Movies About Russia

[davlet]

Originally posted by Voyager13b

Alex,

That comment sounds like something Limey would say about the Britsh effort during WWII. Bear with me for a couple of minutes here. The film WAS Hollywwod, and was based on some fact and strong rumors about the history of the day. Even though it attempted to present a graphic portrayal of the Hell on earth conditions within the battle, and show a little Soviet heavy handedness to boot, those issues were secondary to the story. Once the inhuman conditions were established (which they pretty well were), the story moved to it's focus. That was the battle of wits between Zaitsev and Kohnig (did I spell that right?).

Of course, Hollywood has to add a romantic twist to most stories, so the broken love triangle of this script fit OK, and didn't detract from the story line. In the end, I think the movie gave two thumbs up for the average Russian soldier. It not only gave him credit for outsmarting Fritz, it cast him in a good light from a down to earth patriotic viewpoint as well. It also gave a glimpse of the Hell that was Stalingrad.

I don't think that the movie was a failed effort to make western audiences feel the horror of that battle. I think it was nothing less than a long overdue tribute to the Russian peasant soldier in the form of a docudrama about two men in time, with the Russian peasant rightfully ending the day as a hero warrior against the best offered by the "super race".

Hi Voyager,

Personally I didn't like that movie. I think it would seem somewhat offensive (?) to most Russians, the Soviets all look like thugs -- dirty, hungry, disorganized; and those Germans with their cool uniforms and aristocratic looks slaughter them by the hundreds (the Russians didn't even have any weapons in some of the scenes). I somehow felt almost more sympathetic with the Ed Harris' character (I actually think Ed Harris was a bad choice for this role, he's too charismatic for a Nazi). Now compare this treatment of war heroes with a movie like "Pearl Harbor", and you'll see what I'm talking about. I mean Americans show their own war heros as saints, but we always come out as idiots.

Anyhow. The best war movie ever made (IMHO) is called "Come and See", (USSR, from the 1980ies), it's a kind of avant-garde, scary, and very realistic-looking film about the Belorussian partizans.

D.

[Rain]

Originally posted by davlet


Hi Voyager,

Personally I didn't like that movie. I think it would seem somewhat offensive (?) to most Russians, the Soviets all look like thugs -- dirty, hungry, disorganized; and those Germans with their cool uniforms and aristocratic looks slaughter them by the hundreds (the Russians didn't even have any weapons in some of the scenes). I somehow felt almost more sympathetic with the Ed Harris' character (I actually think Ed Harris was a bad choice for this role, he's too charismatic for a Nazi). Now compare this treatment of war heroes with a movie like "Pearl Harbor", and you'll see what I'm talking about. I mean Americans show their own war heros as saints, but we always come out as idiots.

Anyhow. The best war movie ever made (IMHO) is called "Come and See", (USSR, from the 1980ies), it's a kind of avant-garde, scary, and very realistic-looking film about the Belorussian partizans.

D.

I have to second that. Enemy at the Gates really annoyed me in its portrayal of Soviet troops. There was no professionalism at all, as if the guys were all rookies holding their first guns. Zaitsev was like a "wonder boy", not a brave, committed soldier.

This Hollywood arrogance can be unnerving. The slow-mo Apaches and crying soldiers in Black Hawk Dawn totally rewrote the history over what was a massacre of Africans.

R

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by davlet


Hi Voyager,

Personally I didn't like that movie. I think it would seem somewhat offensive (?) to most Russians, the Soviets all look like thugs -- dirty, hungry, disorganized; and those Germans with their cool uniforms and aristocratic looks slaughter them by the hundreds (the Russians didn't even have any weapons in some of the scenes). I somehow felt almost more sympathetic with the Ed Harris' character (I actually think Ed Harris was a bad choice for this role, he's too charismatic for a Nazi). Now compare this treatment of war heroes with a movie like "Pearl Harbor", and you'll see what I'm talking about. I mean Americans show their own war heros as saints, but we always come out as idiots.

Anyhow. The best war movie ever made (IMHO) is called "Come and See", (USSR, from the 1980ies), it's a kind of avant-garde, scary, and very realistic-looking film about the Belorussian partizans.

D.

Davlet,

I think the Germans made all of us look that way with their smart uniforms, and apparent organization. Not to cast doubt on the character of the Soviet soldier, but especially during the first half of the seige, Soviet records as well as eye witness interviews support the view that the Soviet defenders of Stalingrad were poorly armed, and were offered extra motivation by virtue of rifles pointed at their backs during many offensive engagements.

I think that was a true reflection of history, and from where I stand, I don't think it takes anything away from the Soviet soldier, or his patriotism. We also have to disagree on your feeling that the Soviets were portrayed as thugs in the movie. I came away with the feelng that they were portrayed in a manner that described how desperate the situation was, and how they rose to the occasion, and defeated the invincible Wermacht (despite documented organizational problems early on).

Other films have portrayed the fact that the Germans also went hungry during the battle. It's a noted fact that one of the German blunders during the time was that they were not capable of providing their troops with enough supplies (including food). The fat man simply could not deliver what he promised his boss.

In the case of this movie, the focus was a personal battle, and not a primmer on the entire battle, and the events leading up to it. I think Ed Harris did a pretty good job overall. He was depicted as a man of authority, honored skill, and having the ability to think independently. In other words, he was shown as the best the Germans had to offer. Zaitsev, on the other hand, was introduced as an Alvin York kind of figure. A salt of the earth patriot who rose to prominence in the hearts of his countrymen, and defeated the best Hitler could offer through adaptation and application of good old Russian common sense. He was no accidental hero.

Pearl harbor notwithstanding, I think Zaitsev was given the full hero treatment in this movie. Pearl was more about a momentous event in American history than an individual, and I don't think they compare easily. Besides, I have a tough time viewing Ben Affleck in the role of a patriot hero .

I think our differences of opinion on Enemy at the Gates have more to do with personal expectations and sore points in perception of how one compass point views the other, rather than with what the director attempted to bring to the screen. That's OK with me though, as it gives us a good opportunity to talk about it.

By the way, even though the video and soundtrack quality are both a little dated, "Come and see" is one of my all time favorite movies that make an effort to depict the real horror that war unleashes on it's most innocent victims. In this case, it also hammered home the brutality Hitler and his loyal troops were capable of inflicting upon others during their quest for additional "living space". It's a very powerful motion picture.

My copy is right here in my hand. More than a few unsuspecting Americans have watched it in my home, and every one of them learned something in the process. By the way, post movie comments that I have listened in on after people in their 20's, who really know nothing about Russia have watched "Enemy at the gates", seem to support my point of view. They made casual comments about how tough life must have been for a Soviet soldier at the time, but they all bonded with Zaitsev's character. His name was added to their personal list of heros.

Voyager

[Hans_Testicleese]

I think you have all completely missed the point, did I not say it was a hollywood film?. It is a typical romantic portrayal of WW2, that hollywood have always done, I found it watchable merely because it is the first hollywood WW2 movie that didn't invole Yanks! (re-read my orginal reply). In no way did I state that is was a realistic take on the actual events at Stalingrad, I have read enough books and seen enough documentries to know better. In my personal opinion I thought it was a good film, the same way I think the original Star Wars films were entertaining.....after all this is a thread about movies.

[Hans_Testicleese]

Originally posted by Hans_Testicleese
I found it watchable merely because it is the first hollywood WW2 movie that didn't invole Yanks!

I have just noticed I said "first WW2 movie that didn't invole yanks" , I meant to add that it is the only WW2 film I HAVE SEEN without yanks. Another point in fact, (although I don't want to stray to far from the original subject) is that I love the movie The Great Escape. My favourite character is the one played by Steve McQueen "the cooler king" , however in reality there were no american airman at that stalag luft,they were all R.A.F. (including polish,french, and other nations that flew for the R.A.F.)or commonwealth aircrews, and most of the events depicted did not take place. I just wanted to correct my mistake and further my point that very few hollywood films about WW2 can be taken seriously, they are quite simply made for entertainment purposes.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Hans_Testicleese

I have just noticed I said "first WW2 movie that didn't invole yanks" , I meant to add that it is the only WW2 film I HAVE SEEN without yanks.

Hans,

I guess you don't watch many WWII films. Here are a few that don't include Yanks.... Sink the Bismark, The Dam Busters, Submarine X-1, Stallingrad, Das Boot, and (post WWII, but recent) K-19. Those are just off the top of my head. There are many more. Several come to mind that deal with prison camp situations, or with focus on special missions behind enemy lines.

In any event, they are there, and are offered often enough on American TV and movie channels that they must be in demand. I think it must be easy to want to believe that American viewers are never told about the efforts of their allies, and to take the plunge and declare it to be fact, but a quick look at a TV guide points out the truth.

By the way, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a majority of war films coming out of American studios to provide story lines that appeal to American pride and patriotism.

I have a pretty large collection of Russian films, and with the exception of the Spetznas TV series (which is an entertaining, but grand overglorification of Russian operations in Chechnya), none of them mention anything about the efforts of Soviet allies in wartime. French, German, and British films also play to the national pride. So what? If they are done well, I enjoy them all.

(I think I made up "overglorification", but I like long Russian words, and try to find a few for the English language)


Voyager

[Hans_Testicleese]

I have heard of Stalingrad but have never seen it, is it good? I also like the word overglorification! Ive seen dambusters but I was talking more about ground troops, as battle of britain hasnt got yanks in it either!