Gladiators (DVD)
APPROX. 91 MINS. - PROD. YEAR: 1969 - MPA RATING: NR
" [Peter] Watkins lets it all hang out.
Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.
Peter Watkins´ films have remained largely unavailable for years, an injustice that New Yorker Video (along with Project X) has begun to address with the recent releases of "Punishment Park" (1971), "Edvard Munch" (1974) and now "The Gladiators" (1969).
In "The Gladiators," a team of allied soldiers squares off against a team of soldiers from the Chinese People´s Army in the latest installment of the International Peace Games. The competition between ideologically opposed nations is conducted in the name of peace, but its primary function appears to be to rack up massive ratings: the broadcast of the so-called "Peace" Games is the most popular program in England and in other countries.
The Games are supervised by the Swedish Army, though all we ever see of the Swedes is two bored computer operators who monitor a nearly all-powerful machine called ICARUS (the Ideological Correction and Rapid Unification System). ICARUS really runs the Games; in fact, the film begins with an insistent beeping noise that "represents the pressure applied by [ICARUS] to ensure that we all play the Game as hard as we can." ICARUS has a button for everything: SLOW MOTION MURDER; TRIAL OF STRENGTH; COLLABORATION WITH ENEMY. You name it, ICARUS has a circuit designed to compensate for it and keep the Game running smoothly. The rules of the Game are simple: whichever team gets to the Control Room first wins, and each team tries to stop the other by any means necessary.
This speculative fiction premise will sound familiar to anyone who has seen Watkins´ "Punishment Park," and like in that later film, Watkins employs a pseudo-documentary style (newsreel footage, interviews, etc.) and mixes professional and amateur actors in his cast. However, "The Gladiators" differs from "Punishment Park" in several ways. Chief among these is the frequent dose of over-the-top satire Watkins injects into the story, usually stemming from the fat-cat generals who observe the games with a combination of boredom and self-satisfaction. Though their soldiers are fighting to the death, Chinese and British generals (and American and Nigerian, etc.) seem to get along just fine from the safety of their cushy lounge. They share casual witticisms with each other and barely take notice as their soldiers get killed off in the Games. If a few men get killed along the way, well that´s what soldiers are for (and all the better for the ratings!) The resemblance to "Dr. Strangelove" is unmistakable even if it is a superficial one.
The generals´ boredom erupts into panic, however, when two soldiers from the opposing teams commit the most grievous possible violation of Peace Game etiquette: they stop hating each other. Mutual distrust is the grease which keeps the gears of the machine turning, but when soldier B-6 (Jim Kennedy) from the allied team and soldier C-2 (Pik-Sen Lim) from the Chinese team forge a genuine human connection, it causes ICARUS to "blow a valve" and threatens to destroy the Peace Games altogether.
Peter Watkins is an intense, politically motivated filmmaker whose straightforward approach can seem unsubtle or even hopelessly naïve. This impression is reinforced by Watkins´ combative personality; he claims loudly and insistently that his films have been intentionally marginalized by a craven, self-serving media that is uncomfortable both with his criticism and his political focus. Some viewers might find this frankness off-putting, but now that I´ve seen several of Watkins´ movies, I find his "straight from the heart/a sharp stick in the eye" approach a refreshing counterpoint to innumerable contemporary films that positively drown in their own irony. Watkins doesn´t hedge his bets by placing tongue firmly in cheek; he has strong opinions, expresses them forthrightly and doesn´t shield himself with smug cleverness or fey preciousness. Watkins lets it all hang out. He runs the risk of occasionally sounding preachy or didactic, but the good more than outweighs the bad in his full frontal assault.
