Ridley Scott Has A Hot Take On The 'Villain' Of Gladiator – It's Not Joaquin Phoenix
One of the most memorable things about Ridley Scott's incredible Roman epic "Gladiator" is just how insufferable Joaquin Phoenix's character Commodus can be. He serves as a foil to Russell Crowe's Maximus at every turn, behaving like a petulant child more often than not. He's cruel, spoiled, and self-centered, played by Phoenix with a kind of intensity that makes him a particularly impressive villain. The only problem is that Scott doesn't think that Commodus is the real villain at all.
The charmingly blunt Scott sat down with Deadline while promoting his latest film, "Napoleon," which stars Phoenix as the infamous Napoleon Bonaparte, and he was asked about casting Phoenix as such villainous characters. Scott was quick to correct, explaining that he didn't think Commodus was really the villain of "Gladiator," and he had some pretty compelling reasons as to why. Watching "Gladiator" with Scott's comments in mind might make the audience a bit more sympathetic towards Commodus, although he is still much too cavalier with people's lives. Some of the most fascinating characters in Scott's films have been the most complicated ones, like Roy Batty in "Blade Runner," David in "Prometheus," and Patrizia Reggiani in "House of Gucci," so maybe Commodus is just another misunderstood misanthrope.
The real villain is... Marcus Aurelius!
In the interview, Scott explained that he felt for Commodus, who he believed never stood a chance at being a decent person because of his upbringing:
"I saw him as the most sympathetic character of all, in 'Gladiator.' He was a product of neglect, total neglect of a father that he adored. Then finally in the film, the father would say, 'I'm going to neglect you even further. You will not be the prince of Rome.' And then the father realizes in his old age that he needs some form of absolute. So he does something fatal. He kneels before the boy asking for forgiveness. That was fatal because the boy has never seen his father ask for that kind of close discussion. So he suffocates him. So from that moment on, I thought Joaquin was the most sympathetic person during the movie. What he did and what followed, what came out of it, the nature of it had been created by his father."
While there's an old adage that the sins of the father should not be passed down to the son, in this case Marcus passed on his sins because he created a monster through neglect. By never showing Commodus love or treating him with any kind of respect, he kept him trapped in an adolescent state, always desperate for approval.
A tragedy that could have been avoided
Scott went on to explain that Marcus created tremendous violence while conquering Europe, and that he was away so often that his son was raised without any of that fierceness. In the end, he felt that both Commodus and Maximus are victims, and that their mutual destruction is a real tragedy brought about by Marcus' failures. After all, Commodus wanted nothing more than to follow in his father's footsteps and be prince of Rome and he was denied, while Marcus offered Maximus that very position and he turned it down. There was no reason for there to be enmity between them, but Marcus' poor planning and neglect of his son led them to destroy each other and everything the other held dear.
The ending of "Gladiator" already feels pretty bleak, but it's even more depressing with Scott's added context to consider. Just think — had Marcus Aurelius been a decent father, there might have been a lot less bloodshed. It doesn't excuse all of Commodus' actions, but it does make him quite a bit more sympathetic, just like Scott pointed out.