2 weeks ago
4
Do you hear how boring you all sound? Ridley Scott doesn’t care about Gladiator 2’s historical accuracy, and neither should you.
When it comes to blockbuster cinema, it’s Ridley Scott’s world, and we’re just living in it. It’s been that way since the 1970s, and we wouldn’t change a thing, goddammit. Sometimes, you have to listen to a master’s better judgment – and that means not being caught up in the finer details.
Even if you have zero interest in watching Gladiator 2, you’ll have no doubt seen historian Dr Shadi Bartsch sounding off about “Hollywood bulls**t” to The Hollywood Reporter. She’s got some good points, though. A character seen sipping tea and reading a newspaper would indeed be inaccurate by about 1200 years, thanks to the lack of a printing press in Roman times.
But when Paul Mescal is running around in a little shiny skirt taking on rhinos in the Colosseum, who really cares? We know exactly what Ridley will say to this – “get a life,” much like he told Napoleon critics – but where should fans stand on it?
To offer some balance to the discourse, Dexerto spoke to ancient world expert Jasmine Elmer, and she’s reached a similar conclusion to us… at the end of the day, this is entertainment, baby.
Paramount Pictures“I do largely agree with the comments made by the historian in [The Hollywood Reporter] piece, although I feel that the comments are overly nitpicking and miss the point somewhat about what these films are about,” she explained.
“From what I have seen of the film, Scott has broadly kept within the parameters of possibility in the film.”
While hand-to-hand combat takedowns were part and parcel of Roman culture, things like a shark-infested Colosseum are – let’s just say it – probably made up. Scott has already denied this in interviews, but to use his own words against him, “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the f**k up then.”
This is why we love him, though. The unexpected! Left-field creative leaps! I’m not giving two hoots about what has been, but rather what could be!
“I think directors have a certain amount of responsibility to represent cultures accurately – it’s important that they recognize the power they have over public impressions of historical periods. However, let us not forget this is not a documentary… it’s a film!” Elmer agrees.
“Its main aim is to entertain. We allow for creative expression in publishing, for example, in historical fiction. Why can we not just accept this as another form of storytelling and make allowances for this?”
In the days that followed Bartsch’s scathing accuracy takedown, two schools of thought emerged: the history-buff type dad fans who are already concerned this won’t be like an episode of Time Team, and action lovers who just want to see some nasty, nasty fighting.
It’s not my usual stance to take the side of the online film bro™ (think the kind of person who would tell you this is the best movie of the millennium without even seeing it), but we could really learn a lesson from them here.
Gladiator 2 is the cinematic event of the year, and others would probably say of the last few years. We’re lucky to be getting a follow-up from an 86-year-old man that’s anywhere near as great as the first, and it’s already proving it has the goods.
So for once in your life, sit down, shut up, and watch the damn screen. Nobody is expecting you to believe this is real, there’s no SAT exam at the end of it. You’re being transported to somewhere else, watching old and new worlds collide.
As Elmer wonderfully puts it, “For some, inaccuracies may feel like a threat to their hard work or damaging to the public view of a culture. I say, lighten up! It’s just a film, go and enjoy it and disregard the bits you don’t like.”
Gladiator 2 comes to cinemas on November 15 in the UK and November 22 in the US. Catch up with the original movie’s ending explained, Gladiator 2’s first reactions, and the 5 most explicit scenes in Napoleon.
You can also check out more new movies streaming this month.
English (US) ·