The core of this film should still be satirizing the caste system. In fact, the core and the parasite should be regarded as two types of films (his focus is not the gap between the rich and the poor, but the overthrow of the caste system). It doesn't make much sense. The male protagonist and the master are just symbols. The American director changed this symbolic political allegory into a script with a reasonable plot. . . Of course, after all, China is not a caste society, so it is natural to bring this film into the perspective of East Asian society when watching it. When the master scolded the servant, the politician scolded arrogantly: "Otherwise, go back to your hometown. It was me who promoted you from there." The politician's words were addressed to the rich, and the subtext was, "The so-called rich people in your family are not really expensive, and they are Pretending to be noble in front of a hillbilly, how high are you in Delhi?” We are told by politicians and grandma (grandma has a paragraph satirizing Ashok, a rich non-Brahmin, who went to America and thought he was a Brahmin) It is very clear that the family of the landlord should not be Brahmins (of course their surnames do not appear in the film), but only a rich and powerful middle and low caste (the so-called village tyrants)" It can be seen that the core of the film's ideology Still satirizing the alienated caste system under capitalism. As in the movie: "India actually only has two castes. " The castes of Indian society are not actually the four castes in our history textbooks 800 years ago. The actual social situation is that the powerful sub-castes in various regions have risen to the upper castes. The lower castes fake themselves as the so-called higher castes and maintain their social status with a visible social order. The male protagonist's obedience to the master is not really servile (the male protagonist is a person who pursues his equality with the master or at least not the "lower class" based on caste in India), maybe he thinks a little. "Vaticanization", by making oneself rich and powerful, and living like a high caste to get rid of one's relatively low caste status. (The promotion of caste or actual social status is achieved through money, just like the low-caste or pagan rich people in India now) and the male protagonist has a very Indian-style performance, the higher one is stern and the lower one is submissive (it’s almost British. Urine sex of the Indian government). Historically, many lower castes in India have also taken this path of gaining power through power and then raising their status. There is a problem with this, that is, you have not actually overturned the system, you have only changed your social status by upgrading, and you are still a grandson when you meet people of higher rank. Just like the Rajputs can turn themselves into Kshatriyas, they still have to kneel when they meet the Mughals. As a lower caste who relies on the upper caste or the powerful, he cannot and will not overthrow the upper caste. It is the source of the legitimacy of his own rights, so the male protagonist will definitely go to death like a good servant (in case he gets it out, after all, he has the right to make ghosts push the mill). In the end, Ding Bao did not make the male protagonist despair or awaken to his Indian-style ideology, but made a huge sacrifice and was not taken seriously by the master to awaken him. The male protagonist began to reflect on the obedience or ignorance of the lower caste to the higher caste. Originally driven by interests and avoiding risks, the male protagonist could go back after scolding like those other drivers, and then go back to stealing chickens. Like Ashok, he entered the world of adult interests as early as possible. Don't believe in any idealistic nonsense about democracy and freedom. The strange thing is that the male protagonist has embarked on a very risky idealistic path. He chose to overthrow his master and then rob his master of his money, instead of being a friend of Simon's master. What's more valuable is that he plans to do something else. New capitalist (American film after all) rules of the game, replacing the Indian identity system with the corporate system and starting all over again. (That is what the Chinese people always say about fighting the local tyrants to divide the land.) One more thing, it can be seen in the movie: "This kind of "loyalty" is different from the "loyalty" of the father, kindness and filial piety in East Asian ethics, and there are hardly any moral and ethical factors in it. , the high caste and the low caste have no obligations and rights at all, it is completely a result of the "cause" cultivated in the previous life in this life . "That's why I said I can't compare this movie with Parasite. The driver in Parasite has an obligation to be loyal to the master's kindness in the traditional East Asian ethics. The driver in White Tiger is not an East Asian under the moral education of the Three Cards and Five Constants. Man, he doesn't need to be loyal to the master. His murder is not much different from Ashok killing people in psychology. He is a little guilty of killing someone, or a good person. The driver in the parasite is in the "ungrateful" of East Asian values. Afterwards, as a social person, he took the risk of not violating the rules of ethics, and lost his qualifications to live as a normal social person. This was a huge moral pressure, and he could not be called a human being. Why did the servants in the White Tiger not kill the master? There is a huge stake in his life, and he is worried about his ascent and his life. It can be said that it is the same problem under the two social systems, and their endings are also two anti-traditions corresponding to the ethical society of East Asia and the identity society of India, which cannot be confused. After these two films, one is anti-morality and the other is anti-interest, but the common theme is the same: "Neither morality nor identity can cover up the huge fundamental contradictions of traditional countries under modern capitalism." Without changing the rules of the game, Liberal democracy in the United States cannot work in this society. I feel that this film is such a satire of India’s premature democratic thinking and the utilitarian relationship of maintaining the status quo under the caste system. Regarding the problem of solving the rules of the game, there is no answer in the parasite, but this Indian film does. A plan to solve the problem of social equality with employment relationship (I don't know if the American director added private goods, the main tone of this film feels very socialist) The song in the last sentence of the film summarizes: "O Murari, what can be said of you . In this world of yours I don't want to live." (Murari here is an allusion about Vishnu, the author wrote this sentence with no deep meaning)
View more about The White Tiger reviews
