A rhino fighting gladiators? Sharks in a flooded Colosseum? A woman who aspires to celibacy? The movie Gladiator 2 has just been released in France, several days in advance of the United States, and is already causing controversy among historians who have spotted historical errors.
Ridley Scott, who returns to the imperial Rome of the 3rd century, 24 years after a first opus which became cult, undoubtedly does not have many qualms about historical plausibility. His previous film, Napoléon, had annoyed many specialists of the famous French despot. The director then, through his statements, demonstrated his lack of knowledge in historical matters and his contempt for the discipline.
Paul Mescal against a rhino rather than the historical truth
Already very implausible on many points of its scenario, the first Gladiator is also a cult film for an entire generation and an undeniable popular success. It is also a work which inspired many creators subsequently by bringing the peplum genre up to date, to the point of winning the Oscar for Best Film in 2001. Moreover, most of the peplums of the great era didn't really care about historical plausibility either.
“I am convinced that we can make a historically based show entertaining,” explains Laure Barthet, director of the Saint-Raymond Museum in Toulouse, and passionate about historical reconstruction. But historians and archaeologists are also fans of pop culture and threads and series that say just about anything about a historical period…”
So, we can agree: it is very unlikely that a rhinoceros fought in an arena in Rome. It is impossible that sharks swam in the Colosseum (which was not designed to host naumachia, reenacted naval battles). And no, the Romans did not read the newspaper while drinking coffee. However, we all want to see Paul Mescal as a gladiator facing a rhino…
Diversity in question
Thus, if the first criticisms of Gladiator 2 are generally positive, none dwell on the historical plausibility of its plot. However, the links between historical reality and the quality of the scenario are very present. “There are things in Gladiator which are very well seen, estimates Rafaella Gafà, researcher at the Musée de la Romanité in Nîmes. For example, the protagonist of the first film is a high-ranking officer who comes from Spain. This is entirely plausible and reveals the way in which the Roman Empire functioned at this time of its maximum expansion. In the cities, and throughout Roman society, there are people who come from all over the Empire. »
Thus, if the diversity visible on the screen in Gladiator may have been criticized by racist commentators, it is historically founded. “We speak Latin with very varied accents at that time in Rome, just as we can hear very different Englishes in New York today,” comments Rafaella Gafà. The Pax Romana, established for several centuries, allows very free movement. »
The cause of discrimination
The presence of black characters both among slaves and in the highest echelons of Roman society Gladiator (Denzel Washington plays the rich Macrinus) also raises the question, controversial among historians, of racism in ancient times. “There was undoubtedly discrimination against certain populations,” notes Rafaella Gafà. Black populations, Moors in particular, are represented in an exotic way with codes that are so many clichés. But the most discriminated population were the Greeks, perceived as soft, lazy and obsessed with pleasure, which is not a quality in the Roman mentality. But was there systemic racism, as we hear it today? It's hard to say. »
Being a victim of discrimination is a comfortable dramatic spring for a screenwriter, so it is exploited in Gladiator. But the real situation of the discriminated populations was more complex than the film shows. “These societies were based on slavery, any defeated population could become slaves of the Romans. Rome had a large number of Greek slaves, some of whom were very cultured. For example, there were slave doctors. These people had more or less pleasant lives depending on the role they took in Roman society. They were not free but perhaps had a decent life. »
A good gladiator is a living gladiator
The very heart of the film Gladiator et Gladiator 2 is a subject of historical study: gladiator fights. Ridley Scott makes them cursed heroes, with moral connections to our contemporary era. But historical reality also allows us to create dramatic situations useful for a good film. “Real gladiator fights would probably not be spectacular enough for a 2024 cinema spectator,” recognizes Philippe Normand, responsible for the stunts for a historical reenactment show in the Saintes arenas. It is a long and slow fight, exhausting for the body, and codified. Those of Gladiator better correspond to current tastes, with improbable twists and turns, suspense, athletic superhero performances…”
However, “real” gladiator fights would have something to excite today's public on a moral level. “Historically, these fights accompanied funerals,” recalls Rafaella Gafà. Death was present from a symbolic point of view. Gladiators were athletes whose training cost their owners dearly. They were raised, cared for, fed… It was therefore rare for them to die in the arena. On the other hand, there was blood…”
An anachronistic feminism
Gladiator uses another historical reality linked to Gladiator fights: their use by Roman leaders to attract the favor of the population. “There were more than just gladiator fights at these very popular shows. For example, there were massacres of exotic animals, “venatio”, which were destructive for the fauna…” And there, we feel that Ridley Scott thought that the spectator of 2024 would not appreciate the violence of the slaughters of animals. Just as the pagan religious dimension is erased.
Our Cinema articles
Finally, the director comes to terms with the historical reality concerning the social status of gladiators… and women. Thus Gladiator does not show that the fighters could be free men “who chose to make a career in gladiatorship. » On the contrary, the film shows female characters who take charge of their lives, choose celibacy, get angry and rebel against the established order. However, although they had an important role in society, Roman women did none of that.
