Re: [OT] "Enemy At The Gates" Review

Allan Goodall wrote:

> 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.

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
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.

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
> 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.

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
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

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
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
> throughout. Ron Perlman (best known as the Beast from the "Beauty and
the
> Beast" TV show, but last seen in "Alien Resurrection") is a treat as a
Soviet
> sniper who studied under Koenig before the war.
>
> 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.

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.

Mark

>
>
> Allan Goodall 		 awg@sympatico.ca
> Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall
>
> "Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
>  you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
>  brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan,