bestiarii: Specialized in killing animals retiarii: Fought with a net and daggeressedarii: Fought from chariotsequites: Fought from horseback hoplomachi: Heavily armed The Thrax, or Thracian: Lightly armed w/ a small dagger (sica)
The A.M. of a spectacle (at the Colosseum) was for beast hunts; the early afternoon to tryouts, mock battles, or criminal execution; later afternoon for the main event, when the gladiators would fight in pairs until one could not continue, at which point the winner would ask the sponsor (munerarius) whether he should spare or kill. Pollice presso, basically, thumb down, to spare; pollice verso, thumb turned, to kill.
Gladiatores first appeared in Rome in 264 B.C., and only at funerals or for games given for an individual (in memoriam). The gladiators could be condemned criminals, prisoners of war, slaves, or volunteers (auctorati, bound over - their pay was termed auctoramentum). There were four training schools for gladiators (after Dominitian's time). Each school had its own fighting style and master.
Once the gladiators were in the amphitheater they began with a preliminary fight (prolusio) using swords and darts, until the trumpet blew and the main fight began (accompanied by music). Some gladiators were prodded with red-hot irons. The sign of mercy (missio) was the waving of handkerchiefs.
Condemned criminals had no chance of mercy in a fight. The FELLED were taken through a door (porta Libitinensis) into a side room (spoliarium) to be stripped and likely put to death. Victors received palms and sometimes money. A gladiator could, by long-term bravery, have the favor of the spectators. In such cases, he was given a rapier (rudis) that deemed him free of further toil. A freed gladiator was called rudiarius (which did not mean absolutely free).
In Pompeii there is a preserved gladiator school and a large bas-relief of gladiatorial combat.
Even though none of it was real, we were all watching people die, and laughing. We were amused by it. I think that was the main point. We may claim to be more advanced now, but we're really just like the Romans. People stay the same.
There are shots of the arenas done with the same camera angles used in televised football. After killing some people, Maximus screams at the crowd, (and I paraphrase) "Are you not amused? Is this not why you came here today?" I felt like Scott was trying to say that sports (and action movies) are just the modern version of Bread and Circuses to keep the mob happy.
Also, is there some rule that movies about Rome have to be at least two and a half hours long?
+'s: Great Battle Scenes, a bit over the top with blood and gore, but if thats your thing, you'll love it. Also, it has one of the most impressive shots of Ancient Rome I have ever seen, obviously done in 3-D, complete with, you guessed it, the coliseum. You can tell it ain't real, but still fun. Again, if you go, go for the fights. Another high point, though, is the flavor of the movie. If you know a little Roman history and culture, much more enjoyable.
-'s: Entirely fabricated plot.In fact, my main complaint deals with the plot. Although it was heralded as a return to the old days of giant casts etc. the plot didn't curve like it did in those days (to see what I mean, read a Shakespeare play, he was the master of that). Instead, it is one monotonous stream of occurences. Theirs no buildup or slow drop off. Final Evaluation: 3.5 out of 5. Good, if your into something simple and violent.
Ridley Scott: Brilliant man. Russell Crowe: Great actor.
So mind telling me why this movie was suckage? Ridley Scott's massive epic of Roman conquest just really didn't hit the spot for me this time around. It wasn't the worst movie I've seen granted (cough Battlefield Earth cough), but it was not the brillant piece of film I've heard it hailed to be. This film won best picture. Lets do a little good/bad:
good
Guess thats about it. If you want good Ridley Scott see Blade Runner. Russell Crowe was wonderful in LA Confidential. Yeah, this movie isn't a horrible piece of trash, but it certainly shouldn't have won best picture over brilliant pieces of film like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Traffic. Endorse movies that do something for you. If violence and visual effects is what you want to attain in your movie experience, you'll like this movie. If you desire something higher, look elsewhere.
Gladiator is not just a type of person that fights for mass entertainment, not just the name of a movie that won five awards at the 2001 Oscars, but also the name of an arcade game release by Taito in 1986 in the US and Europe. It can also be found as a bootleg under the name "Golden Castle", and in Japan under the name "Ougon No Siro".
The game is an early example of the beat-em-up genre, in which you control the valiant armoured warrior "Guaranos". You battle a series of computer-controlled enemies in one-on-one contests interspersed with side-scrolling "obstacle course" stages in which you dodge flying knives and so forth. The controls use three buttons to make high, middle, and low attacks with your sword, while the joystick allows you to position your shield at one of these three positions.
There are a number of secrets in the game. * During an obstacle course stage, rapidly moving the joystick up and down (to move the shield up and down) generates a temporary force field. This can only be done once per level. * During a combat stage Guaranos can gain temporary invulnerability. To do this block at least four knives with the shield during the previous obstacle course stage and pick the knives up off the ground. This makes your sword red during the next combat stage. Hit your opponent's shield several times in a row to gain the invulnerability (you will start to flash golden). * The game seems to have a bug with the green axe knight on the third level. After while it freezes and stops defending itself, allowing you to kill it easily.
The most striking feature of the game is the crappy graphics. Despite using standard resolution, the background and sprite figures seem overly pixelated. Also the sprites are poorly animated. Additionally, like most early beat-em-up games, the controls are kludgey and frustrating. Yet despite this, like most early beat-em-up games, Gladiator has an strange "must beat this game" type of attraction.
I think the thing that's most appealing about this movie (to me, but I'm a pointy-headed history monkey) is how very Roman a hero our Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe) is. He's modelled on Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (also referred to as Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus,) who was elected to a dictatorship in Rome in 458 BCE to repel two Latin tribes who were threatening the city, the the Aequi and Volscians. After resoundingly defeating the invaders, Cincinattus laid down his dictatorship and returned to his farm, having no desire for power. Sound familiar?
The Romans had just as great a love for this type of humble hero as we do. They were similarly beset by career politicians and revered the ideal of the pure public servant - one who serves the people out of a sense of duty. Indeed, the Roman longing for great statesmen with no lust for personal power or influence was probably even greater than ours, given the troubles they had with generals and politicians violently seizing power for their personal aggrandizement.
The Roman mindset also shared our nostalgia for the pastoral life - members the Roman elite almost without exception owned villas in the countryside where they could retreat when the politics and bustle of Rome became overwhelming. They longed for the "good old days on the farm" just as much as we do, and the humble farmer (which in Roman terms meant a man who owned and managed a farm, not the slaves who worked in the fields) shared the same aura of simple goodness and strong values that we tend to ascribe to them.
A Roman audience would have been very fond indeed of our General Maximus. He displays all of the major Roman personal virtues: gravitas (an inherent, unshakeable dignity), virtus (bravery, strength or courage), severitas (discipline, training), and pietas (difficult to translate, but "dutifulness" comes close.) He's also a prime example of frugalitas (simple, unostentatious tastes) and firmitas (strength of purpose) - all in all, a model Roman hero. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Glad"i*a`tor (?), n. [L., fr. gladius sword. See Glaive.]
1.
Originally, a swordplayer; hence, one who fought with weapons in public, either on the occasion of a funeral ceremony, or in the arena, for public amusement.
2.
One who engages in any fierce combat or controversy.
© Webster 1913.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
cooled by kthejoker
