Interestingly speaking, when I saw this interesting Indian movie, I unexpectedly thought of "Spartacus" in 1960-and because of this, I felt that the more I watched Baahubali, the more disgusting it became. That’s right, I’m sick of this movie not because of the magical singing and dancing, the overturned Newton’s coffin and the weird battlefield scenes, but because I’ve seen such a movie before, and its protagonist is a sword raised. The slave who finally died on the cross.
Baahubali & Shiva have indeed received broad support. People chanted their names, bowed down to them, and eagerly looked forward to the reappearance of such a king. They came to the world like gods on the battlefield. They are rare princes. But unfortunately, they are still only kings, so slaves are still slaves anyway. The villain cannot accept this wise king. The law of decency is only that he defeated the evil and screaming enemy, the Kshatriya. Li is still Kshatriya, and Shiva is still Shiva.
Everyone watered the Linga and prayed, so Shiva ran over and lifted it up with the strength of a weeping willow-and then put it under the waterfall, "This will make it better to water. It's water." As a metaphor for Baahubali, this is quite qualified-the wise king used power far beyond others to make the country blessed by the gods be more blessed by the gods. He considered for the gods, and he was blessed by the gods. Preference is even divine, and everyone kneels and puts their hands together.
This kneeling, together with the "kneeling together" throughout the film, successfully created the image of a beloved monarch; the slave who stood up like an electric shock once the nobles had a meal, and the enlightened sign of having a meal with the slave. Together, the prince successfully constructed a world with distinct castes.
So for such a world, the biggest HE is the king of the wise Shenwu ascended the throne. The highest position in the film is Lord Shiva. He created the world and accepted prayers for Shiva to survive. He was sacrificed during the war, and he gave the protagonist a divine character.
And slaves are slaves.
"I would rather be a free man here, facing long marches and hard battles than being a wealthy Roman citizen; it is obese and does not give birth, and there are groups of slaves by its side.
I'd rather be here, a free man among brothers, facing a long march, and hard fight, than to be the richest citizen of Rome, fat with food he didn't work for ,and surrounded by slaves.
"Spartacus was an ancient Roman gladiator and military strategist. In 73 BC, he led the Spartacus against the rule of the Roman Republic, together with the Gauls Kreis, Enomayi and Gannix. The uprising.” So at least when he led the slaves to take up their weapons, the slaves were no longer slaves. They became the power to panic the rich and fat-headed. They raised the sword; so their enemy was not In "Khobari", it is said that there are no barbarians, but the Roman army with bright armor and well-trained training-so this will not be a story of "the emperor's wise and martial arts", and there will be no divinity. Badax went to manifest and be worshipped. On the contrary, this story can only have one BE in the end. The best ending of Spartacus is to die on the cross-as a free man.
"I know we are a family, and I know we are free!
I do know that we are brothers, and I know that we are free.
"I bring a message for your master, Marcos Cozas, Italian commander, by his merciful order, you can be spared a death. You were slaves, and you will continue to be slaves. Although you are free Crucifixion is a terrible punishment, but the only condition is...you must identify Spartacus’s body or himself.”
"I am Spartacus!"
"I am Spartacus!"
"I am Spartacus!"
...
When every slave refused to confess under the pressure of death and shouted "I'm Spartacus!", they became a "Spartacus" in the overall sense, and Spartacus was no longer a The emperor who is higher than others has turned into a pronoun of a larger group-here, it is the slave who created the world, not the Lord Shiva who stands upright and is prayed by others. Equality is not a grace given in the name of a prince, but an idea that is held to the death.
Therefore, a huge difference between the two films is that Baahubali can only be a king in the end. The slave in "Baahubali" will willingly put Baahubali’s feet on his head. The equal attitude towards slaves is only a special case of him as a Mingjun, and "slaves are grateful for this"; while Spartacus is a slave, other slaves did not die for him, respect him, but the same Together, as a free man, they smashed the shackles together and walked towards death together. The slave owner with the whip in hand got a stable and prosperous era behind Baahubali, and lost slaves, gold and silver under the sword of the Spartacus. The weapon dealer wanted to redeem Katapa's freedom, and Spartacus used battle to carry out his vow to his lover-"No one can sell you anymore."
Baahubali can be a legend, but once it crosses a thousand years, he should be buried in the tomb of history, and Spartacus should continue to be sung because what Spartacus told the slaves is, Smash your shackles, and what Baahubali tells the slaves is, waiting for Mingjun, Lord Shiva will bless him to save you.
So, when the untouchables are still untouchables after a thousand years, tell them Lord Shiva bless your wise king, he will come to let you live a good life... it is a bad thing, because a good king will not smash everything Human handcuffs are fettered, and they become heavier once a bad king appears. The one that will really destroy the chain is always the stone that the slave lifted up after a long time of grievance.
We march tonight!
View more about Baahubali: The Beginning reviews
