Author: Sam Unsworth

By Sam Unsworth

Ridley Scott has released two major works in the last two years, that being Napoleon (2023) and the latter being Gladiator II (2024). Both have been contentious for their lack of historical accuracy that toy with the audiences’ suspension of disbelief. But I would like to question whether these are fair attacks at what are successful films or are we simply looking for ways to pick apart a once great director whose works are slowly diminishing in quality? I will warn here for spoilers. 

Gladiator II is no doubt a high-octane action thriller but perhaps what made this only a mediocre re-hashing of its predecessor is not actually because of its lack of attention to detail. Now, to start with the most obvious, the presence of sharks in the Colosseum. Quite obviously ludicrous. It is clear that this would be a logistical nightmare now, let alone in Ancient Rome. Yet I think that this is simply too easy a shot to take at Scott, the man behind Alien (1979), who is asking his audience to suspend their disbelief. Does the presence of great whites add a further jeopardy to the games? That if one of the gladiators fell from the boats then they would be killed also? Honestly, yes. I would argue that here Scott is not looking to be accurate – he is purely looking for an enjoyment factor. 

In Gladiator II Scott understands his audience and wants to provide action and violence that is there to entertain, almost like being put into the seats of the Colosseum yourself. If you had watched the first film you would have seen gladiators fighting tigers and each other, so would we ask that Scott just remade this with different characters? The different games, such as the sea battle or the rhinoceros being ridden, made the film interesting for a returning audience, as well as a newfound fan base. Gladiator II is meant to entertain so maybe we should set aside our historian’s viewpoint and enjoy the film as it is, at heart, a fiction. 

However, this, I doubt, can be said for the Roman newspaper appearing before the printing press. These kinds of throwaway inaccuracies are what harms Scott’s film as it is simply unnecessary, disengaging the audience. One of the first attacks I read on the film was about Denzel Washington’s casting; yet, I find it a weak jab at the film. Washington portrayed the villain Macrinius who ascends to the top of Roman aristocracy and was possibly the saving grace of the film, which was riddled with average performances and even more average screenwriting. The argument against casting a black man in this role holds so little water that it can really be disregarded due to the distinction between Roman and Barbarian and nothing more. So, we should also take into account who we listen to when we are told a film is inaccurate. 

In contrast, Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is not a fictional tale. It is a true story with real people and real struggles, hence the inaccuracies do not aid the story but in many ways diminish it. Why was Joaquin Phoenix cast to play Napoleon at both Toulon and Waterloo? Why was Josephine presented as being younger than Napoleon himself? Setting these aside, the inaccuracies do, at times, undermine the genius of Napoleon’s military strategy, especially at Austerlitz. Scott portrays a hilly area with deep lakes where cannons fired onto retreating Russian forces, drowning the majority in the frozen lake. Now, like Gladiator II, this looks incredible cinematically; yet, it simply is not true. Where Gladiator II is a fiction so we can toy with the truth, Napoleon’s story is not. Napoleon’s tactical genius is reduced by fake geography and over-exaggeration. Moreover, the way in which his forces attack in disarray bears no resemblance to the ordered formations of Napoleonic warfare. This is where I believe accuracy matters because Napoleon is, at heart, a biopic about the life of a great person, that, in reality, does not need increasing for cinema, given how impressive a story it is in and of itself. The audience of this film, while also for the masses, would surely have appealed to historians as a homage to a great military leader, yet Scott seems to neglect this core part of the viewership. 

There are times, though, where historical inaccuracy can be done extremely well and to good effect. This is particularly evident in Brian Helgeland’s A Knight’s Tale (2001). In this film, set at a medieval jousting tournament, both the costumes and set design were incredibly accurate, and adhered to the source material of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Yet, the one distinct difference is in the music. Helgeland and Burwell, the musical director, utilised classic rock music such as Queen’s “We Will Rock You”, Thin Lizzy’s “The Boys Are Back in Town” and AC/DC’s “You Shook Me All Night Long” to create a crowd atmosphere the audience would be familiar with. This is a great example of understanding one’s audience and using inaccuracy to build emotion and allow a modern audience to connect with a wholly unfamiliar world. 

Inaccuracy has its place in historical film, but I find it must be done with reason. Does it evoke emotion? Does it connect with an audience? Does it truly enhance the story? Gladiator II, for all its flaws which are many beyond its accuracy, is arguably made better by its wildly over-the-top display of the Colosseum, much like A Knight’s Tale is enhanced by its modern soundtrack. Yet, in the genre of biopic, I believe Scott takes inaccuracy too far and ultimately it is detrimental to the final work.