Cinematographer calls Ridley Scott's directing methods lazy and rushed

In a recent interview, John Mathieson, the cinematographer for Ridley Scott's Gladiator II, expressed concerns about the director's current approach to filming. Mathieson, who has collaborated with Scott on both Gladiator films, noted that the director has become impatient and prefers to use multiple cameras during shoots. This change in filming technique has led to a lack of attention to detail, reducing the quality of cinematography. Mathieson reflected on how Scott's earlier work demonstrated a commitment to depth and lighting, contrasting sharply with his recent practices. The use of numerous effect shots in Gladiator II, which numbers in the thousands compared to just 50 in the 2000 original, further highlights this shift in Scott's filmmaking style. Additionally, Gladiator II has faced criticism for historical inaccuracies, including anachronisms such as diverse accents and scenes featuring characters reading newspapers before the existence of the printing press. Despite these critiques, some reviewers hailed the film as one of the best of the year, praising performances from Paul Mescal and Denzel Washington. The film's plot revolves around Lucius Verus, who seeks revenge against Rome, with mentorship from a former slave, Macrinus, as they both pursue their goals of power and vengeance. Mathieson compared the current cinematic landscape to a grocery shopping experience, where directors are more focused on quickly covering shots without the artistry previously sought in the filmmaking process. He lamented the loss of a meticulous approach where cinematographers crafted scenes with care and detail. Instead, the trend has moved towards efficiency, where the product is assembled from multiple performances rather than crafted as a singular vision. The commentary raises broader questions regarding creative choices in modern filmmaking, reflecting a potential divide between commercial pressures and artistic integrity. Ultimately, this reflectiveness from Mathieson echoes concerns shared by many in the film industry about the impact of rapid production schedules and the implications on artistic quality. Scott's established reputation allows him considerable freedom to dictate the filmmaking process, yet this flexibility may come at the cost of attention to detail and the depth that defined some of his most revered works.