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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I suppose that mentioning that the Germans loose the war would be a huge spoiler?
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
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.
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