Interview: ‘Gladiator II’ Cinematographer John Mathieson on Reuniting with Ridley Scott and Continuing the Legacy and Lore

Few figures in Ridley Scott’s orbit have developed as effective a shorthand with the monumentally influential director than Oscar-winning cinematographer John Mathieson. First teaming up with Scott to lens the ultimate swords-and-sandals epic with 2000’s Gladiator, Mathieson has gone on to work on six of Scott’s movies, most recently coming full circle by lensing Gladiator II.

Set 16 years after the first Gladiator, Gladiator II centers around Paul Mescal’s Lucius Verus, the son of Russell Crowe’s Maximus, who is thrust upon a similar journey to his father after his wife is murdered and he is forced to participate in the gladiatorial games in his quest for revenge. The seamless continuity of visual language between both films, despite a quarter-century between productions, came naturally to Mathieson given the recurrent setting. “It’s not that much time, really, 16 years,” said Mathieson. “In terms of Rome and the time it existed for, that’s nothing. Things are gonna be where they were.”

“We didn’t do much different with the cameras or the language of the story,” Mathieson elaborated further, “but parts of the filmmaking process have gotten faster and easier. We shot on digital in about half the time it took to shoot Gladiator.” Just like the first Gladiator, Scott’s vision results in a fully immersive Rome as the setting for Gladiator II, even if “it’s not a perfect classical image. It’s a Victorian fantasy of Rome from when she and Byron went there and took painters with them. But from that, Ridley creates the feeling of Rome. Everything seems to belong where it is. He creates worlds very well.”

Mathieson also served as cinematographer for the recently wrapped Jurassic World Rebirth, directed by Gareth Edwards. In my chat with Mathieson, he talks about shooting the latest installment in the Jurassic Park saga on film – the first since 1997’s The Lost World – as well as both the differences and similarities in how Scott and Edwards respectively approach location shooting and the camera itself.

Griffin Schiller: Congratulations on the film. It truly was an incredible spectacle to watch on the big screen. I’m sure you’ve been asked a lot, but it’s been about 25 years since the release of that original film. And I think one of the most impressive feats about the sequel is a seamlessness to all facets of production, but especially the cinematography. Could talk a bit about how you maintained the visual continuity but wanted to open up the world of Gladiator in a way we hadn’t seen before.

John Mathieson: No. As you say, it’s a continuation of the time. It’s not that much time, really. Things have got to be where they were. Different parts of the filmmaking process have gotten faster, easier. We shot it on digital with many more cameras in about half the time of the original. But I think it was important to retain continuity.

We didn’t do too much differently with the cameras or the language of the story. Not that it’s a direct next episode, as it were. As you say, it’s 25 years. But I would say 16 in the story, I think. In terms of Rome and the time Rome lasted, that’s nothing. The Colosseum was over 300 years old. Rome lasted 1,000 years. So, going back in, there were more visual effects and more coordination between the art department, visual effects, and myself.

The first film was only 50 shots budgeted. So it was a much smaller film on that side. It was bigger in terms of extras because we needed to fill the Colosseum. And we had cardboard cutouts, but we had a lot of real people there. We had days of, I think, 5,000 people. Adam Somner, the AD, told me that. It could have been… But I do remember 3,200, and I remember 1,250 was a small day. So we never had that number, and not nearly that number with us on Gladiator II. They’ve got to be dressed, they’ve got to be this, they’ve got to be that. And I think probably the wages have gone up as well.

I don’t know what the equation is, but you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul because you’ve also got to do it in visual effects. You’ve got to put the people in, blah, blah, blah. But again, that’s cheaper than it was on the first film, but there’s such a volume of people. So, that side was different, and it had to be different. So obviously, far more visual effects and then less… Still, you’re very much part of it, but I’m not taking on the shoulders those big, big scenes where you have to get so many people ready, and be really right with the cameras, and really on it.

Not that we have to be now, but it’s more you don’t have to get so many extras ready, and it still takes time to set up. So that was different, but it wasn’t a huge shift in things. Also, we’ve all been making films in between, so it’s not as though we hadn’t done anything for 25 years.

So everyone’s been working with different cameras, different things, different visual effects have come on. Ridley was very distrustful of visual effects the first time. He wasn’t that familiar with it. And thank God he wasn’t, because that film would have sunk. One of the reasons Gladiator has lasted so long is that there weren’t too many visual effects. It was real. And that hasn’t aged it. Whereas a lot of films from that time, you watch them and go, “Oh, it’s still a great film, but oh, that doesn’t look as good.”

And I don’t know. Maybe in many years’ time, people will say, “Oh, the visual effects from Gladiator II look a bit tired.” I think the more you can do for real, the longer the film will last. Gladiator has become a mythical film. It’s an epic. It’s one of the favored, cherished Hollywood things. I hope this is too, but I think that was a very important thing that Arthur [Max] built big and really wanted it big. And they were building that Colosseum, it kept goin up and up and up, and I just said, “Will you stop building?” I couldn’t get over the top with the cranes or anything. It got so huge.

GS: You mentioned the fact that the original Gladiator has become mythic, to an extent. Even in the years following it, you saw everyone was trying to do their own Gladiator, their own swords and sandals epic. You more or less defined, or I guess redefined, what those epics could be. So I’m curious, jumping back into this film, in being that Rosetta Stone, did you feel a responsibility to go back into the Colosseum and show everyone why you’re the best at it? What do you think a lot of films that tried to capture that Gladiator feel miss when they go for it?

JM: Yeah. No, it did. Everyone had gone off them [swords and sandals epics]. The Fall of the Roman Empire was sort of the nail in the coffin, which I think is pretty good, actually. There’s a lot of that in the first Gladiator. I mean, I don’t know why people dislike that film so much. I thought it was great. Steven Boyd, Alec Guinness, lots of treachery, and the fall of the Roman Empire. I mean, in [Gladiator II] it feels like it’s about to fall; it’s so decadent, and everyone’s so out of control and having way too much fun, and not being fiscally responsible, corruption. But yeah, there are films that did follow the first Gladiator. I was offered to shoot Troy, and then there was 300, which was great and very different. And a whole lot of other stuff. So, all those scripts came my way. And I liked some of them, but I also felt that, without Ridley, it wasn’t going to be as good. I mean, I can do my thing, but it’s Ridley’s film. He builds worlds very well.

I took a friend of mine who was just a massive Gladiator fan to a very, very small screening of Gladiator II in London, the Dolby Theater. And he was like a five-year-old. He wouldn’t sit still. He was just bouncing around the whole time. He’d be screaming and jumping up and down when something would happen. I mean, he was really enjoying it. He felt he was far more in this film than the other one. I think what he was saying was the first one was more of a classic tale of a man’s adventure of trying to get home in a circle. He does get home, but he’s dead. But this one, he felt in it. He said it was fantastic and he felt engaged. And that’s the thing, you got the right general on the top there, Ridley, and he makes it happen. Ridley creates worlds.

Now, if you look at Rome, his Rome is not accurate. It’s an 19th century fantasy based on paintings, when the Victorians became obsessed with the classics and Byron went into the thing, and they were always going and visiting Rome going on these grand tours in the summer. Florence, and you see Rome, and you see Cairo, and Istanbul. Wealthy people going on holidays and painters going along with them, Burns and Alma-Tadema.

So those images are really from that. They’re not perfect classical images. There’s classical, and there’s this turn of the millennium, 1100-type classical, and then the Romanesque churches we all have in our cities. Then there’s Napoleon Classical, which Ridley revisited that. Much grander. Look at Paris. It’s full of temples. Then there’s the 20th century, the Nazis and Mussolini, their obsession with classical. So he puts all those things together and what that gives you is the feeling of Rome. It’s not really true. The temples would be painted; all the statues would be painted pink with red eyes. We do it the classical way. And so you felt you’d been to Rome. Even the classicists in England, who were super critical, really like Gladiator. People think they’re there, like my friend who was bouncing up and down like a five-year-old.

And then the actors say that, too. Denzel [Washington] and Paul [Mescal]. They walk down the forum, and they walk through the Senate, and they realize It’s all there. It’s good for them because they don’t have to do blue screen stuff. So, going back to what you were asking, I suppose he just builds and puts you in there. There are guys with crossbows. They didn’t have crossbows. That was Richard I’s favorite weapon when he laid siege to Jerusalem in 1125. So it’s a thousand years out. Well, no one minds. So I think he creates this world, and you think it’s there. And when you are there, you are there. You are really in the biggest sets you’ll ever see.

GS: Yeah. I mean, it’s true. Because every historical liberty that I think he takes serves a dramatic purpose. And I think people forget that these films are fiction. You want to believe and buy into what you’re seeing on screen. And if, like you said, that means having a crossbow in the Colosseum or something like that, then so be it. It looks cool, and it’s effective, and the way that it’s shot and composed, you fully believe it.

JM: He’s also an architect. He’s got an eye. He’s an excellent draftsman. His detailing is so thorough. So thorough. And it’s so layered. If you did challenge something, it doesn’t stick out like a bad prop. Everything seems to belong to where it should be. There’s Denzel – he’s dressed like a sort of a vizier, an Ottoman Turk from the 15th or 16th century. It’s not real. But he belongs there. He lives in those clothes. This is him. The layering is so important, that detailing. And that’s art direction, set dressing, costume. Ain’t really me, I have to say. I just put the camera on it.

GS: Hey, look, that’s the job!

JM: Well, it’s important to get it right, but you’ve got to be pretty stupid to screw it up as well.

GS: You just finished shooting Jurassic World Rebirth. 

JM: Yes.

GS: I’m curious because you’re working with a filmmaker like Gareth Edwards, who is very guerrilla style. He uses a small crew; he likes to shoot on location. I’m kind of curious if you could talk about that overall experience as much as you can, obviously, and just how that compared to maybe some of these larger sets that you’ve worked on specifically with Ridley.

JM: Well, I’ve always ever shot on location with Rid. So he likes location too. I think I like location because it makes me think. I think probably he does, too. I’ve never discussed it. But you get thrown into location, and you have to see what it gives you. I mean, we shot in Fort Ricasoli on both of these films. It’s a neoclassical fort. I think it’s the largest fort in the British Commonwealth. It’s surrounded by arches, and it’s Napoleonic. You’ve always got a background of broken-down buildings. Malta is like a crumbling biscuit. So you get all these different ages and things. Everything looks really worn in and good. So he likes location.

And also, things end up in the wrong place. That’s where you got those brilliant left-footed, weird compositions with Rid because there was a telegraph pole, there was an oil terminal there, so the camera’s off this way, and it’s not classically… But that, it looks good. That works. So I think he likes location. It stimulates him and gets him away from home. You focus far more. And he runs a business, he runs a couple of big companies, so he hasn’t got that distraction. Of course, he’s on the phone in the evenings, I’m sure. But he’s on location with the players, with the sets.

And Gareth likes that, too. He’s quite tough, Gareth. He’s quite resilient. We were just in the jungles of Southern East Asia, which were really inhospitable. But they give you beautiful locations and are really difficult to light, really difficult to use grip gear, really difficult. I mean, we were up against all sorts of dreadful things, but you do get a better movie.

I mean, I got into this not to sit in Shepperton Studios surrounded by green blankets with a rhetorical point, with some guy on wires with lasers coming out of his nostrils. I didn’t get into it for that. I wanted to go to places. And what could be better than traveling and seeing things? And they say, “Oh, you graded this.” I said, “No, no. I didn’t do anything with the camera. I just took it from one continent to the other. And it will just do different things. It’ll pick up the atmosphere, the moisture in the air, the sunsets will be different, the foliage will be different, the street signs.”

So it’s all different. So you do things, you’re not really conscious of it, but being on location, I think is much more stimulating. We did have sets on [Jurassic World Rebirth], but we were in Thailand; we were out at sea. We were in the very tank in Malta where we shot the boat scenes in Gladiator. We had a smaller crew, shooting on film, which is very different from digital, of course. And the cameras fared much better because digital cameras don’t like heat; they don’t like getting wet. With the film camera, you can throw it in the bottom of the sea, you can throw dust all over it, and it’s fine. So we shot on film. But yes, very different approach. Gareth likes to be with the camera, on the camera, very huddled round. Ridley’s out there, commanding the whole battlefield from his command post.

GS: Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your insight, and your work as a creative.

JM: Thank you. Yeah, I love the films behind you, your James Bond posters. I’d love to shoot one of those!

Gladiator II is currently in theaters from Paramount Pictures.