Okay, let’s get
this over with right now. For you haters
out there, I like this movie. I can hear
all the groans and I don’t care. And it’s
not one of those unexplainable WTFs that you get when you read some critic
inexplicably give a positive review to a terrible movie. In order to positively review a movie like
“Battleship”, you must be watching it
while eating a gallon of ice cream to compensate for being dumped by your
girlfriend and it has to be that you are not rewatching the movie. I am quite sane, was not under mental
distress, and I have seen the movie several times.
“Enemy at the Gates” grew from
the tiny seed of a few pages in the eponymously entitled non-fiction book by
William Craig about the Battle of Stalingrad. (A book I read in high school.)
Director Jean-Jacques Annaud took that seed involving a sniper’s duel in
the rubble of the City of Stalin and grew a movie out of it. The movie was to be Europe’s answer to “Saving
Private Ryan”. It was, at the time, the
most expensive non-American movie ever made.
cannon fodder |
The story opens with Vassili
Zaitzev (Jude Law) learning how to hunt from his grandfather. Hunting wolves is a lot like sniping, so this
teaching will serve him well. Years later,
with war raging in Russia, Vassili is shipped with other cannon fodder to
Stalingrad. The film’s equivalent to the
opening of SPR has the new recruits crossing the Volga under attack by Stukas
and then having to make a suicidal frontal attack on an entrenched German
position. The crossing could be
described as “the fog of arrival” as the Stuka attack generates chaos,
confusion, and fear. The CGI is okay and
the wounds are graphic. Very similar to
when the ramp goes down in the Higgins boat in SPR. Upon reaching shore every other soldier is
handed a rifle. “The one with the rifle
shoots, the one without the rifle follows him.
When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks
up the rifle and shoots.” This is
probably inaccurate, but certainly gives a realistic impression of how Soviet soldiers
were used by their superiors. The
cinematography for the charge puts the audience in the middle. There are hand-held and slo-mo. Blood splatters on the camera lens. Very intense with non-ridiculous deaths.
Vassili |
Vassili meets his soon to be BFF
when Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) takes refuge in the corpse-strewn fountain
Vassili is playing dead in. 5 bullets +
5 targets = a hero is born. The transition from the mass charge to
individual action is cool. Danilov
becomes Vassili’s press agent after he convinces the newly arrived Khruschev
(Bob Hoskins) that all the Soviets need is a hero. Vassili is reluctant about becoming a
celebrity, but boy is he damn good at sniping (as a montage of articles about
his kills shows).
A romantic subplot kicks in as the
duo are introduced to the comely Tania (Rachel Weisz) who wants to kill Germans
to avenge her Jewish parents. That’s one
triangle. The other evolves upon the
arrival of the Great Nazi Hope. Col.
Konig (Ed Harris) has been sent from his sniper school to shut down this Soviet
morale-booster. He is aristocratic,
cocky, and very cunning – in other words, a Hollywood Nazi. The third leg of this triangle is a twelve
year old Russian boy named Sasha who imagines himself a double agent. It’s an extremely small world in Stalingrad. He shines Konig’s boots and for chocolate is
willing to sell out his idol Vassili. Or is he?
Thus begins the cat and mouse.
Kulikov |
Konig is arguably a better
sniper than Vassili. This being a movie,
Vassili has to be the underdog. He
becomes the stalkee and has several well-staged close-calls. The scenes are your basic “this might have
happened to some human at one time on planet Earth”, but surely not to the same
person. Except in a movie. Still, the scenarios are entertaining. The death of Vassili’s comrade Kulikov (Ron
Perlman) is particularly awesome. That
Nazi dude is good.
Tania |
Meanwhile, romance blooms in the
rubble. Tania becomes a sniper and
Vassili teaches her more than how to shoot a gun. We get the most erotic, nonnudity, sleeping
bag tryst in war movie history. (I
fast-forwarded through that scene in my Military History class). Unfortunately for the BFFs, Danilov has taken
a shine to Tania (she being the only beautiful Soviet woman in Stalingrad and
possibly the whole country) and is now jealous enough to wish his meal ticket
dead. Women! But a woman with a gun, screw the
bromance. Konig gets jilted, too – by
Sasha. We are going to lose a leg of
both triangles. Who wants to predict the
result of the final duel? A better
question would be: will Vassili and Tania live happily ever after and breed
super-snipers?
Konig |
Let’s address the accuracy issue
first. The movie has a legion of
detractors. When it was released, Red
Army veterans of WWII demanded that it be banned. It was also not well-received in
Germany. Historians have come down hard
on the duel. Craig apparently swallowed
Soviet hero-creation propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Anthony Beevors in his book Stalingrad
debunked the whole Zaitsev versus Konig (sometimes identified as Thorwald). There was a Vassili Zaitsev and he did fight
at Stalingrad and did score a huge number of kills. However, the duel with a top notch German
sniper was exaggerated at the least by Soviet propagandists (abetted by
Zaitsev). Zaitsev even provided Konig’s
rifle scope for a Russian museum. By the
way, the “official” version of the final confrontation was (of course) a lot
more mundane than the movie version.
Zaitsev and Konig/Thorwald eyed each other’s potential lairs for days
before Kulikov poked up his helmet and then feigned death to get the Nazi to
reveal his position for a kill shot by Vassili.
The most amazing thing about the
characters is that there actually was a Tania and even a Sasha. Before I researched the movie, I would have bet
anything that those two were screenwriters inventions. Tania was an American-born Russian who
returned to the home land to be with her grandparents after the invasion. When they were killed she became a
vengeance-minded partisan and ended up in Stalingrad. She apparently hooked up with Zaitsev
although there is debate on whether the hook up got to the sleeping bag
stage. Officially, it did. She was wounded during the latter stages of
the battle, as was Vassili later. Both
thought the other dead, so the Soviet government was not able to stage a royal
wedding. Sasha was basically as depicted
sans the relationship with Konig. His
death was by hanging for espionage.
My loyal followers know that I
put a high premium on historical accuracy, especially when the inaccuracies
make a mockery of history (as in “Braveheart”, for example). “Enemy at the Gates” does little harm to
history (other than the laughable poster line “A single bullet can change
history”). Craig might have been
suckered, but the movie is obviously not a propaganda piece. The Zaitsev seed may have been fertilized
with a ton of Soviet manure, but it makes for good entertainment for war movie
lovers and more importantly for civilians (especially women). Plus, like with most fact based war movies,
it can lead to fascinating fact-checking.
“Enemy at the Gates” is a fine
example of a modern war movie. (I
haven’t come up with a name for what I am talking about yet.) It does retain some of the elements and
cliches of old school movies, but adds modern pizzazz and technology. The movie is surprisingly unpredictable to go
along with its predictability. The
action scenes are kinetic and the suspense is palpable. The acting is good, especially Hoskins (he
chews the scenery – just like Khrushchev did) and Harris. I know Caroline will complain about the
accents and I’ll not defend them, but they are not a deal breaker for me. Weisz is not particularly good (and her hair
does not act at all), but her character is a very rare strong female character
in a war movie. Appreciate that.
The cinematography is excellent as are the
sets. A lot of money went into
rubble. The musical score is memorable
and repeats a strong motif for impending suspense. The sound effects are also top notch. The theme of a manufactured hero is
reminiscent of “Flags of Our Fathers”.
The other theme of conflicting cultures is a bit simplistic with the
aristocratic, stoical German versus the proletarian, emotional Russian
representing their countries, but not unbelievable.
The biggest weakness is the
romantic subplot, but the trio do have some chemistry and it’s not sappy. Just highly implausible. Does anyone seriously think that a producer
that expends over $60 million on a film should not try to bring females into
the theater? Besides, if I can stomach it
… (If you liked “Braveheart” and
complain about this romance, you have some ‘splainin to do.)
Is it “Saving Private
Ryan”? Definitely not. It’s a game try and you can’t seriously
expect Europeans to duplicate an American epic.
(Sorry, I didn’t mean that.) Did
it belong on the 100 Greatest list? Are
you kidding me, did you see some of the movies on the list?! Will it crack my 100 Best? It’s my list, so yes.
grade =
B+
the trailer
Please offer comments. I would love to hear what you think.
I am with you. I enjoyed the movie when I saw it years ago. The creation of a hero to inspire the troops rang true. The romance fit the plot, instead of distracting from the story like most romances in war movies. I am surprised that the duel never happened though, I remember reading about it in high school.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to know that it is not just me and 14 year old boys that like the movie.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure it is completely accurate to say there was no duel. What has been questioned is whether Zaitsev was dueling with the head of a sniper school. There apparently was a duel, but it may have just been a generic sniper duel.
In summary, yes there is truth mixed with possible Soviet propaganda, but Königs records were probably destroyed, because the Nazis did not see the Russians as any more than "subhumans", which has also caused confusion on the subject.
DeleteI'm not as keen on it as you are but, yes, certainly, it's a Top 100, even 50. The cinematography is stunning, the story is gripping, it's quite accurate. I was more annoyed by the romance than you were. I've seen such a lot of really weak modern movies recently that I much keener on it by now. I wonder what term you will come up with to describe movies like this. It will be interesting.
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand why it was criticized so much. Because the European public/critics are much harsher with big productions than the US. It's a tendency I've seen many times. When it's too entertaining it's not acceptable or something like that.
I agree, but it's not fair to call it accurate, however it is a good movie nonetheless.
DeleteYou surprise me. I was sure you would be very negative towards it. I am relieved.
ReplyDeleteIt surprises me that European critics don't defend it as Europe's answer to American war epics like SPR. And it is a worthy answer, in my opinion.
Loved your review. Learned a lot.
ReplyDeleteBo Hopkins was a 70s actor in The Wild Bunch.
Kruschev was played by Brit actor Bob Hoskins (of Who Framed Roger Rabbit fame).
It was interesting to watch a war film where the governments of both nations involved are palpably tyrannical and dysfunctional, and both snipers are at least partially sympathetic (although in both cases the Russian side looks better). I think it adds a bleak poignancy to the movie.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
Delete