mike n

I saw this movie several years ago at the Harvard Film Archives. Apparently, the beginning and end of the movie are extinct, and all that remains is a long romantic sequence involving Farrell & Duncan. We couldn't tell how the romance started, or how it was supposed to end. It was nevertheless quite interesting, with an erotic charge similar to that in Borzage's "Man's Castle".

I first saw this film during its original u.s. run in 1961, loved it, and jumped at the chance to see it again at a local revival movie house. The movie is justly famous for Finney's brilliant performance (I think it was his first.), but has other virtues as well. Karel Reisz and Freddie Francis succeed in making the film visually interesting, and it is well paced, with essentially no dead time.

The thing that deserves the most praise, however, is Sillitoe's script, which puts virtually all modern dramatic screenplays to shame. In a general way, the working class british films of the late 50s and 60s launched the tradition that leads to Loach, Leigh, Tim Roth, etc. This film's subtlety and ambivalence towards its leading character reminds me specifically of Mike Leigh at his very best.

I went to see Gladiator with low expectations, going only because I have a 1-2 movie a week habit, and there have been few good movies opening in American theaters in recent weeks. What follows, therefore, is an opinion about one hollywood summer blockbuster movie from someone who admittedly doesn't like such movies in the first place.

First of all, Gladiator has the generic faults of most such movies: 1) sophisticated and expensive production design, editing and special effects contrasted with a simple-minded story, stilted dialogue and characters with incomprehensible or unbelievable motivation; and 2) excessive length. (To be fair, it does not have the very common third flaw, excessive noise.) There are many decent low-budget movies that get by with thin plots and bad dialogue, when directed quickly with some flair; but adding money, big-name (and talented) actors and length makes things worse, not better.

I find the violence in Gladiator's battle and fighting sequences very distasteful. I had the same feeling about Braveheart, although that movie at least balanced its violence with scenes of levity. I do not object to cartoon violence in movies, and I have never been bothered by anything I saw in John Woo's or other Hong Kong movies. Graphic scenes of realistic violence do upset me, even more so when (as in this movie or in Braveheart) it is "righteous" violence meted out by the hero.

Finally, I was disgusted by the movie's misinterpretations of history. The Roman Senate was an instrument of aristocracy, not democracy. Commodus was killed by disgruntled servants, and no one thought of replacing him with anything but another emperor. Having him decide to fight a skilled gladiator is the supreme example of lame screenwriting in this movie.