THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 73. Stalingrad, Dogs Do You Want To Live Forever?

 

“Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever?” is a German movie made around the time German prisoners taken on the Eastern Front were returning home.  The few that survived captivity, that is.  It is noteworthy for its realistic take on the ultimate Wehrmacht disaster. 

                The movie opens with a narrator telling us that the year is 1942 and things are about to take a turn for the worst for the German army in the Soviet Union.  A Soviet counterattack is coming and this will be the story of some of the survivors of that maelstrom.  The main character is Oberleutnant Wisse (Joachim Hansen).  He has been assigned as liaison officer to a Rumanian unit.  You don’t see that role in many movies!  On the way to his posting, he helps a Soviet girl named Katya (Sonja Ziemann) avoid being deported.  When he arrives at the Rumanian camp, the officer he is replacing is in a big hurry to leave.  Oh, oh.  Another officer warns him about his superior – Major Linkmann (Wolfgang Preiss -  Rommel in “The Longest Day”).  Linkmann appears to be a kool-aid drinking Nazi.  The Rumanian general complains about the lack of everything.  The movie makes the point that the Rumanian allies were not so much incompetent as they were ill-supported. 

                On Nov. 11, they know the attack is coming.  Linkmann tells Wisse that the Hitler is using the Rumanians as cannon fodder and they will escape when the shit hits the fan.  Wisse turns action hero by blowing up a Soviet tank before they retreat.  Winter arrives.  They are trapped and Gen. Von Paulus resists advice that he needs to break out while they still can.  Wisse remains optimistic while the other officers grumble and criticize Hitler.  The rescue effort by Gen. Hoth (bizarrely subtitled “Hooth”) is chronicled.  Von Paulus remains pig-headed.  Meanwhile, Wisse is transferred to an artillery battery.  Guess who his new commanding officer is?  Linkmann.  He has morphed into Capt. Cooney from “Attack!”  In other words, he talks the talk, but is a closet coward.  He also reminds one of Capt. Stransky from “Cross of Iron”.  He stays in his bunker most of the time while he spouts about the greatness of der Fuhrer.  Until he decides he wants to take Stalin up on that surrender offer.  The movie is not just a two man show.  Wisse has his buddies Bose, Kramer, and Konowsky.  They make a likeable quartet making the best of a very bad situation.  And there is a surprise reappearance of a damsel who returns a favor.  No kiss because it’s not that kind of movie. The movie covers the entire siege of Stalingrad and ends with the German surrender.

ACTING:                      B

ACTION:                      B   6/10 (quantity)

ACCURACY:               A

PLOT:                           A

REALISM:                   A

CINEMATOGRAPHY:      A

SCORE:                        C

BEST SCENE: 

BEST QUOTE:  a quartermaster:  “This is the asshole of the world.”

                This movie was a revelation for me.  It is not very well known and has been overshadowed by the other Stalingrad movies like “Enemy at the Gates” and “Stalingrad” (1993).  I could make a case that it is the best of the lot.  

                “Stalingrad:  Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever?” gives both the macro and micro view of the most important battle of WWII.  It is by far the best Stalingrad movie for those who want to learn about the battle from the German point of view.  Hell, you get actors portraying Von Paulus and Hitler!  The movie is excellent on command decisions.  The narration does a great job with the big picture.  We have a clear idea what the strategic situation is.  For example, the narrator explains that Goering’s supply air lift was a failure.  The movie has a documentary feel to it and uses archival footage effectively although some might carp about weapons systems appearing out of chronology.  Although a German film, it is not propagandistic.  It is fair to both sides and especially fair to the woeful Rumanians.  It does not sugarcoat the mistakes the Germans made, but it does omit the atrocities by both sides.

                The big surprise is in the production values.  The cinematography is nicely done and the archival footage is fairly seamless.  An interesting touch is the fading out of the scenes.  You don’t see that very often in a war movie.  The movie does a good job depicting the effects of the wintery weather.  The rubble is well-rendered and the sound effects of battle are realistic.  The acting is a real strength.  Preiss is his usual solid self and adds some gravitas as the only recognizable actor for an American audience.  Did he make any non war movies?  The rest of the cast is good, especially Hansen.  The characters are appealing and the movie even manages to get a female character in.  Katya bookends the movie in an unrealistic, but entertaining way.  The soldiers behave naturally and the dialogue fits.   The movie is not without clichés.  Linkman is your typical odious Nazi sycophant.  Wisse is a bit too good to be true. His arc from committed to disillusioned is a stretch, but represents a basic theme of the German soldier in the winter of 1942.

            Other themes that are explored include the contention that the higher up in command you go, the more delusional the officer.  This goes all the way up to Hitler. The foot soldiers suffer from the bad decisions. Since Wisse and his men are not from the S.S., you can’t be faulted for feeling sympathy for them.

             The movie is fictional, but it is very accurate in its big picture depiction. The decisions by Hitler and Paulus are spot on. Hoth's attempt to break through is accurate. But it's the realistic depiction of the hardships the soldiers faced that the movie excels at.  All the lacks are there:  food, fuel, ammunition, warm clothing.  And hope.

 

NON-ENGLISH COMBAT FILM SEMI-FINALS

Well, we’re down to the final 4 and they are all great war movies.  Two are modern and the other two are black and white classics.  Two are German and the others are from Finland and Russia.  I don’t think I would have predicted all four would make it this far, but I don’t consider any of them to be a surprise.  One matchup is between the #2 and #3 seeds, but the other has two not so highly rated movies.  Any would be a worthy winner, so let’s see who will come out on top.

Fortress of War (8) vs.  Stalingrad:  Dogs Do You Want to Live Forever  (12)

The Bridge  (2)  vs.  Unknown Soldier  (3)

Any thoughts on which one should win the tournament?    

Here are the categories:

EFFECTS

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

DIALOGUE

AMOUNT OF COMBAT

Brest Fortress (8) vs.  Stalingrad:  Dogs Do You Want to Live Forever?  (12)

EFFECTS: 

                “Brest Fortress” has outstanding effects.  The artillery bombardment is one of the best of any war movie.  These are not the cheap gas explosions you see in a lot of war movies.  The results of the bomb explosions and the bullets hitting is top notch.  Buildings really catch hell in this movie.  The combat is graphic with realistic wounds.  Whoever was in charge of dead bodies did a bang-up job.    The sound effects sync up with the battles to provide an assault on the senses that almost puts you on the receiving end.  The film does have some CGI aircraft that are just average, but at least not laughable.  The Stuka bombing scene is cool.  There is also a titanic explosion from a two-ton bomb.  GRADE  =  A  (9)

                “Stalingrad:  Dogs…” was made before CGI and modern special effects.  It uses real footage seamlessly.  Western audiences got to see “Stalin’s Organs” in their dreadful glory.  The bomb effects are above average.  Stalingrad is authentically rubbleized.  It is not a movie that relies on effects.  GRADE  =  C  (7)

DIALOGUE:

                There is nothing special about the dialogue in “Fortress of War”, but it is not hammily propagandistic like most Soviet films before the Thaw.  No one gives a speech, although the situations lend themselves to soap boxes.  No one gives a death monologue.  There are few memorable lines.  One soldier describes war as “ordinary and terrible.”  The movie has narration by Sashka as an old man.  It’s effective in setting the tone.  GRADE  =  C  (7)

                “Stalingrad:  Dogs…” is terse in its dialogue.  There’s no speechifying.  The men are appropriately laconic for well-disciplined soldiers who are facing death.  The grumbling seems right for men trapped in Stalingrad.  “This is the asshole of the world”.  There are a few good lines.  When Wisse talks about how he was taught to not rely on God, Kasselbach responds:  “Until you blow a tire.”  The chaplain chides a disbeliever with:  “Sometimes God only reveals himself in Hell.”  The narration is documentary style and gives a great overview of the military situation.  GRADE  =  B  (8)

STRATEGY AND TACTICS:

                “Brest Fortress” is based on a true story, so the strategy and tactics are supposedly accurate.  The Germans send an infiltration unit dressed as Soviets to cut water and electricity.  They open the battle with an artillery bombardment and try frontal assaults at first, until heavy losses cause them to settle into a siege.  Air attacks by Stukas are used to weaken the defenses.  The Germans wait for the desperate defenders to attempt to break out and then ambush them.  The Soviets are on the defensive for the most part.  They maintain heavy fire on the bridge leading into the fortress.  At one point, one Soviet group meets a German infantry/tank assault by charging to close the distance so the tanks can’t be as effective.  This was a bit shaky.  Overall, nothing happens that is head-scratching.  GRADE  =  A  (9)

                “Stalingrad:  Dogs…” is not based on a true story, but the big picture information about the battle is accurate.  The movie does an outstanding job informing the audience about the pincer movement that got the Germans surrounded.  Although a movie that concentrates on just a few German soldiers, there is coverage of the decision making by von Paulus.  The audience learns that the German commander disregarded sound advice from his subordinates because he was too loyal to Hitler.  It does a great job on the Hoth offensive which failed to break through.  On the micro level, the movie does give a taste for the house-to-house aspect of the battle, but you do not get a good feel for how desperate the fighting was.  There is the rare appearance of artillery spotting, but the Germans are low ammunition so we don’t actually see the tactic in operation.  GRADE  =  B  (8)

AMOUNT OF COMBAT: 

                “Brest Fortress” has a total of about 18 minutes of combat.  That is about 13% of the total.  GRADE  =  B  (8)

                “Stalingrad:  Dogs…” has 10 minutes of combat which is about 11% of the movie.  GRADE  =  C  (7)

FINAL SCORE:  Brest Fortress    33

                           Stalingrad:  Dogs  30

ANALYSIS:

                Although the quantity of combat is similar, “Brest Fortress” is much more of a combat movie than “Stalingrad:  Dogs Do You Want to Live Forever?”, so given the goal of the tournament, it is the more worthy entrant.  I love both movies and have seen both multiple times.  I do tend to think modern movies have advantages in portraying realistic combat, so “Brest Fortress” has an advantage that it does not waste by going overboard like some combat porn movies do.  In fact, neither of these movies fits in the combat porn subgenre.  Ironically, the two movies tread similar ground.  Both cover sieges from the losing side.   The Battle of Stalingrad lasted for months and the movie covers the second half of it.  It was such a huge battle that although the movie is excellent in giving the big picture, it is limited to showing the effects on a few men.  “Fortress of War” covers a siege that lasts for days instead of months and takes place in a small area.  It is much more a battle movie than “Stalingrad: Dogs…”  and is able to cover not just individuals, but also groups of soldiers.  Once again, the better movie had moved on.