Cinema is art. Movies are a business venture. Ridley Scott is one of the few directors who can straddle this line successfully. He brings us big-money blockbusters that are still genuinely artistic.
There’s no question that he’s a commercial director in every sense of the word. But his brand of cinematic spectacle proves that generating cash does not require you to make compromises in other areas.
The record-breaking opening of Gladiator II shows that he’s still got it. It’s also a lesson in what it takes to get audiences interested in tent-pole releases right now. That matters when the movie industry faces significant uncertainty about its future. And for cinephiles, this is a real positive. Hold tight, and I’ll explain why and what else we can take from Scott’s decades in the director’s chair.
Hollywood’s Wake-up Call
2024 has been a bad year for the movie business. The list of significant flops is growing by the week, and even individual studios keep missing. From videogame tie-ins like Borderlands to auteur-ish epics like Megalopolis, films with over $100 million production costs have faltered. That’s a problem before marketing spending.
Things aren’t any better in the streaming space, where it’s much harder to tell when big-budget productions fall short. Apple splashed $200 million on the rights to Matthew Vaughn’s Argylle, a film that made $96 million in ticket sales. Presumably, it was no longer a draw for audiences at home. This isn’t even the smartphone maker’s only dud of the year. Did you or anyone you know even hear about the release of Fly Me to the Moon?
Silver Linings
At this stage, Gladiator II could be the only high-profile release of 2024 to buck this trend. Its initial success in the international market, ahead of its North American release, is a positive sign. Its main competitor is Wicked, which has suffered from an over-saturation of marketing. Conversely, it seems there’s a real appetite for this sword-and-sandals saga.
So what’s the secret? Well, how about the leading role played by Paul Mescal? He’s one of the world’s most talked-about rising stars and a man still in his 20s. Compare that with The Fall Guy, another 2024 box office bomb that starred Ryan Gosling (44) and Emily Blunt (41). Mescal is much likelier to get younger audiences interested. Gladiator II is equally well cast for older viewers, whether you’re a Denzel Washington devotee or a committed Connie Nielsen fan.
Back to Basics
Gladiator II also has simplicity on its side. From the title alone, you know what the movie is about. A bare-armed guy in a leather skirt slicing and dicing his way through an arena of death is what you expect and get. It’s the same tactic that Scott used for Alien. On the other hand, what does Red One say to the average viewer? Not much, it seems, given that this is another of 2024’s star-studded flops.
Not every blockbuster has to be straightforwardly titled, have an elevator pitch-friendly plot, and combine young stars with veterans. But based on recent evidence, it wouldn’t hurt either. Not everyone can spend millions to bring knotty narratives to life like Christopher Nolan and still make a profit.
Scott’s Polished Products
From a filmmaking perspective, Scott’s background in advertising is present and correct. Even his grittier, more realistic releases showcase this.
The original Gladiator opens with a shot of Maximus Decimus Meridius running his hand over a wheat field. Were it not for the ominous soundtrack, this is a shot straight from an ad for life insurance. When the film cuts from this to show Maximus on a bleak battlefield, every frame has a commercially savvy precision. Perhaps that’s why this movie has inspired so many ad campaigns in the past 25 years.
This clinical approach comes across just as much in Alien. The ship interiors of Star Wars have a junky, cobbled-together look. Here, we get impeccably maintained corridors and brightly lit living spaces that are ordered rather than anarchic. This makes it all the more disturbing when things take a turn for the worse.
Consistently Clinical
Jumping forward to 2007’s American Gangster. Here, there’s a clear distinction between how Scott presents underworld life in New York City during the 1960s and 70s and how similar period movies by Martin Scorsese portray it. The Harlem of Scott’s film is more aesthetically appealing and polished than the rough-and-ready Brooklyn of Goodfellas. Scott even manages to make the opium fields of Vietnam look like a tourist ad. And that’s an artistic choice in its own right rather than a failing.
This level of meticulousness is Scott’s calling card, and it has a specific impact on audiences. Sit in a movie theater with Blade Runner, Alien, or Gladiator II towering over you for two hours. The effort that went into the production is always apparent. And even if it’s subliminal, you know you’re getting your money’s worth.
It’s a strategy that others have used just as successfully. There’s a reason that we’re still getting regular entries in the Fast & Furious and Mission: Impossible franchises, after all. Critical acclaim might not always follow, but that’s not the primary aim. Art is subjective; box office receipts are not.
The Glaring Exceptions
Let’s address the elephant in the room. Ridley Scott has directed a few flops. Some of these have failed despite having all the ingredients for success.
The most recent is Napoleon, which cost up to $200 million and only managed to claw back $221 million. Again, a cash injection from Apple for the streaming rights is perhaps at fault here. Audiences knew they could see it at home as part of their existing subscription. Why would they fork out for a movie ticket?
But the problem may be more profound. Napoleon is a complex and controversial historical character rather than an unambiguously heroic fictional one. While Gladiator was launched in the optimistic afterglow of the Millennium, Napoleon arrived at a time of post-pandemic uncertainty. People wanted simple hope, and they got political messiness and military massacres.
More Misfires
Exodus: Gods and Kings suffered a fate similar to Napoleon, as did Robin Hood before it. No critic could fault Scott for the technical prowess of either film. Still, issues with historical inaccuracies and casting choices meant that, once again, audiences weren’t as able to connect with either. Regarding box office performance, some saw the problem as over-stuffed budgets rather than a downturn in audience interest. Plenty of people still went to the cinema. Just not enough to justify the amount spent on getting either movie in front of them. Steps to lower blockbuster budgets would have been helpful here!
Of course, the movies Ridley Scott has made in his career are not just about the payday. From his first film, The Duellists, he aims to tell stories that spark imagination rather than fulfill a commercial need. He fought to bring his original vision for Blade Runner back to life after the derided original cinematic release. He didn’t have complete creative control until 2007, which shows how much he cares about his creations. In this sense, he’s an artist who also happens to be a commercial success.
The Future
Now that Ridley Scott has secured box office success with Gladiator II, his next step may be his most important. At 86 years old, he is dealing with a fast-vanishing span of time in which to work. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons that we’ve seen four films from him in the last three years. He’s pushing through massive projects because he knows he’s on the clock.
What’s less certain is how the movie industry will adjust if Scott’s latest epic is the year’s only serious smash hit. The Marvel-backed juggernauts of the 2010s are long gone. Audiences are being pulled in several directions by video games and social media. So, executives need to learn the right lessons from Gladiator II. And that isn’t to say that we need more movies set in the ancient world or any historical period.
In short, we need to support more directors who take a precise yet artistic approach to making movies, are passionate about telling simple yet richly characterized stories, and can create films that are true events, not just slop for the streaming carousel. It’s a big ask, but we can’t rely on Ridley Scott forever.
