Gladiators make a comeback on the silver screen

Even if historical films like Gladiator II , debuting Friday, are inaccurate on key points, CU Boulder Department of Classics Assistant Teaching Professor Travis Rupp sees value in them as a gateway to getting students interested in real history

As an assistant teaching professor in the Department of Classics at the University of Colorado Boulder, where he teaches a class on ancient sports, Travis Rupp gives the Roman-era period film Gladiator decidedly mixed marks for historical accuracy.

That does not mean he is not big fan of the movie, however.

"I get asked about the movie Gladiator all the time. Most people just assume that I hate the movie. And actually, I love it. Gladiator is one of my top five movies of all time," says Rupp, who teaches Greek and Roman archeology, Egyptology and Roman history, with a special focus on ancient food, alcohol and sports.

"What's funny about it is that the movie came out in 2000, while I was an undergrad at the University of Iowa, and one of my roommates and I got so obsessed with the film that, no joke, I think we saw it a dozen times. I wasn't even a classics major at the time; I was an English major. We just loved the movie that much."

With Gladiator II hitting the big screens Friday, Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine asked Rupp for his take on what Hollywood gets wrong (and right) about gladiators, how today's movies about the Roman era compare with those made in the Golden Age of Hollywood and whether historical films can ever be 100% accurate and still engaging.

Question: What did Gladiator director Ridley Scott get wrong and right in the 2000 film?

Rupp: There are some big deviations. One thing I would say they got right is the setting of the film. The film starts off with Emperor Marcus Aurelius at war on the northern frontier with 'barbarian' tribes, and that's accurate. Marcus Aurelius spent essentially his entire principate at war.

And one thing I think Scott did well was with the casting of (Richard Harris) as Marcus Aurelius, because he (Harris) captured the role with his cerebral manner and trustworthy cadence and delivery. The real Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher and someone far more literarily focused on his philosophical ideologies than he was war, even though he spent his entire time as emperor at war.

Things begin to deviate pretty quickly from there. When Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix) is introduced in the film, there is this idea that Commodus is still trying to curry his father's favor and get his dear old dad to name him heir to the throne. However, we know from history that Commodus was declared co-ruler before the death of Marcus Aurelius, and there is nothing to suggest that Commodus had his father killed, like in the movie. But it works in the movie to create the idea of him as the antagonist. There's no way you can't hate Commodus from that moment on in the film.

At the same time, the movie does capture that Commodus, as he's recorded in history, was kind of a looney. He was megalomaniacal in a lot of ways, and he was hated by a lot of people, including a lot of people in the Roman Senate. He wanted to be this dictatorial ruler in every sense of the word.

He also fancied himself a gladiator, as depicted in the movie. He was actually trained as a full-fledged gladiator, and he was obsessed with the games.

Then there is the character of General Maximus (played by Russell Crowe), who is entirely fictitious. Ridley Scott said Maximus represented a composite of several historical figures.

In terms of the storyline that's been built into the film, of this idea of a general of such high esteem or regard being singled out for execution, that's not out of the question. These guys (Roman leaders) were pretty rough with each other, and if you crossed the line with the wrong person, they would find a way to get rid of you.

But the idea of Maximus ending up in a gladiator school is pretty far-fetched. That seems highly unlikely, especially given that he was a free man. He had rights as a citizen. But the storyline needed that to drive the film forward. Obviously, that's how Scott creates our protagonist, so I suppose it's understandable.

As for what happened to Commodus, he was assassinated, but there is no indication he was killed in the arena, as in the movie. And Commodus was emperor for about 12 years, whereas in the movie it seems like he is barely into his rule when he's killed, so the film's timeline doesn't really play out right.

Question: As it relates to the gladiator battles in the Colosseum in the film, how realistic are those to actual history?

Rupp: I would say the games are 50-50 in terms of accuracy and how they are presented in the film. Some of the accuracy concerns how the Colosseum is displayed in the film, including with trapdoors and these surprises that could jump out at you, like wild animals, to shock and awe the crowds.

But what's not real is the way the fighting is displayed or portrayed. Today we don't actually think that most of the fights were to the death. Up until the 1990s, most scholarship presented the idea that most gladiators died probably within their first three battles, which would mean most of them only survived about two weeks.

As we've dug deeper into the topic over the last 30 years, we don't have the archeological evidence to support that. We do have gladiator graves or cemeteries, but they're not full of tens of thousands of people that were killed in the games.

Meanwhile, we have a great deal of evidence that there were rules to these games, and that there were hand gestures and signals gladiators could give to stop a fight. There were two referees on the arena floor at all times who were watching for hand signals and could stop the contest if needed. So, why all of these rules and why referees if they are no-holds-barred events?

Hollywood has glorified the bloodthirst and the idea people wanted to watch gladiators die day after day, but the brutal truth of gladiation is that most of these men and women were enslaved, and to put it bluntly, they were really expensive property. Their owners put a tremendous amount of money into feeding them, training them and getting them ready for the games, so they would not want to see them get killed or maimed.

Question: Do you think Hollywood has to fictionalize certain story elements to make a film that audiences are interested in seeing?

Rupp: I think so, absolutely. With a lot of these ancient storylines, if they were to make it 100% accurate, I think they'd lose their audience immediately.

I have friends and colleagues who are probably going to scoff at this new Gladiator film. I'm sure some people are going to want to tear it down because of its inaccuracies.

For my part, I don't think that's the way to approach these things, even from a scholarly perspective. … We've all watched these super-dry documentaries, and it's like, 'Can you Ken Burns it up a little bit here, so I can actually get engaged in the subject?'

It's the same thing for these (historical period) movies. It's reviving these storylines and giving them a new voice for a new era to keep the story moving.

Question: The film industry has been making period pieces about the Roman era for a long time, including Ben-Hur and Spartacus , from the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood. Any thoughts as to whether movies today are more or less historically accurate than those from past eras?

Rupp: That is a great question. I think it really depends upon the film. When you look back on Kirk Douglas in Spartacus , that was just a phenomenal film. With Spartacus , there was a lot of research and analysis from scholars telling them how the military worked. There is that really cool scene at the end of the movie, the last battle, with Spartacus' men against the combined forces of Pompey and Crassus, where there's the slow movement of troops over the hill and you can just feel the tension of war as you see how the Roman legions move.

With Ben Hur, the chariot race sequence is really well done. It is phenomenally accurate in so many ways. …

I think there's been more deviation in the modern era, just in trying to tell a good story, and often accuracy is sacrificed in that way. In Troy , for example, it's a highly contentious film in the field of classics because, for the lack of a better term, it just butchers the stories of the Trojan cycle in a lot of ways. But at the same time, it's a really entertaining film, and it dared to do something that no other filmmaker had really done before, which was to try to give this comprehensive look at what the Trojan war looked like in that last year. How does one judge the reality or authenticity of what was heavily mythologized in the first place?

Question: Do you think movies are a good way to learn about history?

Rupp: I do, actually, even when the movie itself may not be very historically accurate. I think it's a good way to hopefully get people curious and get them to go explore and learn more. For those who are naturally curious, I think historical-themed movies are kind of like a gateway drug to the classics, so to speak. So, a movie like Troy might actually get a student or an adult to pick up a copy of the Iliad and start reading it.

Even movies and TV series that majorly deviate from history have merit, I believe. The Spartacus Blood and Sand series on Showtime was like the movie 300 meets Spartacus. There was just blood everywhere.

But I love it because it keeps history alive. It keeps a select portion of my students interested in history, and saying, 'I'm going to go to the library and find a book on this,' or 'I really want to go to Rome and see these things for myself.'

Without that, our field dies, and we lose history. So, I think Hollywood and films are helping us keep history alive in a lot of ways.

Question: So, are you planning on seeing Gladiator II in the theater?

Rupp: Absolutely, yes. I'll be seeing it as soon as I possibly can, and I'm really excited to see what they do, because they have an all-star cast including Denzel Washington and Pedro Pascal. I've always liked Ridley Scott's films; they're very entertaining. Say what you will about him, Ridley Scott knows how to make a good movie.

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about classics? Show your support.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.