This is off topic, but I know a lot of people were interested in this film.
"Enemy At The Gates" is the story of a sniper duel during the Battle of
Stalingrad. There is a question as to whether this duel ever took place. It's
a part of Soviet folklore, but the incident is very much in question.
I came to the conclusion that the director Jean-Jacques Annaud ("The
Bear", "Quest For Fire", "Name of the Rose", "Seven Years in Tibet") knows
very well that this is folklore and may not be true. The conflict between
reality and propaganda is a recurring theme throughout the film.
I had the good fortune of attending the movie with two friends who are much
more literate in film than I am (one of them, Michael Skeet, is reviewing the
film for CBC radio). My friend Dave Nickle (journalist and writer) pointed out
that much of the film, from lighting to composition, is a deliberate homage to
the great Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein ("The Battleship Potemkin") (see
http://www.carleton.edu/curricular/MEDA/classes/media110/Severson/eisens
te.htm).
This is echoed in the Soviet style art deco graphics used during the end
credits and the cartoon of Nazism "flowing" into the Soviet Union at the
beginning of the film.
The focus of the film is Vassily Zeitsev (Jude Law), a farm boy from the Urals
who is thrown into the meat grinder of Stalingrad -- without even a
rifle --
and becomes a Soviet legend. He saves the life of Political Officer Danilov
(Joseph Fiennes, "Shakespeare In Love") by killing 5 Germans with 5 bullets.
Danilov turns this episode into a propaganda coup, designed to raise the
morale of Soviet troops in the city. He builds up Zeitsev into a sniper ace,
reporting his kills with all the zeal reserved for World War I fighter pilots.
In response to this, the Germans send in their own ace sniper, Major Koenig
(Ed Harris, "Apollo 13", "The Truman Show"), to eliminate Zeitsev.
You're never really sure what is real and what isn't. It occurred to me later
just how many Germans you see Zeitsev kill... and that number is incredibly
low. The theme that Zeitsev has been built up as something he's not is
presented consistently. There's a mythical quality to Koenig. He appears in
Stalingrad on an empty train, where he is the only person in his train car.
Zeitsev dirties his face and covers his gun in burlap, yet the only dirt
Harris' Koenig gets on him seems to be his boots (though his gloves do get
ripped). I've heard people criticize this, but I think it is wholly
intentional. Annaud is so meticulous in details that he included the wreck of
an obscure, but accurate, German aircraft in the ruins of the city. He
obviously understands the way that snipers camouflage themselves. Yet, Koenig
seems "above" that. This is very much deliberate.
A clue to this is the climactic confrontation between Zeitsev and Koenig. It
takes place in a railroad yard that is completely empty except for the two of
them. Everything is quiet and still, in spite of it occurring during the
battle of Stalingrad. The effect is quite intentional. Symbollically, the war
has come down to the conflict of these two men, and these two men are so
hyper-focused that nothing else seems to exist. The lighting, though, is
exactly the same dull, washed out grey tone as is found in the opening scene
of Zeitsev hunting his first wolf. Are the colours used just as a framing
device? Or is Annaud suggesting that this final confrontation is nothing more
than a legend? I personally believe the latter.
Another theme is that of class struggle. Annaud made an intelligent decision
by not forcing the actors to use fake accents. The Soviets have British
accents. The educated Soviets have upper class accents, while Law and Bob
Hoskins (playing Nikita Kruschev) represent Soviet workers with their working
class English accents. Harris keeps his American accent, and it works.
The love story that has many worried (i.e. that the movie has "gone
Hollywood") is handled very well and as part of the class struggle theme. In
the "worker's paradise" all are equal and there is no reason for jealousy.
Yet, Danilov eventually realizes that humans are NOT equal, that there is
always someone who is born with better attributes. As such, he can not prevent
Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz), an educated woman from Stalingrad who has
volunteered to defend her people, from falling for Zeitsev. This sets up the
conflict between Zeitsev and Danilov. The love story is a fairly small part of
the film, and is set up nicely early on by showing two other snipers that
obviously have a relationship of their own.
The battle scenes are very well done, particularly the first battle scene
where Zeitsev is thrown into the conflict. The sniper duel scenes are tense
and well crafted. The CGI Junkers 88s bombing the city, and the Stukas
attacking the boats as they cross the Volga, show that it is indeed possible
to do a World War II film accurately with computer animation. There weren't a
lot of tanks shown, but those that I saw looked authentic. Early on there's an
armoured train car with two T34/85 tank turrets mounted on it, which I
thought was well done. The ruined buildings are excellently portrayed, though
it would take someone with more knowledge of the battle than me to see if the
city was laid out in an authentic manner.
> From an acting point of view, I thought the performances were well done
This is an artistic film. But it proves that a film can work as a war movie
and an art film at the same time. The art direction and the symbolism all
point to film of multiple dimensions. But it is possible to enjoy this movie
just as a war film, and a well made war film at that.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> A clue to this is the climactic confrontation between Zeitsev and
I doubt that the confrontation, if true, occurred as depicted in the film,
although I have to say that I do the way that he ended it. No flashy ending,
no long speeches, just two professionals realizing that one has lost, and must
meet his fate head on. I didn't even see any remorse in the loser, just
knowledge that he had screwed up, and should face his fate like a man. It's
interesting that they showed his corpse after the resolution of that; he's
reduced from the best of the best to just another corpse in Stalingrad.
> Another theme is that of class struggle. Annaud made an intelligent
Or, it may just be that he Annaud saw Robin Hood with Costner and decided that
he
could do without the cheesy fade-in and out accents :)
> The love story that has many worried (i.e. that the movie has "gone
I have to disagree with you here. The inclusion of this, and its prominence in
the film bothered me, particularly the amount of time they spent mooning after
each other. I also don't think that Rachel Weisz should be allowed to do any
more love scenes, or at least if she does, she should work on getting rid of
that "I'm being stabbed in the back with a bayonet" look as a friend of mine
put it. Now I'm sure that those of you who have seen the film will probably
come up with all sorts of analogies as to why her expression was thus, but do
me a favor and save it; I've got my opinion, and I'm sticking to it:).
> The battle scenes are very well done, particularly the first battle
True, I did enjoy those scenes, but also wish there had been more of them. In
addition, the attack on the boats left a bit to be desired
accuracy-wise. If they
were being attacked by Stukas, those boats should have had much larger holes
in them, and the men should have been blown apart rather than just hit by the
fire from the Stukas. A 20 mm cannon should do a lot more damage than was
depicted in the film. That being said, it was a nice effect, and most people
probably wouldn't have noticed that anyway.
> lot of tanks shown, but those that I saw looked authentic. Early on
Well made, perhaps, but I left the theater feeling something was missing,
although I'm not entirely certain what. One of the (nonscientific admittedly)
ways that I rate a movie is whether or not I become restless enough to check
my watch at any point in the film. I did so during the scene between Tanya and
Vassily in the shelter watching the dancers, twice. I think the film could
have been much better than it was, although I certainly don't think it was
bad; it just didn't really capture the horror that was Stalingrad. I don't
claim to be an expert on the battle, but I have read quite a bit on the
subject, and also had two distant relatives who participated on the German
side; one of whom never came back, and one who came back as one of the 5,000
who survived out of the 90,000 who marched into captivity from 6th Army. For a
more accurate view of the battle in cinema, see the film "Stalingrad", either
the original or the remake (the original is better), then you may see why I
didn't care for this one as much.
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:26:29 -0800, mreindl@pacbell.net wrote:
> Or, it may just be that he Annaud saw Robin Hood with Costner and
Ummm... no. Because he directed Brad Pitt in "Seven Years in Tibet". He
wouldn't have forced Pitt's awful accent there if he learned anything from
Prince of Thieves! *L*
> I also don't think that Rachel Weisz should be allowed to do any more
Well, for purely personal reasons, I really liked her. Her eyes reminded me of
someone. So there. *G*
> That being said, it was a nice effect, and most people probably
There was water in the boat afterwards. A lot of it. I thought perhaps it had
taken a few 20mm shells. It could have been nastier, I guess, with what should
have happened to the occupants.
> For a more accurate view of the battle in cinema, see the
I have the remake on video. It is a good film, though I thought it lumbered a
bit at the end...
Just wanted to Chime in that I enjoyed the film very much. It does modify the
facts as written, (the ending was completely modified from the real story for
dramatic effect.) but taken as a good drama and war movie, I think I'll set it
right up there on the top shelf of my war movie collection when it comes out
on DVD.
And Tom asked:
- How did a school commandant get to be "the best sniper"?
I don't know how does the guy that wins the most points in F1 get to be best
driver of the year? (actually see below)
- How does a Colonel keep up his sniper abilities?
(Most good snipers were NCOs....)
Yeah you see the Germans had this funny habit of promoting good battlefield
performers whereas in other armies, once a scummy enlisted man always a scummy
enlisted man. (even if you do get commissioned) And when you work at a
range... Go figure...
- Where'd Ed Harris' character get some of the awards he is wearing if
he was a school commandant? (Was he a great WW1 sniper?)
He was a sniper first and a higly decorated soldier pulled off the front and
sent to the school. Koenig was the Kommadant of the Sniper school, he was the
Masterschutze, the master sniper..head instructor. Most nations will pull
their top snipers to become instrcutors and even run thier own courses, as
Hathcock did for instance. Eventually they're worth more to the war effort
there than at the front.
Oh and I was more than happy to see that girl's ass....
Cheers...
Los
[quoted original message omitted]
I'm sure someone else has laready mentioned this, but the T-34/85
turrets
and a later scene in the movie with a burnt out T-34/85 in the
background were the only technical (in terms of equipment) mistakes that I
spotted when
I went to see the movie. The T-34/85 was not in use in late '42!
Other than that--excellently done! A four bullet movie (or would that
be five, for that neat sequence early on).
And I really liked Ron Pearleman's character.
For what its worth (2 cents).
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:13:37 -0500, "Robert W. Hofrichter"
> <RobHofrich@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> I'm sure someone else has laready mentioned this, but the T-34/85
You're right! D'oh! I missed that. They were /85 turrets, weren't they?
They
looked too rounded and large for /76 turrets.
> And I really liked Ron Pearleman's character.
An underrated actor. I liked Perlman as an actor, and his character was great.
> --- Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I just saw it a couple hours ago. So:
> >I'm sure someone else has laready mentioned this,
Right. I noticed that most of their Ruskie tank
turrets seemed to be /85s. The other technical
problem I run into is the depiction of the initial attack. In 1942 the
Russians had plenty of problems,
but a shortage of Mosin-Nagants and 7.62mm ammo was
not on the list. An attack of that nature belongs to
the early WWI era, not mid-WWII. Also the complaints
about lack of air, artillery, and armor seemed wierd considering the Russians
had more of all three. There was also a considerable degree of exaggeration of
the nature of the Russian political officers.
The problems with their depiction of combat sniping, however, were legion.
Excellent movie as a movie. As an accurate portrayal of the reality of the
battle for Stalingrad and especially the sniper's existence, it sucked ass.
I did, however, enjoy the portrayal of Krushkev.
Not that there's any argument as to factual inaccuracies in the movie
but....
John sezs...
> Right. I noticed that most of their Ruskie tank
A few points... the 62d Army was in dire straights supply, personnel,
combat leader and materiel-wise throughout the pre-Operation URANUS
Phase of the Stalingrad campaign which is the time frame depicted in the
movie. The Germans also had air superiority over the city and that sector of
the
front until the Russian counter-offensive (and winter) both of which
happen after the events in the movie. There are accounts of exactly that kind
of weapons rationing, check out Beevor's "Stalingrad:The Fateful Seige", or
more or less any oethr Stalingrad historical account.
Also the role of the commisars as portrayed in the movie were pretty much spot
on for that time period. It was not until nearly the end of the
Stalingrad campaign (Well, until winter 42/43 that the role of the
commisar began to change, the dual command structure was replaced and the role
of the
commander again in ascendancy. NKVD records note the trial/execution of
13,500 Russian soldiers in the Stalingrad sector during the campaign., that's
well over a full division of troops executed! That does not inclded
OGPU/schmersh actions as depcited in the movie where troops were fired
upon as they retreated. Also at any given time during that period there were a
further 250,00 troops (give or take) on the books in penal units along the
entire Russain front in the pipeline to "make up for their crimes in blood".
(Stalin's words) The lot of the Russain soldier was so harsh that even after
encirclement Russians were still going over to the German side. The sixth
Army, at the time of encirlcemnt had nearly a quarter of its strength or
70,000 men logged in it's strength reports as hiwis or other Russain
volunteers.
> I did, however,Â¥Ã÷Ãoy the portrayal of Krushkev.
me too... (BTW welcome back)
> --- clourenco <clourenco@snet.net> wrote:
> - Where'd Ed Harris' character get some of the
One of the comments made by the character with the teeth states that Koenig
was running the sniper school
pre-WWII, which would imply to me that he was a
regular sniper in WWI.
> Oh and I was more than happy to see that girl's
Another night in the barracks.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but my understanding of the whole Zaitsev vs.
Koenig duel is that it did not happen, in no small measure due to the fact the
Wehrmacht did not have a Major Koenig who ran a sniper
school. The whole story of an junior-ranking Russian
soldier taking out a German major with the
aristocratic-sounding name of "King" seems to have
been cooked up for morale-boosting reasons. The Red
Army in late '42 was in great need of morale-boosting
stories, and since real life was short of them, the truth sometimes had to be
stretched a little.
Having said that, how did the Wehrmacht run its sniper programs in WW2?