Spartacus 4K 1960 Ultra HD 2160p

Story Movie

The story of the gladiator Spartacus, his beloved Varinia and the ambitious Roman commander Crassus. The overwhelming craving for freedom forces Spartacus to raise the legendary slave uprising that has become a major milestone in world history.

Review 4K Movie

It seems that the main argument of Stanley Kubrick's opponents of this film is the authors' overly free treatment of historical facts. It is well known, for example, that neither Pompey nor Lucullus were present with their armies when Spartacus was defeated - they only forced the rebellious gladiators to accept the fight with Crassus under unfavorable conditions. A lot of criticism was caused by the early biography of Spartacus, which in the film is also quite unreliable (although, to my knowledge, the story of the young years of the famous rebel and for professional historians remains very vague). And, of course, women and old men Spartacus in the battle did not produce, on the contrary, he sought to create a strong and organized army like the Roman - this is what allowed him to deploy a real war and within three years to terrify his enemies. In a word, "gaffe" is a little too much. Another simple historical blockbuster in the style of "Troy" or "Alexander"? Personally, I don't think so.

I'm trying to defend one of my favorite historical movies. Still, Kubrick is known as an extremely meticulous author (I remember Malcolm McDowell joking that Kubrick in his work is so meticulous that he should command the U.S. Armed Forces). And scriptwriter Dalton Trumbo is known to us as a man not only talented, but also extremely honest and principled - let's remember, for example, that during the "witch hunt" he categorically refused to name his "unreliable" colleagues, thus ruining his career forever. One can't believe that this tandem simply ignored such obvious historical inaccuracies. However, I have an explanation for this strange circumstance.

Let's turn to the brilliant stage of the decisive battle, the most vivid part of which, as it seems to me, is the debut of the Roman legions. Do you remember these perfectly flat, lifeless, terrible rectangles of the Roman soldiers, mercilessly approaching the rebel slaves? It may seem that these are not even people at all, but some inhumane mechanisms designed to ruthlessly destroy an army of rebels. Doesn't it seem to you that there is a symbol that is unprecedented in its scale - central in the whole picture, raising it to a whole new level? What does this symbol mean? I don't know, everyone will decide for themselves. Perhaps it is the world itself, terrible and cruel, which does not accept, and sometimes ruthlessly destroys anyone who does not obey its laws? Or is it the inexorable rock that has risen to the battle with the one who dared to challenge him? And if you remember the following works of the master "2001: Cosmic Odyssey" and "Clockwork Orange", it comes to mind that the Roman legions - the embodiment of progress, inexorably destroying all obstacles in its path.

Yes, friends, Kubrick did not stop at the creation of a large-scale historical epic. He created a real saga about the price of freedom, about the inexorability of rock, about the value of a man who can straighten his shoulders and say: "I am not afraid. That is why, at a decisive moment, the legions of Lucullus and Pompey appear on the battlefield: for Spartacus and his comrades must be exterminated fearfully, decisively and mercilessly, like anyone who dares to challenge fate. That is why so many inaccuracies are made in the early biography of the protagonist - the director seeks to turn him into a kind of symbol of a freedom fighter. Therefore, finally, the film ends with the giving "soap", but also such a necessary scene of acquaintance and farewell Spartacus with his own son - despite the inevitable defeat, the hero must be rewarded for his courage and valor, and his name should not be erased from the memory of man.

They will say to me: "Nonsense, all these historical inaccuracies are caused simply by the desire of merchants from the cinema to earn money. It may very well be so. It is quite possible that Kubrick became for a time simply obedient instrument in the hands of a greedy to profit producer. But you see, what is it: it does not matter. What difference does it make what exactly caused any inaccuracies, if they pale against the background of a powerful and large-scale drama about the price and essence of human freedom? If Kubrick became an obedient instrument for a time, it was an extremely talented instrument. The director managed to turn a historical blockbuster into a strong and vivid humanist hymn to freedom. So I recommend everyone to look at and forget about historical inaccuracies - they really do not matter when we want to remind us what the price of freedom is and how we should fight for it.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)