As a historical figure, the Roman emperor Commodus is a fascinating character. Even more interesting are the varying portrayals of him. Director Ridley Scott saw an opportunity for this character when he directed his 2000 epic, Gladiator. Gladiator has been deemed a visual masterpiece that brings Ancient Rome to modern audiences. There is no doubt that the movie is visually stunning with its sweeping views that show the grandeur of the Coliseum, large gladiator battles, beautiful landscapes, and beautiful costumes. The movie follows the hero Maximus as he fights for redemption against the villain Commodus. Despite being a visual masterpiece, there are significant differences between Scott’s portrayal of Commodus and ancient sources/scholars.
…show more content…
In Scott’s portrayal, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus’ father and emperor, was eager to end the wars he was involved in and to restore power to the senate. To create Commodus as a true villain, Scott shows Commodus killing his father, the beloved Marcus Aurelius, to ascend to the throne after having been treated poorly by his father as a child. As mentioned above, the movie’s main plot is the redemption of Maximus. In this story, Maximus serves as an example of democracy, family values, mercy, narrative, and has a beautiful death. Commodus on the other hand, is the exact opposite of those traits. He is tyrannical, lustful, ruthless, loves the spectacle, and in the end, dies a horrible death. In this way, Scott paints Commodus as black and white; a classic example of good vs. evil, where good …show more content…
The ancient sources do not paint Commodus as such a black and white villain that Scott did, instead they emphasize his cruel nature and his indulgent behavior. Most sources highlight how eager Commodus was to end his father’s wars and return to Rome. Cassius Dio writes, “…and after making a truce with the barbarians he rushed to Rome; for he hated all exertion and craved the comfortable life of the city”. Cassius Dio (150-235) became a Roman senator in 180 A.D. after his father died, notably this is also when Marcus Aurelius died and Commodus rose to sole power. In his depictions of Commodus, Dio is rather forgiving compared to other sources. Dio gives his opinion that Commodus was led into his wicked behavior by outside
In Scott’s portrayal, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus’ father and emperor, was eager to end the wars he was involved in and to restore power to the senate. To create Commodus as a true villain, Scott shows Commodus killing his father, the beloved Marcus Aurelius, to ascend to the throne after having been treated poorly by his father as a child. As mentioned above, the movie’s main plot is the redemption of Maximus. In this story, Maximus serves as an example of democracy, family values, mercy, narrative, and has a beautiful death. Commodus on the other hand, is the exact opposite of those traits. He is tyrannical, lustful, ruthless, loves the spectacle, and in the end, dies a horrible death. In this way, Scott paints Commodus as black and white; a classic example of good vs. evil, where good …show more content…
The ancient sources do not paint Commodus as such a black and white villain that Scott did, instead they emphasize his cruel nature and his indulgent behavior. Most sources highlight how eager Commodus was to end his father’s wars and return to Rome. Cassius Dio writes, “…and after making a truce with the barbarians he rushed to Rome; for he hated all exertion and craved the comfortable life of the city”. Cassius Dio (150-235) became a Roman senator in 180 A.D. after his father died, notably this is also when Marcus Aurelius died and Commodus rose to sole power. In his depictions of Commodus, Dio is rather forgiving compared to other sources. Dio gives his opinion that Commodus was led into his wicked behavior by outside