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

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:34 PM
Subject: [OT] "Enemy At The Gates" Review

> 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.h
tm).
> 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
> 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.
>
>
> 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,
>    "Jack B. Quick, Boy Inventor"