Featured
“Gladiator II” is rooted in some aspects of real history, but a Northeastern historian says the movie stretches the boundary between fact and fiction too far.
When Estelle Paranque watched the trailer for “Gladiator II,” the long-gestating sequel to Ridley Scott’s Academy Award-winning ancient Roman drama, she was left with one question: Why are there sharks in the Colosseum?
Coming more than 20 years after “Gladiator” was released, “Gladiator II,” which hits theaters on Nov. 22, returns audiences to ancient Rome and revenge-fueled men pursuing justice through gladiatorial combat. It also adds rhino-riding warriors, naval battles pitched in a water-filled Colosseum and, yes, sharks.
In the past, Scott hasn’t been shy about his disdain for historians. He’s never let historical facts get in the way of a good story. But some of the choices made in “Gladiator II” have left Paranque, an associate professor of history at Northeastern University in London, questioning whether the line between fact and fiction should be more distinct.
“As a historian, I really think the facts themselves are entertaining enough,” Paranque says. “I never think the facts are a problem for telling a good story.”
Paranque specializes in 16th- and 17th-century royal and diplomatic studies and has written about figures like Queen Elizabeth I and Catherine De Medici who have frequently been depicted in historical fiction. She also has a YouTube channel where she analyzes popular films and TV shows from a historical perspective.
So, is “Gladiator II” historically accurate? The glimpses she has gotten of “Gladiator II” don’t inspire confidence, Paranque says.
There is real history at the core of “Gladiator II,” she says. The twisted pair of emperors in the film, Caracalla and Geta, were real, along with Denzel Washington’s Macrinus, although the details of his life have been changed dramatically. Even some parts of the gladiatorial action are plucked from history.
“There were reenactments of naval battles in the Colosseum,” Paranque says. “They would fill the Colosseum with water and have battles.”
Paranque admits that with “Gladiator II” Scott has more leeway. Unlike “Napoleon,” which is based on the life of a real person, “Gladiator II” uses a fictionalized protagonist, Lucius (Paul Mescal), but embeds him in a real historical setting with some real historical figures as supporting characters.
“We have a very different type of historical fiction here because the fiction part can, and probably should, take more of the story than the history,” Paranque says –– but there are limits.
Based on the trailers, the film takes the idea of Colosseum naval battles and adds massive ships with shark-infested waters. The trailers and the poster for the film also heavily feature a rhino-riding gladiator. Paranque says examples like this is where historical fiction can go off the rails.
“Obviously there were no sharks,” Paranque says. “There was no way they could have brought sharks. … You don’t need sharks to make a story about gladiators interesting. You don’t need rhino warriors. Gladiators had to fight wild animals. Why don’t you keep it at that? Why don’t you keep it to lions and tigers?”
Paranque says there is no problem with filmmakers taking liberty with history. Historical fiction gives storytellers the opportunity to bring humanity to history in interesting ways. Plus, it’s impossible to condense the life of someone like Napoleon into a two- to three-hour movie.
But there is a line between fiction that respects fact and fiction that perpetuates myths and misconceptions about history, particularly ancient Roman history that has already become akin to a myth in Western society.
“If you do historical fiction, there is the word history in it, and that should be, at the very least, respected,” Paranque says. “There’s no problem with inventing things and extrapolating or speculating, but when it’s just to give us the same old [myths], there’s no room for that.”
Movies like “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” starring Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I, have plenty of historical inaccuracies, Paranque says. Years of history are condensed and some figures, like the Spanish ambassador, appear at times in history where they shouldn’t. However, the overarching reality of history, Elizabeth’s relationships and her complexity as a woman is all there on screen.
As for the online arguments about Denzel Washington bringing his normal American accent into ancient Rome, Paranque says this is one place where movies should take liberties.
“If Denzel Washington had tried to have a weird accent from the past, no one would have understood it,” Paranque says.
Washington’s presence in the movie also helpfully pushes back against bad faith interpretations of ancient Rome as some kind of “white society.”
“Rome, especially, was this massive empire, including in North Africa,” Paranque says. “[Africans] are going to be brought back, and they’re not just going to be slaves. They’re going to be some people of power.”
“There were Black people in ancient Rome, but there were definitely no sharks in the Colosseum.”