger character in FOTRE. You have Lucilla's kid Lucius Verus, who doesn't look very Roman with his paige boy haircut, but still adds some youthful energy to the mix, and you have that wild arena announcer in the orange fright wig, who I really dug for some peculiar reason. Oh yeah, you also had that other beefy gladiator type with the Arnold-style accent, and finally Tigrus of Gaul, who doesn't say much but has a pretty bitchin' fight scene with Maximus.
I dunno, I still think the Gladiator characters are a little more colorful and less stock figure-like than the ones in FOTRE, but it's a rather close call, I'll admit.
FOTRE - Graham Sumner - 06-05-2008
David wrote:
Quote:you see trumpeters riding along with tubas at their mouths, but don't hear any trumpets or brass instruments at all.
You get that in a lot of epics from 'Robin Hood' to 'Ben-Hur', the orchestra itself is playing the instruments, not who you see on screen.
Quote:James Mason as Timonides, the counselor, who is a nice, calm presence, whose main role is to present exposition and represent the "reasonable and civilized" part of the Roman Empire.
I like the interplay between him and Marcus Aurelius, in particular during the parade sequence. Plus the fact that he is a Christian but this is not revealed until the end.
Quote:You have a couple of generals (one named Victorinus, I forget the other) who are supposed to represent the gruff military types; they don't have much to say or do. You have the blind guy, Cleander, who ends up poisoning Marcus Aurelius, who remains rather puzzling-- why he turns against his beloved master is never really explained.
Polybius (Andrew Kier) and Victorinus (George Murcell) and Cleander (Mel Ferrer, one wonders if their roles were drastically cut. Guy Rolfe (who played King John in Ivanhoe) is in the Senate and at the stake but is uncredited and says nothing and two Barbarian girls suddenly appear in the drinking scene. Niger was played by one of my favorite actors Douglas Wilmer who played goodies and baddies equally well in many epics. He ranks alongside Frank Thring as one of the best actors in these epic roles.
Quote:You have an oily Senator, Niger, who (along with Commodus) represents the "decadent, corrupt" side of the Empire; again, his motivations are never really explored, and he comes across as kind of a mustache-twirling villain. Then there's Finley Curry as the revered old senator who gives the speech praising the Pax Romana; he has only one big moment, though, and, again, he's more of an archetype than a real character.
You missed out Eric Porter's Julianus, destined to buy the Empire at the end. He stabs to death Finlay Currie in a scene that was evidently cut from the original but otherwise his role was a good but minor one.
Quote:In Gladiator, you have the aforementioned Proximo, world-weary lanista, and Juba, the African gladiator sidekick; you also have Derek Jacoby as Senator Gracchus (why is the good senator always named Gracchus?), who is always convincing and compelling; you have Quintus, the Praetorian Prefect who initially betrays Maximus but later backs him up at a crucial moment. There are a couple of other senators, Gaius and Falco, the latter of whom is sort of an oily counterpart to the Niger character in FOTRE. You have Lucilla's kid Lucius Verus, who doesn't look very Roman with his paige boy haircut, but still adds some youthful energy to the mix, and you have that wild arena announcer in the orange fright wig, who I really dug for some peculiar reason. Oh yeah, you also had that other beefy gladiator type with the Arnold-style accent, and finally Tigrus of Gaul, who doesn't say much but has a pretty bitchin' fight scene with Maximus.
I did not think much of Juba in Gladiator, his character does not do much. It is not explained why Quintus suddenly betrays his commander because we are not told about his reward of promotion to Praetorian prefect or what happens to the original. I thought it would have been fun if after making the joke about the poisoned food (Arnold) suddenly dropped dead. I think someone has also pointed out on IMDB but I have not yet checked, that after being riddled with arrows he does in fact later help to carry the body of Maximus at the end, is that right? Tigris of Gaul, liked the mask but not the helmet or armour! David Hemmings of 'Charge of the Light Brigade' fame, played the announcer but loses points for a British actor saying "legionnaires"!
Otherwise sounds more and more like you are leaning towards 'Gladiator' but I will not be converted at this late stage in life.
Graham.[/quote]
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Theodosius the Great - 06-05-2008
Ave Centurio Crispus,
I largely agree with your thorough critique and I second Narukami's comments. But I think you need to have a more weighted scoring system. "Script" being the most important factor (IMO) should probably be worth something like 4 points.
BTW, are we comparing the Extended Edition of Gladiator to FOTRE ? Or the original release ?
I prefer the extended version even though it does slow the film's pace considerably. Great films should be longer, IMO.
Quote:LIVIUS / MAXIMUS -- Russell Crowe absolutely blows Steven Boyd away. It's true that General Maximus is a much more compelling and better-realized character than Livius, but one gets the sense that, if the roles were reversed and they each spoke each other's lines, Crowe would still come out on top-- he's just a much stronger, more weighty presence than Bowd, who comes across as a rather thick-headed, dutiful lummox. WINNER: Gladiator.It is also interesting to contrast the two men's reactions to the Emperor's sudden death. Livius is willing to accept Commodus in order to avert a bloody civil war whereas Maximus is willing to start one (which gets him into trouble right from the start.)
hock: Boyd's performance was so wooden in this film. But the same can be said for everyone else in the cast except for Guinness. The cast was great but when you have a bad script the cast can't carry the film on its own. Appearance-wise, Boyd looked too Nordic which only clashed with Sophia's Latin features. He looked great in Ben-Hur though where he gave a better performance.
In terms of watchability : I have to say Gladiator is infinitely more watchable than FOTRE.
FOTRE is superior in so many ways but it has more flaws at the same time which makes it so heartwrenching to watch. It's hard for me to say which was worse, the score or the script. The latter is more important of course but the score greatly marred the film.
~Theo
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Lanista - 06-05-2008
Code:
LUCILLA -- Connie Nielson vs. Sophia Loren? You gotta be kidding me. Even with a woefully underwritten part. you just can't take your eyes off of Sophie, while Connie makes little if any impact overall. WINNER: FOTRE.If you're comparing the like for like formats on DVD (the super-duper-extended-longie-longie-full-of-ace-and-awesome versions), then Connie Nielson has a lot more to do in "Gladiator" and really shines (for me, anyway - it's all subjective).
Great idea for a thread, though - I love reading the smackdowns of any variety, so this is wicked.
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Theodosius the Great - 06-07-2008
One of the cast members, Mel Ferrer, died a few days ago at the age of 90.
Here's an obituary :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... errer.html
~Theo
extended.. - Caius Fabius - 06-07-2008
I want to see the extended directors cut of FOTRE! with all the deleted scenes! :lol: and "the Making of...."
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Theodosius the Great - 06-10-2008
Quote:The Achilles heel of FOTRE was the script which as you say in the romantic scenes especially was quite dire! Probably the reason why Charlton Heston turned the role down.
Yes, old Chuck was usually smart in choosing his roles. But there's more to the story which is revealed in the DVD commentary of 'El Cid'. According to the commentators Heston hated Loren's guts at the time. He thought she was one of the most unprofessional actresses he ever worked with. One of his pet peeves was her showing up late on stage (what did he expect, she's Italian :wink: ) But they also said that he was really just jealous because he found out she was paid more (a million dollars) than he was for 'El Cid'. So, he didn't want to put up with her in filming another epic in Spain. Later in life his attitude toward Loren softened quite a bit as he himself wrote down in one of his many writings according to the commentators.
There's more commentary about FOTRE on the 'El Cid' DVD but you've just read the best part. The context was the Samuel Bronston epic trilogy of 'El Cid', '55 Days in Peking", and "Fall of the Roman Empire" (1961, 1963, and 1964 respectively).
Quote:I want to see the extended directors cut of FOTRE! with all the deleted scenes! and "the Making of...."Amen to that
They have the footage, I just hope they don't take their sweet time in releasing it.
~Theo
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - FlaviusCrispus - 06-11-2008
Quote:They have the footage, I just hope they don't take their sweet time in releasing it.
So we'll have to buy another, super-extended version of FOTRE when the new footage is added back in? Sheesh, what a racket!
Seriously, I noticed from an above exchange that there is now some kind of super-extended ("director's cut") version of Gladiator out? When did this happen? Would it be available as a Blue Ray, by any chance?
Does this new version do more than just add back the "deleted scenes" seen on the original DVD in their proper context?
One final thought: Looking back at FOTRE, I'm struck by what an odd, inconsistent character Livius is. Early in the movie, he supervises a mass execution of some of Commodus' men (I suppose this is supposed to be a "decimation") for their cowardice in the forest battle against the Germans. Commodus tries to stop it, but he insists that it continue. What the men are supposed to have done that deserved decimation is not really clear-- during the battle, some are seen running away as the Germans attack, but others are fighting hard in the midst of a wild, general melee. So, Commodus comes across as the humane guy, while Livius seems like a brutal martinet. Then later, after Livius puts down the rebellion in the East, he receives a message from Commodus ordering the leaders to be executed, which he then rips up and pronounces that he will march on Rome to overthrow Commodus. But isn't a full-scale rebellion just as bad (or worse) than showing cowardice in battle? It seems to me the writers never really got a fix on who Livius was-- old-school disciplinarian soldier or "enlightened" and compassionate liberal? -- and the movie suffered as a result.
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Gaius Julius Caesar - 06-11-2008
Or possibly someone who had it in for Commodus?
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Narukami - 06-11-2008
Quote:Quote:They have the footage, I just hope they don't take their sweet time in releasing it.
So we'll have to buy another, super-extended version of FOTRE when the new footage is added back in? Sheesh, what a racket!
Seriously, I noticed from an above exchange that there is now some kind of super-extended ("director's cut") version of Gladiator out? When did this happen? Would it be available as a Blue Ray, by any chance?
Yes the Home Video Market is a racket. How many copies of Star Wars do we all own? (Beta, VHS, Laser, Letterboxed Laser, DVD, Special Edition DVD, Original Theatrical Release DVD, and some day soon Blu Ray)
Frankly I was a bit surprised that FOTRE was not also released on Blu Ray so I would look for that and Gladiator sometime in the next year when the US switches over to the digital broadcast format and people start buying Blu Ray players to feed HD into their digital HD monitors.
Besides great video resolution the Blu Ray discs have uncompressed audio making for some stunning sound. As voiced above Gladiator has a good music score and it should sound even better on Blu Ray.
Narukami
FOTRE - Graham Sumner - 06-11-2008
Hi David
Quote:One final thought: Looking back at FOTRE, I'm struck by what an odd, inconsistent character Livius is. Early in the movie, he supervises a mass execution of some of Commodus' men (I suppose this is supposed to be a "decimation") for their cowardice in the forest battle against the Germans. Commodus tries to stop it, but he insists that it continue. What the men are supposed to have done that deserved decimation is not really clear-- during the battle, some are seen running away as the Germans attack, but others are fighting hard in the midst of a wild, general melee. So, Commodus comes across as the humane guy, while Livius seems like a brutal martinet. Then later, after Livius puts down the rebellion in the East, he receives a message from Commodus ordering the leaders to be executed, which he then rips up and pronounces that he will march on Rome to overthrow Commodus. But isn't a full-scale rebellion just as bad (or worse) than showing cowardice in battle? It seems to me the writers never really got a fix on who Livius was-- old-school disciplinarian soldier or "enlightened" and compassionate liberal? -- and the movie suffered as a result.
The orders given to Commodus and his Gladiator troops are that they should stand and hold while the rest of the army will move in and close the trap to capture Ballomar the enemy chief. This is understood quite clearly by Verulus (Quayle) who says's "We will stand and hold"! As you point out a lot of the Gladiators actually run away and the Tribune Polybius (Keir) later remarks to both Commodus and Verulus "Ballomar's escaped because some of your Gladiators were cowards!" So that is why they suffer decimation.
From what I remember Commodus orders the destruction of a number of communities who supported the rebellion not just leaders. It is this final inhumane act which makes Livius up to then the ultimate 'company man', finally realise what he has to do to stop Commodus i.e march on Rome and get rid of him.
What then does not make sense is that after seeing even more cruelty by Commodus, the murder of the Germans and Timonides, is his decision to go into Rome on his own to reason once again if not with Commodus then the Senate. However perhaps he does not realise that by now they are completely Commodus' creatures!
Sorry David just defending a hopeless position. :wink: I am fully aware of all it's faults but I saw it when I was six so I just love it warts and all!
Graham.
Re: "FOTRE" vs. "Gladiator" smackdown: Your - Theodosius the Great - 06-12-2008
Quote:So we'll have to buy another, super-extended version of FOTRE when the new footage is added back in?
Yes, the one I have is this one :
![[Image: 51GA6V6VE1L._SL500_AA240_.jpg]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GA6V6VE1L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Gladiator-Extende ... 029&sr=1-1
New run time is 171 minutes (up from 155) and this version was released back in 2005.
All deleted scenes are reintegrated into the film. The extended scenes / dialogue now make more sense. We now know why Commodus says "I'm so terribly vexed."
? Connie Nielson's role is much larger now - I'd say almost twice as large.I don't know if there's a Blu-Ray copy out.
~Theo