Monday, July 23, 2012

reply on gladiator movie review( Tse Tsz Chung 1106826)


Tse Tsz Chung 1106826

1. Is the story a hero's journey? Try to describe it as a hero's journey and see if it fits the template.

2. What did you learn about Rome from this movie? Do some research on the characters? Are they real people from history? Is the film accurate in historical detail?  And architectural detail (for example, the Colosseum/ Flavian Ampitheatre)? 

3. What was happening to the Roman empire during the period of Commodus' rule? And what eventually caused the decline and downfall of the Roman Empire?

4. Is this film propaganda for a certain set of ideas or a way of life? Did the writer, director and actors intend for you to have the reactions that you have expressed here? Aren't you just a bit suspicious and critical of the film and the black and white division between Commodus and Maximus? Such a bad and nasty Emperor and such a loyal gladiator! One is a 'good Roman' and the other is just out for himself? Doesn't it all seem a little too simple? So, again, is this film propaganda for an idea of loyalty? To answer this, look at which country produced it and when it was produced. How is the film 'constructed' to provide a lesson to the audiences of that country of its origin? Is it really about Rome, or about the country it came from? What was happening in that country in the years just before it was created?


1.    The story could be interpreted as a hero’s journey. Maximus was called to adventure and being given a task and go through. Torture (test, enemy), allies and temptation were tested in the journey. Eventually, get back reunion with his wife and son without taking any reward.

2.    Basically this movie is a standard Hollywood movie, which conclude everything, example: all the dynasty warriors and famous existed heroes or empire in order to make it interesting, accompany with extraordinary action scene make lot of profit. The character of Maximus is fictional, which actually portrays the historical figures of Narcissus. Commodus didn’t murder Marcus Aurelius and M. Aurelius is actually was died of plague. But in the movie is another way interpreted to add more on dramatic elements in the movie. Hence the movie wasn’t entirely according to the historical events and yet it’s a messed up and creation of fancy imagination to make this movie even come out interesting.

3.    Due to the death of M.Aurelius, his son Commodus heritage the power and rule of empire. But Commodus’s characteristic that bearing the ego and indecency when he was ruling the empire. Assassination and civil wars always happened. Political situation is failed.  Recruitment akin to the hiring to “barbarian mercenary”. The poor situation of Roman economy. Lack of slave import. Cost of public welfare, cost of luxury imports. And last but not least,  two plague happened in Rome has immediately destabilizing the whole empire with the stated outcome though.

4.    It would the way of life I supposed. Based on the theory of the hero’s journey interpreted in a roman warrior way.  Due to the entertainment has eventually covered over the main concept to be conveyed in the movie. This movie produced by US and UK production. Hence, is this film propaganda for idea of the loyalty isn’t good enough if everything is interpreted in a commercial film? By just creating intense and entertainment-excited story line, example just to create a highly entertained and fascinated imagined fight scene which is in a Hollywood formula based on a particular history event- Colosseum. 

Tse Tsz Chung 1106826

No comments:

Post a Comment