I think most people read this movie in flashbacks, first look at the works of recent years, and then look back at this 60-year-old work.
It is understandable that, in terms of scenes, actions, and sound effects, this work cannot be compared with works of recent years. But at the same time, the classic of this work lies in its professional background, like a filmmaking textbook. Very very typical narrative structure, background-change-inducement (conflict)-resistance-ending, as rigorous as a mathematical formula.
After understanding this, it is not difficult to understand things such as the revision of history. So how to define good changes and blind changes for changes? My personal opinion is that if the same as this one is to meet the narrative structure, or to meet the psychological needs of the audience, or to meet the needs of the current background, then at least it can be modified to be understandable; other things are considered to be modified.
The recorded Spartacus was killed in battle, the original work was changed to be captured and ordered to cross. The prisoner of war was ordered to cross is a true record. The extent of the change is that Spartacus was ordered. This change adds the cunning of Krassus, the hope of the heroine and the child, the determination of the slaves to share weal and woe, and the well-known The final demise of slavery (the subtitles also specifically write that slavery will die out after many years), the tension of the drama is unparalleled, and it has reached harmony with the standard structure of the film.
The advantage of standardization is that it will not go wrong, and it is also a bottleneck. In the context of the standard architecture, how to improve? It can only rely on more dazzling scenes, more thrilling actions, and more grand sound effects. There is no Colosseum in this work. There is Cleopatra. In later works, the Colosseum can already run racing cars. The slaves in the TV series even demolished the Colosseum, and the Colosseum recruits You messed with you. As for why you don't remember many big productions and grandiose giants, the answer is obvious.
There is another factor, perspective. In recent works, Spartacus is like a Greek demigod, the most capable, strategic, far-sighted, and sincere; in this work, apart from unyielding, other aspects are not outstanding. No one knows what it is actually like, but from another perspective, especially our Chinese culture is more understandable, Liu Bei, Song Jiang, Zhu Yuanzhang and so on. As far as I know, Europeans don’t understand “righteousness” very much, and they are more accustomed to disassembling “righteousness” into sincerity, magnanimousness, sense of responsibility, etc. Perhaps Spartacus also relied on “righteousness” to become the leader.
Perhaps this movie is too simple for film practitioners. I hope that we will do the simple things first, and then it will not be too late to sublimate.
View more about Spartacus reviews
