Head-to-Head: Gladiator v.s. Braveheart

Two grand epics, featuring heroic men seeking revenge on heinous dictator figures. Neither film sticks to the historical truths particularly closely, Bravheart even acknowledges this in its opening since it's more of a tale of William Wallace's legacy than the much grittier truth (see: Hollywood History on this page http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Braveheart). Thus neither is really constrained by 'facts' so to speak in their conception. They take a grand, romantic yet brutal portrayal of their respective time periods, Ancient Rome and 13th Century Scotland, and milk their epic scopes for all its worth. So which film is better (or as it's come to be on this blog...which do I prefer?)

Direction: Ridley Scott v.s. Mel Gibson

I should note that both films are incredibly well-directed. Gibson, who directed this well at the height of his popularity as an A-List movie star, won a Best Director Oscar for his terrific work on recounting the legend of William Wallace. Gibson's direction is actually rather daring considering the rather divisive nature of the material he was taking. He masterfully mounts the proceedings on an epic scale, and handles the grand scenes marvellously. The 'Hold' scene  is a particularly excellent bit of mounting tension, but he also does well with smaller scenes like knowing how to dial down the grandeur in intimate love scenes between Wallace and his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack), and Princess Isabella (Sophie Marceau). The highlight however is probably for me the final torture scene where he brings together all the strongest elements of the film together in one very powerful moment. He sustains a very personal style to each of the battle scenes and you get such a visceral feel for where the tide is turning in each of them, and the dialogue and interaction scenes are also imprinted vividly.

As for Scott, I love his work on Gladiator as well. It's a shame that he didn't win a well-deserved Oscar that year, or the next year for Black Hawk Down. Gladiator presents him at the height of his powers as an action director and visual talent, as he brings his usual panache for the vast and impressive he showed in Blade Runner and he would later hone further in Kingdom of Heaven, as well as bringing like Gibson a more intimate quality to the quieter scenes of Maximus' inner turmoil. It's visually impeccable work from him, and the fact he had to deal with so many behind-the-scenes problems is testament to his talent. I'll have to choose a victor between the two, and in the end I'll go with Gibson purely because I think his ability to bring out such a powerful personal style within just his second film is quite incredible (although to be fair my reasoning here is flawed, since Scott's second film is Alien which is miles ahead of either film here).

Winner: Mel Gibson

Acting (Hero): 

Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius v.s. Mel Gibson as William Wallace

Crowe won Best Actor at the Oscars for his portayal of Maximus, and I must say this is a performance that's grown on me over time, as most of Crowe's performances tend to do .Anyway, Crowe's character here is actually fairly simplistic, and if he just rode on his physically domineering presence it'd have been perfectly fine. Maximus is a general in the Roman Army who's growing a bit tired of his job and wants to go back to his family and children, but a series of circumstances results in his family being killed at the command of Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), and Maximus left for dead. Maximus, in a sort of Spartacus fashion, falls into the hands of slavers and then, the hands of gladiator trainer Proximo (Oliver Reed). Thus, he becomes a gladiator, and slowly fights his way upwards to seek vengeance. That's essentially all of Crowe's arc in this film, the brooding hero with a family to avenge, and it needs to be said that he's absolutely perfect in the role. I can think of no other actor today who could've given Maximus Decimus Meridius the innate gravitas and command needed for this born commander of men, and boy does Crowe emit gravitas with his every word uttered in that guttural, booming Aussie accent and incisive delivery. Each speech he makes as a general, and even more so as a gladiator leader among his fellow slaves, his so rousing just by his delivery alone. He commands the screen physically with his performance, and you genuinely feel his every blow and thrust of sword because how at home he seems with it. Frankly, the lead in a swords-and-sandals epic is a tougher job than one might think, and Crowe goes even beyond that with his powerful emotional portrayal of the grief that compels his character, and helps add to an aspect of the film I'll discuss at the end. He gives a performance no one else could possibly give in his place, and his early reservations according to Wikipedia over the dialogue and characterization of Maximus Aurelius is surprising because it's such a perfect fit for him.

Gibson the director I must say I've liked to loved every single one of his films thus far, and the trailer for Hacksaw Ridge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2-1hz1juBI) has me so pumped for it. Having said that, though as an actor I like Gibson, it's nowhere close to my admiration for him as a director (haven't seen Gallipoli yet though). But I digress. Like Crowe Gibson is an actor with innate charm, which I think the best example I've seen is in the Lethal Weapon series. This is utilized well for William Wallace as both his position as a leader of his men which makes up the main meat of the film, as he handles each of his speeches well (even if the accent is, as many have noted, a bit iffy, though it doesn't really hurt the performance), particularly the most famous one we all know, and also has a very nice charm in his quieter scenes interacting with his lovers. He brings the needed weight to moments like his execution of two traitors to his cause against the English, and perhaps his best scene which is the quartering execution at the end of the film. What sets this performance apart from Crowe's for me is that Gibson, while very fitting to the film as the rousing hero, never really goes beyond that. I did not feel as strong a sense of emotional drive from his performance alone, nor did I ever really get 'chills down my spine' so to speak from anything he did acting-wise, usually that sort of feeling in Braveheart I have reserved for his directorial choices. I like Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace, but I don't find it to be the Oscar snub some seem to consider it to be. The nominated Nicolas Cage and Sean Penn were exceptional, Ian McKellen and Morgan Freeman in the same year gave far more powerful and entertaining performances vital to their films. Gibson's performance is good but simply not on the level of Crowe's tremendously powerful portrayal of a man sinned against by the world, and thus turning against it; he's the grand and passionate leader he should be, but never beyond that.

Winner: Russell Crowe

Acting (Villain):  

Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus v.s. Patrick McGoohan as King Edward 'Longshanks' 

I wouldn't consider either of these 'all-time great' portrayals of villains like the Joker, or Hans Landa, in fact I'd rank them nearer the 'quite good and adeuqate' band of villains like Jeremy Irons in Die Hard with a Vengeance. I'll admit they've both grown on me over time, however. Both are unrepentant villains through and through, and I've a tough time trying to decide who's worse. I'd say probably Longshanks because he's more dangerous, because he's the more competent of the two. Phoenix's Commodus is a bit of the whiny, spoilt brat sort of dictator who's more competent at ordering people around than actually doing anything himself. I like his performance because he gives off the right vibe of someone who wants to be physically imposing and threatening, but can only achieve so by his royal power. I used to find his tic-filled, mannered approach to depicting the mentally imbalanced state of Commodus distracting, but re-watches have made me appreciate that it's perhaps the best way he had to portray the character since there's not all that much else to work with.

As for McGoohan, he's definitely the more immediately menacing and hateful of the two, since he's not only terrible to his enemies, he's terrible to his own people too, in particular his son and his son's wife. King Edward Longshanks is as utterly charmless as Commodus is, and what I think puts him up slightly in my books is that he presents a far more dangerous adversary to overcome, though Commodus is the one you feel more impact at the demise of due to the personal connection with Crowe's Maximus, Both actors give good, not great, villainous performances, and I'll give McGoohan the edge because he does have a bit more to work with and does end up having more individually memorable scenes like that 'window' scene (which by the way I don't see as being homophobic as many have interpreted it, it's a murderous king doing the act anyway, you're not meant to advocate it), and his speeches.

Winner: Patrick McGoohan

Acting (Ensemble)

Probably my easiest choice thus far. The supporting cast of Gladiator isn't bad at all. Oliver Reed is the obvious standout, despite his performance being truncated obviously by fate, as Proximo the ex-gladiator and gladiator manager. He gives a very convincing potrayal of a man with pride in the profession and adds a lot to the film in his relatively short screentime. Djimon Hounsou also acquits himself nicely as Juba, fellow gladiator to Maximus, and provides some good supportive supporting work; unfortunately, the rest of the supporting cast don't really have all that much to distinguish themselves. In fact I'd say the broad sweeping scope of the film and Crowe's performance overshadows them, though on a positive note no one stands out in a bad way.

In Braveheart many a supporting performance stands out in a very good way. In fact, McGoohan might only be my 4th favourite of the ensemble, as you have Angus Macfayden giving a very strong performance as future King of Scotland Robert the Bruce, who's really the true heart of the film; the always reliable Brendan Gleeson as Wallace's best friend Hamish; Catherine McCormack giving a haunting portrayal of Murron MacClannough, Wallace's love of his life; Ian Bannen giving a very interesting performance as Robert's leper-infected father; and of course, possibly my favourite performance in the cast on re-watch, David O'Hara's Stephen, from Ireland, a barmy ball of energy who joins in William Wallace's cause just for bloodshed. Braveheart has a great ensemble and I'd say in this regard it trumps Gladiator quite easily.

Winner: Braveheart

Screenplay

Gladiator has some fantastic lines by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, like the 'My Name is Maximus...' scene, Proximo's lines of the nature of gladiator fighting, and overall the story is very taut with little in the way of plot contrivances. It's also quite admirable how it managed to write its way through the death of Oliver Reed halfway through filming while still bringing the film to a powerful conclusion, despite missing a greatly important factor for its final act. I have to say though that the writing behind Braveheart is slightly more impressive. It tells a broader story, not that there's anything wrong with Gladiator's scope, and alongside William Wallace's story branches off itno several different arcs, and the fact Randall Wallace's screenplay touches on all of them quite well, in particular Robert the Bruce's personal arc, is fairly impressive. I don't love either screenplay, neither has that 'X-factor' which pushes a film's script from 'very good' to 'amazing', but I do like them both quite a bit. Will give the win to Braveheart for its sheer complexity.

Winner: Braveheart

Cinematography

The cinematography to Braveheart by the one and only John Toll. He was in charge of making The Thin Red Line one of the most beautifully brutal films of all-time and does some great work here in making each battle scene, each establishing shot across those beauteous greens, stick in your mind. I really like his work here, but I must say the cinematography in Gladiator is one aspect of the film I've always loved from the very start. It's a masterclass in colour schemes, those scenes in the colesseum with those muted yet striking dark colours merged with the shiny golden sunlight and the gladiator's armour; the scenes in Elysium; and of course the camerawork in the action scenes. The battle sequences in Braveheart have a grand spectacle and grand camerawork to follow them, but Gladiator goes a step further in making each fight in the Colosseum so immersive to the audience. Moreover, there's other great touches like the scene I post above where the beauty of the filmed scenery juxtaposed alongside the tragedy of the situation, is extremely powerful.

Winner: Gladiator

Editing

This is one of those categories I'm never really that sure about how to comment on. I'll give the win to Gladiator for the timebeing because as a film I think it flows along slightly better, and the way its action sequences are spliced together alongside the quiet scenes are remarkable, whereas Bravheart might have a few scenes which jut out as slightly imbalancing the pace of the film, I'm thinking mostly of the scenes back in England.

Winner: Gladiator

Sound

Both films sound great, with the clashing of swords and crashing of horses and screams of gladiators in Gladiator all so resonantly heard throughout each sequences, and the magnificent use of silence and minimalism in very specific moments too. I do, however, think that Braveheart sounds even better overall as somehow it manages to make each action sequence loud and rousing, but also making each voice and portion of the battle have a character all of its own.

Winner: Braveheart

Lighting/Special/Practical Effects

Perhaps unfair to compare the two, but I do place the lighting used in the forest scenes, the Colosseum etc. and the special and practical effects used to enhance them to an even more glorious scale, like for the views of Rome, are incredible, and while the equivalent work in Braveheart on the battlefields is nothing to be sniffed at, I give Gladiator the edge in this regard.

Winner: Gladiator

Costume Design

Swords-and-sandals films do tend to have a certain continuity in terms of garments worn by the actors, and so while the costumes for our Romans in Gladiator are quite something to behold, I wouldn't call them quite as impressive as the downright brilliant costumes by Charles Node for both the Scottish and the English through all classes, is a marvel to behold. A particular favourite of mine is the way Hamish's attire fits Gleeson's gruff and brutish yet compassionate performance, or how Robert the Bruce's costume emphasises his regal nature, or just how nice Princess Isabella's garments look.

Winner: Braveheart

Set Design

The Colosseum, is all I have to say. Braveheart has some very impressive sets too, but the Colosseum in Gladiator is practically a character all in itself.

Winner: Gladiator

Soundtrack

I thought this would be the differentiating factor for the two films, since I've always thought James Horner's theme for Braveheart was a thing of beauty, with its marvellous employment of the flute alongside the grander orchestral bits. It helps make so many scenes even more memorable than they already are. On re-watch however, the soundtrack with Gladiator stuck with me more than before. 'Now We Are Free' really is a beautiful tune, and I don't mind the main battle theme being kind of similar to the Pirates of the Carribean one anymore since one, it's Hans Zimmer's personal style, and two the fact he implements it so well into the film. Like Braveheart it makes scenes its blared over resonate even more, and I really can't choose between the two.

Winner: Tie

Emotional Resonance

Well since there's a tie, I guess all I can use to divide the two films now is a look at how much they've impacted me individually on an emotional level. Now Braveheart is among historical 'biopics' quite renowned for its strong emotional core. The backstory to William Wallace, the personal story of Robert the Bruce, and of course that rousing finale where the latter invokes the memory of the former with 'You bled with Wallace. Now, bleed with me' all have strong emotional undercurrents. With Gladiator however, I will confess, the emotional core is somewhat more simple, yet even more effective in my opinion. The conclusion to Maximus' journey, with that Zimmer score and his dying words, the death of one good man for the sake of Rome, and Maximus passing on into Elysium and the afterlife to be reunited with his wife and son, is really powerful stuff. For the sheer emotional impact the film has on me, I have to give Gladiator the win in this regard, and overall.

Winner: Gladiator



Winner: Gladiator, 7 - 6

And lastly, just for fun:

1960s Gladiator directed by Fred Zinnemann 
Maximus - Robert Shaw
Commodus - John Hurt
Lucilla - Julie Christie
Proximo - Trevor Howard
Juba - Woody Strode
Gracchus - Leo McKern
Marcus Aurelius - Michael Redgrave

1970s Braveheart directed by William Wyler
William Wallace - Terrence Stamp
Princess Isabella - Romy Schneider
King Edward 'Longshanks' - John Gieguld
(need recommendations for the rest)