6. It Is (Mostly) Historically Accurate
I will preface this entry by emphasizing that yes, it is difficult to call a film historically accurate when its main protagonist is a completely fictional character. True, there was no one Roman general named Maximus who was stripped of his rank and forced to become a gladiator only to work his way back into the heart of Rome and eventually seek vengeance against the now-emperor who betrayed him. However, Maximus is an amalgamation of several historical characters, including Narcissus (the gladiator who actually did end up murdering emperor Commodus) and Spartacus, who raised a slave revolt and also fought as a gladiator. That said, Scott and company set out with a clear mission to create the most historically accurate depiction of this period in history, certainly with more accuracy and attention to detail than any other previous films that took place in this period. Indeed, the political climate of the time - senators secretly calling for the reinstatement of the Republic against severe opposition from the emperors and their supporters - as well as little details such as the presence of female gladiators (a controversial choice in the film that does in fact have historical backing) help lend authenticity to the film's setting. Sure, much artistic license was taken to make scenes, settings and events appear more dramatic than they actually were, but this is inevitable when translating history (which tends to be rather dull and underwhelming) into a dramatic medium. All these details and more all contribute greatly to this next entry...