GLADIATOR - many troubling small points?
Sawfish
somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
clear.
As usual, toward the beginning of the film, Scott, establishes that it is,
in fact, the one, the only, Ridley Scott directing this film when he treas
us to facial close-ups that are unlit or partially lit, with a strongly
lit background, making for the rather murky trademark signature.
used to really like this (it was very effective in Blade Runner), but it
seemed overdone, or even indifferently done, in Gladiator.
...but on to more troubling quibbles.
When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
Another thing. They apparently crucified his family, but murdered most of
the peasants. Why crucify them? Crucifixion was used as a warning.
Maximus was dead. Who was being warned?
Another small thing. Later in the film Maximus said his wife and son were
crucified while still living. In the scene where the soldiers come to kill
his family, Maximus' son was clearly ridden down by the mass of horsemen
on the road. This, in fact, was the key visual cue for the viewer to
understand that these soldiers were up to no good: Maximus' 7 year-old son
being ridden down. So later, when much is made of the crucifixion, are we
supposed to have forgotten seeing this?
There are other silly little quibbles like this throughout. On the whole
it was a decent film. Its principal strength was th acting of Crowe, who
proves to me that he's the Real Deal, and can carry a film on his own.
Comments? Opinions?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Jouni Karhu
>I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film, but was
>somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
>continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
>clear.
>
>...but on to more troubling quibbles.
>
>When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
>Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
>
>Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
>loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
>I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
>killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
>particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
>dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
>executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
Imperial post stations. Remounts. Vindobona isn't very far north,
actually isn't that rather close to the Mediterranean?
Removed scenes suggest that they thought (hoped?) that a barbarian
raid had caused the praetorians not to return.
>Another thing. They apparently crucified his family, but murdered most of
>the peasants. Why crucify them? Crucifixion was used as a warning.
>Maximus was dead. Who was being warned?
Just killed cruelly. Don't piss Commodus off, is the message.
>Another small thing. Later in the film Maximus said his wife and son were
>crucified while still living. In the scene where the soldiers come to kill
>his family, Maximus' son was clearly ridden down by the mass of horsemen
>on the road. This, in fact, was the key visual cue for the viewer to
>understand that these soldiers were up to no good: Maximus' 7 year-old son
>being ridden down. So later, when much is made of the crucifixion, are we
>supposed to have forgotten seeing this?
Getting knocked down by a horse hardly kills you, even if it does
hurt. Horses don't generally like to step on anything but solid
ground, so they would have evaded him while he lay on the ground.
>There are other silly little quibbles like this throughout. On the whole
>it was a decent film. Its principal strength was th acting of Crowe, who
>proves to me that he's the Real Deal, and can carry a film on his own.
>
>Comments? Opinions?
Your suspension of disbelief is starting to go flat. Go get it fixed
;)
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Paula J. Vitaris
:
: Imperial post stations. Remounts. Vindobona isn't very far north,
: actually isn't that rather close to the Mediterranean?
Vindabona is modern-day Vienna.
: Your suspension of disbelief is starting to go flat. Go get it fixed
: ;)
:
Most people (including people who love the movie) already noticed these
and many other plot holes. In the end, it's one of those movies one
enjoys for reasons other than a logical narrative. ;-)
-- Paula
SDM
> Getting knocked down by a horse hardly kills you, even if it does
> hurt. Horses don't generally like to step on anything but solid
> ground, so they would have evaded him while he lay on the ground.
>
That dude got trampled by the first horseman, not knock down or aside.
Then the rest of the troop followed through in quick succession. Commodus
was just putting the spurs to Maximus when he claimed the boy was crucified
alive.
Awl38
>
>...but on to more troubling quibbles.
>
>When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
>Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
>
>Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
>loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
>I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
>killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
>particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
>dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
>executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
I assume they killed his family as a warning to all who do not show allegiance
to Commodus. I'm not sure about how the preatorians beat Maximus home but that
seems minor. As to the last part of the question I think the commander who
ordered Maximus' execution probably knew Maximus escaped after the guards did
not return but he was probably afraid to tell Commodus. Later on remember the
scene where Commodus goes on a schpiel about how he was vexed that Maximus was
still alive. He then says if they do not tell me the truth then they dont
respect me.
>
>Another thing. They apparently crucified his family, but murdered most of
>the peasants. Why crucify them? Crucifixion was used as a warning.
>Maximus was dead. Who was being warned?
>
>Another small thing. Later in the film Maximus said his wife and son were
>crucified while still living. In the scene where the soldiers come to kill
>his family, Maximus' son was clearly ridden down by the mass of horsemen
>on the road. This, in fact, was the key visual cue for the viewer to
>understand that these soldiers were up to no good: Maximus' 7 year-old son
>being ridden down. So later, when much is made of the crucifixion, are we
>supposed to have forgotten seeing this?
Kids are resilient.
Sawfish
>> Getting knocked down by a horse hardly kills you, even if it does
>> hurt. Horses don't generally like to step on anything but solid
>> ground, so they would have evaded him while he lay on the ground.
>>
> That dude got trampled by the first horseman, not knock down or aside.
>Then the rest of the troop followed through in quick succession.
That's the way I saw it, and I ran it back several times after I found out
that they were claiming he was still alive. If he was, hewouldn't be for
long. The point is *wjY8 would they even show us this if they were later
going to claim something that would be so clearly to the contrary?
>Commodus
>was just putting the spurs to Maximus when he claimed the boy was crucified
>alive.
No. *Maximus* first told someone that his wife and son were crucified and
burnt while still alive. I agree Commodus was merely trying to goad him
into attacking publicaly so that he could have the guards kill him. That
part was well-acted and handled in the film. IMHO.
Ejunior2
being crucified. Looked to me more like they were hung and burned.
In article <20010102153525...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Sawfish
>>
>>...but on to more troubling quibbles.
>>
>>When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
>>Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
>>
>>Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
>>loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
>>I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
>>killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
>>particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
>>dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
>>executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
>I assume they killed his family as a warning to all who do not show allegiance
>to Commodus.
Well, my point wasn't they *killed* his family, it was that they crucified
them as a warning.
It makes sense to kill off a house, as Machievelli advises, but remember
that as far as we could see, Maximus's death was supposedly a "private"
affair: he was far too popular to kill off publicly. They essentially
"disappeared" him. So the notion of using his family as a warning to
others, when they don't even know that a) he was a traitor, and b) he was
dead, seemed a bit confused.
>I'm not sure about how the preatorians beat Maximus home but that
>seems minor.
I'd agree, but when co-joined with other minor instances, it becomes a
sufficient irritant to hurt the film.
>As to the last part of the question I think the commander who
>ordered Maximus' execution probably knew Maximus escaped after the guards did
>not return but he was probably afraid to tell Commodus. Later on remember the
>scene where Commodus goes on a schpiel about how he was vexed that Maximus was
>still alive. He then says if they do not tell me the truth then they dont
>respect me.
Right. There seemed to be something missing there, too. Commodus says
something like he wants to teach the people who failed to kill Maximus a
lesson, but nothing ever comes of this. Now *there* is the place to
crucify someone's family and have it be believable.
>>
>>Another thing. They apparently crucified his family, but murdered most of
>>the peasants. Why crucify them? Crucifixion was used as a warning.
>>Maximus was dead. Who was being warned?
>>
>>Another small thing. Later in the film Maximus said his wife and son were
>>crucified while still living. In the scene where the soldiers come to kill
>>his family, Maximus' son was clearly ridden down by the mass of horsemen
>>on the road. This, in fact, was the key visual cue for the viewer to
>>understand that these soldiers were up to no good: Maximus' 7 year-old son
>>being ridden down. So later, when much is made of the crucifixion, are we
>>supposed to have forgotten seeing this?
>Kids are resilient.
Well, the scene was sufficiently clear that if someone later commented on
Maximus's son's death by trampling, no viewer would ever questions this;
but to apparently kill him, then later resurrect him (in the retelling) is
bound to raise some eyebrows. It makes it real clear just how sloppy the
screenwriter was, or how poorly the film was assembled after cutting out
scenes that might have tightened this inconsistency up. It seems to me
that they attempted to have their cake and eat it, too. They put the
trampling scene in becuase it filmed well and instantly conveyed the
message that these Praetorians were up to no good. That's fine as far as
it goes. But because the story is a revenge story, the more bad stuff that
the writer/director could have thrown onto the villian, the more intnese
the revenge. So, they felt that mere trampling wasn't good enough, even
though they clearly showed it to us. They had to have Maximus tell us that
his family had "while still alive" been crucified, even though that was
patently against what the film showed us.
Cheap shortcuts.
mtn...@my-deja.com
Ejunior2 <eherm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> This may be a small point but I don't remember either the kid or wife
> being crucified. Looked to me more like they were hung and burned.
See? That's even *more* loose bullshit.
In fact, all you ever see is some blackened feet. Probably his wife. It
sure looks more like she was hung.
But N-O-O-O. Later Maximus his own self tells another character that
they were both crucified, and that dirty rat Commodus tries to get
Maximus' goat by saying that his son was crucified and his wife gang
raped.
This sort of shit is 'way too loose for my tastes. It would be very
easy to get this sort of stuff right.
--Sawfish
superdamonal speed
Sawfish wrote:
>
> aw...@aol.com (Awl38) writes:
>
> >>
> >>...but on to more troubling quibbles.
> >>
> >>When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
> >>Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
> >>
> >>Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
> >>loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
> >>I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
> >>killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
> >>particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
> >>dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
> >>executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
>
> >I assume they killed his family as a warning to all who do not show allegiance
> >to Commodus.
>
> Well, my point wasn't they *killed* his family, it was that they crucified
> them as a warning.
>
> It makes sense to kill off a house, as Machievelli advises, but remember
> that as far as we could see, Maximus's death was supposedly a "private"
> affair: he was far too popular to kill off publicly. They essentially
> "disappeared" him. So the notion of using his family as a warning to
> others, when they don't even know that a) he was a traitor, and b) he was
> dead, seemed a bit confused.
commodus was confused, but more to the point,
wanted them killed in a bad way.
not a normal way.
i'd say if the crucifixion was a warning,
it was to his soldiers.
> >I'm not sure about how the preatorians beat Maximus home but that
> >seems minor.
>
> I'd agree, but when co-joined with other minor instances, it becomes a
> sufficient irritant to hurt the film.
no, commodus or the commander with him
clearly tell the sodliers to take him out into the woods
'until dawn', withthe implicaitn being that it would be a several hour
march.
that, and at one point along the jounrey,
he clearly went into a dream state,
and was spurred on by his vision of their death.
you're overanalyzing nothing here.
> >As to the last part of the question I think the commander who
> >ordered Maximus' execution probably knew Maximus escaped after the guards did
> >not return but he was probably afraid to tell Commodus. Later on remember the
> >scene where Commodus goes on a schpiel about how he was vexed that Maximus was
> >still alive. He then says if they do not tell me the truth then they dont
> >respect me.
>
> Right. There seemed to be something missing there, too. Commodus says
> something like he wants to teach the people who failed to kill Maximus a
> lesson, but nothing ever comes of this. Now *there* is the place to
> crucify someone's family and have it be believable.
true, except [1] he rants about tyrnnical acts all thewhile,
while his sister keeps him drugged and prevents him from taking action,
and [2] the time from that scene to the end of the film is measured in
days.
the man was dreaming.
--
Beware of the speeding nun!
superdamonal speed
Sawfish wrote:
>
> I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film, but was
> somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
> continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
> clear.
>
> As usual, toward the beginning of the film, Scott, establishes that it is,
> in fact, the one, the only, Ridley Scott directing this film when he treas
> us to facial close-ups that are unlit or partially lit, with a strongly
> lit background, making for the rather murky trademark signature.
> used to really like this (it was very effective in Blade Runner), but it
> seemed overdone, or even indifferently done, in Gladiator.
>
> ...but on to more troubling quibbles.
>
> When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
> Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
>
> Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
> loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
> I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
> killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
> particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
> dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
> executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
there wasn't so much of a rush as there was a delay.
maximus was walked into the woods for several hours.
that gave the protean guard a whole night's head start.
aside from which,
maximus tried tor ush home,
but at one point collapsed due to exhaustion.
> Another thing. They apparently crucified his family, but murdered most of
> the peasants. Why crucify them? Crucifixion was used as a warning.
> Maximus was dead. Who was being warned?
loyal soldiers of maxiums.
> Another small thing. Later in the film Maximus said his wife and son were
> crucified while still living. In the scene where the soldiers come to kill
> his family, Maximus' son was clearly ridden down by the mass of horsemen
> on the road. This, in fact, was the key visual cue for the viewer to
> understand that these soldiers were up to no good: Maximus' 7 year-old son
> being ridden down. So later, when much is made of the crucifixion, are we
> supposed to have forgotten seeing this?
being run down does not automatically mean dead.
besides, don't think it's clear where commodus was telling the truth.
> There are other silly little quibbles like this throughout. On the whole
> it was a decent film. Its principal strength was th acting of Crowe, who
> proves to me that he's the Real Deal, and can carry a film on his own.
>
> Comments? Opinions?
>
best film i've seen yetfrom 2000.
i need tos ee more films.
verypowerful and well directed.
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>>
>> aw...@aol.com (Awl38) writes:
>>
>> >>
>> >>...but on to more troubling quibbles.
>> >>
>> >>When Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius, and then gave orders to kill
>> >>Maximus, some kind of odd pieces troubled me.
>> >>
>> >>Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
>> >>loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
>> >>I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
>> >>killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
>> >>particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
>> >>dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
>> >>executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
>>
>> >I assume they killed his family as a warning to all who do not show allegiance
>> >to Commodus.
>>
>> Well, my point wasn't they *killed* his family, it was that they crucified
>> them as a warning.
>>
>> It makes sense to kill off a house, as Machievelli advises, but remember
>> that as far as we could see, Maximus's death was supposedly a "private"
>> affair: he was far too popular to kill off publicly. They essentially
>> "disappeared" him. So the notion of using his family as a warning to
>> others, when they don't even know that a) he was a traitor, and b) he was
>> dead, seemed a bit confused.
>commodus was confused,
How do you figure?
>but more to the point,
>wanted them killed in a bad way.
>not a normal way.
How do you figure? Where/when does he say/imply that?
>i'd say if the crucifixion was a warning,
>it was to his soldiers.
How would they ever hear about it?
>> >I'm not sure about how the preatorians beat Maximus home but that
>> >seems minor.
>>
>> I'd agree, but when co-joined with other minor instances, it becomes a
>> sufficient irritant to hurt the film.
>no, commodus or the commander with him
>clearly tell the sodliers to take him out into the woods
>'until dawn', withthe implicaitn being that it would be a several hour
>march.
So that Maximus would not be killed anywhere near his troops. Then after
not seeing Maximus for several days, the story might leak out that he'd
been called away to Rome, in the night, by whomever Commodus' cover men
could find to be the most believable. Then disband the legion and spread
it out. When his troops finally realize that he's gone for good, there's
nothing that they can do. Just another days' business in Old Rome.
A big, BIG point--handled very well, I might add--was the idea that a)
when in the field, Maximus was tremedously popluar with his men. So
popular that the idea that he might lead his troops into Rome and take
over, himself,was foremost on the minds of Commodus, et al. Given this
main element, and given the way that Maximus fell into wide popularity in
Rome, as a gladiator, Commodus had to be very careful on how to handle
him.
>that, and at one point along the jounrey,
>he clearly went into a dream
state,
>and was spurred on by his vision of their death.
What has this got to do with how the Praetorians beat him to Spain? Are
you saying that Commodus ordered the Praetorians to rush off to Spain
concurrently with the order of Maximus' death? "Spare no expense in your
mission," he'd say, "for though Maximus is dead, his wife might raise an
army when she hears of this."
How's she going to hear of this? Just send the death warrent by UPS
Ground. That's quick enough delivery.
Look, I don't mind a good crucifixion or two, but don't blow credibility
by trampling someone--apparently to death--then later say that they were
alive to be crucified--JUST TO INTENSIFY THE REVENGE THEME OF THE FILM. As
soon as someone like me starts to wonder about how a trampled kid could be
crucified, I also begin to wonder why, and how, and how so fast, and why
so fast. It's like the screenwriter has invited this scrutiny by his
insultingly sloppy construction of the story.
>you're overanalyzing nothing here.
No, I'm not. Everything is subject to analysis, and some of this stuff
raises questions at the even most cursory of analyses.
The flip side is that you're not analyzing at all, and extending the
suspension of disbelief in so broad a manner as to give a filmmaker
license to be sloppy or even inept. That you don't question this stuff
only indicates that you'd be a good candidate to buy a bridge.
>> >As to the last part of the question I think the commander who
>> >ordered Maximus' execution probably knew Maximus escaped after the guards did
>> >not return but he was probably afraid to tell Commodus. Later on remember the
>> >scene where Commodus goes on a schpiel about how he was vexed that Maximus was
>> >still alive. He then says if they do not tell me the truth then they dont
>> >respect me.
>>
>> Right. There seemed to be something missing there, too. Commodus says
>> something like he wants to teach the people who failed to kill Maximus a
>> lesson, but nothing ever comes of this. Now *there* is the place to
>> crucify someone's family and have it be believable.
>true, except [1] he rants about tyrnnical acts all thewhile,
>while his sister keeps him drugged and prevents him from taking action,
>and
She drugs him twice that we see, and I don't recall that either of these
is in conjunction with his anger over the failure to kill Maximus.
And why would she care if Commodus killed the men who failed to kill
Maximus? She wants to keep alive, so what better way to demonstrate her
solidarity with Maximus than to allow--even encourage--him to kill off
some of his most trusted executives? After those fuckers are out of the
way, she can place her own men.
Don't you ever read The Prince before retiring?
>[2] the time from that scene to the end of the film is measured in >days.
So what? Issue orders if you're pissed. This is what the screenwriter
needed to have him do. Doesn't matter if we ever see the result.
>the man was dreaming.
If I read this correctly, you're saying that Maximus was dreaming when he
said this. Nah. He said it to the black guy, as I recall. We know he saw
his wife dead--that was all they showed us--but it wouldn't take much for
us to believe that he also found the body of his son. Now, we know Maximus
is a straightforward guy. As the viewer, we know he saw his wife's body,
and if he says that she and his son were crucified, we believe him. Why
wouldn't we? His developed character was quite consistent, and was
well-conveyed by Crowe, an excellent screen actor.
None of this is major stuff. It's a pretty decent film. The early battle
scene--or rather the preparation and tension before the battle, was well
done. Except for the "barrage", which filmed well, but I doubt that
anything like this would be used in the field. It's shit like this that
keeps the film from rising to another level of precision and credibility,
in my opinion.
..but a decent film, nonetheless.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
mtn...@my-deja.com
Never saw him stop. He was on horseback the whole time, then the "dream"
came to him and he rushed on...
Still doesn't answer the question why the rush by The Praetorians. There
is no apparent need.
>
> > Another thing. They apparently crucified his family, but murdered
most of
> > the peasants. Why crucify them? Crucifixion was used as a warning.
> > Maximus was dead. Who was being warned?
>
> loyal soldiers of maxiums.
They'd never hear about it until long, long afterward--if they heard
about it at all.
As an aside, the actual reason for the killing of the scions is purely
political: no revenge by them later. Big point in Machievelli.
>
> > Another small thing. Later in the film Maximus said his wife and son
were
> > crucified while still living. In the scene where the soldiers come
to kill
> > his family, Maximus' son was clearly ridden down by the mass of
horsemen
> > on the road. This, in fact, was the key visual cue for the viewer to
> > understand that these soldiers were up to no good: Maximus' 7
year-old son
> > being ridden down. So later, when much is made of the crucifixion,
are we
> > supposed to have forgotten seeing this?
>
> being run down does not automatically mean dead.
Then it raises the issue and confuses it to no purpose.
Go back and run through the trampling scene again. The, as subjectively
as you can, prentend that later int he film Maximus told the black guy
that his son had been trampled todeath "like a dog in the street" by
Commodus' men. Given what you'd seen, would you question this statement?
I wouldn't; but I did when Maxims actaully tolkd the black guy that his
wife and son were crucified and burnt while still alive. "What!?" I
said to myself. "I could have sworn that his son got trampled by
horses." So, I went back and checked it several time. It is so
constrcuted to look as if his son was ridden down by the lead horseman
and the remainder of the column just plowed right over him. That's what
set his mom off.
> besides, don't think it's clear where commodus was telling the truth.
Nah. Maximus, not Commodus, said this. Later Commodus tried to goad
Commodus into action by telling him this again, but Maximus told the
black guy first.
Why confuse the story this way? It would be easy enough to avoid.
>
> > There are other silly little quibbles like this throughout. On the
whole
> > it was a decent film. Its principal strength was th acting of Crowe,
who
> > proves to me that he's the Real Deal, and can carry a film on his
own.
> >
> > Comments? Opinions?
> >
>
> best film i've seen yetfrom 2000.
> i need tos ee more films.
> verypowerful
Agreed.
>and well directed.
In some ways.
Jouni Karhu
>> being run down does not automatically mean dead.
>
>Then it raises the issue and confuses it to no purpose.
>
>Go back and run through the trampling scene again. The, as subjectively
>as you can, prentend that later int he film Maximus told the black guy
>that his son had been trampled todeath "like a dog in the street" by
>Commodus' men. Given what you'd seen, would you question this statement?
>I wouldn't; but I did when Maxims actaully tolkd the black guy that his
>wife and son were crucified and burnt while still alive. "What!?" I
>said to myself. "I could have sworn that his son got trampled by
>horses." So, I went back and checked it several time. It is so
>constrcuted to look as if his son was ridden down by the lead horseman
>and the remainder of the column just plowed right over him. That's what
>set his mom off.
You just see him knocked down. After that, it depends on the viewer
whether or not they think the horses trod on him or not. Since I know
that horses don't step on things (boys lying on the ground included)
if they can help it, I just thought he was knocked down. And don't you
think that the mere knocking down would have been enough to "set his
mom off"?
Please someone, tell me where Maximus tells Juba that his son and wife
were crucified alive. I checked the "but not yet" discussion, since
that seemed like the obvious place, but it wasn't there. There he just
says that his son and wife "are already waiting".
>> besides, don't think it's clear where commodus was telling the truth.
>
>Nah. Maximus, not Commodus, said this. Later Commodus tried to goad
>Commodus into action by telling him this again, but Maximus told the
>black guy first.
>
>Why confuse the story this way? It would be easy enough to avoid.
It seems to me that it is you people who are either intentionally or
unintentionally creating these confusions.
Sawfish
>mtn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> being run down does not automatically mean dead.
>>
>>Then it raises the issue and confuses it to no purpose.
>>
>>Go back and run through the trampling scene again. The, as subjectively
>>as you can, prentend that later int he film Maximus told the black guy
>>that his son had been trampled todeath "like a dog in the street" by
>>Commodus' men. Given what you'd seen, would you question this statement?
>>I wouldn't; but I did when Maxims actaully tolkd the black guy that his
>>wife and son were crucified and burnt while still alive. "What!?" I
>>said to myself. "I could have sworn that his son got trampled by
>>horses." So, I went back and checked it several time. It is so
>>constrcuted to look as if his son was ridden down by the lead horseman
>>and the remainder of the column just plowed right over him. That's what
>>set his mom off.
>You just see him knocked down. After that, it depends on the viewer
>whether or not they think the horses trod on him or not. Since I know
>that horses don't step on things (boys lying on the ground included)
>if they can help it, I just thought he was knocked down. And don't you
>think that the mere knocking down would have been enough to "set his
>mom off"?
Of course it would. But please try to recall that the trampling scene is
very vivid and *appears* to most viewers, perhaps not yourself, because
you know something special about horse behavior, apparently, that the boy
is *really* *REALLY* hammered.
It's like this: the film sets a common expectancy with this scene. That
the person trampled is badly hurt, if not outright killed. This is the
same expectancy that is set when a person is shot in the torso with an
arrow, and they fall down dead. Having shot animals with arrows, I call
tell you for sure that this is not what happens. They gradually bleed to
death. But the film convention is that, if shot by an arrow in the torso,
you fall down immediately, probably dead.
Same with this scene. Scott set the expectancy that the boy might very
well be dead, and then later has Maximus come back and tell us that makes
us perk up our ears: this is against our expectancies, so we take note.
>Please someone, tell me where Maximus tells Juba that his son and wife
>were crucified alive. I checked the "but not yet" discussion, since
>that seemed like the obvious place, but it wasn't there. There he just
>says that his son and wife "are already waiting".
Jouni, I just took the video back this morning. If you want to make an
issue of whether he said this or not, I'll get the video, find the place
and we'll discuss it again--at which time you'll never hear the end of it
;^). If you have the DVD and were looking around the time that Juba and
Maximus were talking about whether there's a life after death, that's
where I thought it would be, too. He might also have told his orderly, or
maybe even Proximo (Proximus?). The point is, it was this very declaration
that caused me to go back and look, and again and again, at the trampling.
I'd encourage you to accept my assertion that Maximus did tell someone
that his wife and child had been burnt and crucified while still alive,
just to advance the discussion. If you insist, I'll rent the video again,
and I'll find the spot.
>>> besides, don't think it's clear where commodus was telling the truth.
>>
>>Nah. Maximus, not Commodus, said this. Later Commodus tried to goad
>>Commodus into action by telling him this again, but Maximus told the
>>black guy first.
>>
>>Why confuse the story this way? It would be easy enough to avoid.
>It seems to me that it is you people who are either intentionally or
>unintentionally creating these confusions.
I'm not creating confusion unless you think I'm fabricating these things.
Do you think I'm making these observations up?
superdamonal speed
he was loony.
my biggest problem with the movie is that i don't feel the successfully
made
him as three dimesnional as they wanted him to be.
so, we get a cliched evil guy who stops at nothing,
but he also wanders around crying, and acting spaced out, and
then his sister starts drugging him.
> >but more to the point,
> >wanted them killed in a bad way.
> >not a normal way.
>
> How do you figure? Where/when does he say/imply that?
it's implied in his sister's words to maximus;
she said, hehates you because marcus loved you more.'
that hate drove him, this was clear,
and his desire for revenge
on maximus bordered on obsessive.
> >i'd say if the crucifixion was a warning,
> >it was to his soldiers.
>
> How would they ever hear about it?
dunno.
but i'd imagine a burned out house and a crucified family would
do it.
i didn't getthe crucifixion as a wrning bit,
that's extra material, not in the movie.
buti'll take your word for it.
i also think they wimped out on that scene,
since it was clear there was no bottom of the cross where
the feet hung.
> >> >I'm not sure about how the preatorians beat Maximus home but that
> >> >seems minor.
> >>
> >> I'd agree, but when co-joined with other minor instances, it becomes a
> >> sufficient irritant to hurt the film.
>
> >no, commodus or the commander with him
> >clearly tell the sodliers to take him out into the woods
> >'until dawn', withthe implicaitn being that it would be a several hour
> >march.
>
> So that Maximus would not be killed anywhere near his troops.
not in the film, as i recall.
Then after
> not seeing Maximus for several days, the story might leak out that he'd
> been called away to Rome, in the night, by whomever Commodus' cover men
> could find to be the most believable. Then disband the legion and spread
> it out. When his troops finally realize that he's gone for good, there's
> nothing that they can do. Just another days' business in Old Rome.
>
> A big, BIG point--handled very well, I might add--was the idea that a)
> when in the field, Maximus was tremedously popluar with his men. So
> popular that the idea that he might lead his troops into Rome and take
> over, himself,was foremost on the minds of Commodus, et al. Given this
> main element, and given the way that Maximus fell into wide popularity in
> Rome, as a gladiator, Commodus had to be very careful on how to handle
> him.
he might have been popular with his men, but the movie
implied his men weren't the sum total of rome's legions,
and the one guy whom i thought
was his second in command, along with his soldiers, tried to kill
maximus.
> >that, and at one point along the jounrey,
> >he clearly went into a dream
> state,
> >and was spurred on by his vision of their death.
>
> What has this got to do with how the Praetorians beat him to Spain? Are
> you saying that Commodus ordered the Praetorians to rush off to Spain
> concurrently with the order of Maximus' death? "Spare no expense in your
> mission," he'd say, "for though Maximus is dead, his wife might raise an
> army when she hears of this."
no, i'm saying commodus ordered maximus's wife and kids killed
atthe same time as he ordered maximus to be killed.
his praetorians left for spain, while maxiums was being taken out to
b ekilled. that one night's head start,
along with maximus's poor health/collapse from exhaustion,
gave them enough time
to maintain the lead they had on him.
also, maximus had two horses-
he ran one to the ground, then ran the other to the ground.
someone else said the preatorians would have had fresh horses-
also not int he film,
but i took his word for it.
> >you're overanalyzing nothing here.
>
> No, I'm not. Everything is subject to analysis, and some of this stuff
> raises questions at the even most cursory of analyses.
about the speed thing, you are.
the movie covered its ass ont hatone.
the crucifixion you havemore a point on.
> The flip side is that you're not analyzing at all, and extending the
> suspension of disbelief in so broad a manner as to give a filmmaker
> license to be sloppy or even inept. That you don't question this stuff
> only indicates that you'd be a good candidate to buy a bridge.
i alreadyhave a bridge.
i caught the speed thing while it was happening,
so it's not like i wasnt' analyzing it.
the trampling/crucifixion thing, i didn't think muchabout,
but i did think
the shot of their feetwas a directorial cop out,
much like his constant prayers
to zues
addressed as 'father'. implying a christian god.
> >> >As to the last part of the question I think the commander who
> >> >ordered Maximus' execution probably knew Maximus escaped after the guards did
> >> >not return but he was probably afraid to tell Commodus. Later on remember the
> >> >scene where Commodus goes on a schpiel about how he was vexed that Maximus was
> >> >still alive. He then says if they do not tell me the truth then they dont
> >> >respect me.
> >>
> >> Right. There seemed to be something missing there, too. Commodus says
> >> something like he wants to teach the people who failed to kill Maximus a
> >> lesson, but nothing ever comes of this. Now *there* is the place to
> >> crucify someone's family and have it be believable.
>
> >true, except [1] he rants about tyrnnical acts all thewhile,
> >while his sister keeps him drugged and prevents him from taking action,
> >and
>
> She drugs him twice that we see, and I don't recall that either of these
> is in conjunction with his anger over the failure to kill Maximus.
i think the movie clearly implied she was drugging him regularly.
> And why would she care if Commodus killed the men who failed to kill
> Maximus?
because she served rome,
and was just and fair.
this was also established.
She wants to keep alive, so what better way to demonstrate her
> solidarity with Maximus than to allow--even encourage--him to kill off
> some of his most trusted executives? After those fuckers are out of the
> way, she can place her own men.
>
> Don't you ever read The Prince before retiring?
>
she didn't.
the worst thing she does in the entire film
is betray maximus to save the life of her son.
the second worse thing she did was try to
obtain maximus's allegiance to commodus before marcus died,
and it's possible she did that to save maximus's life.
she was mentined to be
manipulative, but her actual portrayal was quite virtuous.
> >[2] the time from that scene to the end of the film is measured in >days.
>
> So what? Issue orders if you're pissed. This is what the screenwriter
> needed to have him do.
no, the screenwriter specifically needed him NOT to do that,
because the whole point of his not
doing it was thatthis
guy was generally a flake.
which he was,
he refused to do any governmental work,
his entire idea of ruling was to hold games,
and he only ever seemed to do anything at all when
he felt immediately threatened.
this was clear from the characterization in the film.
sorry.
the shot of the kid being trampled was interspersed with maximus
in such a way to suggesthe was having a vision or dreaming it.
in fact, the kid being trampled, or the immediate shot after
of his wife being threatened, cut straight into maximus
waking up, and spurring his horse.
the movie clearly implies hisbeing trampled is a vision,
which does connote a certain amount of accuracy to it,
but leaves wiggle room.
We know he saw
> his wife dead--that was all they showed us--but it wouldn't take much for
> us to believe that he also found the body of his son.
iirc, we see the kid's feet hanging too.
i might be wrong, but i saw it yesterday,
an hour before i first posted in this thread.
Now, we know Maximus
> is a straightforward guy. As the viewer, we know he saw his wife's body,
> and if he says that she and his son were crucified, we believe him. Why
> wouldn't we? His developed character was quite consistent, and was
> well-conveyed by Crowe, an excellent screen actor.
i was disturbed a bit by the performance.
he plyed it so low key, i thought perhaps a bit too low key.
> None of this is major stuff. It's a pretty decent film. The early battle
> scene--or rather the preparation and tension before the battle, was well
> done. Except for the "barrage", which filmed well, but I doubt that
> anything like this would be used in the field. It's shit like this that
> keeps the film from rising to another level of precision and credibility,
> in my opinion.
whatgot me ws the religion dodge- at some point, they did mention
other gods, but unless maximus mention zues sin one
of his mutterings i couldn't catch, they dodged thatpart.
the other thing was the chariot explosion scene.
i thought,'god, ridley is putting car explosions in roman times'.
and not just one.
about 5 pretty much blew up, in a row.
superdamonal speed
well, i was thinking of the scene where he was floating, buthtne
remembered
it came after the grief scene.
but when he was 'dremaing', the horse was moving very slowly.
plus, iirc, the horse collapsed shortly thereafter,
and he had to run a while.
> Still doesn't answer the question why the rush by The Praetorians. There
> is no apparent need.
well, there's no need to delay familial slayings either.
it seemed more to me the order was given,
and it was carried out immediately, but not rushed.
> > > There are other silly little quibbles like this throughout. On the
> whole
> > > it was a decent film. Its principal strength was th acting of Crowe,
> who
> > > proves to me that he's the Real Deal, and can carry a film on his
> own.
> > >
> > > Comments? Opinions?
> > >
> >
> > best film i've seen yetfrom 2000.
> > i need tos ee more films.
> > verypowerful
>
> Agreed.
>
> >and well directed.
>
> In some ways.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Sawfish
As per norm, you bring A LOT to a movie.
Did you ever consider a job as a studio publicist.
Hey! Wait! How do we know that you're NOT one, right now?!!
>> >i'd say if the crucifixion was a warning,
>> >it was to his soldiers.
>>
>> How would they ever hear about it?
>dunno.
>but i'd imagine a burned out house and a crucified family would
>do it.
His troops were in "Germania". His villa was in Spain. I repeat: how would
they ever hear of it? (NOTE: I believe that they might hear of it, but
much, much. I suggest that if the commanders loyal to Commodus had any
sense, they'd disband the legion and reassign them piecemeal. 5K armed,
organized veterans, all pissed, all thinking the same thing, is nothing
but trouble.)
>i didn't getthe crucifixion as a wrning bit,
>that's extra material, not in the movie.
>buti'll take your word for it.
It's not in the film. It's my interpretation--and common sense, I hope--
that the manner of an execution is a political, as well as pragmatic,
statement. That's why they didn't crucify Maximus: politically the wrong
statement. The quieter the better.
I could buy that the Praetorians carrying out the orders might have ad
libbed, but then later it's clear that Commodus knew the details and this
implies that he gave the orders.
Anyway, this is admittedly a very minor point. I'd overlook it entirely if
the screenwriter/director hadn't brought all of this to my attention by
stupidly *SHOWING* us one thing, then later having the most truthful
character in the movie tell us something in conflict with what we see. Who
do we believe: the screen, or Maximus? The important point is why would a
scrupulously careful filmmaker ever let a question like this arise?
>i also think they wimped out on that scene,
>since it was clear there was no bottom of the cross where
>the feet hung.
Now you're talking! Maybe we can get on the same wavelength yet!
This is the way I think. I see the boy ridden down catastrophically, the
wife's blackened feet and a part of a scarf, all dangling, apparently. If
someone asked me right then, what happened here, I'd say, "It looks like
his son got trampled to death, and his wife got hung after being burned, I
guess." And I believe that that's what many viewers--maybe the
majority--would have said, too.
Then later Maximus, a truthful guy if nothing else, says that his wife
and son were crucified and burnt. While watching the film, I thought,
"Hmmmm... That's not quite what I saw. WHY did he say that?" Then I
started watching the film again and enjoyed it. Then Commodus later gives
Maximus the rib about the executions, reiterating that his son was
crucified and his wife gang raped. I thought, "Hey! Wait! The screenwriter
is trying to hit us over the head with just how evil Commodus is,
balancing the general integrity and decency of Maximus. And, goddamn it!,
he's (the screenwriter) even going so far as to show us one thing and tell
us something contrary, just to doubly emphasize this evil. This is a
sloppy piece of work."
>> >> >I'm not sure about how the preatorians beat Maximus home but that
>> >> >seems minor.
>> >>
>> >> I'd agree, but when co-joined with other minor instances, it becomes a
>> >> sufficient irritant to hurt the film.
>>
>> >no, commodus or the commander with him
>> >clearly tell the sodliers to take him out into the woods
>> >'until dawn', withthe implicaitn being that it would be a several hour
>> >march.
>>
>> So that Maximus would not be killed anywhere near his troops.
>not in the film, as i recall.
Absolutely true. They rode him off into the woods until dawn so that he'd
be killed in private. That means out of sight of his troops.
> Then after
>> not seeing Maximus for several days, the story might leak out that he'd
>> been called away to Rome, in the night, by whomever Commodus' cover men
>> could find to be the most believable. Then disband the legion and spread
>> it out. When his troops finally realize that he's gone for good, there's
>> nothing that they can do. Just another days' business in Old Rome.
>>
>> A big, BIG point--handled very well, I might add--was the idea that a)
>> when in the field, Maximus was tremedously popluar with his men. So
>> popular that the idea that he might lead his troops into Rome and take
>> over, himself,was foremost on the minds of Commodus, et al. Given this
>> main element, and given the way that Maximus fell into wide popularity in
>> Rome, as a gladiator, Commodus had to be very careful on how to handle
>> him.
>he might have been popular with his men, but the movie
>implied his men weren't the sum total of rome's legions,
>and the one guy whom i thought
>was his second in command, along with his soldiers, tried to kill
>maximus.
So the point that I think was handled very well was not believable?
Please. If you haven't any grasp of post Christian Rome, the Italian
Renaissance, contemporary Sicily, or any country influenced by a drug
cartel, you owe it to yourself to find out about how corruption, bribery,
and favoritism work, as a pragmatic, not moral, imperative. You'll miss a
lot of what goes on in Gladiator if you don't understand why/how a guy can
be emperor and attempt to put a horse in the senate, and get away with it
for a while.
>> >that, and at one point along the jounrey,
>> >he clearly went into a dream
>> state,
>> >and was spurred on by his vision of their death.
>>
>> What has this got to do with how the Praetorians beat him to Spain? Are
>> you saying that Commodus ordered the Praetorians to rush off to Spain
>> concurrently with the order of Maximus' death? "Spare no expense in your
>> mission," he'd say, "for though Maximus is dead, his wife might raise an
>> army when she hears of this."
>no, i'm saying commodus ordered maximus's wife and kids killed
>atthe same time as he ordered maximus to be killed.
>his praetorians left for spain, while maxiums was being taken out to
>b ekilled. that one night's head start,
>along with maximus's poor health/collapse from exhaustion,
>gave them enough time
>to maintain the lead they had on him.
>also, maximus had two horses-
>he ran one to the ground, then ran the other to the ground.
>someone else said the preatorians would have had fresh horses-
>also not int he film,
>but i took his word for it.
It's entirey plausible for them to beat him back to Spain. It's a minor
point, but I don't see the need for heroic efforts for them to get to
Spain very, very quickly.
Again, I wouldn't have questioned this if they hadn't opened that can of
worms with showing us one thing and telling us later another.
>> >you're overanalyzing nothing here.
>>
>> No, I'm not. Everything is subject to analysis, and some of this stuff
>> raises questions at the even most cursory of analyses.
>about the speed thing, you are.
>the movie covered its ass ont hatone.
>the crucifixion you havemore a point on.
OK. Still, everything is subject to analysis. If you personally don't
analyze things, please don't assume that anything else is overanalysis.
>> The flip side is that you're not analyzing at all, and extending the
>> suspension of disbelief in so broad a manner as to give a filmmaker
>> license to be sloppy or even inept. That you don't question this stuff
>> only indicates that you'd be a good candidate to buy a bridge.
>i alreadyhave a bridge.
Funny. That's what the last guy said...
>i caught the speed thing while it was happening,
>so it's not like i wasnt' analyzing it.
>the trampling/crucifixion thing, i didn't think muchabout,
>but i did think
>the shot of their feetwas a directorial cop out,
>much like his constant prayers
>to zues
>addressed as 'father'. implying a christian god.
I wouldn't have these issues if Maximus had never said they were crucified
when I saw with my own eyes evidence that could be more easily
interpretted to the contrary. If the only mention of crucifixion was
Commodus egging Maximus on, I'd overlook that, too. But not when Maximus
says it earlier.
Sloppy, sloppy...and pointlessly so.
>> >> >As to the last part of the question I think the commander who
>> >> >ordered Maximus' execution probably knew Maximus escaped after the guards did
>> >> >not return but he was probably afraid to tell Commodus. Later on remember the
>> >> >scene where Commodus goes on a schpiel about how he was vexed that Maximus was
>> >> >still alive. He then says if they do not tell me the truth then they dont
>> >> >respect me.
>> >>
>> >> Right. There seemed to be something missing there, too. Commodus says
>> >> something like he wants to teach the people who failed to kill Maximus a
>> >> lesson, but nothing ever comes of this. Now *there* is the place to
>> >> crucify someone's family and have it be believable.
>>
>> >true, except [1] he rants about tyrnnical acts all thewhile,
>> >while his sister keeps him drugged and prevents him from taking action,
>> >and
>>
>> She drugs him twice that we see, and I don't recall that either of these
>> is in conjunction with his anger over the failure to kill Maximus.
>i think the movie clearly implied she was drugging him regularly.
That's doesn't imply that he can't order traitors killed. It only implies
that she drugs him to keep herself out of harm's way, or that she sells
drugs on the side.
>> And why would she care if Commodus killed the men who failed to kill
>> Maximus?
>because she served rome,
>and was just and fair.
>this was also established.
You know, I had a bit of trouble with this. I'll accept it, but right from
the get-go, she did not seem like a noble character. I could easily have
bought her going bad at any time, and I had to work a little to buy that
she was actually going to help Maximus for no other reason than that she
had apparently screwed him when they were younger.
>>She wants to keep alive, so what better way to demonstrate her
>> solidarity with Maximus than to allow--even encourage--him to kill off
>> some of his most trusted executives? After those fuckers are out of the
>> way, she can place her own men.
>>
>> Don't you ever read The Prince before retiring?
>>
>she didn't.
Christ! These people gave Ceasare Borgia lessons!
>the worst thing she does in the entire film
>is betray maximus to save the life of her son.
>the second worse thing she did was try to
>obtain maximus's allegiance to commodus before marcus died,
>and it's possible she did that to save maximus's life.
>she was mentined to be
>manipulative, but her actual portrayal was quite virtuous.
THat's why I had troubles with her character.
>> >[2] the time from that scene to the end of the film is measured in >days.
>>
>> So what? Issue orders if you're pissed. This is what the screenwriter
>> needed to have him do.
>no, the screenwriter specifically needed him NOT to do that,
>because the whole point of his not
>doing it was thatthis
>guy was generally a flake.
If you mean that he was being openly ignored because he was increasingly
derranged, I'll buy it.
>which he was,
>he refused to do any governmental work,
>his entire idea of ruling was to hold games,
>and he only ever seemed to do anything at all when
>he felt immediately threatened.
Sounds like any contemporary politician...
I'll have to see it again. If it was intended this way, that's fine.
>the movie clearly implies hisbeing trampled is a vision,
>which does connote a certain amount of accuracy to it,
>but leaves wiggle room.
I don't think that it is *clearly* a vision.
However, you may be right.
> We know he saw
>> his wife dead--that was all they showed us--but it wouldn't take much for
>> us to believe that he also found the body of his son.
>iirc, we see the kid's feet hanging too.
>i might be wrong, but i saw it yesterday,
>an hour before i first posted in this thread.
No kid, at all, as I recall.
>Now, we know Maximus
>> is a straightforward guy. As the viewer, we know he saw his wife's body,
>> and if he says that she and his son were crucified, we believe him. Why
>> wouldn't we? His developed character was quite consistent, and was
>> well-conveyed by Crowe, an excellent screen actor.
>i was disturbed a bit by the performance.
>he plyed it so low key, i thought perhaps a bit too low key.
How about Maximus being played by Jim Carey?
>> None of this is major stuff. It's a pretty decent film. The early battle
>> scene--or rather the preparation and tension before the battle, was well
>> done. Except for the "barrage", which filmed well, but I doubt that
>> anything like this would be used in the field. It's shit like this that
>> keeps the film from rising to another level of precision and credibility,
>> in my opinion.
>whatgot me ws the religion dodge- at some point, they did mention
>other gods, but unless maximus mention zues sin one
>of his mutterings i couldn't catch, they dodged thatpart.
>the other thing was the chariot explosion scene.
>i thought,'god, ridley is putting car explosions in roman times'.
>and not just one.
>about 5 pretty much blew up, in a row.
Well, those were anachronistic examples of artisitc license. They didn't
hinder the progression of the plot, so they didn't bother me as much.
But, yeah, the film would have been better off without this sort of BS.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jouni Karhu
>kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) writes:
>
>>You just see him knocked down. After that, it depends on the viewer
>>whether or not they think the horses trod on him or not. Since I know
>>that horses don't step on things (boys lying on the ground included)
>>if they can help it, I just thought he was knocked down. And don't you
>>think that the mere knocking down would have been enough to "set his
>>mom off"?
>
>Of course it would. But please try to recall that the trampling scene is
>very vivid and *appears* to most viewers, perhaps not yourself, because
>you know something special about horse behavior, apparently, that the boy
>is *really* *REALLY* hammered.
On this I guess we must agree to disagree; maybe I just have a sick
imagination, but IMHO it could have been far far more vivid :)
>It's like this: the film sets a common expectancy with this scene. That
>the person trampled is badly hurt, if not outright killed. This is the
>same expectancy that is set when a person is shot in the torso with an
>arrow, and they fall down dead. Having shot animals with arrows, I call
>tell you for sure that this is not what happens. They gradually bleed to
>death. But the film convention is that, if shot by an arrow in the torso,
>you fall down immediately, probably dead.
Only with large game; shoot a human-sized animal (e.g., a human) with
an arrow with a hunting tip, and the catastrophical drop in blood
pressure (if hit in the lungs+heart area) will drop it (him) pretty
much where he stands. Hunting arrows cause much more internal bleeding
than rifle bullets; the hydroshock caused by bullets does its damage
slightly differently. But that is neither here or there; I agree with
the point you are making, although I disagree on its applicability
here :)
>Same with this scene. Scott set the expectancy that the boy might very
>well be dead, and then later has Maximus come back and tell us that makes
>us perk up our ears: this is against our expectancies, so we take note.
>
>>Please someone, tell me where Maximus tells Juba that his son and wife
>>were crucified alive. I checked the "but not yet" discussion, since
>>that seemed like the obvious place, but it wasn't there. There he just
>>says that his son and wife "are already waiting".
>
>Jouni, I just took the video back this morning. If you want to make an
>issue of whether he said this or not, I'll get the video, find the place
>and we'll discuss it again--at which time you'll never hear the end of it
>;^). If you have the DVD and were looking around the time that Juba and
>Maximus were talking about whether there's a life after death, that's
>where I thought it would be, too. He might also have told his orderly, or
>maybe even Proximo (Proximus?). The point is, it was this very declaration
>that caused me to go back and look, and again and again, at the trampling.
>I'd encourage you to accept my assertion that Maximus did tell someone
>that his wife and child had been burnt and crucified while still alive,
>just to advance the discussion. If you insist, I'll rent the video again,
>and I'll find the spot.
I went through the scenes I thought that might be in from my DVD, and
lo and behold, there it was, although in a slightly different form and
pretty much in the last place I was looking. When Lucilla comes to see
Maximus after he reveals his identity (Maximus is in chains), he barks
at her: "My family was burnt and crucified while they were still
alive!"
Somewhat more ambiguously said. I guess it comes down to this: do you,
as a viewer, accept Maximus's authority on this matter, even though he
didn't himself witness the event?
>>>Why confuse the story this way? It would be easy enough to avoid.
>
>>It seems to me that it is you people who are either intentionally or
>>unintentionally creating these confusions.
>
>I'm not creating confusion unless you think I'm fabricating these things.
>Do you think I'm making these observations up?
Nah, that was mostly directed at some other people participating in
this thread; for example, I would like to point out that one doesn't
need the vertical beam for crucifixion; just the horizontal :) I see
no need of complaining about that :)
Sawfish
>m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) writes:
>>
>>>You just see him knocked down. After that, it depends on the viewer
>>>whether or not they think the horses trod on him or not. Since I know
>>>that horses don't step on things (boys lying on the ground included)
>>>if they can help it, I just thought he was knocked down. And don't you
>>>think that the mere knocking down would have been enough to "set his
>>>mom off"?
>>
>>Of course it would. But please try to recall that the trampling scene is
>>very vivid and *appears* to most viewers, perhaps not yourself, because
>>you know something special about horse behavior, apparently, that the boy
>>is *really* *REALLY* hammered.
>On this I guess we must agree to disagree; maybe I just have a sick
>imagination, but IMHO it could have been far far more vivid :)
I agree that it is not as explicit as it might be; rather, it gives the
distict impression of a catastrophic event. I'd also agree that a person
might survive this event, but I question the wisdom of giving us this
confusing information when it is not even necessary to advance the story.
Looks good on film, though.
>>It's like this: the film sets a common expectancy with this scene. That
>>the person trampled is badly hurt, if not outright killed. This is the
>>same expectancy that is set when a person is shot in the torso with an
>>arrow, and they fall down dead. Having shot animals with arrows, I call
>>tell you for sure that this is not what happens. They gradually bleed to
>>death. But the film convention is that, if shot by an arrow in the torso,
>>you fall down immediately, probably dead.
>Only with large game; shoot a human-sized animal (e.g., a human) with
>an arrow with a hunting tip, and the catastrophical drop in blood
>pressure (if hit in the lungs+heart area) will drop it (him) pretty
>much where he stands. Hunting arrows cause much more internal bleeding
>than rifle bullets; the hydroshock caused by bullets does its damage
>slightly differently. But that is neither here or there; I agree with
>the point you are making, although I disagree on its applicability
>here :)
Jouni, now you scare me!
I've not shot someone. I'm extrapolating from mule deer. It is a trek once
they've been solidly hit. I feel that a part of the reason that they stay
up for a surprisingly long time is thatthey don't suffer from shock in the
same manner as humans.
Thanks for finding this. Now I won't have to rent the film tonight.
Another question regarding the trampling. Another poster has brought up
that the sequence in which the trampling takes place might be interpretted
as an hallucination or dream. I hadn't thought of this, but it might fit.
If this were true, then Scott was trying to show, in a spiritual--almost
supernatural--way that Maximus was atached to his family in such a way
that he had an impressionistic prescience of their deaths. Then he rides
home and finds that this is true, but not in exactly the way he'd
envisioned it.
I could accept this, if it appears that this was Scott's intent. This
would remove my objection about the boy being trampled to death, and then
we are later told he was crucified. My only quibble would then be that
Scott did not legitimize the use of "dream" information enough for me to
recognize it when I saw it--and for that I'd have to share a part of the
responsiblity for not noticing it.
Possibly I mistook it for a POV shift. The POV went to the actual
Praetorians riding to Maximus villa. Why do I think this? Because of two
things: a) there is usually a visual clue that the content of the sequence
is not real (slow action; focus, etc.); b) the action in a dream sequence
seldom has expository, just the pivotal action. As I recall, neither was
true for the Praetorian advance on Maximus' villa. If I recall correctly,
there a fair amount of realistic footage showing the Praetorians
approaching the villa, possibly even before we know it is Maximus'. Camera
POV was with the Praetorians, and this would not be correct for a dream
centering on his family. There is 'way mmore expository than is needed to
support a dream sequence (we accept arbitrariness in dreams, so plausible
expository is less important). In this instance, I think a good dream
sequence would merely be the long shot of the black-armored Praetorians
riding up the lane to the villa, the boy running out to greet the
soldiers, then being ridden down. All in some defining visual style that
is different from the surrounding context.
Anyway, that's just what I think. I don't remember how they handled it,
and it could have been intended as a dream.
>Somewhat more ambiguously said. I guess it comes down to this: do you,
>as a viewer, accept Maximus's authority on this matter, even though he
>didn't himself witness the event?
I'd tend to accept it based on Maximus' character. He would not overstate
something and remain in character, and Crowe did an excellent job of
portraying a consistently simple, honest man who is so good at what he
does (warfare) that his services are used by those who do not deserve
them.
So yeah, I'd accept that at the site of their deaths, Maximus had seen
enough to make him feel sure that what he said happened, had happened.
Contrast that with Commodus's egging Maximus on by desribing what he had
heard about Maximus' family's deaths. Did these things happen? Maybe;
maybe not. But there's no assurance that Commodus, unlike Maxims, would
not make up something like that on the spot, just to make Maximus suffer.
In fact, I'd say that if this imformation didn't exist, Commodus would
enjoy making it up, based on the character development.
>>>>Why confuse the story this way? It would be easy enough to avoid.
>>
>>>It seems to me that it is you people who are either intentionally or
>>>unintentionally creating these confusions.
>>
>>I'm not creating confusion unless you think I'm fabricating these things.
>>Do you think I'm making these observations up?
>Nah, that was mostly directed at some other people participating in
>this thread; for example, I would like to point out that one doesn't
>need the vertical beam for crucifixion; just the horizontal :) I see
>no need of complaining about that :)
I can see your point, but mine is that ALL of this stuff (who says that,
what we are shown, what happens in what order, etc.), are all under the
control of the filmmaker. He would do well to minimize confusion and
misdirection and keep everything plausible enough so that a lot of
additional supposition--or even apologia--are not needed to explain what
happens.
Leechboy
Sawfish wrote in message <97845231...@q7.q7.com>...
>I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film, but was
>somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
>continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
>clear.
Minor problems with this paragraph. 1. Ridley Scott is the director, not the
writer. If there are problems with the plotting, blame the writers David
Franzoni, John Logan and William Nicholson.
>As usual, toward the beginning of the film, Scott, establishes that it is,
>in fact, the one, the only, Ridley Scott directing this film when he treas
>us to facial close-ups that are unlit or partially lit, with a strongly
>lit background, making for the rather murky trademark signature.
>used to really like this (it was very effective in Blade Runner), but it
>seemed overdone, or even indifferently done, in Gladiator.
Ridley Scott is only the director, if you have problems with the
cinematography blame the D.O.P. John Mathieson.
For further information on who is responsible for what in filmaking I'd
suggest reading the William Goldman's "Which Lie Did I Tell". BTW, I'm not
saying Scott is not responsible for some problems within the film, he most
certainly is, just not the one's you mentioned.
The 4th Brandon
<Leec...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> Sawfish wrote in message <97845231...@q7.q7.com>...
> >I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film, but
> >was
> >somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
> >continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
> >clear.
>
> Minor problems with this paragraph. 1. Ridley Scott is the director, not
> the
> writer. If there are problems with the plotting, blame the writers David
> Franzoni, John Logan and William Nicholson.
>
> >As usual, toward the beginning of the film, Scott, establishes that it
> >is,
> >in fact, the one, the only, Ridley Scott directing this film when he
> >treas
> >us to facial close-ups that are unlit or partially lit, with a strongly
> >lit background, making for the rather murky trademark signature.
> >used to really like this (it was very effective in Blade Runner), but it
> >seemed overdone, or even indifferently done, in Gladiator.
>
>
> Ridley Scott is only the director, if you have problems with the
> cinematography blame the D.O.P. John Mathieson.
Scott is the director. He's supposed to direct people, including the
cinematographer.
--
Brandon Blatcher
Spamblocked, remove clothing for email
"I resolve to stop thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses
as mere receptacles for my lust. "
-hootisland.com
VictimOhSobriety
>cinematographer.
Precisely, not to mention the fact that scripts do not wind up on film exactly
as written. The director has the most important influence (disregarding
producers and studios) over the final cut of a movie. So blaming the writers is
not a legitimate suggestion either.
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote in message <97845231...@q7.q7.com>...
>>I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film, but was
>>somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
>>continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
>>clear.
>Minor problems with this paragraph. 1. Ridley Scott is the director, not the
>writer. If there are problems with the plotting, blame the writers David
>Franzoni, John Logan and William Nicholson.
I disagree. As the director, in charge of the creative process, the buck
stops with Scott. Especially with Scott, since, as a proven commodity,
he's given more leeway than an unknown or a mere technician.
>>As usual, toward the beginning of the film, Scott, establishes that it is,
>>in fact, the one, the only, Ridley Scott directing this film when he treas
>>us to facial close-ups that are unlit or partially lit, with a strongly
>>lit background, making for the rather murky trademark signature.
>>used to really like this (it was very effective in Blade Runner), but it
>>seemed overdone, or even indifferently done, in Gladiator.
>Ridley Scott is only the director, if you have problems with the
>cinematography blame the D.O.P. John Mathieson.
Same as above. It's hard to argue that Scott has no influence on the
"look" of his films. He's one of the most visually distinctive directors
working today, on a par with Gilliam or Burton. This has been consistently
so since I became a fan of his after seeing The Duellists in the mid-70's.
To me, this argues that he dictates a certain level of "signature" style
to cinematography and art direction.
>For further information on who is responsible for what in filmaking I'd
>suggest reading the William Goldman's "Which Lie Did I Tell". BTW, I'm not
>saying Scott is not responsible for some problems within the film, he most
>certainly is, just not the one's you mentioned.
I'll read the book, but right now, it's difficult for me to see that he
does not have ultimate creative control over look and narrative, bowing
only to those representling the financing of the films.
But thanks for the pointer to the book! I could be working from flawed
assumptions (common sense leads me to believe otherwise) and I'll check it
out.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leechboy
VictimOhSobriety wrote in message
<20010105014439...@ng-mb1.aol.com>...
>>Scott is the director. He's supposed to direct people, including the
>>cinematographer.
>
>Precisely, not to mention the fact that scripts do not wind up on film
exactly
>as written.
Scripts go through rewrites, yes. But who *does* the re-writes, well, the
writers (Or script doctors, depending on the problems and the producers
wishes.)
The director has the most important influence (disregarding
>producers and studios) over the final cut of a movie. So blaming the
writers is
>not a legitimate suggestion either.
The Director controls the mise en scene, but the cinematographer is the one
responsible for the look. The director may be able to say, "Hey this is what
I want" but it is the cinematographer who *actually* makes it so.
As for Director's influence over the final cut, umm, does anyone here
remember the Blade Runner Fiasco?
Leechboy
Sawfish wrote in message <97870774...@q7.q7.com>...
>"Leechboy" <Leec...@usa.net> writes:
>
>
>>Sawfish wrote in message <97845231...@q7.q7.com>...
>>>I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film, but was
>>>somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with Scott's
>>>continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative line
>>>clear.
>
>>Minor problems with this paragraph. 1. Ridley Scott is the director, not
the
>>writer. If there are problems with the plotting, blame the writers David
>>Franzoni, John Logan and William Nicholson.
>
>I disagree. As the director, in charge of the creative process, the buck
>stops with Scott. Especially with Scott, since, as a proven commodity,
>he's given more leeway than an unknown or a mere technician.
Granted, he does have the most creative power outside the producer, my point
is that thanks to critical horseshit like Autuer theory, the various
creative people who are just as responsible for the "art" of a film are
being neglected when it comes to both praise and blame. Scott may be the
director, but he did not write the film or construct its plotline, and while
he may be blame for not noticing or correcting these percieved faults, he is
not the one who made them.
>>>As usual, toward the beginning of the film, Scott, establishes that it
is,
>>>in fact, the one, the only, Ridley Scott directing this film when he
treas
>>>us to facial close-ups that are unlit or partially lit, with a strongly
>>>lit background, making for the rather murky trademark signature.
>>>used to really like this (it was very effective in Blade Runner), but it
>>>seemed overdone, or even indifferently done, in Gladiator.
>
>
>>Ridley Scott is only the director, if you have problems with the
>>cinematography blame the D.O.P. John Mathieson.
>
>Same as above. It's hard to argue that Scott has no influence on the
>"look" of his films. He's one of the most visually distinctive directors
>working today, on a par with Gilliam or Burton. This has been consistently
so since I became a fan of his after seeing The Duellists in the mid-70's.
To me, this argues that he dictates a certain level of "signature" style
>to cinematography and art direction.
I'm not saying he has no influence, I'm saying he's not the only influence.
How about I rewrite my suggestion from before ?
"Ridley Scott is only the director, if you have problems with the
cinematography you must also blame the D.O.P. John Mathieson."
Directing "signatures" have always been a bother for me anyway, in that
valueing them rewards repetition over variety, but that's another argument.
>>For further information on who is responsible for what in filmaking I'd
>>suggest reading the William Goldman's "Which Lie Did I Tell". BTW, I'm not
>>saying Scott is not responsible for some problems within the film, he most
>>certainly is, just not the one's you mentioned.
>
>I'll read the book, but right now, it's difficult for me to see that he
>does not have ultimate creative control over look and narrative, bowing
>only to those representling the financing of the films.
All I'm saying is give credit or blame to everyone involved in the process.
Film is a collaborative art, afterall.
kath...@my-deja.com
m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
> "Leechboy" <Leec...@usa.net> writes:
>
> >Sawfish wrote in message <97845231...@q7.q7.com>...
> >>I just viewed Gladiator. I was one the whole pleased by the film,
but was
> >>somewhat troubled by minor problems with the plot and also with
Scott's
> >>continued--in fact, increased--blindness to keeping the narrative
line
> >>clear.
Maximus is being taken to Zucchabar, there is a very brief shot of him
changed in the dungeon, which actually is near the end of the film.
Also as Juba the slave is talking to him he says "Not yet"-again, this
line reappears later when Juba and Maximus are on the rooftop and
talking of their families. During one of the times I saw the movie in
the theatre I wondered if perhaps the entire film was a "flashback" or
dream sequence, based only on these two scenes.
The 4th Brandon
<Leec...@usa.net> wrote:
Never mind that, just think of the Legend fiasco.
Amos Keppler
Alan Smithee hasn't made that many movies lately. I wonder why...
Inquiring Amos
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Feel the heat of Firewind
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100531
Stories from the edge of consciousness, beyond any contained mind
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sawfish
That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that.
If a flashback, from what point does the narrative actually start?
Lessee (thinking aloud): the film begins and ends with a hand brushing
genrtling over the tops of grain. This is also his dying image, as I
recall.
Maybe you're onto something.
Jouni Karhu
The narrative is linear (I'm basing this on Ridley Scott's comments on
the DVD Director's Comments audio track). The hand brushing grain does
have a meaning, as does his touching earth before battles and when he
is being carted half-dead to Zucchabar.
Unfortunately I don't have time now to share with you other points
raised by Scott in the comment track, but if you want, I could post
the key points in it when I have time? One point he mentioned, BTW,
was that Lucilla was _not_ drugging her brother; that was a tonic, and
the scene was meant to show that he trusted her completely.
Sawfish
Of course I'd enjoy seeing this additional information. I do, however,
have a bias against using the extraneous material as support for that
which was not clear in the initial viewing. It would be like letting TS
Elliot annotate his work. This makes it less a work of art and more
mythos, in my opinion.
CaNeMa
>Maximus was to be executed in the woods (good touch, out of sight of his
>loyal troops). Why the rush to go to Spain and kill his family? The reason
>I ask this is that while I watched I wondered at how/why the soldiers that
>killed his family could beat him back to Spain. No telegraphs, and no
>particular reason to rush, since as far as most folks knew, Maximus was
>dead (or was he? What would the commander who ordered Maximus to be
>executed in the woods think when no one returned?).
>
That concerned me too. Why was the family executed at all? I mean
Caesar thought Maximus was dead - and now he would be leader. What
purpose was there for killing the family?
At first I thought it was because he knew he had escaped and it was a
way of punishing him for his 'defiance'. But he had no idea he was
still alive!
K. Ferrand
"CaNeMa" <cun...@home.comNOSPAM.PLEASE> wrote in message
news:fvpd5t8hf8vo35t6e...@4ax.com...
out the family to remove the possibility of them taking revenge and to act
as a warning to others. From my vague memories of Roman history assorted
Emperors did it all the time...that and going bonkers.
Sawfish
Yep. Wiping out a family is so common-sensical(?) that Machievelli advises
it. It cuts down on revenge later.
The original point is not *why* Commodus ordered the execution of the
family, it was a) why crucifixion; and b) why was it necessary to send a
relay of Praetorians to do it in record time.
Neither are big points.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VictimOhSobriety
>That concerned me too. Why was the family executed at all? I mean
>Caesar thought Maximus was dead - and now he would be leader. What
>purpose was there for killing the family?
>
>At first I thought it was because he knew he had escaped and it was a
>way of punishing him for his 'defiance'. But he had no idea he was
>still alive!
>
>
Read some Greek and Roman mythology. It's all about revenge, very big in those
days. If someone killed your father in was your duty to kill that person and
Commodus had to make sure that Maximus' son couldn't avenge the death of the
pater familias. Because eventually word would have spread that it was the new
emperor who had had Maximus killed.
dart...@my-deja.com
and genius that was The Phantom Menace.
CaNeMa
>
>The original point is not *why* Commodus ordered the execution of the
>family, it was a) why crucifixion;
Was it Commodus who told Maximus in the ring that they were crucified?
I think he just lied to Maximus to anger him. Remember how he said
that his kid cried like a girl and his wife moaned like a whore when
she was being raped. Commodus was not there and I doubt anyone
described it to him like that. He just also told Maximus they were
crucified for extra shock value. He had no idea that Maximus actually
saw his family burned and hanged - which is what it looked like.
It must be that because I cant' believe they would make such an
obvious error to say the family was crucified and then show them
having died differently.
> and b) why was it necessary to send a
>relay of Praetorians to do it in record time.
>
Did they came from different locations? Maximus began his journey in
Germania, and the Praetorians from Rome? If so that could explain it.
It might have been a shorter and easier journey from Rome.
Also, the Praetorians were in good health and on a mission. Maximus
was wounded and not as well equipped with supplies. He would have had
to take the time to hunt for food and search for water. The
Praetorians surely began their journey well equipped with water, some
food, and better weapons and tools to hunt for food. It makes sense
that they could get there pretty quick to me (at least much quicker
than Maximus for sure).
Helen & Bob
dart...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Gladiator was an overrated piece of crap...nothing compared to the art
> and genius that was The Phantom Menace.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
The above is by far the silliest troll of the third millennium (so far)
Bob
Michael Hafer
>and genius that was The Phantom Menace.
Gladiator was the GODFATHER trilogy compared to the Phantom Menace.
Michael Hafer
Sawfish
I agree.
But an interesting comparison would be 13th Warrior vs Gladiator. Lessee:
Gladiator's theme was one of personal loss and vengence, much more weighty
than 13th Warrior's cultural daring-do, but on the whole, 13th Warrior was
at least as effective at telling its story as Gladiator. Its main trouble
was that its strongest points were at the beginning of the film and the
weakest at the end. Gladiator was at least fairly evenly orchestrated,
and its story was thematically much stronger than 13th Warriors--as
well-executed as I believe it was.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adam Cameron
>obvious error to say the family was crucified and then show them
>having died differently.
How about this:
(COMMODUS has just sent MAXIMUS off to be killed. He is still
*really* *pissed* *off*).
COMMODUS: Praetorians... go knock off Maximus' family: don't want no
revenge taking place. Crucify the bastards. Do it quickly. Do it
*NOW*.
PRAETORIANS: err... OK boss.
[later]
PRAETORIANS "accidentally" overrun MAXIMUS' son.
PRAETORIANS: F*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck: Commodus is going to have our
nuts... we were supposed to crucify this kid, not trample him...
[look at each other... nod...]
[get out the plank and nails they brought with them, string up kids
body next to his mother's]
[later]
PRAETORIANS: Err... Sir... we've... um... well anyway, we're back.
COMMODUS: Did you crucify thre bastards?
PRAETORIANS (unison): Err... *YES SIR WE DID*.
COMMODUS: Did they *suffer*?
PRAETORIANS (unison): Err... *YES SIR THEY DID*.
COMMODUS: Very good [turns, continues pulling wings of baby birds]
PRAETORIANS (aside): *PHEW*. That was close.
Melodrama aside, it's not uncommon for corpses to be strung up after
they're dead as a marker / warning / whatever other people here have
suggested.
Take old Jesus Christ for example: he could have just had his head
lopped off, or somesuch. But *crucifying* him put a message out to
the other would-be messiahs out there: Don't F*ck with the Roman
Empire.
Similarly was a message left for anyone who cared about Maximus.
"Maximus f*cked with the Emperor. The Emperor f*cked Maximus. And
this wife. And his kid. And this donkey that was nearby at the
time..." etc.
>> and b) why was it necessary to send a
>>relay of Praetorians to do it in record time.
>Did they came from different locations? Maximus began his journey in
>Germania, and the Praetorians from Rome? If so that could explain it.
>It might have been a shorter and easier journey from Rome.
Um... the order came from Commodus. The only communications channel
at that time was message by horseback. If those particular
praetorians came from Rome, a messenger would have to travel from
Germania to Rome to tell them, and then they would have to go from
Rome to [wherever Maximus lived, I forget].
>Also, the Praetorians were in good health and on a mission. Maximus
>was wounded and not as well equipped with supplies. He would have had
>to take the time to hunt for food and search for water. The
>Praetorians surely began their journey well equipped with water, some
>food, and better weapons and tools to hunt for food. It makes sense
>that they could get there pretty quick to me (at least much quicker
>than Maximus for sure).
All true. And also they would be changing horses (and probably
riders) at every camp, meaning less resting time required for them to
get there.
All in all, if we accept that Commodus was *really* *pissed* *off*,
and illogically sent praetorians out to kill the family *straight
away*, it makes sense that they got there first.
Adam
Sawfish
>How about this:
>[later]
Of course all of this oculd happen. BUt look how hard you've had to work
to explain it. A filmmaker in control of his project shouldn't make
difficult for people to explain how/what/why actions happened in his film,
if it is to be a "normal" narrative. This means not doing silly things
like riding Maximus's son down, then later having MAXIMUS, the very
paragon of truth and understatement, say "my son and wife were burnt and
crucified while still alive." This makes it necessary for people to work
as hard as you have to explain something that should never have come up at
all.
Adam Cameron
>Of course all of this oculd happen. BUt look how hard you've had to work
>to explain it. A filmmaker in control of his project shouldn't make
Err... it's just what I assumed happened, as I watched the film, first
time around: I didn't have to spend any time trying to "work out" what
happened. It wasn't telegraphed to me word for word, but it was
fairly evident what was taking place.
I was already aware of the "wipe the whole family out" modus operandi,
as well as the pony express method of travelling quickly from point A
to point B. As well as it not being at all implausible for a corpse
to be crucified. All of these things are "just the way it was done".
I don't see any inconsistencies in the film, in regard to this
particular scene / sequence. I never *did* see any inconsistencies in
it.
Adam
mtn...@my-deja.com
I would have bought it if they hadn't had MAXIMUS say that something
happened that appeared to contradict what I had seen with my own eyes.
Then the questions came:
"Jeez. Maximus is a straight up guy (that's his main character trait,
don't you agree?)--not an impressionable sort, at all, and HE says they
got cruficied while alive. Wow. His son must be really tough."
"Hey, wait! It's not easy to send a relay team of thugs from Vienna to
Spain. And, you know, there's no reason to, since Maximus is dead."
"Ho! They crucified them? I know they could have done that, but the
important things are (a) kill all possible descendents so there'll be no
revenge from that quarter; and (b) don't let Maximus' men hear about
this, because they really, really liked him, and until we get them split
up, we don't want to piss them off. So if we crucify his family to send
a message, who are we trying to send a message to?"
Maybe I'm just 'way too skeptical; of course, the flip side is that
you're not skeptical enough.
Adam Cameron
>happened that appeared to contradict what I had seen with my own eyes.
He could have been mistaken... he's a bloke from 2000-odd years ago,
who is a soldier, not a surgeon. How does one tell if someone has
been crucified alive? (as opposed to being already dead, I mean).
I mean short of having head/limbs chopped off and *obvious* mortal
wounds, is he not just going to *assume* they were alive when they
were strung up?
>"Jeez. Maximus is a straight up guy (that's his main character trait,
>don't you agree?)--not an impressionable sort, at all, and HE says they
>got cruficied while alive. Wow. His son must be really tough."
And as far as the son still being alive after the horses overrode him,
far-fetched though it might be, he could have lived through it: people
are odd things. Last week someone here fell off their skateboard,
cracked themselves on the head and died. He wasn't going fast, didn't
fall far, just fell wrong. I've also seem people walk away from
*heinous* car / bike wrecks without much more than a scratch or a
broken arm or leg or something. I'm sure you have (on TV -
motorsport) as well.
Having said that, I believe he was dead when he was strung up.
>"Hey, wait! It's not easy to send a relay team of thugs from Vienna to
>Spain. And, you know, there's no reason to, since Maximus is dead."
You send a relay of messenger to tell the "thugs" at the local
garrison to go do the dirty deed. There's no need for a squad of
praetorians to be despatched up until the last leg of the mission.
And you're right: it was an irrational thing to do, but Commodus *did*
it (obviously, as we saw it in the film). If you see the DVD deleted
scenes, you also see him have a tanty and hack a statue of his dad to
pieces before realising what he had done and hugging same statue.
Deleted scenes are not canon, but I've no problem with using them as
an example of his state of mind at the time.
>"Ho! They crucified them? I know they could have done that, but the
>important things are (a) kill all possible descendents so there'll be no
>revenge from that quarter; and (b) don't let Maximus' men hear about
>this, because they really, really liked him, and until we get them split
>up, we don't want to piss them off. So if we crucify his family to send
>a message, who are we trying to send a message to?"
This is actually a good point. Wouldn't want to piss off the wrong
people, would you? I guess Commodus didn't think of that, or perhaps
you (and I, as I'm inclinded to agree with you on this one) are over
estimating communications channels in that part of history. How do
his men *find out*?
I reckon he was just enraged and despatched a message to have them
crucified. Because he felt like it.
>Maybe I'm just 'way too skeptical;
I don't see where scepticism comes into it, to be honest. We're
presented with most of what happened on the screen, and it's not that
hard to work out what may or may not have happened off-screen to fill
the gaps. And none of it is in the slightest implausible (well to me,
anyhow). In fact - as I said - it seems bloody obvious to me, and I'm
more surprised that you *don't* think that way. But hey!
Whether Commodus was acting logically or the way you or I would have
acted is neither here nor there. He *did* order Maximus' family
executed *immediately*, and that is what happened.
If it was *me*, I would have stepped aside and honoured my dying
father's wish. But it would make for a crap film.
>of course, the flip side is that
>you're not skeptical enough.
Err... [nervous chortle]. Easy to see you don't know me. I've no
shortage of scepticism and cynicism, I assure you. As well as no
particular allegiance to this film or any other film in such a way
that I feel it's my obligation to defend it.
Indeed I don't even consider I'm defending this film in this
particular exchange, I just think that the thought processes which
have been applied to this particular "glitch" are a bit wayward.
But at the end of the day, it really is a trivial thing, and I'm
prepared to agree to disagree if you like. It's... just a film.
Adam
Sawfish
>>I would have bought it if they hadn't had MAXIMUS say that something
>>happened that appeared to contradict what I had seen with my own eyes.
>He could have been mistaken... he's a bloke from 2000-odd years ago,
>who is a soldier, not a surgeon. How does one tell if someone has
>been crucified alive? (as opposed to being already dead, I mean).
>I mean short of having head/limbs chopped off and *obvious* mortal
>wounds, is he not just going to *assume* they were alive when they
>were strung up?
I agree that one might not know, but in my view the character of Maximus
was not one to overstate anything. We only have two choices for what Scott
intended us to think: that Maximus's family was crucifed as he described;
or they were not and Maximus was either wrong or stretching the truth. My
read is that Scott intended us to believe that it was exactly as Maximus
said. To do otherwise would be pointlessly confusing--unless an important
plot point turned on this information--and it didn't.
>>"Jeez. Maximus is a straight up guy (that's his main character trait,
>>don't you agree?)--not an impressionable sort, at all, and HE says they
>>got cruficied while alive. Wow. His son must be really tough."
>And as far as the son still being alive after the horses overrode him,
>far-fetched though it might be, he could have lived through it: people
>are odd things. Last week someone here fell off their skateboard,
>cracked themselves on the head and died.
..and someone rushed up and crucified him?
>He wasn't going fast, didn't
>fall far, just fell wrong. I've also seem people walk away from
>*heinous* car / bike wrecks without much more than a scratch or a
>broken arm or leg or something. I'm sure you have (on TV -
>motorsport) as well.
>Having said that, I believe he was dead when he was strung up.
>>"Hey, wait! It's not easy to send a relay team of thugs from Vienna to
>>Spain. And, you know, there's no reason to, since Maximus is dead."
>You send a relay of messenger to tell the "thugs" at the local
>garrison to go do the dirty deed. There's no need for a squad of
>praetorians to be despatched up until the last leg of the mission.
>And you're right: it was an irrational thing to do, but Commodus *did*
>it (obviously, as we saw it in the film). If you see the DVD deleted
>scenes, you also see him have a tanty and hack a statue of his dad to
>pieces before realising what he had done and hugging same statue.
>Deleted scenes are not canon, but I've no problem with using them as
>an example of his state of mind at the time.
I do. They are not a part of the general release and as far as I'm
concerned I must assume that they were deleted for the reason that the
film maker did not want us to respond to any impressions inspired by the
deleted scenes.
>>"Ho! They crucified them? I know they could have done that, but the
>>important things are (a) kill all possible descendents so there'll be no
>>revenge from that quarter; and (b) don't let Maximus' men hear about
>>this, because they really, really liked him, and until we get them split
>>up, we don't want to piss them off. So if we crucify his family to send
>>a message, who are we trying to send a message to?"
>This is actually a good point. Wouldn't want to piss off the wrong
>people, would you? I guess Commodus didn't think of that, or perhaps
>you (and I, as I'm inclinded to agree with you on this one) are over
>estimating communications channels in that part of history. How do
>his men *find out*?
>I reckon he was just enraged and despatched a message to have them
>crucified. Because he felt like it.
>>Maybe I'm just 'way too skeptical;
>I don't see where scepticism comes into it, to be honest. We're
>presented with most of what happened on the screen, and it's not that
>hard to work out what may or may not have happened off-screen to fill
>the gaps. And none of it is in the slightest implausible (well to me,
>anyhow). In fact - as I said - it seems bloody obvious to me, and I'm
>more surprised that you *don't* think that way. But hey!
>Whether Commodus was acting logically or the way you or I would have
>acted is neither here nor there. He *did* order Maximus' family
>executed *immediately*, and that is what happened.
I'll buy that. Now we also know that his son was trampled and that Maximus
said something that makes some people pek and say "Whaaaat?"
>If it was *me*, I would have stepped aside and honoured my dying
>father's wish. But it would make for a crap film.
>>of course, the flip side is that
>>you're not skeptical enough.
>Err... [nervous chortle]. Easy to see you don't know me. I've no
>shortage of scepticism and cynicism, I assure you. As well as no
>particular allegiance to this film or any other film in such a way
>that I feel it's my obligation to defend it.
>Indeed I don't even consider I'm defending this film in this
>particular exchange, I just think that the thought processes which
>have been applied to this particular "glitch" are a bit wayward.
>But at the end of the day, it really is a trivial thing, and I'm
>prepared to agree to disagree if you like. It's... just a film.
You are right, and I'll concede that a) I'm 'way more picky about this
sort of stuff than most--and very possibly foolishly so; and b) it was a
fine film overall--especially Crowe's performance.
My opinions, only.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish
superdamonal speed
the questionis, how would he know?
burning after crucifxion doesn't
leave a lot for a roman to deduce
whether the person was alive when it happened.
--
Beware of the speeding nun!
tri...@my-deja.com
kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) wrote:
> m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>
>
> Getting knocked down by a horse hardly kills you, even if it does
> hurt. Horses don't generally like to step on anything but solid
> ground, so they would have evaded him while he lay on the ground.
Having grown up spending summers on my relatives' farm, I'd just like
to chime in here.
Horses may *try* not to step on a lump in their path, but that doesn't
mean they'll succeed. They're animals who aren't blessed with magical
collision avoidance powers. They're also smart enough to distinguish
between an object that's a threat to them and one that isn't. I've
seen a horse run down a dog and stomp him because the dog was annoying
the horse.
A horse running flat out colliding with a child will probably kill that
child. You might as well drop the kid from a third story window and
expect him to walk away.
And while we're on the subject...
You know that cliched scene in some movies where the protagonist gets
caught halfway through a field with a bull in it and then runs for the
fence, barely escaping the bull's wrath? In real life you'd make it
about five steps before the bull ground you into paste. Bulls are
*meaner than hell* and they are *faster than hell.*
Also, roosters don't crow at sunrise. They crow any damn time of the
day they please. Dawn, dusk, noon, 4 pm, 3 am, doesn't matter. Get a
cranky rooster (and I've rarely met any other kind) and the blasted
thing will keep you up all night.
Just some info for our urban readers.
Doug
--
Moviedogs: your favorite dogs in your favorite films:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Spike, Tiggy & Panda's Pug-A-Rama:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>> >All in all, if we accept that Commodus was *really* *pissed* *off*,
>> >and illogically sent praetorians out to kill the family *straight
>> >away*, it makes sense that they got there first.
>>
>> Of course all of this oculd happen. BUt look how hard you've had to work
>> to explain it. A filmmaker in control of his project shouldn't make
>> difficult for people to explain how/what/why actions happened in his film,
>> if it is to be a "normal" narrative. This means not doing silly things
>> like riding Maximus's son down, then later having MAXIMUS, the very
>> paragon of truth and understatement, say "my son and wife were burnt and
>> crucified while still alive." This makes it necessary for people to work
>> as hard as you have to explain something that should never have come up at
>> all.
>>
>the questionis, how would he know?
Well, then why would he say?
>burning after crucifxion doesn't
>leave a lot for a roman to deduce
>whether the person was alive when it happened.
Again, the character of Maximus is developed as a man of integrity, not
one to be overly emotional, a taciturn man of action. John Wayne, in
short. It's a bit out of character for such a character to overstate
anything--and surmising that something had happened that hadn't in
actuality is out of character.
But, it's not a major point.
Jeff Gauld
wrote:
>This is the way I think. I see the boy ridden down catastrophically, the
>wife's blackened feet and a part of a scarf, all dangling, apparently. If
>someone asked me right then, what happened here, I'd say, "It looks like
>his son got trampled to death, and his wife got hung after being burned, I
>guess." And I believe that that's what many viewers--maybe the
>majority--would have said, too.
>
>Then later Maximus, a truthful guy if nothing else, says that his wife
>and son were crucified and burnt. While watching the film, I thought,
>"Hmmmm... That's not quite what I saw. WHY did he say that?" Then I
>started watching the film again and enjoyed it. Then Commodus later gives
>Maximus the rib about the executions, reiterating that his son was
>crucified and his wife gang raped. I thought, "Hey! Wait! The screenwriter
>is trying to hit us over the head with just how evil Commodus is,
>balancing the general integrity and decency of Maximus. And, goddamn it!,
>he's (the screenwriter) even going so far as to show us one thing and tell
>us something contrary, just to doubly emphasize this evil. This is a
>sloppy piece of work."
Or Commodes was simply trying to goad Maximum into action so
that the nearby soldier/bodyguards would have to kill
Maximum in the defence of Commodus.
Jeff
Jeff Gauld
wrote:
>kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi (Jouni Karhu) writes:
>
>>mtn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>> being run down does not automatically mean dead.
>>>
>
>Of course it would. But please try to recall that the trampling scene is
>very vivid and *appears* to most viewers, perhaps not yourself, because
>you know something special about horse behavior, apparently, that the boy
>is *really* *REALLY* hammered.
>
>It's like this: the film sets a common expectancy with this scene. That
>the person trampled is badly hurt, if not outright killed. This is the
>same expectancy that is set when a person is shot in the torso with an
>arrow, and they fall down dead. Having shot animals with arrows, I call
>tell you for sure that this is not what happens. They gradually bleed to
>death. But the film convention is that, if shot by an arrow in the torso,
>you fall down immediately, probably dead.
>
>Same with this scene. Scott set the expectancy that the boy might very
>well be dead, and then later has Maximus come back and tell us that makes
>us perk up our ears: this is against our expectancies, so we take note.
>
>>Please someone, tell me where Maximus tells Juba that his son and wife
>>were crucified alive. I checked the "but not yet" discussion, since
>>that seemed like the obvious place, but it wasn't there. There he just
>>says that his son and wife "are already waiting".
Even if the boy was killed by the horse, what is to stop the
soldiers from trying to fulfill their orders and at least
make it look as though the boy had been tortured and
crucified alive?
How would Maximus know? He wasn't present, he only saw what
was left.
My take differs from yours: I dont think that the scene of
the boy being trampled was a vision at all. YMMV.
(it is not my intent to flame you here)
Jeff
Jeff Gauld
wrote:
>Adam Cameron <da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>I would have bought it if they hadn't had MAXIMUS say that something
>>>happened that appeared to contradict what I had seen with my own eyes.
>
>>He could have been mistaken... he's a bloke from 2000-odd years ago,
>>who is a soldier, not a surgeon. How does one tell if someone has
>>been crucified alive? (as opposed to being already dead, I mean).
>
>>I mean short of having head/limbs chopped off and *obvious* mortal
>>wounds, is he not just going to *assume* they were alive when they
>>were strung up?
>
>I agree that one might not know, but in my view the character of Maximus
>was not one to overstate anything. We only have two choices for what Scott
>intended us to think: that Maximus's family was crucifed as he described;
>or they were not and Maximus was either wrong or stretching the truth. My
>read is that Scott intended us to believe that it was exactly as Maximus
>said. To do otherwise would be pointlessly confusing--unless an important
>plot point turned on this information--and it didn't.
I see. My assumptions are different from your assumptions.
I assume Maximus saw his family's crucified/tortured bodies
and drew the obvious - slightly inaccurate - conclusion.
Again, not a flame, just a differing opinion.
>You are right, and I'll concede that a) I'm 'way more picky about this
>sort of stuff than most--and very possibly foolishly so; and b) it was a
>fine film overall--especially Crowe's performance.
>
>My opinions, only.
Cheers!
Jeff
Jeff Gauld
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:58:42 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish)
wrote:
I agree with this interpretation. I came up with it also
while watching the movie in the theater. I don't need to be
spoonfed this sort of information. Obviously Adam Cameron
doesn't need to be spoonfed either.
>>Melodrama aside, it's not uncommon for corpses to be strung up after
>>they're dead as a marker / warning / whatever other people here have
>>suggested.
>
>>Take old Jesus Christ for example: he could have just had his head
>>lopped off, or somesuch. But *crucifying* him put a message out to
>>the other would-be messiahs out there: Don't F*ck with the Roman
>>Empire.
>
>Of course all of this oculd happen. BUt look how hard you've had to work
>to explain it. A filmmaker in control of his project shouldn't make
>difficult for people to explain how/what/why actions happened in his film,
>if it is to be a "normal" narrative. This means not doing silly things
>like riding Maximus's son down, then later having MAXIMUS, the very
>paragon of truth and understatement, say "my son and wife were burnt and
>crucified while still alive." This makes it necessary for people to work
>as hard as you have to explain something that should never have come up at
>all.
I think you are worked up over nothing. The only ones who
knew exactly how the boy died are the soldiers who killed
him.
Commodus wasn't there.
Maximus wasn't there either.
If the soldiers made it _look_ like they crucified the boy
while he was still alive, even though he was already dead,
how could Maximus know otherwise? He wasn't there. All
Maximus saw were the end result after the soldiers had left.
Jeff
Jeff Gauld
wrote:
>Look, I don't mind a good crucifixion or two, but don't blow credibility
>by trampling someone--apparently to death--then later say that they were
>alive to be crucified--JUST TO INTENSIFY THE REVENGE THEME OF THE FILM. As
>soon as someone like me starts to wonder about how a trampled kid could be
>crucified, I also begin to wonder why, and how, and how so fast, and why
>so fast. It's like the screenwriter has invited this scrutiny by his
>insultingly sloppy construction of the story.
I was not bothered by this. Commodus wasn't present for the
crucifixion, so what he said happened and what actually
happened do not necessarily have to match up. Besides, he
was goading Maximus. Why do his goads and jibes have to be
100% true?
>>you're overanalyzing nothing here.
>
>No, I'm not. Everything is subject to analysis, and some of this stuff
>raises questions at the even most cursory of analyses.
>
Hmm. sorry, but I also think you are overanalyzing nothing
here.... at least on this point.
I thought it was a decent, but not excellent flick.
Jeff
superdamonal speed
Sawfish wrote:
>
> superdamonal speed <dcru...@mdo.net> writes:
>
> >Sawfish wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> >>
> >> >All in all, if we accept that Commodus was *really* *pissed* *off*,
> >> >and illogically sent praetorians out to kill the family *straight
> >> >away*, it makes sense that they got there first.
> >>
> >> Of course all of this oculd happen. BUt look how hard you've had to work
> >> to explain it. A filmmaker in control of his project shouldn't make
> >> difficult for people to explain how/what/why actions happened in his film,
> >> if it is to be a "normal" narrative. This means not doing silly things
> >> like riding Maximus's son down, then later having MAXIMUS, the very
> >> paragon of truth and understatement, say "my son and wife were burnt and
> >> crucified while still alive." This makes it necessary for people to work
> >> as hard as you have to explain something that should never have come up at
> >> all.
> >>
>
> >the questionis, how would he know?
>
> Well, then why would he say?
because he's in pain.
you can say wrong things in pain.
it's allowed.
> >burning after crucifxion doesn't
> >leave a lot for a roman to deduce
> >whether the person was alive when it happened.
>
> Again, the character of Maximus is developed as a man of integrity, not
> one to be overly emotional, a taciturn man of action.
umm,no.
the death of his family destroyed his rational base.
this is why he chose to keep fighting,
even tho he felt dead inside.
Sawfish
Jeezus, Jeff! Of course that's why the character of Commodus said that in
the film! The question is why did the *screenwriter*--the guy who has full
responsibility for who says what, and when, and why--have him say that.
More to the point, I have no real quibble with Commodus saying that. It
fit his character to say it, and we know that he wasn't there to see it
himself, so he's either going with what he was told by thugs who were
there, or else embellishing what he heard just to put the needle in, and
get Maximus to attack, and thereby legitimately kill him.
There'd be no question in my mind if they hadn't shown us one thing, have
Maximus tell us another, and then have Commodus more-or-less confirm it.
It causes a big mental question mark--like a cartoon character who is
puzzled--and causes the viewer (or should I say "the critical, skeptical
viewer") to re-examine the whole sequence, to the detriment of the film's
credibility. Pointless, pointless. Sloppy work.
Sawfish
>On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:41:43 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish)
>wrote:
>>Adam Cameron <da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>I would have bought it if they hadn't had MAXIMUS say that something
>>>>happened that appeared to contradict what I had seen with my own eyes.
>>
>>>He could have been mistaken... he's a bloke from 2000-odd years ago,
>>>who is a soldier, not a surgeon. How does one tell if someone has
>>>been crucified alive? (as opposed to being already dead, I mean).
>>
>>>I mean short of having head/limbs chopped off and *obvious* mortal
>>>wounds, is he not just going to *assume* they were alive when they
>>>were strung up?
>>
>>I agree that one might not know, but in my view the character of Maximus
>>was not one to overstate anything. We only have two choices for what Scott
>>intended us to think: that Maximus's family was crucifed as he described;
>>or they were not and Maximus was either wrong or stretching the truth. My
>>read is that Scott intended us to believe that it was exactly as Maximus
>>said. To do otherwise would be pointlessly confusing--unless an important
>>plot point turned on this information--and it didn't.
>I see. My assumptions are different from your assumptions.
>I assume Maximus saw his family's crucified/tortured bodies
>and drew the obvious - slightly inaccurate - conclusion.
>Again, not a flame, just a differing opinion.
No probs! I'm 'way too picky--and I know it.
Sawfish
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:32:11 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish)
>wrote:
>>Look, I don't mind a good crucifixion or two, but don't blow credibility
>>by trampling someone--apparently to death--then later say that they were
>>alive to be crucified--JUST TO INTENSIFY THE REVENGE THEME OF THE FILM. As
>>soon as someone like me starts to wonder about how a trampled kid could be
>>crucified, I also begin to wonder why, and how, and how so fast, and why
>>so fast. It's like the screenwriter has invited this scrutiny by his
>>insultingly sloppy construction of the story.
>I was not bothered by this. Commodus wasn't present for the
>crucifixion, so what he said happened and what actually
>happened do not necessarily have to match up. Besides, he
>was goading Maximus. Why do his goads and jibes have to be
>100% true?
WE agree about Commodus's goading. Oddly, I had no trouble accepting *his*
statements, since his character was such that any distortion, knowing or
unknowing, would be reasonable for his character.
>>you're overanalyzing nothing here.
>>
>>No, I'm not. Everything is subject to analysis, and some of this stuff
>>raises questions at the even most cursory of analyses.
>>
>Hmm. sorry, but I also think you are overanalyzing nothing
>here.... at least on this point.
>I thought it was a decent, but not excellent flick.
Funny thing--it was this inconsistency that focused me to look at the film
in fairly critical detail. The flaw, while not important to the plot, was
such a pointless manipulation of "fact" (what we saw) vs what we are told
that I began to mistrust the ability (or the integrity) of the writer to
cleanly resolve anything. Basically, what the writer did was go for the
cheap thrill. Let's make Commodus an even bigger villain by making
Maximus' tragedy that much worse. It was bad enough without overemphazing
it by having Maximus tell us something other that what appeared to happen.
He could have told Lucilla "My family was slaughtered like animals, and
hung like carcasses of beef in my home." This would have entirely fit with
what *we*, the viewers, saw. I'd have no questions about this part, and I
might have let other things slide, too.
BTW, I thought it was pretty decent, too.
Sawfish
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:58:42 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish)
>wrote:
>>Adam Cameron <da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
<SNIP>
>Commodus wasn't there.
That's fine, Jeff. I've never argued that this couldn't be the way it
happened: I agree that it could. My argument has always been that the
screenwriter made an error by injecting this element of uncertainty into
the film when the uncertainty was not needed for plot development or
character development. It was a mis-step. Sort of shooting himself in the
foot when no one was willing to pay to watch.
Sawfish
>Sawfish wrote:
>>
>> superdamonal speed <dcru...@mdo.net> writes:
>>
>> >Sawfish wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >All in all, if we accept that Commodus was *really* *pissed* *off*,
>> >> >and illogically sent praetorians out to kill the family *straight
>> >> >away*, it makes sense that they got there first.
>> >>
>> >> Of course all of this oculd happen. BUt look how hard you've had to work
>> >> to explain it. A filmmaker in control of his project shouldn't make
>> >> difficult for people to explain how/what/why actions happened in his film,
>> >> if it is to be a "normal" narrative. This means not doing silly things
>> >> like riding Maximus's son down, then later having MAXIMUS, the very
>> >> paragon of truth and understatement, say "my son and wife were burnt and
>> >> crucified while still alive." This makes it necessary for people to work
>> >> as hard as you have to explain something that should never have come up at
>> >> all.
>> >>
>>
>> >the questionis, how would he know?
>>
>> Well, then why would he say?
>because he's in pain.
>you can say wrong things in pain.
>it's allowed.
Not in cinema...
;^)
>> >burning after crucifxion doesn't
>> >leave a lot for a roman to deduce
>> >whether the person was alive when it happened.
>>
>> Again, the character of Maximus is developed as a man of integrity, not
>> one to be overly emotional, a taciturn man of action.
>umm,no.
>the death of his family destroyed his rational base.
>this is why he chose to keep fighting,
>even tho he felt dead inside.
I disagree.
He changed his rational goal from returning to his home and family to
staying alive long enough to kill Commodus. The story is as simple as
that. This is the STRONG point of the film: thematic clarity and
directness.
Revenge. Straight up. No chaser.
superdamonal speed
Sawfish wrote:
>
> superdamonal speed <dcru...@mdo.net> writes:
>
> >Sawfish wrote:
> >>
> >> Again, the character of Maximus is developed as a man of integrity, not
> >> one to be overly emotional, a taciturn man of action.
>
> >umm,no.
>
> >the death of his family destroyed his rational base.
> >this is why he chose to keep fighting,
> >even tho he felt dead inside.
>
> I disagree.
>
> He changed his rational goal from returning to his home and family to
> staying alive long enough to kill Commodus. The story is as simple as
> that. This is the STRONG point of the film: thematic clarity and
> directness.
>
> Revenge. Straight up. No chaser.
>
i think you missed something.
i agree that, UPON learning he had a chance to go to rome
and kill commodus, he became rational and direct again.
before that, however, the film portrayed him as adrift and near
suicidal.
hell, he wouldn't pick upa sword and fight slaves, at first.
the first time he picked up a sword as a slave, he seemed
mehcanical, an automaton.
it hink he had a death wish, and merely fought out of..
duty?..rote?...somethng of the sort.
remember the conversation he had with the black guy-
he WANTED to die and rejoin his family.
rememberhis conversation withthe crowd at the last african fight-
he yelled atthem in defiance, after killing. he wasn't being rational,
he was
being numb and had a death wish.
Sawfish
Sounds pretty reasonable. There was a plausible transition from legion
commander with a happy homelife, to numbed prisoner, to the unifying theme
of revenge.
BTW, I thought Crowe did a bang-up job as Maximus; his acting is the
strongest plus of the film. The film's not bad, mind you, but I have
trouble thinking of another actor who might have covered this better, or
even as well.
What do you think?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Karran
Crucifixion would firstly require nailing of the victims to the cross
beams. It would never be performed on a dead person for that would be
utterly pointless as the whole object of crucifixion is to engender
intense suffering and pain and serve as a reminder to others. Plus, it
took several days for people to die on the cross. A child would last
maybe a few hours but a healthy strong woman like Maximus' wife would
take at least a day, maybe more to die.
Death usually occurred due to a gradual collapse of the lungs as you
strained against the gravity and the weight of your own body as you hung
by the wrists [ nails were driven through wrists, not hands - all the
medieval paintings are incorrect ]. It would seem utterly inconceivable
that the butchers sent by Commodus would crucify them, wait around for
several days and then burn and hang up their charred corpses to be found
by Maximus. The inconsistencies in the remarks made by Maximus later
show up the hastily written script and pressure on the writing team. I'm
sure Ridley would have caught it while editing but because of the tight
schedule, pressure to complete, stay within budget, etc. etc. you decide
to release movies which have obvious flaws in them but in no way
detracts. This inconsistency did not bother me in the least and I
couldn't care less how Maximus' family had died. The fact that they had
died and that Commodus was responsible, was enough for me.
Adam Cameron
>happened: I agree that it could. My argument has always been that the
>screenwriter made an error by injecting this element of uncertainty into
Um, far be it for me to speak on behalf of Jeff, but I think what the
point is here is THERE ISN'T THE UNCERTAINTY! Just to you. If one
has half a brain, then there's no issue. I'm not saying you have half
a brain, but you seem to be labouring a point which isn't a point.
Adam
Jouni Karhu
>I do not believe that Maximus' wife and child were crucified.
>Crucifixion would firstly require nailing of the victims to the cross
>beams. It would never be performed on a dead person for that would be
>utterly pointless as the whole object of crucifixion is to engender
>intense suffering and pain and serve as a reminder to others. Plus, it
>took several days for people to die on the cross. A child would last
>maybe a few hours but a healthy strong woman like Maximus' wife would
>take at least a day, maybe more to die.
Not necessarily nailing; the victims could also be tied up with ropes.
I understand that nails were reserved for the worst of the lot. I got
the impression that Maximus's wife and son _were_ crucified, we just
didn't see the crossbeam, because the camera did not pan high enough.
And I agree; it was probably not done to dead people. They were
probably crucified and then the house was burnt down around them. And
when Maximus saw that they _had_ been crucified, he knew that they had
been alive before they had been burnt.
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Sawfish
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Adam.
Maybe I have less than half a brain. I've been unable to communicate to
other posters that a) on the whole, I found Gladiator to be a fine film;
and b) I found what I consider to be minor inconsistencies that could have
easily been avoid by the writer. These inconsistencies, in turn, triggered
a thorough and critical look at the film, as a whole, for other such
"shortcuts". You can find such shortcuts in any film, if you look hard
enough, but not all quality films invite you to inspect them at this level
by giving you what amounts to very questionable and apparent
contraditions. These shortcuts did little to harm the film.
And did I mention that they did this pointlessly?
superdamonal speed
me, i generally tend to suspend beliefs for actors.
having said that, i'd say micheal keaton did the best batman,
so i guess some actors can do some jobs better.
but since i don't have problems withmostactors, i don't
have probvlems with other actors doing the same role.
i liked crowe a lot, but i've liked him in everymovie
i'vce seen him in, from la confidential to.. well, another one i forget
before gladiator.
--
George W. Bush, who is supposedly a uniter, not a divider, has
nominated one of the most divisive candidates possible for
Attorney General.
Dave Adams
> i liked crowe a lot, but i've liked him in everymovie
> i'vce seen him in, from la confidential to.. well, another one i forget
> before gladiator.
"Mystery Alaska"?
I like Crowe a lot. He makes any movie enjoyable.
maro
Adam Cameron
>> before gladiator.
>"Mystery Alaska"?
>I like Crowe a lot. He makes any movie enjoyable.
Is MA actually any good? I've not seen it.
The best Russell Crowe double feature *I* can think of is "Romper
Stomper" and "The Sum of Us". Whaddya reckon?
Adam
Helen & Bob
Adam Cameron wrote:
>
> >> i'vce seen him in, from la confidential to.. well, another one i forget
> >> before gladiator.
> >"Mystery Alaska"?
> >I like Crowe a lot. He makes any movie enjoyable.
>
> Is MA actually any good? I've not seen it.
> Adam
Its a fun little movie, worth a rental. CAN you pick a ton
of holes in it? Sure you can. It is NOT a candidate for
"Best film of the decade", but there are lots worse on the
market.
Bob
Dave Adams
> Is MA actually any good? I've not seen it.
I liked it.
> The best Russell Crowe double feature *I* can think of is "Romper
> Stomper" and "The Sum of Us". Whaddya reckon?
I haven't seen them yet. Thank you for reminding me to rent them.
maro