A decade ago, I rewatched Gladiator in a freezing cold forward-operating base outside Mosul with Kurdish Peshmerga, cocooned in brightly-coloured blankets. When I complained that the sound wasn’t working on the small television, someone replied “Surely you must know every word?” and he was right: I did, and so did everyone else there. There are few modern films of which this could be said, and at times it seems Sir Ridley Scott made all of them. Gladiator alone is arguably the last of the mass market blockbusters to have achieved both critical acclaim and global cultural currency, a conscious homage to the golden era of Hollywood epics. From Bladerunner to Alien, Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven: Scott is a master of the genre movie, creating sumptuous film equivalents of what Graham Greene called “entertainments,” thrillers with an aesthetic or philosophical edge raising them far above the medium’s simple demands.
And yet, as shown by the almost fearful anticipation over his biopic Napoleon, Scott’s output is wildly variable in quality. When he produces a dud, such as Robin Hood or Exodus: Gods and Kings, it’s a real stinker, both leaden and bombastic, the filmic equivalent of a bloated rock band’s cocaine grandiosity. Yet Scott seems immune to external criticism. “I have no favourite film of mine,” he declared, “they are all my favourite children, and I have no regrets about any one of them. At all.” How are we to understand this strange duality? Is he a great director who occasionally makes bad films? Or is he fundamentally a studio hack who somehow makes great films? Is Scott the greatest bad filmmaker of all time?
Critics most frequently liken him to a great general, marshalling vast crews and controlling every aspect of production with a logistician’s eye; he sets up workshops to produce armour and uniforms and takes over North African cities like an occupying force. There is no other filmmaker so seduced by the thrilling spectacle of vast armies on the march, the glitter of sunlight against swords and spearblades, and the brightly coloured splendour of battle standards flapping against the wind. Even Isis, who had an eye for such things, felt compelled to steal battle scenes from Kingdom of Heaven for their propaganda videos. In Black Hawk Down, every soldier’s death is as abrupt and brutal, yet as lovingly detailed, as that of a warrior in the Iliad who is mentioned only to die. Scott takes an honest, boyish pleasure in war: his enthusiasm sweeps the audience away in all its glory and adventure like a recruiting sergeant’s drum.
The young Scott was shaped by war; his earliest memories are of sheltering in an understairs cupboard from the Blitz. Scott credits his father, a Royal Engineers brigadier who helped design the D-Day Mulberry Harbours, for imposing a sense of productive discipline within the family: “His whole mindset on simplicity and order and reliability, I guess set into me. It’s part of my upbringing, part of my schooling.” The young Scott lived in British-occupied Northwest Germany, attending school in a converted Kriegsmarine barracks where every morning he would walk past a fleet of tethered U-Boats, cocooned in plastic. Did this mark his filmmaking style?
Certainly, there is no other director who can combine boomer liberal morality with a sense of scale and grandeur edging on the fascistic: for his vision of Gladiator’s Rome, Scott studied Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will and Olympia, and the Tyrell Corporation offices in Blade Runner resemble a ziggurat furnished by Albert Speer. His 1984 advert for Apple — in which he employed shaven-headed National Front “connections” as cheap extras — is an early iteration of this seductively totalitarian aesthetic. Even the proto-Indo-European speaking, marble-white Greek statue-like aliens of Prometheus and Alien Covenant strangely prefigure the aesthetics of the modern internet dissident Right.
Yet instead of a general or a Caesar, perhaps we ought to think of Scott as a great British industrialist, who in an earlier time would have built great steamships and chains of factories. A product of what was rapidly becoming the post-industrial Northeast, Scott was shaped by the looming shipyards of South Shields and steel mills of West Hartlepool. His mother was a miner’s daughter. “All around us was darkness when we were younger — rain and the industrial moors. That’s where Ridley got Blade Runner from,” his brother Tony remarked, and indeed the film’s opening shots, with jets of flame roaring from tall furnace chimneys, are a direct reference to Hartlepool’s now-lost industrial grandeur.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGuess I thought a piece illustrated with a Napoleon image would discuss the latest film in a bit more detail than a sentence at the end.
Right?!
Yes, why can’t people just give us straightforward film reviews instead of thoughtful cultural commentary?
Maybe you should try rotten tomatoes.
There’s loads of that right now. I think this piece was far more interesting.
Scott is shaped by attending school in North West Germany, walking past “tethered U-boats”.
Scott is shaped by his upbringing in the industrial North East of England.
It’s entirely possible to be influenced by both, but not, as the author seems to claim, “shaped” by both, with no explanation of the transition from one to the other.
I found this a little overblown for my liking. No-one (apart from the screenwriter) “knows every word” of Gladiator. I think we know what he’s getting at, but it’s an unnecessary exaggeration, designed possibly to demonstrate his “war-correspondent” credentials, watching with the Peshmerga.
Still, an interesting look into the background and oevre of Scott. The florid style of writing just grates a little.
The Good Wife, first 5 series. That marvellous use of music, also in the suicide scene of Blade Runner.
I’m taking my 13yo to see Napoleon on Saturday (shhh don’t tell the ushers he’s under age…) – after being begged non-stop since the first trailer came out.
I’m a little nervous. We watched Gladiator together the other night, and I endured a succession of:
“Romans didn’t use cavalry like that”
“Commodus wasn’t interested in that sister, it was the other one”
“Commodus didn’t die in the arena! He was strangled in the bath!”
“Rome wasn’t returned to the senate after Commodus’ death! We had the year of the five emperors!”
If he’s messed with historical figures again in Napoleon, I will be writing a letter to the Tunbridge Wells Gazette to lodge a complaint, I assure you.
(It’s my own damn fault for encouraging a love of history. I regret nothing.)
He is a remarkable director. We have been entertained. But sadly Napoleon is a visually spectacular turkey. Napoleon utters not ONE word of – his politics! He fights. He shags or moons over a heroin chic Josephine. There was just no space for this in a 1 minute a year race through a life. His Kingdom of Heavan managed to weace complex unknown politics into a great narrative. Here – nothing. It creates a twrrible vacuum. Perhaps the 5 hour Directors Cut will be the missing masterpiece. Napoleon Toulon to St Helena needs 12.
If you take Kingdom of Heaven, theatrical version, it is very close to being a spectacular turkey. I found out much much later that there was a director cut and it is also a totally different story.
A director’s cut …..about 4 hours long, will come out later, maybe it will allow it to fill the holes you are rightly pointing out.
The man who made Blade Runner; HAS NO FAULTS. Period.
His fault was letting Hollywood ruin the theatrical version by adding voiceovers because they believed the average Yank wasn’t capable of working out what was going on without Harrison Ford narrating every scene transition. It took the Final Cut to rescue the movie and elevate it to one of the greatest films of all time.
Oh I prefer the original cinema release; it leaves far more to the imagination. And I doubt he had much say in the decision to add the narration.
A superb essay, really insightful!
This article seems like little more than a fanboy blog post. It’s nice to see something non-denunciatory on this website, but as someone who is neither a superfan of Ridley Scott nor a detractor, I wanted a bit more than this gushing tribute that (as Daniel Lee aptly noted) barely referenced the movie than supposedly occasioned it.
I’d probably feel differently if the director being celebrated were Paul Thomas Anderson or David O. Russell. Either way, I do like that I get to post my often-contrary opinions here.
I have no interest in directors or producers, but would love to see a good movie about Napolean. My impression is that this one is heavy on gore and sex, neither of which advances most stories. I doubt I’ll be seeing it, but maybe it will spark an interest in French history within popular culture and lead to the sort of movie I was hoping for.
Ridley Scott, our Anglo-Saxon Maximus, continues to redefine cinematic storytelling with his unparalleled vision and mastery of epic narratives. From “Gladiator” to “Blade Runner,” Scott’s influence on the film industry is profound and enduring. For anyone looking to create a powerful presentation on his work or any other topic, I recommend checking out https://writepaper.com/do-my-powerpoint-presentation for professional assistance.