This would seem like an easy exercise, but I'm having some troubles... The best I've come up with: Maximus = protagonist Commodus = nemesis Marcus = mentor Proximo = mentor Maximus's wife = attractor Maximus's son = attractor Lucilla = trickster City of Rome = trickster But, of course, Lucilla could be an attractor and Rome the only trickster.

I agree, @Zachary, with your assessment. And I would add Juba as an attractor and Quintus as a Trickster. I was intrigued after watching the first act of the movie last night, at two major lines of dialogue which were spoken by different characters in the movie versus the 2nd draft script. In the draft, Maximus said, "People should know when they're conquered," but in the movie, Quintus said it. Also, in the script, Marcus said, "It's a pleasant fiction, isn't it?" while walking with Lucilla, but in the movie, it became Lucilla's line. I've been trying to contemplate how changing these lines works to reveal the inner lives of the characters. Don't have the answers yet, but I was intrigued by the changes. Gladiator is filled with great characters - Maximus and Commodus being the most compelling, by far. But reading the script, I found myself drawn to the character of Proximo, also, and I can't remember if he's as well developed on the screen as he was in the draft. He's not as major as Maximus, but there was still a lot of weight put on his development and backstory in the draft. I suppose that's how good screenplays are supposed to work.

I agree with the comments made so far. I like the way each character was described in the script – succinct, but to the point, and each raising interesting visual imagery. Made me think of how I describe characters in my own scripts. I like to think I do a serviceable job, but I know they can be improved as I often describe too much. I can’t remember which screenwriter wrote it, but I recall reading somewhere once that a character was described in three words: bitch, ringmaster, goddess. Now that’s susinct! I once also read that each character in a script should be completely different to each other to avoid duplication of function. I believe this draft of Gladiator achieves this well. @Chris Oakes. I imagine the changed the line to Qunitus as it is would have made Maximus a bit more unlikable if he’d said it (although he does say, “At my signal, unleash hell,” which is a line not in the second draft).

Disagree. Maximus is attracted to the dovetailing goals of A) Avenge his family by killing Commodus, and B) Give Rome freedom, by leading a revolution and killing Commodus. Thus, the attractors are not present for most of our running time: Marcus Aurelius and Maximus's family. He does, however, undergo an emotional arc as he deals with their deaths, and comes through the other side with a different point of view on killing, and duty. To me, Lucilla is a mentor, because she ultimately gives Maximus the knowledge/wisdom he needs to execute the rebellion and kill her brother. He has little to no emotional stake in their relationship, compared to his ties to his family and her father. Proximo is a trickster -- he seem villainous when he buys Maximus as a slave, and forces him to fight to the death, but he reveals other sides of himself as the story goes on.

Is it essential that the Attractor be physically present throughout most of the script? Maximus' family is hardly shown at all but they are the most important influence on every decision he makes from the moment they are killed. We could say that Maximus' ancestors are the major motive behind everything he does. He wants to die, then live, then fight, then win, all because of them. Marcus has a similar influence in spite of his dying early on in the script. I would add Juba as an Attractor. He brings Maximus back to life literally and figuratively. He reminds him that he ought to be respectful of his ancestors by choosing to live, something Maximus takes to heart. Juba's imminent death is also the impetus for Maximus to fight for the first time as a Gladiator. Those are crucial moments in the script, and Juba is at the heart of them.they are all because of Juba.

Is there any way to edit a posted comment? I have to delete the last 6 words of my previous comment.

What I jotted down after reading the script was this character lineup: P - Maximus N - Commodus A - Maximus' family, Marcus / Rome M - Lucilla, Juba T - Proximo, Quintus If you subscribe to the idea that the Nemesis often is a reflection of the Protagonist's shadow, I think that take stands with "Gladiator." Commodus is singleminded in his obsession to become Emperor, to attain that ultimate power. Maximus is singleminded in his obsession to kill Commodus, to attain that ultimate revenge. Yes, at the beginning of the movie, he is a stout, well-balanced individual, but the energizing dynamic to kill all the people he does in order to intersect one last time with Commodus suggests he does have an aspect to his psyche drawn toward power, even if his is distinct from Commodus in being a 'righteous' cause. Re Attractor: This folds into Kevin's analysis of the "dovetailing goals": The death of his family resulting in his warrior mode to gain revenge for their deaths; the death of Marcus resulting in his solider mode to try to restore Rome to its ideal state. On a more existential level, he is a Father and a Husband to his family, and we hear him say how much it means to him to return home after two years away at war. He is drawn to them -- naturally -- by his love and affection for them. With Marcus, he confesses -- the last words he ever says to the Emperor -- "You have always been my father." So here, Maximus is Son. And while a Father-Son relationship can be many things, here the degree of emotion between the two men in their final scene together, plus the passion they both feel for Rome suggests to me their relationship is at its core a Protagonist-Attractor one. Re Mentor: Clearly from Lucilla's POV as Protag, she sees Maximus as her Attractor. But at every possible overture in the script, he turns away from her. His interest in what she has to say only becomes focused when she is talking about the plan to get rid of Commodus and return Rome to its ideal state. The fact, as Kevin points out, she provides the actual intelligence and contacts to foment the plan, reinforces the Mentor dynamic in my book. Re Trickster: I see two. Like Kevin, Proximo is both enemy -- he buys Maximus, forces him to be a gladiator -- and ally eventually even fighting on M's side. And if a Trickster is supposed to test the Protagonist, the simple fact it is Proximo who makes Maximus become a gladiator -- test after test after test -- smells like a Trickster to me. Quintus is a minor but important Trickster: A solider (ally) who bring Maximus under arrest (enemy) then sends Maximus off with the assassins, setting up a big test. Those are some quick assessments. I'll be back later tonight to respond to other comments.

@Lise: No, I'm afraid you can't edit. I always look at comments as first drafts anyhow. Who has time to edit these things? I know I don't. So just blurt the words out. Just as long as we can figure out what you mean it's okay to make msitakes... mssstakes... missteaks... You know what I mean.

I see Proximo as Trickster now, but I can't see Lucilla as Mentor. Besides giving him the knowledge that his soldiers will back him, what else does she provide that lasts? She is killed, as are the conspiring senators. I just don't buy her as a true mentor.

Proximo is a little tricky, er, excuse the pun...but I can see the parts of the Mentor aspect in him as well. Lucilla also straddles the two, imo. Overall though, is it good to have the lines blurred when it comes to characters falling in these categories? Or would the story be stronger if the lines were more clearly demarcated...say in Star Wars?

Just getting to the internet now, so late to the party, but love all these great, thought-provoking takes. Yahoo. I definitely saw Lucilla as a mentor of sorts. And though earlier I had her pegged as serving a heart function (in the film Maximus does give her a full blooded kiss and there's an indication that they have a romantic past) ultimately that does seem a very small part of her role and that she's an attractor only to the extent that she represents a less corrupt Rome for Maximus.... And I love @Scott that you included Rome as a character. For me (and I'm not sure that how this works with archetypes) Rome seems both a central character and a divided one. In other words, it seems that Rome as the "ideal city" is an attractor for Maximus. But as the "actual city," it's almost the dark side of the heavenly ideal that Maximus seems so attached to. Maximus is loyal to Marcus and to the "ideal" Republic. But how much loyalty he feels to the actual city of Rome with its inevitable power struggles seems from the beginning left a bit ambiguous. He wants to save the Republic, but he also makes the point several times that he is a "soldier/guardian" not a politician. His role is to get Commodus out of the way but after that it's really up to Gracchus and Lucilla to restore the Republic. Again, I'm drawing on the filmed version rather than the script here, but there's an almost perfect irony in the fact that Maximus dies securing the Republic for others. In one sense, it's the naturally tragic ending. But in another sense, one could say that Maximus's actions after the death of his family are motivated by the "ideal" city, and that he's already come to terms with the fact that for him, heaven, not Rome, is the only possible incarnation of that "ideal city." Which is why I saw Rome as having both light (Attractor) aspects and dark (Trickster) aspects for him. (I feel like I've gone in a bit of a circle here, but hopefully it makes sense!)

Good discussion here over the past few days..it's certainly gotten me thinking in directions I had not considered before. I like the fact that Maximus and Commodus have mirror motivations. Their external motivations are driven by love M-love of self in that he fights for revenge, he lives to kill (even if he spares a life, it’s a means to an end which is the death of C) And C proclaims that his actions are made for love of the people, he’s Rome’s Daddy. However, their internal motivations, while still based in love, they’re flipped. M is driven by his love of others(wife/child) and C is driving purely by his love of self. I think this fact fulfills the Protag/Nemisisisis dynamic perfectly in that they cannot exist without each other, their motivations are tied in a zero-sum outcome. I also think that’s what makes it a “hollywood” film...there’s no grey area. It's been noted by some that the film ending is better than the script as it fulfills Max's desire for revenge and to rejoin his family. And I agreed with that until I questioned whether revenge was really his primary motivation. I think it’s possible that the underlying motivation for both M & C is redemption. Max wants/need redemption because it was his fault his family died. C wants redemption because his daddy didn’t love him enough. There’s a subtextual pain that drives both of them. The only way Max can be redeemed is if he saves another, raises another child. In the structure of this film, C really can’t be redeemed...I don’t think. I think he tries, but his only redemption could come from love of another, and there really isn’t another father figure for him in this story. So while I think it’s possible that the script ending makes sense structurally and thematically, based on what’s presented in the script (re:character dev) I’m not sure that makes the script ending better. I don’t know, I could be reading too much into the script that isn’t there. And actually, if I follow the redemption line, the father/son conflict rises up. I think I’m jumping the gun on the theme discussion. Although, as I was about to post, I read RAF’s great comments about Rome which I hadn’t considered in the context of what I’ve been writing. It fits the father/son conflict if we consider that Rome is the father and the son of our characters, especially the duality or paradox of the ideal and the real both existing within the same character. Well now I’m just going to have to think about that, but that also seems to make Rome a trickster of sorts....I think...but not in a terribly obvious way. I might take that back in the next hour.

RAF? facepalm...how about DAF. *sheepish grin*

Just wanted to post to let you know that I'm following this analysis, even though I haven't had time to post. Great idea Scott. Great comments everyone.

I am slammed for time, but I've just skimmed through the comments from the last few hours. A couple of things: * As I noted earlier about stories being organic and things like plot points or act breaks are, finally, artificial abstracts, helpful as tools to develop and analyze stories, but not determinative as to truth or essence of a story as a living, breathing entity. Same with archetypes and characters: Characters are also organic. So we may use archetypes to develop them and analyze them, but I don't think there's such a thing as 'right' or 'wrong' when we apply them. There's also this: Just as you or I display a different side of who we are in different social settings, so, too, do our characters have the same right and ability. I refer to this as 'masks,' that is a Protagonist [or any other character] may adopt the mask of Nemesis, or Attractor, or Mentor, or Trickster, from this scene to that, this interrelationship to that. I would argue that their primary archetype does not change -- if they are the Protagonist, they are always the Protagonist in macro terms, but they can wear masks from scene to scene to augment the pursuit of their goal. * DAF and Mike have opened the door nicely for a discussion about themes. So much so, I think we should jump to that part of the discussion tomorrow, and end this week's analysis on Friday with dialogue. Thanks all for some terrific analysis and insight. I guess the next step is for me to crate a new list link: GITS Script Reading & Analysis, where I can house all of these posts and commentaries as we go through our weekly sessions. Imagine us having done 52 of these in a year, having all of that archived!

Hi guys. Great analysis! I love how each one sees the same story through different goggles; that shows that this script isn't just a tale of someone did something. period. No, it's a great story with tucked themes, plots, viewpoints... that allows its reader, eventually audience, to interpret it as they come to see these elements. This is the reason I love movies. They aren't those sheepish never-ending soap operas that one follows simply to know how things will happen since most of the plot is predictable. On the other hand, memorable movies kidnap you, and you go into the story, become a part of it, and go through a roller-coaster of emotions that make the experience worthwhile. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I was trying to dissect the script in the past few days while following ya'll discuss the different elements forming this story. I'll share my analysis with you soon. Hope I'm doing a good job. I'm learning a lot already from your comments. So, thanks everyone and thanks Scott for this opportunity.

@Anna: "Movies kidnap you." That's right, isn't it? A great movie kidnaps you from this world and takes you its own world. That's a great description and one I will use from now on with my students if you don't mind. Thanks!

@Scott: Yes, they do. And then you wake up and it's over, they've set you free. But you don't want to be free, you just want to stay inside the story. As for using the description of Movies kidnap you, here in Lebanon we say "Moukadam" means "offered as gift"; so, use it as you please! BTW, I would like your opinion on my post (analysis) on the first day of analysis of Gladiator if you have the time of course. I would appreciate it.

The strenght of the opening in this draft is that it immediately points towards the feud between our two nemeses, Maximus the valiant and Commodus the proud. Certainly, Marcus plays the role of the attractor to Maximus early on, even going as far as to trying to promote him to Emperor (and to contribute to his personal growth). I also feel that Commodus is the reason we are so kidnapped by this script. We want to punish him, or see him punished, but we fear this type of man is the type that wins at any cost. What can honor do against greed?

Alles zu Goethes Iphigenie auf Tauris wie Analyse,Inhaltsangabe und vieles mehr.... [...]GITS Script Reading & Analysis: “Gladiator” — Characters « Go Into The Story[...]...