06-04-2008, 05:54 PM
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?
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?
T. Flavius Crispus / David S. Michaels
Centurio Pilus Prior,
Legio VI VPF
CA, USA
"Oderint dum probent."
Tiberius
Centurio Pilus Prior,
Legio VI VPF
CA, USA
"Oderint dum probent."
Tiberius
