Well, this is certainly one way to explain why Gladiator II didn’t become the massive box office event Paramount was probably hoping for.
According to a report from Puck’s Matthew Belloni, some sources claim Ridley Scott blamed Paul Mescal for the sequel’s performance, reportedly believing his leading man wasn’t “masculine” enough to carry the role of Lucius Verus Aurelius.
Of course, Scott apparently isn’t looking too hard at his own contribution to the problem. Maybe Gladiator II didn’t perform as well as hoped because Scott made a mediocre sequel that never came close to capturing what made the original so damn good.
Scott’s representative, it should be noted, has denied Belloni’s report. Gladiator II had plenty working against it. Historians criticized its blatant historical inaccuracies before the movie even arrived in theaters, cinematographer John Mathieson publicly complained about Scott’s approach to filming it, and original Gladiator star Russell Crowe had some of his own critisisms.
Critics were generally more forgiving, and Christopher Nolan was even among the film’s supporters. Financially, though, the movie was an incredibly expensive undertaking that ultimately earned only somewhat more worldwide than the original did 24 years earlier.
Scott had originally planned to reunite with Mescal on The Dog Stars, an adaptation of the post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel. Mescal eventually left the project, reportedly because of scheduling conflicts involving Sam Mendes and his four-part Beatles film project, in which Mescal is playing Paul McCartney.
Belloni’s sources tell a messier story. Some claim Scott blamed Mescal for Gladiator II failing to connect more strongly with audiences and believed the actor wasn’t “masculine” enough as Lucius.
Other sources claim Mendes pressured Mescal to abandon The Dog Stars after Scott accidentally revealed the actor’s Beatles casting before the official announcement.
Scott’s representative told Entertainment Weekly that Belloni’s report is “not true,” The representative said Scott was “excited” to reunite with Mescal on The Dog Stars, adding: “Sadly, Paul’s rehearsal schedule for another film prevented him from ultimately doing Ridley’s film.”
So, there are conflicting accounts of what actually happened. But if Scott really does blame Mescal for Gladiator II coming up short, maybe it’s time for the legendary filmmaker to take a harder look at his own recent work.
Scott is one of the great directors. There’s no argument there. Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, and Gladiator alone give the guy a ridiculous filmmaking legacy. But being responsible for some of the greatest movies ever made doesn’t mean everything you direct afterward gets a free pass.
Scott’s directorial work has been slipping in recent years. He can still create incredible imagery and large-scale spectacle, but some of his recent movies haven’t had the storytelling discipline, emotional weight, or memorable character work of his best films.
At times, it feels like he’s charging through productions rather than giving the material the attention it deserves. Gladiator II is a good example.
The movie essentially sends Lucius through a variation of Maximus’ journey. He loses his family, becomes a gladiator against his will, and seeks revenge against the people responsible. Mescal handles what he’s given, but Lucius simply isn’t written or directed with the same commanding presence that made Maximus such an iconic character.
Scott can still stage the hell out of a battle sequence, but the emotional material in Gladiator II never hits with the sincerity or power of the original. The movie has all the expensive ingredients of Gladiator, but it often feels like an imitation of something Scott himself once did much better.
Then there’s Denzel Washington as Macrinus, who practically walks away with the entire movie. Macrinus, a former slave and fighter who uses Lucius as a pawn in his pursuit of power, is clearly where much of the film’s energy resides.
Washington is fantastic, but when the supporting character is consistently more compelling than your protagonist, maybe the problem isn’t that your lead actor lacks masculinity. Maybe the director and screenplay simply failed to make the protagonist interesting enough.
Scott deserves enormous respect for the films he’s made, but he is nowhere near as good as a filmmaker as he used to be. His name alone doesn’t guarantee greatness anymore, and Gladiator II wasn’t some masterpiece dragged down by Paul Mescal. It was an uneven sequel from a director whose recent output has become increasingly inconsistent.
If the reported comments are accurate, Scott should own his share of that instead of placing the blame elsewhere.
Mescal ultimately missed out on The Dog Stars, which went on to flop at the box office, so things didn’t exactly turn out badly for him.
Scott has already moved on as well. He’s been talking about potentially returning to the Alien franchise and bringing Michael Fassbender back as David, the wonderfully creepy android from Prometheus and Alien: Covenant.
If Scott really believes Paul Mescal was the reason Gladiator II didn’t become a bigger hit, somebody might want to hand him a mirror. The actor certainly wasn’t the only problem with that movie.
