GLADIATOR : story analysis

“Maximus the general is suppose to be dead from direct execution orders of Commodus”

I’m sure they were aware of that. They heard it on...TV.

“ The general more than fainted, he was near death from wounds and travel”

He was near death from a scratch and travel.

“The idea that a general could become a slave is not unheard.”

Yes, but not like this. Hey, I have a new slave!/Yeah, wherefrom?/I found him on the street. Lucky me. He’s a general, he used to command legions, the whole poo pooin’ north army. I’ll have him serving me the diner/Are you insane?/Shut the poo poo up, I found him, he’s mine.

William Wallace, James Bond, Van Damme, Bruce Lee, and many more. Somehow I’m not eager to analyze Walker, Texas Ranger.

There is virtue in simplicity as well as in complexity.

Maximus is dully virtuous, linear, and pathetic when he shouts: are you not entertain?
 
10s said:
...But there's something else, throughout the story his true desire is to be with his family, and in the end, while it ends as tragedy, he does succeed and go to be with his family. I would say his driving desire is to be with his family, but before he does so he must be honorable and fulfill his duty as a military professional and a Roman citizen. He must right the wrong (Commodus in charge) and for the last time, defend Rome by killing Commodus and making the ultimate sacrifice. His death is sweet because as he passes from this life to the next we see his wife & son happily waiting for him on the other side while democratic Rome rises up to fulfill it's promise after the death of Commodus.
Click to expand...


This is pretty much how I see Maximus's goals as well.

His main goal gets sidetracked, but cannot be stopped...just postponed by a few intermediate goals. I'm at work now, but from memory, here is how I see things (from a non-writer point-of-view) :

- [goal] Maximus is charged with the duty of making Rome republic again after Marcus Aurelius dies

- The emperor is slain, Maximus defies the new emperor and is therefore set to be executed along with his family

- Maximus escapes his execution. He needs to go and save his family

- His family dead, [goal] Maximus wants to join them in the afterlife; getting reunited with his family becomes (to me) the main goal

- He is captured and becomes a slave. Juba convinces him to go on living and that there is no need to join his family right away...it can wait

- He meets with Proximo and learns that he might be able to stand in front of the emperor which would give him the opportunity to take his vengeance by killing Commodus; Maximus (to me) still doesn't have a reason to care about the last wishes of Marcus Aurelius. All he cares about now is [goal] killing Commodus and joining his family.

- Commodus and Maximus meet in the arena. It's highly unlikely that he would succeed at killing Commodus with all the guards around, and the young boy somewhat shielding Commodus adds to the dilemma. He can wait another day and perhaps succeed at both (killing Commodus and joining his family in death)

- Lucilla meets with Maximus and makes him realize that by publicly defying Commodus (even as a slave) and "winning the crowd", he has gained power against the emperor. This opens the door to accomplishing the original goal: the last wishes of Marcus Aurelius



Sorry for the verbosity (is that a word?)

So these are all the goals that Maximus has:

- joining his family in the afterlife (main)
- having his revenge by killing Commodus (secondary)
- fulfilling Marcus Aurelius last wishes (also secondary)

I would even go as far as saying that as the opportunities arise, all three goals become main goals

my 2 cents
 
Last edited:
Denis, well said and not too verbose.

Here's my 2 cents: For me the main desire is Maximus joining his family. This is fine, but it doesn't drive the story dramatically enough. If the driving goal for Maximus was only to join his deceased family then all he had to do was die. That's too easy and not worthy of a good story so there has to be more to it.

A Story with a great hero needs a terrible villian. This counter part provides contrast, and Commodus is the perfect antagonist to show it. He's a little wimp and has little honor, always cheating to win. Maximus on the other hand is naturally noble and strong.

A hero and a villian need to conflct over the same thing, I believe the conflict is over love & respect. Commodus wants is to be Loved, Admired, Appreciated; he fails to find it and is mentally twisted becuase of it. This strong desire of Commodus is a constant theme throughout from beginning to end, it's what drives him. Maximus on the other hand already has love & respect in great abundance; he is praised and admired by his troops, loved by Commodus's own sister Luciilla, and Commodus own father Marcus Aurelius loves and respect Maximus more than he does his own son. This is where the tension arises between the two, it was there before the story takes place.

One has what the other can't have. Commodus wants love & respect, Maximus wants family & peace. Commodus has his family most of the time while Maximus is seperated, away in Germania fighting, while life goes on and he misses out on his family in Iberia [Spain] which he infrequently visits.
 
Last edited:
djinjis said:
William Wallace, James Bond, Van Damme, Bruce Lee, and many more. Somehow I’m not eager to analyze Walker, Texas Ranger.

There is virtue in simplicity as well as in complexity.
Click to expand...

So we're throwing "Braveheart" in to the trash heap as well? So be it, but that's a lot of critical and box office success to snark at.
 
Hi 10s,

Originally, I had typed (but removed) something like: "for some reason, Maximus doesn't let himself get butchered the first time he gets into the arena".

So we're on the same page as far as him simply killing himself to join his family...it wouldn't make for a solid story "plot".

I still think however that joining his wife and son is the character's main desire. That desire is emphasized early on during his conversation with Marcus Aurelius when he asks Maximus "when was the last time you were home?". Maximus doesn't waste a nanosecond and answers how many years, months, weeks, days, "and this morning" he says. Then for the rest of the movie, there are those little dolls that he embraces as dearly as if they were his actual family, and at the end, his wife and son wait for him and greet him and (if I remember correctly) Maximus smiles peacefully.

BUT (again), you are absolutely correct that that alone is a weak premise as far as a main goal and story telling (he could kill himself whenever he wants). That is why his secondary (close secondary) goals are so conveniently presented to him. I mean why would he simply let himself die when the opportunities are there to a) kill Commodus and b) have Marcus Aurelius's dying wishes fulfilled? These two secondary goals are big-time gravy for the main character: "hey if I kill Commodus, it will allow Gracchus to make Rome a republic again just like the old man wanted, it will satisfy my desire for vengeance, the praetorians will get pretty ticked off and will kill me on the spot, and zoooooom I'm off to see my family...I'm a genius !"

All that being said, while I still think his main desire is to be reunited with his family, it is overshadowed film-wise/action-wise (as it should) by his desire to kill Commodus and honour old Marcus.

This is one of the many things I love about movies in general. My comprehension and appreciation of this film likely varies from yours and others who have seen it. Some really like it, some really hate it, etc... In the end, I love the fact that we all take something out of a story and make it our own...sounds very corny, but there's no right or wrong here. If Ridley Scott were to read this post, I'm certain he would shake his head wondering what drugs I might be on.

P.S. My main gripe with this movie are the computer generated images....man they look fake !
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, you can just admit joining his family in the afterlife is not his main goal. This movie is about the conflict between Maximus and Commodus not about young hippie Maximus seeking for nirvana.

We all love Wallace, Batman and Robin, but as a writer I want more. They are rather simple characters because they were simplified, idealized. There is a long way from “Braveheart” to “Silence of the Lambs” or “American Beauty”.
 
djinjis said:
We all love Wallace, Batman and Robin, but as a writer I want more. They are rather simple characters because they were simplified, idealized. There is a long way from “Braveheart” to “Silence of the Lambs” or “American Beauty”.
Click to expand...

I get you. But I'm one who gets off on Eastwood's The Man with No Name from "A Fistfull Of Dollars". That character, in terms of complexity, makes Maximus look like someone with multiple personality disorder.
 
I agree on both points. I also think the story world of Gladiator, and the inherent action, is a big boost for its appeal. Imagine taking the story and removing ancient Rome and the gladiatorial arena, putting the story in e.g. Cincinnati OHIO hehe; show the power of a story world as an intricate and important part of a good story.

djinjis said:
On the other hand, you can just admit joining his family in the afterlife is not his main goal. This movie is about the conflict between Maximus and Commodus not about young hippie Maximus seeking for nirvana.

We all love Wallace, Batman and Robin, but as a writer I want more. They are rather simple characters because they were simplified, idealized. There is a long way from “Braveheart” to “Silence of the Lambs” or “American Beauty”.
Click to expand...
 
Spaghetti Westerns are the best and Eastwood made history with that role.

Denis,
an opinion can express the truth or not.
 
Last edited:
djinjis said:
We all love Wallace, Batman and Robin, but as a writer I want more. They are rather simple characters because they were simplified, idealized. There is a long way from “Braveheart” to “Silence of the Lambs” or “American Beauty”.
Click to expand...

These are all good movies. When I first read this post and the inclusion of "Silence of The Lambs" I assumed DJ was referring to Hannibel Lector. But since the issue is Maximus, the lead, and the extent to which Franzoni conceived and developed the character, more likely, and appropriately the anaology would be to Agent Clarice Strarling -- the film's protagonist. Starling has all the ingredients in terms of a character that would please Brother Mckey and that Jag off Syd Field. She changes, she struggles, she edures and grows. But who do we remember? Hannibal. He's static by comparison. Yes, he's brilliant and eats people. But then what? Sketching him as brilliant doesn't equate to character complexity. It's not that easy. And yet, Hannibal is indelible and Clarice isn't. Is it Hopkins's performance? Probably not because Brian Cox was equally if not more compelling in the same role in "Manhunter". Conclusion? There must be something aside from all the text book stuff that makes a character memorable and compelling. I think is has something to do with dropping a character in to a unique situation that's spring loaded with tension. Then, give the character even just a single definable and accessible trait. Maximus? The Warrior ethos, we get it, we watch it, we're captured by it. Eastwood? Lethal and remorseless power, Hannibal? intellectual brilliance and sociopathy.

DJ has a valid point arguably, that Maximus is thinly sketched and yet Russel Crowe has an Oscar sitting on his bookshelf next to his Playstation. It's no accident imop. How to reconcile? My 2 cents.
 
So does Maximus go through any sort of character arc during the story? I keep reading about the importance of character arc, where a character has a weakness (psychological, moral, or even better both) that changes during the story, evident by the end. I am having a hard time finding character arcs in Maximus or for that matter the opponent Commodus. Anybody?
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
So does Maximus go through any sort of character arc during the story? I keep reading about the importance of character arc, where a character has a weakness (psychological, moral, or even better both) that changes during the story, evident by the end. I am having a hard time finding character arcs in Maximus or for that matter the opponent Commodus. Anybody?
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone here will argue that he does go though a transformation. IHOP? He doesn't. But so what? I love character arc, and the idea of transformation is the most important thing to me in life and in anything I write, but I don't think it's always necessary. Look at Braveheart, blew up the box office and rocked critics. The two most memorable characters were William Wallace and King Longshanks. Neither changed much, the character who transformed was Whats-his-name, Longshank's son, Prince of Scotland. He was boring and predictable. I'm not knocking arc, it's great, but it's not the third side of the triangle.
This is just my opinion, and my opinion along with 75 cents can get you a cup of coffee at Mel's Diner in Pacoima.
 
Really? You guys don't see a character arc? Interesting, because I would have said Maximus does. I think he goes from being strong, to hard and back to strong again. It's not a huge arc that brings the character to an opposite position, granted, but an arc nonetheless. One can be strong without being hard-hearted but a Roman general was never going to be anything but the epitome of strength, not with the way the Roman's p.icked generals, so no such thing as a soft Maximus, a warm one though

Think about the way he talks about his wife and child, counting down how long he has been away. That's a sign of a man who cares, but after he loses them he couldn't care less about anyone ergo hard-hearted/cold. The first crack in this can be seen when he first encounters Lucious when he is talking about the horses on his breastplate that you see some warmth come back into Maximus, because he cares enough to tell this story to the kid. The interesting twist being that the protection of that kid by his mother is what leads to Maximus' downfall - so that's a nice little setup I think.

I must say, Brain 75cents is a bloody good price for a coffee btw.
 
sorry for this late replay. I had troubles with the connection.

Both Hannibal and Clarice (I pronounce it like Hopkins) are much complex and credible characters than Maximus.

Hannibal vs. Clarice
Clarice is an average woman, top of her class but that’s all. Hannibal is the genius, the freak, and a source of tension. It’s easy for him to make the stronger impression. But Clarice... to make an ordinary woman interesting, especially a woman, ha ha, it takes more craft. I look at a character from the other side, not how shiny it is, how much work it needed.

Hannibal. I think the character’s impact is directly related with the small amount of time he is presented to us. Hannibal is limited by his genius. No matter what he does it’s outstanding. But Clarice has good moments and bad moments, and this is why she is unpredictable and interesting the whole movie. We saw how Hannibal failed in the sequels. Hannibal is spectacular but in small doses.
These two characters are great together.

Books are 10% or less of the craft. All the gurus are mediocre writers.

Russel Crowe has an Oscar, but not for this movie. In Gladiator he has a decent performance, nothing more.

In action-adventure movies there are a lot of heroes without an arc. But the arc enriches a character. If you want a complex character you need an arc.


"being strong, to hard and back to strong again"

Not every slight change is an arc. Of course a character can not be identical every minute of the movie no matter how linear it is.
 
My mistake. I saw “A Beautiful Mind” and assumed he won the Oscar for that movie. Strange because it was his best performance. poo poo the Academy.
 
I've been thinking more about a char arc for Maximus, I think I see it now. Leader to visionary. Truby says the following are the basic archetype character arcs: child to adult (coming of age stories, etc); adult to leader; leader to visionary; metamorphosis (often horror with physical change such as wolfman, vampire, etc). One could certainly make an argument for Maximus going from leader (general of the army) to visionary (dethrown Commodus and restore the Republic).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top