Interestingly enough, Gladiator was able to appeal to midwit (and below) American understanding of what democracy is by its inclusion of a pro-Senatorial angle — even though of course, Roman Senate and US Senate only share a name and US Senate is only an egalitarian mockery of highly elitist Roman Senate.
Our Senate was modeled on the Roman Senate and wasn't an egalitarian mockery of it. In any case, the film appeals to American democratic values with that message in the same way William Wallace fights for a 20th century version of freedom in Braveheart. But it's less obviously American than Nolan's Odyssey, where they don't bother to make the characters any different from people you see on the street.
It is an egalitarian mockery, in spirit and letter at least. In actuality, its more of a representation of the billionaire class than state populations. In that sense, I guess its as much elitist as Roman Senate. In any case, neither state inhabitants nor the merchant class are equivalent to Roman aristocracy.
But yeah, if it wasn’t obvious I was just supplementing your point. I agree with you that Gladiator was financially successful because it appealed to midwit American sensibilities but, unlike Odyssey, it did not degrage into pure historical revisionism and instead elegantly used the illiteracy of average American to its advantage
Gladiator (2000) did not feature Africans or East Asians or Indians or Mexicans/Aztecs as Roman emperors, and when it did feature say blacks, it was in historically accurate roles that made sense.
And even the 2000s were not that much more homogenous than today (you would have a point if you were talking about pre 90s). Even the original Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy which is pretty diverse doesn’t have minorities as British officers lol.
Is the historical accuracy or ethnic composition of Gladiator or other 2000s movies too much to ask for? Because if it is, we might as well just return to Marvel capeshit.
All the epic mythological or historical movies from the 1950s-60s are better: Alexander the great (1956), Ben Hur, Cleopatra, the declined and fall of the Roman empire (1964), 300 Spartans (1962) ….
I'm surprised you didn't demand I denounce Trump in this article or criticize the article for failing to blame Trump for the Odyssey.
It's the biggest film of the summer and a cultural event. Everyone continues to discussing it. The news is the same as it's been for months. There's new things to say about this film.
Interestingly enough, Gladiator was able to appeal to midwit (and below) American understanding of what democracy is by its inclusion of a pro-Senatorial angle — even though of course, Roman Senate and US Senate only share a name and US Senate is only an egalitarian mockery of highly elitist Roman Senate.
Our Senate was modeled on the Roman Senate and wasn't an egalitarian mockery of it. In any case, the film appeals to American democratic values with that message in the same way William Wallace fights for a 20th century version of freedom in Braveheart. But it's less obviously American than Nolan's Odyssey, where they don't bother to make the characters any different from people you see on the street.
It is an egalitarian mockery, in spirit and letter at least. In actuality, its more of a representation of the billionaire class than state populations. In that sense, I guess its as much elitist as Roman Senate. In any case, neither state inhabitants nor the merchant class are equivalent to Roman aristocracy.
But yeah, if it wasn’t obvious I was just supplementing your point. I agree with you that Gladiator was financially successful because it appealed to midwit American sensibilities but, unlike Odyssey, it did not degrage into pure historical revisionism and instead elegantly used the illiteracy of average American to its advantage
Yes Gladiator was so Roman in spirit that it ends with the founding of the American Republic.
Gladiator (2000) did not feature Africans or East Asians or Indians or Mexicans/Aztecs as Roman emperors, and when it did feature say blacks, it was in historically accurate roles that made sense.
And even the 2000s were not that much more homogenous than today (you would have a point if you were talking about pre 90s). Even the original Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy which is pretty diverse doesn’t have minorities as British officers lol.
Is the historical accuracy or ethnic composition of Gladiator or other 2000s movies too much to ask for? Because if it is, we might as well just return to Marvel capeshit.
I guess the problem I have with it is "why call it the Odyssey". If you want to make a movie about a henpecked man with PTSD from Iraq, go make it.
All the epic mythological or historical movies from the 1950s-60s are better: Alexander the great (1956), Ben Hur, Cleopatra, the declined and fall of the Roman empire (1964), 300 Spartans (1962) ….
You are still talking about The Odyssey ? It's almost 2 weeks old, and you've had 2 podcasts and dozens of tweets about it.
I'm surprised you didn't demand I denounce Trump in this article or criticize the article for failing to blame Trump for the Odyssey.
It's the biggest film of the summer and a cultural event. Everyone continues to discussing it. The news is the same as it's been for months. There's new things to say about this film.