The Modern Psychology of Emperor Commodus in Scott's

The Modern Psychology of Emperor
Commodus in Scott’s Gladiator
CLAS3410 Classics on Screen
2010-11
A Tyrant Justified?
Julienne Orcullo
Harry Sawers
Commodus the Tragic Hero
In many ways, the portrayal of Emperor Commodus and his demise draws
many parallels with the tragic figure of Aristotelian dramatic theory.
A great man? Commodus’ noble
position within the imperial family
provides him with ample height
from which to fall tragically. John
Solomon (in Winkler 2004: 9)
argues for Commodus’ public
popularity for most of the film,
heightening his tragic station as a
man of good repute. See the
repeated chanting of “Caesar”
during the Colosseum scene (far
right).
The hero also should not be wholly villainous. Cassius
Dio represents historical Commodus thus: “This man
was not naturally wicked, but, on the contrary, as
guileless as an man that ever lived” (Cassius Dio, 73.1).
This is of utmost importance in our analysis of the film’s
Commodus.
Peripeteia? Commodus’ reversal
occurs at the outset of the film
when it is revealed that Maximus is
chosen to succeed Marcus
Aurelius. After a sudden removal of
his noble station, his motivations
are upturned towards a quasirevenge
on Maximus, for taking
away his father’s love.
Is Ridley Scott’s Gladiator an epic tale of
good versus evil?
The sympathy which Emperor Commodus draws in his lonely and isolated psychological
state becomes problematic with regards to the generic expectations of the epic villain.
Remnants of David Franzoni’s first intentions
for the film to be a tragedy remain (Solomon
in Winkler 2004: 11). A modern
understanding of the psychological impact of
the dysfunctional family and early childhood
trauma bring out this tragic figure from his
epic villain guises.
So, the film poses the
question: to what extent does
our understanding of modern
psychology excuse Emperor
Commodus’ actions? And
from this, how much can we
consider him the villain?
Pathos?
However such a conception does not
excuse Commodus. If anything this
conception of Commodus emphasises, with
respect to the character’s tragic faults, the
very aspects of Commodus’ character
reprehensible to the film’s largely rightwing,
middle American audience.
By conceiving Commodus as a tragic figure, we are expected to feel pity and
compassion for him and the film provides some notion of this by presenting
a modern insight into his psychological state throughout the film.
Ancient sources are on the whole resolutely
condemnatory towards Commodus. Even
Cassius Dio’s “justification” is followed by a
portrait of Commodus’ transgressive character
(73). For Herodian he is corrupt and tyrannical
(1.16-17), for Aurelius Victor, “detestable” (17).
The biographic form and Patricians’ hatred of
imperial despotism lend themselves to such a
portrayal.
Franzoni and Scott cannot rely on clear-cut notions of
good and evil to characterise their villain – because of
the epic film genre and modern audience’s
expectation of “humanity” in all characters (Potter in
Winkler 2004: 107). And so they must develop a
psychological state conducive to villainous doings –
one of a loveless upbringing brought to the fore by
the revelation of his father’s choice of Maximus as
successor.
26/04/2011
1

Pathos and the Modern Audience
Although pathos is a term of ancient drama, it has very significant resonances
with modern conceptions of psychology and modern responses to drama.
With the birth of criminal psychology at the
beginning of the 20 th century, an increasing
fascination with the mind of the criminal
has developed. The influence of 19 th
century modern psychologists such as
Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis and
human motivation remains in critical and
popular thinking.
The preoccupation with the workings of
the criminal mind in the middle
American popular culture – the major
audience for Scott’s Gladiator – can be
seen in the mass obsession with popular
crime, mystery, detective and courtroom
drama on television and in film. A
sample of such dramas are shown (right).
Mise-en-scene in this scene of reversal
(above) puts Commodus and the image of
his father side by side, illustrating
Commodus’ yearning to live up to such an
image. This deep set motivation is
emphasised as a driving force behind
Commodus’ later actions.
Commodus and the Modern Audience
• Despite trying to justify Commodus’ behaviour
from the perspective of a tragic character, we
cannot escape the fact that “contemporary
Hollywood family values interject themselves
into the ancient Roman zeitgeist”(Solomon, 93).
• The modern audience responds to confronting
images of social transgression, so Commodus’
“socially unsanctioned” actions serve only to
demonise him from their perspective (Rose in
Winkler 2004: 167)
• Murder is instantly deemed a taboo in the modern psyche;
that Commodus practices it regularly and without remorse
serves to drive the audience away from empathising with
him.
•Commodus’ act of patricide is abhorrent to the modern
audience for its callousness and the irony in that the
embrace which Commodus so longs for from his father leads
to the act of murder (Cyrino in Winkler 2004: 133)
Hamartia?
A contentious term, is hamartia a tragic “error”, “fault” or “flaw”? In any case, the
audience is moved to be wary of it. By considering this debate with regards to
Commodus, we discover what a modern audience is cautioned against.
Cassius Dio would have identified Commodus’ tragic
flaws as his ignorance and social sycophancy, when he
writes, “His great simplicity, however, together with his
cowardice, made him the slave of his companions, and
it was through them that he ... was led on into lustful
and cruel habits” (73.1). This representation of
ignorance suggests an innocent error as hamartia. This
is not a portrayal taken up by the film as Commodus’
actions are wilful.
Herodian sees this markedly tragic mistake as lifestyle
describing Commodus as, “More nobly born than any
emperor before him... All this talent he debased by
corrupt living...” (1.17). Further to criticising Commodus’
lifestyle, the film presents his wrongdoings as an affront
to modern sensibilities, and so his hamartia is based on
moral and psychological transgression.
Stabbing Maximus before the
final combat (above) indicates a
malicious murderous intent
which is not only unsanctioned
by his protectors, the Praetorian
guard, but also by the audience.
This is most evident when
Quintus refuses to give
Commodus a sword.
A “Twisted and unsuccessful need to form family bonds” (Cyrino)
• Loyalty to one’s family is a key theme in Gladiator, as displayed by Maximus’ devotion to
his wife, child and the household gods. Commodus’ unorthodox relationship with his sister
and nephew draw a sharp contrast with this idealised family.
• Incest remains a major taboo in modern society, but it was also used to besmirch
Commodus in ancient texts, such as the Historia Augusta.
• Commodus’ incestuous craving for his sister (above left) takes two guises; a need for an
heir to his throne and a search for maternal affection (above centre) (Cyrino in Winkler 2005:
134, 142). Both of these desires lead the audience to view Commodus as outside of the norm
and, as such, a deviant – not necessarily the sympathetic tragic hero he could potentially
become.
• Whilst it is possible to view Lucilla’s rejection of her brother as reinforcing the image of
Commodus as a love-starved tragic figure, his sexually aggressive attentions towards her son
(above right) soon “mark him as irredeemable, the kind if character audiences love to hate”
(Rose in Winkler 2004: 167).
26/04/2011
2

Modern Dispositions: Light and Dark
• In Gladiator, Maximus’ portrayal as a simple countryman
“responds to modern societies’ idealization of the countryside
and its supposed virtue and purity, in stark contrast to the
crime-ridden metropolis.” (Cyrino in Winkler 2004: 142). This
opposition is most notably highlighted throughout the film
with the use of light and dark; whilst the modern conception
of good and evil is not as definite as in antiquity, an audience
still responds to these visual cues.
• Commodus, with his close association to Rome, its dark
palaces and streets, is, through modern dispositions,
immediately associated with the “corruption and debauchery”
implied through this imagery. •Scott’s interpretation of Rome is based on the
Fascist architecture of Nazi Germany and
Mussolini’s Italy. (Pomeroy in Winkler 2004: 113-
16) Here Scott tunes into the audience’s collective
psyche, associating his own tyrant with those of
recent history.
• Commodus’ victory parade into Rome, with its
echoes of the Nuremberg rallies, is designed to
leave the audience in no doubt as to what sort of
ruler he will become.
Should a modern audience excuse Emperor Commodus’
actions based on their understanding of modern psychology?
• Commodus’ portrayal in the film suggests the
possibility of conceiving him as a tragic figure.
• Pathos is crucial – our villain’s plight evokes the pity
typical of the central tragic hero.
• This is important to modern dramatic expectations,
with especial interest in the guilty criminal.
• A tragic reading of Commodus’ story thus highlights
tragic flaws which correspond with social
transgressions of modern society.
• Such unacceptable actions as patricide, incest and
suggestions of paedophilia sever any emotional ties
between the audience and Commodus.
• The film appeals to a developed modern understanding
of dramatic binaries of light and dark, beauty and
ugliness to dissuade an audience from their sympathy.
• And so, whilst modern psychology adds dramatic
interest to the film, it does not justify Commodus’
actions at all.
An Ugly Character?
• It could be seen that Joaquin Phoenix’s
appearance lends an aspect of menace to the
character, with his hair lip and dark, brooding
features.
• However, Herodian notes that Commodus had
“more handsome looks and a better physique
than any other man in his day” (1.17). Thus it is
possible to surmise that the demeanour of
Commodus has been changed from that in the
historical record in order to fit better with the
dramatic agenda of the film.
• The traits we have explored so far and the
depiction of Commodus’ surroundings all go
some way to lessen his credibility as a tragic hero
worthy of our empathy.
•Furthermore, by displaying such traits as
treachery, towards Maximus in framing him for
Marcus Aurelius’ death and in his literal back
stabbing (left), and cowardice, during the final
duel, the result of which is the dereliction of
duty by the Praetorian Guard, Commodus is
further painted in a very dark light.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
-Aristotle Poetics, tr. M. Heath (Harmondsworth 1996)
-Cassius Dio Roman History, tr. E. Cary (London 1969) as printed in Winkler, M.M. (ed.),
Gladiator: Film and History (Oxford 2004), 175-87
-Historia Augusta Commodus, tr. A. Birley (Harmondsworth 1976) as printed in Winkler, M.M. (ed.),
Gladiator: Film and History (Oxford 2004), 188-98
-Herodian History of the Empire from the Time of Marcus Aurelius, tr. C.R. Whittaker (London 1969)
as printed in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator: Film and History (Oxford 2004), 199-202
-Aurelius Victor On the Caesars, tr. H.W. Bird (Liverpool 1994) as printed in Winkler, M.M. (ed.),
Gladiator: Film and History (Oxford 2004), 203-4
Secondary texts:
-Cyrino, M.S. ‘Gladiator and Contemporary American Society’, in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator:
Film and History (Oxford 2004), 124-49
-Eckstein, A.M. ‘Commodus and the Limits of the Roman Empire’, in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator:
Film and History (Oxford 2004), 53-72
-Elley, D. The Epic Film: Myth and History (London 1984)
-Pomeroy, A.J. ‘The Vision of Fascist Rome in Gladiator’, in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator: Film and
History (Oxford 2004), 111-23
-Potter, D.S. ‘Gladiators and Blood Sport’, in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator: Film and History
(Oxford 2004), 73-86
-Rose, P.W. ‘The Politics of Gladiator’, in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator: Film and History (Oxford
2004), 150-72
-Solomon, J. The Ancient World in Cinema (London 2001)
-Solomon, J. Gladiator from Screenplay to Screen’, in Winkler, M.M. (ed.), Gladiator: Film and
History (Oxford 2004), 175-87
26/04/2011
3