Ridiculous Opinions #268
GLADIATOR II (Spoiler Alert)
Have you ever watched a movie and the answer to what went wrong is so glaringly obvious that you wanted to shout it from the rooftops?
For some reason, the people that made Gladiator II thought that we wanted to see the story of gladiators. They were so utterly misinformed. They thought that we wanted a light retread of the original Gladiator, a film that came out in 1999 and one that people, for some reason, seem to hold dearly in their hearts, as if Russell Crowe were some god-like actor from another time who no longer exists (“We didn’t deserve him!”). For some reason, the people that made Gladiator II thought that we needed call backs to the first film, with stupid crap like inscribing What we do in this life echoes through eternity in FRIGGIN’ ENGLISH on the tomb of Russell Crowe’s character where he was honorably buried under the coliseum (SO DUMB). For some reason, the filmmakers behind Gladiator II thought that we were aching to see the immobile face of Connie Neilsen from the first movie (who knew they had cheek fillers in Roman times?) or that we wanted all of our dastardly villains to be effeminate or that we wanted our hero to be a white dude.
WE DID NOT WANT ANY OF THAT.
No, what we wanted from Gladiator II was nothing but pure, unadulterated DENZEL FRIGGIN’ WASHINGTON.
I will start this out by saying that Denzel Washington is, unarguably, the greatest actor that ever lived. You would be hard-pressed to find an actor with more skill, charisma, looks, and screen presence throughout the history of film, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. While his choices might sometimes be questionable in terms of projects (did he really need to do The Equalizer?), there is little doubt that Denzel Washington will always bring something to the movies that sometimes have nothing else to offer us.
That is why Gladiator II is a missed opportunity, because they made a movie we did not want to see. Paul Mescal, bless his soul, has the charisma of a wall…so much so that I can’t even really remember his character’s name (Lucius? Lutricious? Ludicris?). He’s so boring in this film. His job is to stare off into the distance in a brooding manner and occasionally remove his shirt or scream with rage. We aren’t interested in Paul Mescal.
We are only interested in Denzel.
And that is where Gladiator II went wrong. The story of the film is not the story of the gladiator. The story of the film should have been the story of Denzel’s character, Macrinus. There is a good movie lurking in this one. They just didn’t tell it.
Imagine if the movie was about Macrinus for a second. Imagine that the plot of the movie was about a former slave who has risen through the ranks of power with only one ambition: to watch Rome burn.
In the film, Macrinus appears as a slave owner…he owns the gladiators that fight in the arenas and he has taken a shine to whatever Paul Mescal’s character’s name is. So he shepherds the gladiators up the leader boards in the gladiator pits, while simultaneously moving up the leader boards himself as he gets to the emperors. The story is about Macrinus! Eventually, he kills the first emperor and then kills the second. And then, the film becomes about Macrinus wanting power. It ends with a stupid-as-hell swordfight between whoever Paul Mescal is and Macrinus. The ending was dumb.
That was the wrong approach.
Imagine if, at the end of the movie, you did not have the utterly uneventful showdown between two Roman armies with two different loyalties (a showdown which went nowhere), but instead, the end of the movie is Macrinus standing on a balcony, his arms wide with glory as he succeeded in his only goal: the destruction of a civilization that had once enslaved him.
THAT IS A MOVIE THAT I WOULD WATCH ALL DAY LONG. Especially if Denzel was the star of that movie. There’s a line from The Dark Knight where Michael Caine’s character actually describes Macrinus in the movie:
THAT is Macrinus is this film.
Macrinus is a former slave who through his own volition, managed to work his way out of slavery and embed himself with the elite of Roman society. But even as he hobnobs with those powerful people, he still wears the brand of slavery on his chest. Through the movie, he schemes, he cajoles, he outsmarts those around him to become the true power broker of the film. Macrinus pulls all the strings in the movie. He controls everything.
But what did they do with him? They just made him want to be the emperor of Rome. That was the wrong choice. Macrinus had no intention of being emperor. He only wanted to destroy Rome. We know this through Denzel’s performance and it is the ONLY story that I wanted to see in Gladiator II.
Denzel is charismatic. We want to watch him on screen. But this leads me to a quick discussion about the current crop of leading men in Hollywood in that there are none. I could not be LESS interested in most leading men in Hollywood. Why? Because they have no charisma.
What, exactly, is charisma? What does that mean? To me, charisma is the inexplicable ability to draw people towards you. Have you ever known someone that you just like to be around? If you’re at a party and that person is there, you want to hang out with them. They’re the people that can command the attention of the room, who can speak in a way that people will listen, and who have looks that make you stare at them, as if it’s uncontrollable.
A film camera has an extraordinary ability to capture charisma in a mysterious way. When looking through a camera lens, it’s almost like the glass of the lens is able to see through someone, past the layers of skin and fat; past the surface of the person upon which the camera is focused on. A movie camera has the ability to see inside of a person’s soul. And that soul that the camera captures is visible to the person watching the movie.
Movie stars become movie stars because it’s almost like their soul is staring back at us from the screen. And we derive pleasure from observing this. We enjoy this mysterious aspect of moviemaking; our ability to see into the heart of someone when they are up on screen.
Think of the biggest stars in film history. Who are they? Julia Roberts. Denzel Washington. George Clooney. Meryl Streep. Marlon Brando. Eddie Murphy. I could name dozens more. The common demoninator?
They all came of age before the year 2000.
The leads to a longer diatribe about nepotism, money, and lack of creativity that I will get to in a further newsletter, but the truth of the matter is that there has not been a major movie star appear since 2000. There have been a few that have come close, but none that will stand the test of time.
Paul Mescal feels like one of those actors that Hollywood is trying to make a movie star. They are working very hard to turn him into someone that we will all love. They do this all the time with current stars. Timothee Chalemet is one of them.
Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Paul Mescal. He’s a fine looking man and a decent, if unremarkable, actor. But he doesn’t have it. I am not compelled to watch him on screen. When you look at this movie, compare him and Denzel (who oozes charisma). There are moments in this movie where I can remember a singular look on Denzel’s face! When Denzel gets his arm chopped off in the final fight (I told you there would be spoilers), the look on his face at that point was the best moment of acting in the entire movie. And that look haunts me. I remember it. Why? Because I was watching him the whole time. I wanted to.
What do I remember about Paul Mescal? Absolutely nothing. Why? He had no charisma. I am not compelled to watch him on screen. I am not interested in him.
And that’s a growing problem for Hollywood, because w don’t want to see geriatric Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise running around on screen like they’re 20 years younger than they are. That’s a recipe for disaster.
And what we’re left with is the serviceable but pitiful dregs of what is left. Paul Mescal. Timothee Chalemet. Glen Powell. When I typed into Google, “Popular Leading Men”, look at what it spit back at me:
Let me ask you a question: What is the common denominator of these fellows? The answer? Not a single one is under the age of 40. What if I query, “Popular Young Leading Men”?
Exclude anyone over 40 (though most of them that are aren’t so great) and you’re left with…people? If you look at the men in that image above, you’ll find a bunch of nepo-babies and Disney kids. Not a great look.
If Hollywood wanted to fix this problem, the answer would be simple: Don’t cast anyone you find in Hollywood.
It’s as easy as that. Go out and find someone who has actually lived a life. Someone who has experiences. Someone with charisma! They’re still out there. They’re just not in Hollywood. I’ll talk more about this in future newsletters.
The bottom line is that Paul Mescal pales in comparison to Denzel Washington. The movie should have been about him!
So, let’s go back to my original idea for the movie being about Macrinus. Imagine Rome on fire and Macrinus is standing above the city, laughing with that wide, Denzel Washington smile. He’s crazed with joy at seeing a civilization falling apart, because that’s all he wanted: Revenge.
And maybe that’s what Denzel is doing in this film. He has little doubt how ridiculous the movie is, how ridiculous his character is, how ridiculous the charade of Hollywood actually is. And because he feels this way, his I-don’t-give-a-shit portrayal of Macrinus on screen is his gigantic middle finger to Hollywood. “Look what you’ve done to me!” Denzel yells to the heavens as Rome burns. “I’ve been employed by corrupt politicians, whores of business, and vapid disciples of money! And because of that, I, the greatest actor of this generation, am left with little more to portray than this horrid, putrid, half-baked role, which, because of the bottomless well of talent that I possess, I have made my own!
“THE MOVIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT ME, YOU COWARDS!” he yells as the Praetorian guard of Hollywood rush towards him to stop him from doing any more damage. “THE MOVIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT ME!”
More next week…
