First of all, many people said that the heroine was a junior, and a bunch of people said that it was possible to have polygamy at that time, three you sister, three, some people say that the death of the hero is deserved, and some people say that the love tragedy of the hero is caused by the religious oppression of human nature. . First of all, I don't think that the love tragedy of the male and female protagonist is caused by religion. It is that the two of them took many of their due responsibilities and obligations as a test of their loyal love, so they disregarded those responsibilities and obligations. Yes, they did give up a lot for their love, and yes, they shouldn't live for their country and relatives. But when the male and female protagonists promised each other for life, they had already anticipated how much grievance the female protagonist would suffer and how much hindrance the male protagonist would suffer, but they were still united.
The hostess was originally an uninvited guest of this family. You think everyone is living a good life, there are old and young, and a happy life, suddenly an unknown woman wants to marry the host of the family, not to mention that she does not believe in Hinduism. This first created the first impression that the family was disgusted with the heroine, and wanted to make the heroine suffer and go home obediently. The male protagonist did not appease his family, but violently dealt with and intimidated all the opposing voices. This led to greater anger and incomprehension among the male protagonist’s family members. Then what did the male protagonist do? Ignore my wife and children in the main house, and accompany the hostess regardless of the celebrations held by the family. The Brahmins invited by the family are humiliated. In spite of the family’s opposition, he will recognize the hostess’s child as orthodox. Throwing a knife at the younger brother (who should be a little blind), the army ran home alone to save the mistress and went to war against the family. These actions can only make the family more repulsive of the heroine, so the family's counterattack is to neglect the heroine, intercept the communication between the heroine and the heroine, and refuse to send the woman to the heroine. In the end, the heroine is directly imprisoned by the heroine. So the contradiction is escalating step by step, and the male protagonist does not play a role in reconciliation, but instead is rebellious and provocative, which means that anyway, in order to spoil the female protagonist, there is nothing you can do with me. The heroine will only be squeezed out by her family.
And the heroine has the courage to pursue true love. I see that many people like her because of her bravery. She dares to attack both on the battlefield and in love. I also appreciate this. But she also regards everything as a test of her love. Suddenly, she said that she was going to marry the male lead, and her mother-in-law’s house asked her to live in a brothel. She felt it was a test. Then she danced to get the male lead’s attention; and then proposed to marry the male lead, mother-in-law. Saying that you can only be a dancer, felt that it was a test, refused to dance for the king, and proposed to the king to marry the male lead, which attracted the attention of the male lead and set a lifetime. But the family side didn't think that this was a test that we would welcome you. She just won the hero. She thought of her own destiny, but she didn't think of the fate of herself and the hero's future children. There is also what the male lead gives and accepts. I didn't say that this is wrong, but this is really very, very unfavorable to the relationship between her and the male lead family. The male protagonist returned triumphantly, abandoning his family to eat with her, offended the Brahman, opened a bad head, the family was embarrassed, and the female protagonist was hunted down. The male lead gave her a fief, and the male lead quarreled with his younger brother face to face, and the impression of the male lead's family was bad. So when the male lead gave her a palace named after her, no one in the male lead's family took care of the female lead at all, only the original wife made a cutscene for the sake of her husband's face. What can the children of the male and female master get in this way. . . The love of the male and female master, but the family didn’t care about this child at all, and he was eventually chased and imprisoned.
Therefore, everyone is more than one person. The male lead's behavior has caused the female lead to be further rejected by the male lead family, and the female lead indirectly puts her children in a dangerous place. Love is great, but you have to consider the consequences. The man and woman love each other desperately, and then radioactively hurt everyone around them. I think the male protagonist really loves the female lead, so you should think about how wronged the female lead will be (instead of asking the female lead, do you accept it, let’s be together), the female lead really loves the male lead, so you should think that she will give it to the male lead. How estranged is the main family.
As for the three non-three things, since we can discuss ancient religions from a modern perspective, we should not look at marriage from an ancient perspective. Either both are viewed from a modern point of view, or both are viewed from an ancient point of view. Don’t say that polygamy was normal at that time. The male and female owners died because of the religious imprisonment of humanity. Is there no tragedy for the wife's love and the male lead's neglect of the original wife and eldest son? This is just the duality of tragedy. In the end, it is obvious that the eldest son of the male protagonist is full of resentment towards the male protagonist. It is well understood. The family relationship was very good in the past. Mom and dad fell in love with each other. Suddenly an unknown woman appeared. His father ignored his mother. I built a palace for that strange woman, and my mother was not as cheerful as before, but she still cried alone. So there is no tragedy without religion? Obviously not. A seed of hatred has been planted.
So, treating everything as a test of love, regardless of responsibility and obligation, is really the source of tragedy, and everything should not be attributed to religion. Even if religion is backed by the pot of repressive human nature, people should not free themselves at will. The consequence of freeing oneself is self-eating causality, and this cause and effect are really planted by themselves.
Don't really tie everything to true love. Responsibilities and obligations should be shouldered. Besides, sometimes letting go is true love.
View more about Bajirao Mastani reviews
