In the twenty-four years since Gladiator first brought the bloody sands of the ancient Roman Colosseum to the screen, Ridley Scott’s portrayal of power, justice, and war has only become more poignant, particularly in a contemporary political climate fraught with conflict and uncertainty. The film’s exploration of social decadence, corruption, and the destructiveness of war in ancient Rome resonates with the political turbulence that dominates global discourse today. Through striking parallels between the violent spectacles of the Colosseum and the modern-day battlefields in places like Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon, Scott underscores the futility of conflict and the traumatic effects of war on both individuals and societies.
At the heart of Gladiator is a profound philosophical inquiry into the nature of power and the human cost of war. Marcus Aurelius’ lament, “I have conquered, spilt blood, expanded the empire. And for what? I brought the sword, nothing more,” encapsulates the film’s central theme of questioning the meaning of violence and conquest. This reflection extends beyond the film’s historical setting, resonating deeply with contemporary political leaders and urging them to reconsider the justification of war.
An interview Ridley Scott gave to The New York Times deepens this criticism: “A bomb is just as bad as putting Christians in the arena and allowing a lion to amble in and eat them — and people will forget that they did that for fun.” We can see from this statement that Scott ascribes meaninglessness to contemporary conflicts while pointing to ancient Rome. Scott draws attention to how violence and war have been legitimised throughout history and invites us to question the roots of contemporary violence.
In examining these dynamics, the paper highlights the tension between Scott’s pro-democracy and anti-war narratives and the political realities that shaped the film’s production. Through a critical analysis of Gladiator‘s portrayal of leadership crises, the manipulation of crowds, and the role of entertainment in reinforcing power structures, the paper explores how Scott’s epic raises important questions about freedom, democracy, and the complicity of the masses in perpetuating systems of control. Ultimately, Gladiator invites us to reflect not only on the historical lessons of ancient Rome but on our own complicity in the cycles of violence and spectacle that continue to shape modern politics.
Despite Ridley Scott’s powerful critique of warfare, contradictions within the production process, such as the removal of scenes featuring Palestinian and Egyptian actress May Calamawy due to her political stance, undermine the film’s message of peace and humanism. The excision of these scenes, reportedly due to Calamawy’s support for Palestine, contradicts the very humanitarian perspective the film promotes. Scott’s emphasis on the destructive nature of war, framed through a global, humanitarian lens, places human suffering at the forefront, sidelining national boundaries and political interests.
However, the exclusion of Calamawy’s scenes reveals a contradiction: while Scott advocates for human dignity and peace, the production process itself succumbs to political pressures, masking this as “neutrality.” By removing scenes of an actress who openly supports Palestine, the film indirectly reinforces the political dynamics it seeks to critique. This situation casts doubt on the film’s intended message, transforming a narrative critical of war into one that reflects the very power structures it seeks to condemn. Ridley Scott’s humanitarian stance is ultimately overshadowed by the political forces that shaped the film, making its critique of war less credible. This example underscores the tension between storytelling and the global political order, demonstrating that even the most idealistic messages can be compromised by the invisible, yet powerful, threads of political influence.
Leadership crises – Criticising the mentality
Gladiator is a production that appeals to a wide audience with blockbuster war and action scenes… But behind the glamour lies a cautionary tale of how power can be abused. Through the twin emperors Geta and Caracalla, we witness the collapse of a sick empire. In a world of warped mentalities and moral deprivation, the screen powerfully reflects how leaders who put their desires before the welfare of the people lead an empire to disaster.
Although set in ancient Rome, this theme is directly relevant to contemporary political discourse. The concerns expressed about leadership and governance are a warning of how fragile and unreliable the hidden mechanisms of institutions can be in the modern age. It reminds audiences that governments that are disconnected from the people and far from scrutiny offer a scenario of collapse that sheds light not only on the past but also on the present and the future.
The power of crowds
In Gladiator, Ridley Scott vividly portrays the Roman populace in the Colosseum, cheering for gladiatorial combat while oblivious to the erosion of their freedoms. This scene evokes Juvenal’s concept of bread and circuses (panem et circenses), where he criticised the transformation of Roman citizens, once active in political life, into a passive crowd satisfied with mere entertainment. Juvenal lamented that the people, who once held military and political power, now sought only “bread and circuses,” a metaphor for consumption and submission to rulers who distracted them from political engagement.
Scott uses this concept to reflect on how ancient rulers like Commodus, Geta, and Caracalla employed gladiatorial games and entertainment to pacify the masses, preventing them from challenging the elite. This strategy parallels modern societies, where entertainment often serves to divert attention from critical issues such as social justice, inequality, and corruption. In Gladiator, the Colosseum is not just a venue for spectacle but a symbol of societal decay, where public approval is secured through violence and bloodshed. This mirrors modern arenas—stadiums, television, and social media—where the public remains entertained but unaware of the pressing issues affecting their lives.
Despite the passive nature of the crowds, Scott also underscores their potential power. While the bread and circusesstrategy keeps people docile, it does not eliminate the possibility of awakening. Characters like Maximus and Lucius represent resistance to this passivity, challenging the status quo and urging the crowd to question its complicity in maintaining oppressive systems. Maximus’ famous question, “Are you not entertained?” serves as a direct critique of the audience’s role in consuming spectacle, calling for a reflection on their own participation in perpetuating such distractions.
In today’s world, this critique is more relevant than ever. The modern crowd is no longer confined to the Colosseum but exists within a culture of media, entertainment, and consumerism. Scott’s film prompts viewers to examine their own relationship with spectacle and recognise the risks of allowing entertainment to overshadow the need for active political engagement. The bread and circuses narrative serves as a timeless warning: without awareness and participation, freedom will be gradually eroded, and democracy will remain an unreachable ideal.
Ultimately, Scott’s Gladiator reminds us of the immense power of public opinion. While the masses can be easily manipulated, their approval remains a key factor in shaping society’s future. By emphasising the importance of the people’s will, the film urges us to acknowledge the responsibility we hold in directing that power toward a just and democratic future.
The link between entertainment and sovereignty
Ridley Scott confronts the viewer with the fact that the spectacle, which could be harmless entertainment, can also become a tool for manipulating the mind, lulling the masses to sleep and dominating them.
Scott, however, attempts to lift the veil of manipulation by resorting to a heroic narrative that awakens the audience from the gladiatorial spectacle into which they have been hypnotised. When the gladiator Lucius shouts in the arena, “Is this how Rome treats its heroes?”, we see that he is provoking thought in the silent crowd, encouraging the masses to question the government’s responsibilities and moral obligations to the people.
Contemporary Colosseum Audiences
The hero figure pausing the fanatical crowd with a question is a recurring motif in Ridley Scott’s Gladiator series. In this respect, the director seems to be trying to awaken society from the unconsciously consumed entertainment culture.
The transformation of slaughter into entertainment for the masses points to a very primitive human desire for bloodshed. This is a question we should ask ourselves as war and action addicts and potential Gladiator Two viewers: Are we any different from the audience in the Colosseum? In the first film, the gladiator Maximus, who fights to entertain the public, after killing many people in the arena, turns to the crowd going crazy and screaming with joy and asks, “Are you not entertained?” This question is a demand on the audience’s conscience and mind.
Could it be that Ridley Scott is asking us: Are we not entertained after watching Gladiator, a film full of exciting battle scenes? If we cannot get rid of the attraction of the elements offered to us, to which we are addicted, we have handed over our capacity for free thinking to the external. In this film, the area where the masses are criticised is shown precisely by the result of the self-destruction of the Roman people.
This is the central theme of the gladiator films: how a slave can be free and how an emperor can be constrained. One of the defining ideas of Stoic philosophy is the understanding that you can only come under someone’s sovereignty by coming under the subjugation of things in the external world. But it is difficult for a modern mind to hunger for liberation from the yoke of the external world if it cannot achieve anything concrete with freedom.
Ridley Scott’s epic narrative is not just about action-packed scenes. It also invites us to question the boundaries that may or may not separate the modern viewer from the Colosseum crowd. Maximus’ question still resonates today: “Are you not entertained?”
The dream of democracy and public silence
While the message of the film is that the possibility of an idealised democracy and freedom is only possible if the individual is not deceived by the attractions of the world of appearances, the end of the film contradicts this message. The gladiator Lucius has rallied the power of the people through his performances in the arena to overthrow the empire and revive the Roman Republic of his grandfather, Marcus Aurelius. But there is a crucial difference here: We, the audience, are privileged to know Lucius’ inner world and motivations. We know that Lucius is a virtuous individual who wants a republic not for his interests but to save Rome from disaster. For the Roman public and the spectators in the Colosseum, however, Lucius is just a gladiator – a figure of spectacle.
Ridley Scott’s film ends with the crowd celebrating the gladiator’s triumph, leaving open the question of whether they support a new dictatorship. The support for Lucius is not based on his ability to govern or the future he promises the people; it is admiration, mesmerised by his power and victories in the arena. The people in the Colosseum loved and applauded Lucius for his strength and victories in the arena. The cheering in the Colosseum reflects a taste for spectacle, not free thought; this crowd is no different from the people who in the past applauded despotic leaders such as Geta, Callaca and Commodus; only the figure on the stage has changed, but the blind obedience behind the applause is the same.
Lucius is a leader who promises freedom and a republic, as many dictators do before they take power. However, these promises are nothing more than an abstract and distant idea to the Roman people. The audience’s trust and admiration for Lucius remains unknown to the Roman people. Although Scott calls for a wake-up call through his main character, he does not show the same determination to change the people’s decision-making mechanism. The passive orientation of the masses is behind Lucius’s success. Although the director, through his character, poses critical questions to the masses, he condemns them to passive obedience.
The question is: Does Scott see the people as a passive and unconscious crowd, or does he want to emphasise another reality? Does the fact that the people do not play an active role in the quest for freedom and democracy express Scott’s despair, or is it a reference to the fact that unconscious crowds can easily be manipulated into a dictatorship?
The glorification of democracy, while depicting the public as passive, suggests that true democracy remains a dream without active participation. Scott’s omission of political engagement in his fictional world reinforces the idea that democracy is not merely an abstract idea, but something that can only be realised through the active participation of the people.