PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVES

"Gladiator"
FROM ROMPER STOMPER TO GLADIATOR

Gladiator is a movie on a grand scale.

From a performance perspective this film raises a number of challenges for the actor and some interesting questions about performance process.

How does an actor create a charismatic beloved leader?

For RUSSELL CROWE the answer is simple. In a beautiful scene just after the massive opening battle General Maximus is walking down a row of tents past many war weary soldiers. He pauses for a brief contact with one of them. Under these circumstances an actor could choose to play "to dominate in a paternal way" or to be magnanimous or gracious or powerful or perhaps regal? But RUSSELL, consciously or unconsciously, chose to play - 'to share". The result is a wonderful moment of generosity between General and soldier which leaves us feeling there is no doubt that Maximus is a great man. A potent and simple actor's choice.

The Maximum is Achieved
This was a moment that needed no illumination, no illustration ….for General Maximus had just won a mighty battle in which he was not only a brave and fearless fighter but also a brilliant strategist. He was a "winner". RUSSELL'S success was that he didn't try to depict any of these elements for he knew that it had all been said. In a brilliant poetic choice he chose "to share" the moment with this unknown soldier.

It would appear Russell was very secure and confident in the images of Maximus as a great general. However he seems to be less confident that the audience would also see Maximus as a sensitive and aware man. This is surprising for the act of sharing with the soldier was plainly one of a generous, sensitive and aware man. But perhaps it is this doubt which is the reason why Russell chooses, in a number of later scenes, to deliberately show us the emotional quality of the character.

Maximus Sensitus
In these scenes Maximus while definitely displaying vulnerability also displays a lack of complexity and purpose and therefore ceases to be the character who has achieved such distinction. It's not that great characters with great strengths cannot have weaknesses and failings. But it is that an audience is only engaged by understanding what leads the character through these moments of

weakness. In displaying Maximus at times, as just emotional or sentimental Russell seems to forget that we judge people not by what they show us they are but by what they do. And in those scenes Maximus is doing nothing. He is inactive. Just wallowing in emotion.

These scenes may have been of more value if we saw why Maximus let go of his sense of purpose or how he regained it. But that is not the case.

A Strong Sense of Purpose is Valuable
In other scenes we have very strong images of a character always driven by morality and a need to survive. In the internally focused scenes we lose a sense of these qualities. Not only do we lose a sense of the character we lose a sense of the story - for if the character is inert the story is inert too.

On the other hand there are many moments where RUSSELL gives us bountifully rich views of Maximus the Great. This he achieves with great openness and an adventurous sense of performance. At these times he is always engaging and astoundingly likeable. One can't help wondering whether the choices Russell made, to invest so much in the 'overtly emotional' scenes, came from a perceived need for the audience to understand more about the soft underbelly of the character.

What does become evident is that displaying the character as an emotional person doesn't succeed in making us like him.

Making a Comparison
In 'Romper Stomper' Russell didn't fall into this trap. For though he played a very dark character there is one revealing scene where attends to a drunken sleeping friend. The care with which he does this is entirely focused on the friend and has no emotional outcome for RUSSELL'S character. Here he succeeds in producing a significant, warm emotional response from the audience. In this instance the actor doesn't endeavour to show us that the character is in fact kind hearted - he merely pursues the action of the moment allowing the audience to make their own judgement. And we judge him favourably. This kind of success is not achieved in the overly sentimental scenes in Gladiator.

Overall the epic scale of this production mostly dominates any deficiencies in performance for Ridley Scott is a director who is a master of visuals and visual structure. The strong contingent of English actors in this cast seem to not be intimidated by the epic nature of this venture and maintain simple and real choices for their characters. And ultimately it is plain that RUSSELL CROWE as a warrior is powerful force.

Note:

1) This review was written long before the 2001 Oscar presentation and while I would never try to predict the idiosyncratic Oscar voting system it's possible that The Academy responds well to overtly emotional content.

2) It was interesting to hear RUSSELL CROWE'S Movie Show Interview with Margaret Pomerance because although he said that Ridley Scott had left behind his image of just being a director of visuals, it also seemed plain that Ridley's main focus was the production and shooting of the movie. Russell believes Ridley casts actors who come along 'prepared and ready to work'. And therefore it appears as director he has very little input into the creation of character and the ingredients of performance. The main negotiations seem to be about the ingredients and purpose of story. (This interview is available on the SBS website - see what you think? http://www.sbs.com.au/movieshow/movieshow_set.html) The Rehearsal Room's mission is to explore the function of story and it's relation to the actor. There will be more exploration of this topic in the future.

Copyright © The Rehearsal Room 2001. All rights Reserved. www.rehearsalroom.com