Slashdot Mirror
Enemy At The Gates
The battle of Stalingrad was a brutal collision between two vicious regimes, resulting in mass starvation, hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, savage hand-to-hand, back-and-forth battles between soldiers amidst rubble, bombs, artillery barrages, sharpshooters and freezing weather. It was overseen by two ruthless dictators willing to sacrifice their own citizens and troops in staggering numbers to win. Both sides knew that to lose here probably meant losing the war.
After Stalingrad, the German Army in the East collapsed, and the stage was set for the two-front war that doomed Hitler.
Jean-Jacques Annaud's Enemy At the Gates is the first major Hollywood treatment of this epic battle, and, as such, a chance to make a great movie about a riveting subject.
Annaud took the safer route. Although the battle scenes are brutal and vivid, especially in the opening minutes, he chose to take his story off into a cliche-ridden, loopy love triangle.
The film centers on a cat-and-mouse, high-stakes battle between two snipers, Vasily (played by Jude Law) and Major Konig (Ed Harris), each being used by their respective armies as propaganda tools in a battle that everyone knew might decide the fate of World War II. Vasily is the Derek Jeter of snipers, easy-going, wholesome, cheerful, his opponent, the merciless-Nazi-with-a-flash-of-heart. Vasily learned to shoot hunting wolves in the Urals; Konig ran the Nazi sniper-training academy. He is sent East to stop Vasily after the Russian kills scores of German officers from hiding spots in bombed-out buildings and becomes a national hero. Their battle becomes intimate and highly personal, shot through close-ups and through eyeball-to-eyeball confrontations (well, at least through scopes). This is good stuff, although we see too little of it.
turns out to be a fairly typical Hollywood war yarn, the heroes spending as much time mooning over the girl as they do fighting. You'd think a movie about this siege would give any director enough material for a dozen great movies, but Annaud unaccountably feels the need to concoct a sub-plot in which Vasily and Danilov (a political character played by Joseph Fiennes) fall in love with the same girl, the beautiful warrior comrade Ranya (Rachel Weisz), a well-educated Stalinist out to avenge the murder of her parents by the Nazis. For Vasily and Danilov (and apparently Annaud), the war quickly fades in significance, and the movie goes off track.
This plot line is silly, weakening not only the story of the battle, but the contest going on between the two riflemen (snipers and marksmen played an enormous role in the Stalingrad battle, both of terms of casualties and morale.) The film is skillfully animated, with realistic renderings of a great city reduced to flames and skeletal structures, it's surviving residents living in cellars and piles of brick.
Bob Hoskins nearly steals the movie as a brutal but determined Nikita Khrushchev, a central figure in the siege. He went on to become Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, and square off with John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis (this movie does make you feel the world is lucky to have survived that stand-off, since this Khrushchev wasn't into backing down).
The movie plays with one of the central puzzles about World War II, an issue that has fascinated historians for years: why did the Russian people fight so hard and sacrifice so much -- more than 20 million casualties -- when their own leaders were nearly as brutal as the Nazis? Russian soldiers who find themselves confronted with horrific choices --- run straight into German guns, armed only with their bare hands, or be shot in the back as cowards by their own officers -- fling themselves by the thousands at the enemy.
Vasily, whose sniping exploits have been trumpeted all over the Soviet Union by his political officer friend Danilov, is an unaccountably reluctant hero, which takes some of the sting out of his showdown with Harris, who has no second thoughts of any kind. Vasily sometimes seems to act as if he'd wandered into the wrong movie, continuously puzzled about his role. The score is intrusive and annoying, introducing overblown chorales, angel choruses, and portent-laden symphonies obviously meant to invoke both the Holocaust and the Russian Revolution. We get it. The same kind of special effects which grabbed the audience of Pvt. Ryan are much in evidence in this film, and in very similiar ways.
Enemy At the Gates is a needed reminder that Americans didn't suffer the brunt of World War II. The Stalingrad confrontation was a Holocaust in itself, killing many more people than all wars fought by Americans combined.
But in the final analysis, Enemy At the Gates is a lost opportunity to do what Spielberg did -- take a great story and make a great movie out of it. It just doesn't do justice to the subject matter.
I saw this movie yesterday and would give it a thumb sideways. It's definitely worth the price of a matinee admission, but it's not an epic movie that you'll want to watch again and again.
My main problems with the movie was the length, some cheesy lines, and the director's confusion about what the movie was all about. I was also a bit disappointed in all of the anti-Soviet bashing, even if warranted, because I think that stuff detracted from the main plot.
The most interesting part of the movie was what it depicted: a side of WW2 that Americans know little about. It's probably true that the Battle of Stalingrad was *the* battle that turned the course of WW2. But on a more mundane level, the nature of the Soviet fighters is quite interesting.
One of the striking things shown was that women fought along side the men. I'm not sure how integrated the Soviet forces were gender-wise, but the socialist and anarchist forces that fought in the Spanish Civil War had plenty of women. At one point, Vassily is shown with two other snipers under a crashed plane. The two other snipers are obviously lovers: a women and an Asian male. This integration of the Soviet military was in high contrast to the segregated American military at the time. I think it was around 1942 that esteemed African American leader A. Philip Randolph was threatening Roosevlet with strikes if he didn't integrate the U.S. military.
Another striking thing was the depiction of the Soviet propaganda effort, which was an integral part of the Vassily legend. I'm sure a few filmgoers chuckled at the ridiculousness of guys with bullhorns imploring their guys to fight and be brave. Those crazy Soviets and their propaganda, right? Let's not forget that the United States at this time had a similar propaganda operation in place, which was just as ridiculous. Contrary to what you may have read about the "Good War," there were many in the United States who opposed the war and more than a few who went to prison protesting what they correctly saw as a rich man's war between imperialist powers.
This movie could have been alot better, but it wasn't a bad way to entertain oneself on a cold March weekend.
I would rather have seen a sweeping saga of the battle instead of a person-to-person story of two snipers that merely used the battle as a backdrop.
The battle of Stalingrad has the makings of at least half a dozen great movie epics in it. "Enemy at the Gates" isn't one of them.
- Robin
The German Army first neared Moscow in October of 1941, on 19 October a state of seige was declared in Moscow by the Soviert Government. The 4th Armored Brigade, armed with T-34 tanks stopped General Guderian south of Moscow, and then the Winter came on, slowing the Germans further and allowing the Far East troops to be brought west from Siberia and they re-enforced the Soviet Army.
General Hoth and the German 7th Panzer Divison made it within 20 miles of Moscow.
The Germans did have enough men to strike at the North, Center and South of the Russian Front. They didn't have enough men to win the War though.
That's not accurate.
http://www.feldgrau.com/oob44.html
I count 58 Divisions - Panzer, Infantry, Reserve, Luftwaffe, Waffen-SS.
And the siege of Leningrad lasted 3 years, not six.
IIRC, the Germans had no plan to retreat until they figured out that they were encircled, a few days after the first incursions through the German lines. Once they were encircled, retreat was not an option, and breakout and rescue attempts failed. Following that, Hitler issued his orders and promoted the trapped general to field marshal, meaning that he was supposed to kill himself, because no German field marshal had ever been taken prisoner.
My 2 cents on Stalingrad is that the Germans were good at cutting up the countryside with Blitzkrieg attacks and encirclements, but they stretched their supply lines at the same time they were convincing themselves they were invincible. They had trouble holding their supply lines, and sacrificed their tactical advantage by getting into a house-to-house battle.
It's difficult to say why they put everything into attacking the city, but one of the main reasons is that it offered a place to garrison the troops during the winter. The Russians had had some success in pushing back the first year's progress because they fought well in the winter, and German troops were very vulnerable when flushed out of shelter. The Germans needed an overwintering site that was both comfortable and defensible, and the Volga was a significant natural barrier against the Russians to the East.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
In the 40 days of the Battle of France (10 may - 20 june 1940) 92,000 french soldiers were killed. That's the same rate as the worst WWI battles.
Over the whole war, France lost 250,000 military men plus 370,000 civilians (a lot of them under american bombs).
That's a lot for a country that did "not fight".
Six million killed in nazi camps to over 60 million killed in soviet gulags.
First it seems that you are referring to Poland and Jews only. In the whole it seems that there were no less than 12 million Jews who ended either barbecued, shot or gazed... Note that nazis didn't worry too much to send all jews to concentration camps. In Ukraine and Bielorussia they did the dirty job almost in place. There was even the "Death Truck" where people where killed by the escape gases of the trucks that carried them to the mass graves.
On what concerns other nations I should note you that the large majority of slavians, latins and germans was doomed to destruction. Hitler's plan covered a massive clean up that even poor Deutchlander's couln't avoid. In this plan slavians were well doomed and already in the war there were a few serious clean ups. At least 3 million slavians died in concentration camps.
Uhm...they were. They were often sent without any guns just like WW1
Near BS. But that's because of the "often". It wasn't so often, but existed. Their name are the "Shtrafnye Batalliony" and were made of Gulag prisioners, criminals and soldiers who deserted their units. But note that this bloody scheme had always a well armed NKVD batallion behind them, that shoot everyone who went back.
Excuse me? The Germans almost won. If there hadn't been some rumblings in Yugoslavia (and we all know that kind of terrain just swallows up infantry), Germany would have had more than enough to capture the Kremlin. That delayed them a coupled months before marching into the soviet union. Time that they needed before the Russian winter set in. Same kinda thing happened to Napoleon
Yougoslavia was "done" when Wehrmacht was on the outskirts of Moscow. And this winter story is pure BS. Germans knew were they go and knew the Hell of winter they could meet. You know where Guderian became the great strategist we know? Just 15 kilometers from where I'm now and he studied here in the 30's. That's why people name here the Tank Institute as "Academya im. Guderiana". And look. I'm just on the other side of the Volga...
A desciple should never go against his teacher. And Guderian paid many times for this. Many times Russian generals knew how and when Guderian would attack because they were either his teachers or ex-campus pals...
Rommel who also studied in Russia never dared to go to the East Front...
Germans got caught in a brilliant trap set by a group of russian generals headed by Zhukov. One of the "visitng cards" of this operation was the first massive use of rockets ever - the Katiusha or "Stalin Organs".
Nope. Kursk was more majestic by its huge head-to-head in such short amount of time. Pokrovka Encounter is until now the only and unique Techno-Battle of History were both parties use all technology possible and were in near equal terms.
However Stalingrad was more pivotal. If Germans won Stalingrad then the road was open in two ways:
The Volga plains up to the Urals.
Caucasus.
The plains were fundamental because they were the main food supply and many defense factories were in fact in these plains.
The Caucasus was also fundamental because then the biggest oil supply was in Azerbaidjan.
If Russia won then Germans woul be forced to make a defensive stand over South Russia which would be very damaging for future operations. Russians won and Germans were forced to get into defense.
Kursk was the attempt to turn things back. However the Russian Army had also to made a big push in the same place...
In fact Churchill was one of the WWII actors to clearly show how important was Stalingrad. Read his memories to get an idea of it.
This movie was based on the true story of one of the most well known Russian snipers of WWII. Sorry if you thought the love story was overblown, but it was part of the 'true story'! The duel is actually the most likely fictional portion of the story, more likely made up by Soviet Propadanda officers than anything else since there is no German or Russian military record of Koenig or Thorvald (as some accounts call him) ever showing up in Stalingrad or attempting to kill Zeitsev.
Zaitsev himself never confirmed or denied the story of the German sniper expert nor did he ever really talk about it.
The ending was the only thing that deviated much from the story as it is known historically... Zaitsev was actually blinded by a land mine and the girl thought he was dead and married another guy. They found each other again years later.
For more info Sniper Country's History entry
For the most part the movie was quite accurate as far as the depictions of the brutality of the battle. The attitude of the Soviet army and the people who were caught between Hitler and Stalin.
For more background on this, Law Buzz's Backgrounder
Yes Jon it is important that we escape from the jingoism of the standard American's in Battle style of war movie... but really 'why did the Russian people fight so hard and sacrifice so much'? Please, what the hell were they going to do? Just let Hitler slaughter them? Maybe they should have just emigrated en masse? Whatever...
Anyway I personally thought they could have added more of the cat and mouse element between the two snipers since that whole thing probably never happened anyway... might as well make it as interesting as possible. Annuad took some very interesting twists with this... making Zaitsev more vulnerable and human rather than the Rambo or John Wayne invincible type.
I would not call this a typical Hollywood was yarn... I would call it a rather realistic depiction of the suffering... the hopes and the sacrifices made by a people in between a rock and a hard place, who must find someway to hang on to their humanity in the face of complete uncertainty about when they will die.
Do your research Jon.....
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
I saw an interview on TV with some of the actors discussing this.. they determined that trying to fake accents would cause the viewing public to focus too much on whether the accents were good or not and less on the movie itself, and for that reason basically decided "screw the accents, just focus on the movie."
(shrug)
I liked the movie, actually. Coulda been better, but still worth the $ I paid to see it.
BilldaCat
historically, no one had ever successfully invaded Russia.
The Vikings did.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Churchill called this battle "the hinge of fate". It is the largest land battle ever fought.
MOVE 'ZIG'.
Easily one of the most outstanding histories of the battle and its context I've ever read.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
It seems that starting with "Saving Private Ryan", directors think that a spectacular battle in the opening act can carry an otherwise mediocre film. After Spielbergs ultra-violent opening (which, i say, he lifted directly from the big castle battle scene in Kurosawa's Ran, rent it if you don't believe me) that movie degenerates into a run-of-the-mill 50's war flick, minus Van Johnson. Ridley Scott did the same thing with "Gladiator", and now Annaud tries with "Enemy at the Gates". It's becoming a cliche.
.^
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
First off, an obligatory shot at Katz:
.^
He says: "turns out to be a fairly typical Hollywood war yarn, the heroes spending as much time mooning over the girl as they do fighting"
this was an entirely European production, not a hollywood flick.
Much like "Saving Private Ryan" the opening sequence is pretty spectacular and brutal, and much like "Saving Private Ryan", the movie turns to crap right afterward, with Annauds use of melodrama and absurd plot devices to replace the actual history of the story. His bizarre casting choices don't help much either. Only Bob Hoskins (Kruschev), Ron Perlman (Kulakov) and Ed Harris (Koenig) don't seem totally out of their depth. Harris is actually kind of frighteningly convicing as a Nazi, maybe it's his blue eyes.
If you aren't familiar with the story, Zaitsev was a real person, so were Danilov and Kulakov, although unlike in the movie, all three survived the battle of Stalingrad. Koenig may have been real, but probably not. In most accounts I have read, the German sniper's name is Col. Thorvalds, although some do identify him as Maj. Koenig. There are no records of either having been at Stalingrad, so most historians believe the whole story of the duel to be a fabrication of the Soviet press. Zaitsev himself never confirmed nor denied it. There is a written account of a similar showdown that is often attributed to him, and cited as proof, but it identifies neither him nor his german counterpart by name. What is known is that Zaitsev was a real Soviet hero, he did kill at least 142 German soldiers at the battle of Stalingrad (some accounts put the number at over 200) and altogether he had over 400 kills attributed to him throughout the war. By all accounts, he was not the naive shepherd boy portrayed in the movie, but a hardened professional soldier (who looked alot more like Ron Perlman than Jude Law). He set up a training school in the ruins of Stalingrad and trained hundreds of soldiers to employ the sniper tactics that became such a thorn in the side of the German army. Danilov was the political officer who "discovered" Zaitsev and turned him into a legend amongst the Soviet troops. In reality, it is doubtful that he tried to get him killed. Kulakov, at least in the legend of the duel, was Zaitsev's parter and was with him when he killed the German. There are several accounts, complete with references, available online. Just search Google for "Zaitsev".
The story is so good that, even though it is probably not true, it has become a legend. Annaud thinks he can make it better. He is wrong. He turns the whole thing into, of all things, a love story. In the process he loses sight, not only of the "facts" of the story, but of the enormous sacrifice made by the Red Army and the unimaginable suffering of the civilians who were forced by Stalin to remain in the city to starve. Everyone in the picture looks pretty well fed, clean and no one ever looks cold (it was -30C during the winter). It was so bad,it is said, that city's dogs tried to swim across the Volga to escape, only people stayed behind. After 50 years of movies that portray the Americans (who lost about 290,000 men) as the saviours of Europe, its good to see a major movie that attempts to give credit to the 25 million Soviet soldiers and civilians killed defending their country, but it falls short.
If you want to see a movie that more accurately portrays the misery of the Stalingrad battle (although from a German perspective) see the 1993 movie "Stalingrad". That movie has its own problems (a somewhat revisionist view of the conduct of German soldiers for one thing) but it's much better as a war movie than "Enemy at the Gates". If you just want to see some blood and guts, and 3 seconds of Rachel Weisz's bare ass, then "Enemy at the Gates" might be for you.
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
I think you mean 'Einsatzgruppen'. That was a harmless-looking name for the units who went in to wipe out the Jewish population. They left the Russian population more-or-less alone.
The real brutality against the Russians and (to a lesser extent) Ukranians started later. That did not affect the way the armies fought, but it made for a vicious resistance organisation behind the German lines.
As to why the Germans were in that area in the first place: it had (imho) very little to do with the name and a lot more to do with oil. The German war machine was having problems getting hold of fuel and there was a lot available a bit further over.
Sure, Hitler considered the land vacant and available for colonising, but that was to be the next stage after the Russians had been defeated.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Sure... the poster didn't mention where he was posting from, so one can't be sure if his post is a reflection of the USA. And I agree, the ratings he mentioned might indicate a different country (or it might indicate the poster just doesn't know what those ratings mean).
But. I live in the USA. And my post is certainly based on the American culture I've observed. Stereotype or not.
Here we have a movie about one of WWII's most vicious battles. The movie depicts graphic violence in desturbing detail (this is my assumption since I haven't seen the movie, but since such scenes are being compared to Saving Pvt. Ryan - I have seen Saving Pvt. Ryan and found the violence distrubing, although justified and important to the experience). So we have graphic violence. And its the scenes of explicit sex that cause one to wonder whether it is appropriate for a young adult audience.
The kind of lesson this paradox presents, I'll leave as an exercise to the reader. But I thought it was a prime example and worthy of note.
What I remember is that Zaitsev had a wife who was also a sniper, but that she died at some point. So there wasn't really a love triangle, but he was married to a sniper.
Then again, it could have been a different WWII sniper that I've gotten mixed up with Zeitsev.
But over all I enjoyed the movie. As another poster mentioned, they could have been a little more detailed on Zaitsev getting out of some of his predicaments. Though I think they did a 'fair' job of keeping a rather boring undertaking somewhat interesting. Seeing as sniping is 99% waiting, it would have made for a slow movie :)
Ender
Nothing to see here
I am about to see the movie tonight, but what I wanted to add is that there actually is a good movie about the Battle of Stalingrad out there already.
It's called "Stalingrad"
Sure, it's a german movie, less production value and not so many CGI Effects (after what I can tell from the trailer), but also no Love Story, no "Hollywoodniced" version of a war.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Quite frankly I don't think that the normal foot soldier cares much about politics once the bullets are flying over your head. You're shooting back, and of course you have to convince yourself that you're doing the "right" thing.
A couple of years ago I read an interview with one guy who was 18 when he ended up on the russian front, and he said up until this day (though only some years later) he still looks at his family and grand chlildren and wonders who the two red army guy's were he shot and killed, and how their family would be now.
War is a very bad thing, and people do things in war that they wouldn't do normally, but I wouldn't say that ALL german soldiers were there to kill and torture people.
Besides, if you look closely you'll see that this is a two way street, all through history attrocities during war time existed. Yes, even your preciouse american army did this, world war 2, Korea, Vietnam it's all there.
As such: Stalingrad I think is way more accurate in that regards than most other movies.
BTW, one more thing. There is a reason why even german movies show the Nazis as the bad guys: That's the german mentality about this period, there is a collective guilt within germany about what has happened, and germany tends to take the blame for everything that happens (we not only accept, we actually ask for taking it).
Face it: War is a horrible thing, and people do horrible things.
[End of rant, the above post is not a political statement]
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Yes they were evil but not nearly as evil as any of the communist regimes. Six million killed in nazi camps to over 60 million killed in soviet gulags. So who would you prefer to have as a neighbor: a clean cut business man who murdered his family in their sleep with a gun or a guy who just slaughted them with an ax? This whole sympathetic view of communists scares me.
The Russians are too often portrayed in WW2 movies as nazi cannon fodder.
Uhm...they were. They were often sent without any guns just like WW1.
the germans didn't have a chance of beating the Soviet Army, one front, two fronts, doesn't matter.
Excuse me? The Germans almost won. If there hadn't been some rumblings in Yugoslavia (and we all know that kind of terrain just swallows up infantry), Germany would have had more than enough to capture the Kremlin. That delayed them a coupled months before marching into the soviet union. Time that they needed before the Russian winter set in. Same kinda thing happened to Napoleon.
Though you do have some valid points about attacking the Romanian flank. The soviets attacked them because they were by far the weakest. It would have been radically different if they attack a German division but oh well. The nazi's were freezing to death before this well before any counter-attack.
It would've been a lot better if the Germans beat the Russians. Just as if England had actually sided with the protestant Germans in WW1 communism never would've taken off.
Well, I won't argue with you about the quality of the movie, but I will nitpick. First, I thought it was pretty clear in the factory that Tania shines sunlight in Konig's eyes, distracting him long enough for Vasiliy to get his rifle, which he promptly uses to shoot Konig in the hand, giving him (Vasiliy) time to escape. Also, there was plenty of snow throughout the movie. Not always, but it was there.
Yeah, the love story was pretty goofy. Totally on the mark there, as it were.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Right, I saw this yesterday, and my biggest complaint was the romance/sex overload. I can deal with the plausibility of the presence of female soldiers, and I can deal with two main characters falling in love with her... but it all just reinforced the idea that sex screws up everything. The guys are trying to fight a war, and love (at close range, in this case, not a sweetheart at home) seems to be an unnecessary distraction keeping them from their tasks.
The sniper and military parts of the movie were really good, and it held be to the extent that the final bullet in Vasiliy and Konig's duel, though expected, still made me jump.
But the romantic elements of the film were just obnoxious. I know this is how movies work these days, but this one really could have (IMO) done without it.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Those "communist regimes" were hardly communist. They were nothing more than your run-of-the-mill dictatorships that claimed to be communist.
I suppose that mentioning that the Germans loose the war would be a huge spoiler?
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
The Russians lost 20 million people in the war. Stalin's efforts resulted in an unknown number of deaths, with some people claiming 50 million, and others up to 120 million.
Second point. (which weren't in the best shape to begin with...) Once again it is suggested that reading a little history would help here. Hitler invaded Russian on June 22, 1941. At that time, his forces were the best organized and equipped in all of Europe. His air fighters were made of metal, when the Russians where still using wood-and-cloth construction. His troops were rested, and consisted of veterans. They were in very good shape. I agree, however, that the move was stupid - by invading Russia, Hitler opened a second front.
"cursed capacity for suffering" Ok, how much of the "long suffering Russian soul" crap do we have to hear? Where are you getting this? The Russian lit class you took recently? Every time someone takes one of those, they think they get a handle on how the Russian people think. You are taking impressions out of context, using a translated text. Once again, get the facts, don't spout opinions.
I certainly don't mean to start a nationalistic bitch-fight here, but honestly, can you drop the high-handed discussions of a national struggle of absolutely gargantuan proportions, especially while being ignorant of the actual historical details? I doubt anyone will disagree if I say that Hollywood is far more interested in making money rather than presenting the actual events. Yes, Stalingrad happened. But it is pointless to pose as a critic of Russian military history based on one western movie, or a few books on which the Russians themselves are divided.
I have been listening to these discussions for a decade now, and one thing they all have in common is a profound ignorance of the facts, and the high-handed pity and even contempt for what the Russians did in the war. So please, watch the movie, have fun, but have enough decency not to slur the memory of the millions of heroes who died to stop Hitler. You are not insulting only the Russians. You are insulting your own grandfathers who fought and died with them.
The language stuff had a big effect on me. The two sides would speak either Russian or German in the background, but whenever there was some important dialog, it was in English.
Danilov dictates a letter to Vassily and corrects his English spelling, but then dictates a letter to a Russian secretary which turns out in Russian. Sasha (the kid) speaks "Russian" to the other Russians, and then speaks "German" to Koenig perfectly fluently. There's are such disconnects everywhere.
I think the best way to handle it was to have the Russians speak English and write in Russian (have Danilov spell out Russian words with Russian letters), and have the Germans speak and write in German with subtitles. If half the actors in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon can fake Mandarin, Ed Harris can fake German.
And another nitpick, not about the movie, but about Katz's article. If I can go to IMDb.com and find out that it's not Ranya (where did that come from?) but Tania, so can you. Same deal with Vassily and Koenig. Oops, maybe I shouldn't trust IMDb so much: they list Jude Law's character as Vassily, but his grandfather is Vassili's Grandfather.
--
Uhm. The movie was based (somewhat) in reality. The girl and Danilov were real. Vassily really did fall in love with her, though Danilov's importance was over-stressed to be sure.
As far as Koenig's character, the short little part about his son indicated that they intended to have more depth to his character but they just couldn't afford it time-wise. I think it was clear that Ed Harris was really trying to play that tortured-soul grey-area character, but the editing really didn't support it.
--
...personally, I think the battle of the Kursk salient was more pivotal, and indeed far more shocking to the Germans.
Stalingrad was lost primarily due to the weather...the Soviets were victorious at the Kursk due to the vastly increased quality of their leadership, training and weaponry.
The Kursk was Germany's last stand in the East, and a pivotal victory for the Soviets.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Technically, most of the shots were very disappointing. Particularly, one scene comes to mind. Konig has Vasily pinned down in a factory, so that he can't move. Vasily is stuck behind a stove, and can't see Konig. As per usual the germans bomb the entire area (don't they know their best man is in the area? Apparently not...) Some glass falls from the ceiling. A bunch of the glass stick upright in the dirt, and Konig can see close-ups of Vasily's face. In every single piece that fell. The biggest disappointment though is that rather than actually set up the shot so that there is a reflection, they just put some CG reflections on the glass, which look horrible, totally fake. Since it's hard to beleive that could happen in reality to begin with, the fact that the director didn't use real reflections hurts the scene even more. Plus it's just corny to begin with.
Second on the techinical list, the movie is full of inexplicable scene changes. It is never explained how Vasily ever escapes Konig's scopes. It always just changes scene, from him being pinned down to him returning to Russion HQ. Since this film clearly is not supposed to be an avant garde piece, this little trick of editing makes it seem as if they hastily put this film together at the last minute. It makes it seem as if they had to cut a lot from the story.
This movie does not explore the experience of being a sniper in the Russian army. It is simple a goofy love story cast with historical characters. Sniper had a more interesting look at being a sniper than this movie.
I could rant about this movie for days but, for my finale, can I just ask, where is the snow in this movie? It is set in Stalingrad in winter... and there is not a drop of snow in the city. Considering that the Russian cold is always an enormous factor when invading Russia, the omission of snow is laughable, at best.
If you want to see a corny yet horribly violent love story, go see this movie. If you are expecting a Saving Private Ryan-esque dramatization of the experiences of WWII, don't waste your time. You will be sorely disappointed. I recommend renting Full Metal Jacket instead. You will benefit more from seeing this movie twice than Enema at the Gates once.
Craig's book is a history of the battle itself, and only mentions in passing the subject of the movie and both novels: the sniper's dule between Chief Master Sergeant Vasily Zaitsev and S.S. Colonel Heinz Thorvald. I've read, and enjoyed Robbins's book. Lambert's book is out of print, and I have no interest in Hollywoodized history.
Here's an interesting change: according to Robbins (he claims to have merely dramatizied history, and avoided changing documented facts), Zaitsev's snipers included several women, including our romantic interest, Tania. I gather the movie couldn't quite deal with the concept of female snipers, and made Tania a "translator".
I have to point out that some historians don't believe that the Zaitsev-Thorvald duel actually happened. There's very little documentation of it outside Soviet propaganda, and no proof in German records that Heinz Thorvald ever actually existed.
__________________
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
All in all, I think it was an excellent movie. It was actually quite informative, as I hadn't heard that part of the story before, and I never paid attention in history class. :P I do believe these war stories need a bit of a personal touch, however that may be achieved, else it'd end up as merely pointless violence [which Katz actually seems to want, according to his review]. There's nothing "silly" about losing loved ones in the midst of a battle, especially if they're shot down by your #1 enemy. That *is* what happens in war, whether you like it or not.
--
Well, recently declassified documents from British intelligence regarding the debriefing of the German nuclear scientists demonstrates that they weren't as far ahead scientifically as previously thought.
Yes, they were FAR behind. IMHO it is clear that Heisenberg, the boss of the German nuclear program of the time didn't want to succeed.
Some of the people on the American bomb had worked with him for years. The boss of the theoretical section was Hans Bethe, a German. They were very afraid he might succeed. Actually, the German program didn't even get a self sustaining reactor.
When Heisenberg as a POW heard of the American bomb, in a few days he correctly calculated the critical mass. If he wanted the bomb, he would have done that years ago.
There is a famous talk between Heisenberg and Bohr during the first half of the war. Many believe that Heisenberg wanted to tell his friend that the Germans wouldn't build an atom bomb. Unfortunately Bohr got completely into panic when he heard that word. Heisenberg drew a reactor. Bohr understood that the Germans would drop it onto London, which is ridicules.
My father always said: For a scientist in war, its unbelievable easy to do "sabotage": Just don't tell anyone the good ideas you have. He worked on the V2 rocket. While there were a few things in the war that he was proud of, his passive sabotage wasn't really one of them, since it was so easy and safe.
Warning: some plot is discussed, no endings revealed
I just saw the movie on Friday night, and I came out with the impression that the movie could have been made to be much stronger. Here are a few of the ways:
1. Get rid of the girl. The stupid love triangle relationship is far to overdone. The girl should have been removed completely, as her appearance only weakened the movie.
2. Remove Danilov as a significant character. Danilov didn't do as well as he could have in the movie, and I think his role was a bit overinflated. This was mainly due to the love triangle (see above)
3. Develop the characters of Vasily and Konig much more. This is my main suggestion for the movie. Vasily's background was limited to one 20 second flashback to the Urals with his grandfather. Konig's character was not really developed at all. If we could have seen the background from which these two fueding experts came, it would have really strengthened the movie. I feel that such a meeting of expertise would outplay a love triangle cliche any day. Tell me this: would you rather watch a soap opera, or a meeting between Larry Bird and Magic Johnson (to use an eighties sports analogy), two of the greatest and most storied basketball players of that time?
The movie did turn out to be entertaining, but I really believe it could have been much stronger.
Stalin arguably killed more people (perhaps 20 million) during his time in power than Hitler could even dream of -- the crucial difference being that in contrast to the Holocaust, Stalin's killings weren't focused on the eradication of a single people.
From a military standpoint (at least at the time of World War II), one could say with conviction that Hitler was stupid to invade Russia. He diluted his forces (which weren't in the best shape to begin with at that point) and historically, no one had ever successfully invaded Russia.
Why did the people of the Soviet Union allow all of this to go on? The author Boris Pasternak speaks of the Russians' "cursed capacity for suffering," and I think the answer lies there. We can't begin to conceive of how downtrodden and utterly hopeless these people were -- yet still they fought on.
To me it's more interesting to ponder the relationship between the Allies and Josef Stalin. He was needed to win the war, but he certainly could have given Hitler lessons in brutality.
Annie
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon