I think this movie doesn't talk about democracy, it just shows the bravery of men by telling about an ordinary political struggle. And I don’t understand the difference between the male protagonist and the emperor’s thinking.
What Maximus said to the gladiators in the arena-courage and honor, was said on the battlefield where the Germans were massacred. The purpose of the war was to give the Roman people a sense of victory and "hope and future." The slogan used in the Gladiator Uprising shows that the film itself did not reflect on the policy of war, racism, and "hope and future" to deceive the people.
The people in the Senate confessed that the common people are interested in the arena, not those of us who are vegetarians, so the restoration of the Senate actually makes no sense for reform. The reason why Maximus gained the audience’s voice was because he was a gladiator. His killing could bring entertainment to the audience, not because he was noble. The sensory pleasure was the only thing that excited them. The arena itself was the Roman Empire. One of the means of ruling people's hearts-to give the Roman people "hope and future".
What the movie shows us are the fools who are intoxicated by it. They don't even have equal respect for life. Therefore, the ideological foundation of the Roman Empire is still the barbaric ideology of the weak and the strong, not democracy. But the movie has to be based on democracy. When the emperor came to the throne, some people said, "We do not support you as the emperor." This gave us the illusion that the people have the right to vote, and even used the arena as a podium like a parliament.
I don't even think that the emperor is a villain. He is really much more useful than those veterans who just talk and do nothing. If he continues to live, maybe his toughness can take the Roman Empire in a new direction.
I don’t understand why this superficial film gets such a high score.
View more about Gladiator reviews
