Historical movies all share one common enemy, historians, it seems that most historical movies have trouble with keeping true to the past. Blockbuster movies like Braveheart riddled with historical inaccuracies and lacking authenticity are rather common nowadays. One film distinguishes itself from the rest and that movie is Gladiator. The director of Gladiator actually employed an historian to help with the making of the movie, but is the movie Gladiator historically and realistic? Yes and no, while the movie is remarkable in some aspect like in regards to historical facts, most of its plot is actually fiction. For example, looking at the characters in this movie, the main character is fictional but inspired by other historical figures. However, …show more content…
For example, Marcus Aurelius is portrayed as a wise philosopher like he is described in history but they put a twist on his character by giving him republican beliefs. This small change in history is the catalyst that leads to the events taking place in the movie. It creates an alternate universe that makes for an interesting take on how things could have gone down. Another difference in the movie from reality is connected to the republican beliefs given to Marcus in the movie, in the film, Marcus wants Maximus to rule Rome and restore the republic but in reality, Marcus wanted Commodus to take over after his death. Aurelius wanted Commodus to become a great emperor, he paid large fees to get intellectuals to educate Commodus, and he went to great lengths to make sure Commodus would have an easy time taking over as the emperor. Not everything in the film is made up obviously Marcus’ accomplishment as told in the movie are true, he was also seen as a great ruler that was loved by everyone making his death a tragic event, according to Herodian “When the news of his death was made public, the whole army in Pannonia and the common people as well were grief-stricken; indeed, no one in the Roman empire received the report without weeping.” (1.4.8). The movie manages to portray Marcus Aurelius in a different light while keeping who he was at the core and that is what is fascinating about this …show more content…
For instance, since the main character is fictitious Commodus couldn’t have been slain by him, Commodus actually died assassinated by a wrestler. However, he also ruled for about twelve years unlike the short amount of time he govern in the movie. According to Speidel’s studies, Commodus went insane close to the end of his reign “In A.D. 192, the last year of his reign, Commodus threw restraint to the winds and had the senate declare him a god. He assumed such titles as Conqueror of the World, Roman Hercules, and All-Surpasser and named the twelve months of the year after himself. Founding Rome anew, he gave it the name Colonia Commodiana and ordered the legions likewise to be called Commodianae” (Speidel 109). In the movie Commodus didn’t make it to that stage but even in the movie Commodus was irrational and psychotic. Commodus took part into the gladiator lifestyle in both the real world and the film only difference is in reality the other gladiator were too scared to actually fight him seriously. In the film a senator says that Commodus will bring the people of Rome death and they’ll love him for it, showing that the people love him just like in reality. Commodus death didn’t bring the Roman Republic back in reality unlike the film but otherwise, the movie is fairly accurate with Commodus’
Caesar was a great military leader, he was a man of strength, and he conquered all of Rome. Caesar was not afraid to take charge to take Rome high and make them more powerful. If he had to Caesar would kill anyone that stood in his way of making Rome more powerful. “Kill everyone inside” “without hesitation, his men, swords drown, burst inside the bar, and soon the street was quiet.”
One of these instances was the portrayel of David Crockett. “ Many historians agree that Crockett was not a key player in the battle and had actually been killed quite early during the fighting, but the film has him being killed as POW”. https://sites.google.com/site/apusmoviereview/cinderella-man-wynton-emily-lane. This shows that while the film did take great strides in accuracy with e clothing, weapons, and battle styles of the time. They took great privilege n creating a more likeable and outstanding hero for plot development within the film to attract sympathies and enhance the story for the audience.
The story was based off of the novel, The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara. All of the people in the movie were real people. The actors' hair and costumes closely resembled the person that they were acting as. No fictional characters were created to add any drama or secondary plots to the movie. There were not any romantic subplots added to the film either.
Throughout the film, it shows the scenery, clothing worn by the characters and the guns that they used as well. This was a major role in keeping the film true to the Revolutionary period in American history. Although characters such as Benjamin Martin and his family are fictional, there are many pieces that are essential to the film’s plot that are true. Certain events such as the battles, and people are illustrated in throughout the movie for historical accuracy. The restriction on civil liberties was a major factor prompting Americans to rebel.
Their dialogue and the events surrounding it all comes across as completely true by fitting the personalities and archetypes of the characters, setting
Commodus becomes jealous of Maximus because his father favors Maximus more than his son. This is very similar to the story of Cane and Abel where Can Became jealous of Abel and Killed him (Genesis
Although they told history in the novel, they definitely add their own touches to history. The authors are well aware of this issue, as it forms the topic for Part
As a writer at Gladiators Monthly, I am examining the historical accuracy of the movie Gladiator. There are aspects of Gladiator that do and do not hold true to the historical accuracy of the Romans under Commodus. This essay will show how the depiction of Commodus has both accurate and inaccurate qualities, while the portrayal of the Roman crowd determining the fate of the gladiators is quite accurate. In reality, Commodus did not kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, nor did he reign for such a short period of time.
Roman Gladiators Movies and TV shows today have led to many people, including myself, to have several misconceptions about the Roman gladiators and the battles they fought in. Most people will picture these warriors fighting in gruesome battles to the death surrounded by thousands of spectators in the famous Colosseum, and while this depiction of the fights did happen, they were far less common than people may think. While there were many gladiator battles that took place in the Colosseum, this building was constructed long after the gladiator games were brought to Rome, and regardless of where the battle was being held, it was uncommon for the competitors to die during the games. Gladiator games in Rome meant so much more to the citizens
It may have less impact on the reader because it is not in a first person perspective. The point of view is different. Reading a historical fiction version helps readers see things from a different perspective. Rather than just learning about an event, readers can see it through someone’s eyes. They would be able to experience the thoughts of someone who personally “went through” the event.
Even so, the director and the writer did add some historically inaccurate information of the politics of Rome. Begin with a senator in the film, saying that the Roman Senate was elected by the people of Rome to represent the people of Rome. This is false the senate was selected by a high ranking official like the emperor never the people. The film also mentions that the Rome was a Republic when it was founded. This statement is false as well Rome was founded as a monarchy in 753 BC with Romulus being the first king.
Julius Caesar, is a play based on the true events that occurred in Roman history. The play follows the fictional lives of Caesar and his people leading up to, and after his assassination. Several characters can be labeled as both villainous and heroic at different points in the play due to their actions, however, this does not apply to the character of Marcus Junius Brutus, who remains a hero through the entire play. Brutus is a hero for several reasons, The first reason Brutus is considered to be a hero is because he continuously stands up for what he believes in. Secondly, it is clear that Brutus is a hero because he kills himself as a sacrifice to the roman public.
However, even though the film is heavily reliant on multiple components of traditional Greek mythology, it is no way a proper alignment to the themes presented in those myths. Rather, it relies on an increasingly Christian perspective of informing its narrative to the
For example, the romance portrayed in the movie has some truths, but it’s artificial. The romantic myth in this story is shown how Dracula dies on behalf of his wife’s suicide to be able to come from the dead and can reconnect with his wife, this is what we call reincarnation. This belief is brought to life in the move. However, vampires are also a mythical
Everyone knows that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by his friends, so they naturally assume Caesar is a tragic hero. In digging deeper, the real tragic hero of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar is revealed. To begin, William Shakespeare’s play is based on historical events that occurred in Rome around 44 B.C. Julius Caesar was born in 102 B.C. and died in 44 B.C. During this time, he became a power-hungry military leader. His rise to power was a result of such actions that made the Roman public love him.