Movies: find it!

[Esteban_cool]

Originally Posted by Simon

Russian review of Enemy at the Gates:

ENEMA AT THE DOOR: an Foreigner Will Not Notice, a Russian Will Not Forgive - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD

Forgive the clumsy auto-translator job.

I can understand the anger of this guy, but I have a gut feeling that he is blinding himself because of his pride.
I don´t have proof to assure there were forced charges against the germans without weapons for everybody, but soviet commanders proved themselves rather inept during the first years of the war at repelling the invasion, and that´s a fact. And it gives room to think such foolish kind of attacks took place.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Esteban_cool

I can understand the anger of this guy, but I have a gut feeling that he is blinding himself because of his pride.
I don´t have proof to assure there were forced charges against the germans without weapons for everybody, but soviet commanders proved themselves rather inept during the first years of the war at repelling the invasion, and that´s a fact. And it gives room to think such foolish kind of attacks took place.

This guy criticizes the movie for the numerous historical inaccuracies and portrayal of stereotypes, with "foolish kind of attacks" being only one of them. I am not going to repeat every argument in his article. It suffices to say that the author substantiates his claims with scenes, dialogues, captions from the film.

In my opinion, the movie's greatest flaw is the primitive categorization. Every private is a part of a scared herd, every officer is pull-the-trigger-at-his-own-soldiers robot. In real life, Red Army consisted of different human beings, brave and cowardly, honorable and odious.

Every event can be depicted in multitude of shades by selectively picking facts. Indeed during GPW, Soviet generals had committed suicides, officers had shot at their own men, poorly organized attacks had taken place, and soldiers had charged with 1 rifle for 2 men. This movie's director combined all these ingredients in high concentration and cooked a dark, thick soup. Was it even mentioned in this film that battle of Stalingrad was a Russian victory? Enemy at the Gates doesn't show Katyusha and gun salvoes that buried German infantry, advancing Soviet tanks on their way to encircle Paulus's Army or the pathetic state of his surrendering men.

[Esteban_cool]

Originally Posted by Simon

This guy criticizes the movie for the numerous historical inaccuracies and portrayal of stereotypes, with "foolish kind of attacks" being only one of them. I am not going to repeat every argument in his article. It suffices to say that the author substantiates his claims with scenes, dialogues, captions from the film.

In my opinion, the movie's greatest flaw is the primitive categorization. Every private is a part of a scared herd, every officer is pull-the-trigger-at-his-own-soldiers robot. In real life, Red Army consisted of different human beings, brave and cowardly, honorable and odious.

Every event can be depicted in multitude of shades by selectively picking facts. Indeed during GPW, Soviet generals had committed suicides, officers had shot at their own men, poorly organized attacks had taken place, and soldiers had charged with 1 rifle for 2 men. This movie's director combined all these ingredients in high concentration and cooked a dark, thick soup. Was it even mentioned in this film that battle of Stalingrad was a Russian victory? Enemy at the Gates doesn't show Katyusha and gun salvoes that buried German infantry, advancing Soviet tanks on their way to encircle Paulus's Army or the pathetic state of his surrendering men.

I agree with you that the primitive categorization, stereotypes and the historic inaccuracies are heavy flaws of the movie.
What I did not like about the comment is that his author is almost denying facts like officers shooting their own soldiers, the charges, poor attacks, Sasha´s mother wishing his son to be safe with the germans and so on. He seems so proud of soviet victory over the nazis -and he is in his right to be- that he believes the soviets had a skyrocketing combat readiness and were perfect-in-all-sense and fearless warriors. That´s what I did not like.
Of course, I do not question nor look down upon the tremendous sacrifice the brave men of the Red Army did for their country. But regardless of who wins, flaws both in movies and history, must be admitted, and denying them by just saying "It´s ridiculous/outrageous/stupid that this could have ever happened!" is, IMHO, wrong.

But that´s just me.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Meffert

I've seen (have) the shraftbat mini-series. I liked it but the subtitles are sort of russian into chinese into english and range from passable to horrible. If you actually speak russian, it's worth the investment in time

I just had a peek on Youtube. Looks quite accurate, but I didn´t like the acting too much. The scene of the commisar beating the main character made me laugh a bit. I will look for it and watch it though.

[aironmeiden]

Originally Posted by Simon

Russian review of Enemy at the Gates:

ENEMA AT THE DOOR: an Foreigner Will Not Notice, a Russian Will Not Forgive - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD

Forgive the clumsy auto-translator job.

Actually this is a flim and not a documentary.
There are gross mistakes in editing, history and culture (all the film have them)... It's a fictionalized story: attractive characters, love, a sex scene , glory, stupid heroism, lots of stereotypes and finally the american finale: the good always win!
As regards of many film this one in my opinion in not as bad as you portray them... or at least i am so blind and i can't see!

And...
The guy that write the rewiew foolishly surprise to the scene of the mass attack wave... actually i remember the great purge (how many thousand of deads by compatriot hands?!) so i don't be surprised if a suicide attack wave like that take part in the war! That was a totally crazy period...

ENEMY AT THE GATES:
Vassili hidden behind an owen tring to retrive his rifle (surely over 4KG) with a poket-knife... Konig shots the wire (with a rifle suerly zeroed at several hundreds meters) and break it! But the pearl is that after that the bullet vanish... there's no debris or other!

[roy]

In the recent BBC documentary "WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West" there is a scene where NKVD men are wearing a Bravery medal during the 1939/40 time period. However, the suspension on the medal is of the later type rather than the smaller rectangular type.

There are other mistakes such as US troops using British Enfield .303 rifles, but overall, the documentary is very, very good.

[Esteban_cool]

Originally Posted by roy

In the recent BBC documentary "WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West" there is a scene where NKVD men are wearing a Bravery medal during the 1939/40 time period. However, the suspension on the medal is of the later type rather than the smaller rectangular type.

There are other mistakes such as US troops using British Enfield .303 rifles, but overall, the documentary is very, very good.

Documentaries always show one or two flaws that make us laugh a bit.

BTW, we must not forget-although it´s not a documentary-the wonderful ribbon bar of Capt. Ramius from Hunt for Red October.

[Commissar]

The Hunt for Red October had a number of faults.
The fire extinguishers inside the sub itself read Amerex, an American made extinguisher.
And for some reason it seems that many Soviet officers are shown wearing a submarine qualification pin when only the Commanding Officer would have one on a Soviet submarine?
Im not sure about that though, I am not all navally oriented.

[roy]

Speaking about the "Hunt For Red October", I do recall a scene where the skipper of the pursuing Soviet submarine is smoking a Marlboro cigarette.

[Esteban_cool]

Do you people want to see fatal, annoying flaws?

Play Red Alert 3.

[Commissar]

I forgot about the cigarette!

I have never ever played the Red Alert games and I am a better person for it.