Stacheldraht Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 You’re probably familiar with Enemy at the Gates, but perhaps you haven’t heard of Stalingrad. I recently got to see it and wanted to highly recommend it in light of CMBB’s forthcoming release this year. It’s a 1993 German film directed by Joseph Vilsmaier. The DVD version is in German with English subtitles and runs 150 minutes. The film easily stands among the newer breed of relatively gritty and realistic war films like Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, and Enemy at the Gates (whatever you think of the romance part in that one). Stalingrad follows a single battalion (quickly whittled down to smaller units through attrition and the director and writer’s choice of focus) from their leave in Italy after fighting in North Africa to the Russian Front. They engage in brutal street fighting in the gutted ruins of Stalingrad and later fight in the “Kessel” itself of the encircled Sixth Army to the west of the city. What makes the film so powerful is the way it emphasizes the “human side” of war precisely by focusing on military actions. There’s relatively little pensive dialogue like in Pvt. Ryan or any romance like in Enemy at the Gates. Instead, it’s largely one gut-wrenching battle after another with momentary pauses in which you see the harsh realities of soldiering in that war. The action is realistic and unflinching and certainly not for those with faint stomachs. The writer and director do a superb job getting across the essential stupidity and futility of war by showing what thise poor grunts (or Landser, I suppose) had to go through. It’s not at all pretty or noble or heroic, but rather just enormously depressing. There’s surprisingly little overt moralizing; it’s there, but it usually feels appropriate to the arc of the story and the characters. One thing, btw, that’s really impressive about the movie, besides its emotional impact, is the research that went into it. You’ll see the Germans struggling to get hold of the Russians’ warm felt-lined boots or their well-regarded PPSh submachine guns. When they have to take on some T-34’s (with Russian infantry appropriately riding on them), they dig “tank pits,” and use Hafthohlladungen (magnetic hollow charge mines), Molotov cocktails, and bundled hand grenades, just as in real life. Not many films would take the time to research those sorts of tiny details. In that regard, it’s very reminiscent of Das Boot. (Both were produced by the same people.) *** If you’re looking for other insights into what the war was like outside of the sorts of operational histories you get in Erickson and Glantz, you should read Alexander Werth’s Russia at War: 1941-1945. Werth was a Russian-born English journalist who spent almost the whole war in Russia. In 1100 pages, he gives an overview of the military actions, but he primarily focuses on the life and moods of the people. Additionally, he provides some interesting details on the diplomatic scene before and during the conflict, as well as interviewing various figures, from factory supervisors, to diplomats, to generals. He also relies on memoirs and official histories that are only available in Russian or have been translated into English but are out of print. I’m only on page 400 or so, but I’m quite impressed with the book so far and have learned a lot. Along similar lines, if you want to see more of what it was like in the USSR during the war, you should check out the classic World at War documentary series, available on DVD with many hours of extras (it runs to around 30 hours overall, iirc). The series features a number of episodes on the German-Soviet war, with some unforgettable footage. You’ll see just how incredibly bad the roads got during the Rasputitsa (spring and fall snow melt and rains, respectively), how harsh the winters were, what Stalingrad looked like as it was being obliterated, what the Germans did to supposed Partisans, how imposing a bank of Katyushas looked when firing, and so on. Similarly, you may want to look for the classic Time-Life World War II book series, which you can find in just about any library, it seems. There are a number of books on the Russian front in that series with some incredible photos that speak far louder than words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Stalingrad was in fairly wide release in North America - I saw it in an art house when it first came out, subtitles, and I own the dubbed version. I was impressed with the attention to detail, but it is basically a Hollywood-type movie done by someone who has no idea how militaries really work. There is a total absence of realistic tactics, and there are far too many coincidences - our small group of pioneers (some of whom wear white piping and some of whom wear black, indicating they are not even in the same regiment) run into the same Russian boy twice, the same Russian girl twice (did the Russian Army really have babes like that...), and the same MP officer several times. Several hundred thousand German soldiers fought and died in the Kessel, but this movie makes it seem like Stalingrad was fought in somebody's back yard, given the frequency of recurring characters. A big problem was the fact that the movie is a cut-down version of a miniseries, so characters show up out of nowhere - such as "Otto" - we hear he "used to be an officer" yet he is reinstated as an NCO for some reason. He obviously knew the one-armed captain from before, but Otto simply shows up in the film helping to clear mines, and we have no idea of who he is or why he knows the main characters despite showing up halfway through. I would love to see the uncut miniseries version someday, it might strengthen some of the weak plot points. The ending is typically European (everyone dies in the snow), but I suppose that was a fact of life at Stalingrad! The acting is very good, everyone looks like German soldiers - I love the fact that they are Germans. I even got past the incorrect helmets, flashlights, summer uniforms, and halftracks... There is also the obligatory "I'm not a Nazi" line from the captain. Surely there must have been one or two dedicated National Socialist officers in the German Army who were brave and cared about their men, but if one were to take movies done for entertainment as research material, you would be convinced that they were all like the MP officer in this one, or Zoll from Cross of Iron. "Good" Germans never joined the Party, of course. Not that I'm defending National Socialism - it just seems historically unfair, and you see the same thing in US films about Vietnam. The "good guys" are the ones who take drugs and are only in the Army for their obligatory period of service. The career officers and NCOs are usually painted as the bad guys, and success in battle is not the result of regimental, battalion and company commanders properly leading their men, but the result of single-handed action by young, rebellious types. The Army as an institution is usually portrayed as something obscene. Stalingrad also gave the impression that no one in the German Army ever deserved their medals. The only two people we see get decorated for bravery simply show up with their decorations, and it is intimated that neither one deserves them - the weaselly guy (who in the opening scenes is a fellow pioneer, then all of a sudden is a guard in the same punishment unit our heroes are sent to - is this even remotely likely?) and the one-armed captain, who shows up with the Knight's Cross. We never learn why or how they were decorated, but Otto's "idiot" comment seems to imply that it wasn't deserved, or gained solely at the expense of his men's lives. Anyway, just my thoughts on the movie; it is still one of my favourites, mostly for the acting and characterization, which is terrific, and to get to see the only movie in which German soldiers wear all the proper equipment. And Stacheldracht is correct, there are a lot of great little scenes that give a bit of insight into day-to-day life in the German Army. I thought Otto's story about going home on Christmas Leave very poignant - the kind of thing you hear many Vietnam Veterans talk about, but WW II vets always kept silent about - except when talking to their buddies. Anyway, this is probably an over-analysis of what was meant in the end for entertainment, and it does entertain quite well, as provide some food for thought, re the duties of soldiers (though the execution scene was a bit heavy handed, involving one of the coincidences mentioned earlier). Would be interested in the thoughts of others; like Vietnam movies, portraying the German soldier of WW II is a tough thing to attempt to do, as there is a lot of emotional baggage tied to the whole thing. [ March 09, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted March 9, 2002 Author Share Posted March 9, 2002 Well, I'd certainly admit that it is a movie and not a documentary That's quite true about the convenient coincidences, but that's how most movies work--it generally goes with the territory. You find stuff like that in just about every war film, no matter how good. Look at Pvt. Ryan, for example. Complete realism would likely generate either an incoherent or boring film. And that "I'm no Nazi" bit was precisely the part I was thinking of when I mentioned the moralizing. That was one of the few egregious examples, whereas most of the film makes a moral statement more from it's relatively documentary sort of approach than from encounters like that. I should add, btw, that as a film (i.e., a work of art), I don't think Stalingrad is all that incredible, but for a war film about the Russian Front, it's darn good and certainly worth seeing for anyone interested in the topic. Among war films, the extended DVD version of Das Boot struck me as forming a stronger artistic whole in terms of writing, directing, acting, and editing. [ March 09, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted March 9, 2002 Author Share Posted March 9, 2002 like Vietnam movies, portraying the German soldier of WW II is a tough thing to attempt to do, as there is a lot of emotional baggage tied to the whole thing.The fact that the film is from Germany makes the whole thing all the more thorny, or heiklig, as the Germans might say. I was almost surprised to see the Swastika on the transport plane's tail, actually. I have the feeling it may be some time still before everyone can take more objective approaches to that whole subject--probably after all the veterans and those who lived through the war have passed away, I imagine. Even then, who knows? The American Civil War can still be (emotionally) contentious among some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Exactly right, Stacheldraht (I think I finally got your name right this time....what does it mean, incidentally, if anything?) I would love to see Band of Brothers done German style - with all the research info regarding GD out there, a good script writer could come up with something really good. A big cast of historical characters to choose from, a pretty distinguished war record spanning from France to the bitter end....even if you tied a crappy love story to it ala Pearl Harbor or Titanic, I would still watch it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Is this the re-make of the 1950's Stalingrad movie? Check out Belle and Blade .com -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Originally posted by Tiger: Is this the re-make of the 1950's Stalingrad movie? Check out Belle and Blade .com -johnhttp://us.imdb.com/Title?0108211 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warphead Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Stacheldraht = barbed wire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I even got past the incorrect helmets, flashlights, summer uniforms, and halftracks...IIRC Stalingrad also showed T34/85s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I even got past the incorrect helmets, flashlights, summer uniforms, and halftracks...IIRC Stalingrad also showed T34/85s.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 Re babes in russian army Guards' Lt.Sr. Natalia Meklin Guards' Captain Maria Smirnova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted March 9, 2002 Author Share Posted March 9, 2002 Re babes in russian armyFwiw, Kazimiera J. Cottam has edited a number of books dealing with Soviet women soldiers. I can't vouch for them personally, but they're on my to-read list. [ March 10, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted March 9, 2002 Share Posted March 9, 2002 I really didn't think that Stalingrad was all that great a movie. I think mainly because the movie doesn't really seem to deal with Stalingrad other than having the name in the title. How can you have a movie about this battle without recreating some of the biggest actions of the battle? Perhaps it's just a difference in expectations. I would love to see a "Band of Brothers" type of series but with a German unit. I doubt we'll anything made in the US about that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Thanks, Skipper. I see they both are Heroes of the Soviet Union as well as being cuties. I won't get into the hairdos, except to say the babeski in the movie didn't seem to have a very period looking hair "style"...(complain, complain) [ March 09, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted March 10, 2002 Author Share Posted March 10, 2002 How can you have a movie about this battle without recreating some of the biggest actions of the battle?Well, I don't think the movie was about the battle of Stalingrad per se, but ultimately rather about the experiences of a group of soldiers there. I.e., it wasn't trying to faithfully recreate large-scale historical military actions. Stalingrad was more a backdrop, which is how most filmmakers would probably approach it. Most of them aren't going to make a war movie from a "grog" standpoint since that would bore or confuse most people. Plus, that would be passing up on one of the great artistic merits of making a war film (or book, for that matter), which is that the background of war serves to heighten any human drama cast against it. A romance, like in Enemy at the Gates, immediately means more, or at least appears more dramatic, when the whole city is being blown apart around the lovers. Of course, that can become an artistic crutch, too. [ March 09, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 I've seen Enemy At The Gates with my Russian/Ukrainian wife at least twice. Her reactions are interesting...she is intreagued and a bit flattered that westerners would make such a film but at the same time she is disappointed with elements of the film (shooting one's own troops, the bombastic commissars, etc) that conflict with history as she was taught it in the land where the battle was fought. She still struggles with the concept that western histories might have greater truth than ones she's read of or heard from surviviors or relatives of participants in the battles. Still, she and I commend Hollywood et al for attempting such a film in the first place. The Eastern Front is a topic all too seldem brought before Western audiences and if it is, it is almost invariably from the German standpoint. The film tried to bring a difficult topic to the audience, made more complex by the need to educate, depict and weave a story all at once. Economics of course must twist all into a totality that will bring a profit in the theaters and will encourage video tape/dvd purchases later, otherwise major studios, investors, producers and packagers/distributors won't go near the thing to begin with. As a grog, I can rail on and on about all the defects in the film's script, acting and execution. As a consumer, I'm satisfied that the compromise we ended up seeing was the best possible under the circumstances. My conclusion: always carry a grain of salt into the movies with you...the popcorn tastes better and the films irk you less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 Originally posted by gunnergoz: I've seen Enemy At The Gates with my Russian/Ukrainian wife at least twice. Her reactions are interesting...she is intreagued and a bit flattered that westerners would make such a film but at the same time she is disappointed with elements of the film (shooting one's own troops, the bombastic commissars, etc) that conflict with history as she was taught it in the land where the battle was fought. She still struggles with the concept that western histories might have greater truth than ones she's read of or heard from surviviors or relatives of participants in the battles. Still, she and I commend Hollywood et al for attempting such a film in the first place. The Eastern Front is a topic all too seldem brought before Western audiences and if it is, it is almost invariably from the German standpoint. The film tried to bring a difficult topic to the audience, made more complex by the need to educate, depict and weave a story all at once. Economics of course must twist all into a totality that will bring a profit in the theaters and will encourage video tape/dvd purchases later, otherwise major studios, investors, producers and packagers/distributors won't go near the thing to begin with. As a grog, I can rail on and on about all the defects in the film's script, acting and execution. As a consumer, I'm satisfied that the compromise we ended up seeing was the best possible under the circumstances. My conclusion: always carry a grain of salt into the movies with you...the popcorn tastes better and the films irk you less gunnergoz, I agree with you 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 10, 2002 Share Posted March 10, 2002 I for one have never quite understood why the divide between artistic license, for the benefit of the "crowd", on the one hand and the respect for realism and truthful depiction of person and events must be so vast. The shortcuts taken to make the story more "accessible" in, for example, Enemy at the Gates are, in my mind, of such a inane and stereotypical nature as to render the context of the story completely irrelevant. And I can't help feeling that it is an insult to the viewers as well as to history to water out practically all resemblance to reality in order to play up a little halfhearted romance. I liked The Matrix, Kelly's heroes and The Winter War (Talvisota). The first take place in a reality of its own, the second spins an adventure around an environment it quite obviously respects and the third pulls no stops at bringing a genuine feeling of being there to the viewer. Of course it is very much subjective but my point is that it does not have to be "realistic" in any particular way as long as it is done with a modicum of brains and is not simply 900 million dollars of CGI's flying in to steal colour, presence and emotional fibre from another of the "charged" events in human history. Just the kind of thing you see in Pearl Harbour, Enemy at the Gates etc.. Belive me, I've tried both salt, pepper and tabasco, they all taste the same. Cheap. -- Again, all subjective of course M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted March 10, 2002 Author Share Posted March 10, 2002 I for one have never quite understood why the divide between artistic license, for the benefit of the "crowd", on the one hand and the respect for realism and truthful depiction of person and events must be so vast.Artistic license is often for the artist, too, not just to appease some supposed unwashed masses. I think one should differentiate, too, between general historical accuracy and obsessive or anal retentive grog-like attention to detail. The vast majority of film viewers, it's probably safe to say, don't know the difference between a Panzer Mk. III and IV or know what markings should be on a Soviet uniform in 1942 or whatever. Nor should they reasonably be expected to care. Playing it fast and loose with history in general is ok as long as the filmmaker isn't pretending to recreate history. They need to make that clear out of respect for the topic and the audience. As for all those little details that only wargamers or military history buffs might care about, sure, it's nice to seem them done properly, but they're probably ultimately not that important in terms of making a good film or educating people about history through a work of historical fiction. I bet many Westerners, particularly young Americans, don't even know the Soviets fought the Germans--that they did most of the fighting against the Germans, actually. It's perhaps enough to help them see that. As a film, Enemy at the Gates was entertaining and pretty well conceived and executed, no pun intended Sure, the story has cliches, the actors have British and American accents (better than badly faking Russian and German ones, surely), various details may be historically innacurate, but it's a very visually memorable film in terms of set design and cinematography, the storytelling knows how to grab the viewer (even if coarsely), the actors largely acquit themselves well, and the action is pretty intense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Reich Posted March 11, 2002 Share Posted March 11, 2002 Originally posted by Stacheldraht: You’re probably familiar with Enemy at the Gates, but perhaps you haven’t heard of Stalingrad. I recently got to see it and wanted to highly recommend it in light of CMBB’s forthcoming release this year. It’s a 1993 German film directed by Joseph Vilsmaier. The DVD version is in German with English subtitles and runs 150 minutes. The film easily stands among the newer breed of relatively gritty and realistic war films like Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, and Enemy at the Gates (whatever you think of the romance part in that one). Stalingrad follows a single battalion (quickly whittled down to smaller units through attrition and the director and writer’s choice of focus) from their leave in Italy after fighting in North Africa to the Russian Front. They engage in brutal street fighting in the gutted ruins of Stalingrad and later fight in the “Kessel” itself of the encircled Sixth Army to the west of the city. What makes the film so powerful is the way it emphasizes the “human side” of war precisely by focusing on military actions. There’s relatively little pensive dialogue like in Pvt. Ryan or any romance like in Enemy at the Gates. Instead, it’s largely one gut-wrenching battle after another with momentary pauses in which you see the harsh realities of soldiering in that war. The action is realistic and unflinching and certainly not for those with faint stomachs. The writer and director do a superb job getting across the essential stupidity and futility of war by showing what thise poor grunts (or Landser, I suppose) had to go through. It’s not at all pretty or noble or heroic, but rather just enormously depressing. There’s surprisingly little overt moralizing; it’s there, but it usually feels appropriate to the arc of the story and the characters. One thing, btw, that’s really impressive about the movie, besides its emotional impact, is the research that went into it. You’ll see the Germans struggling to get hold of the Russians’ warm felt-lined boots or their well-regarded PPSh submachine guns. When they have to take on some T-34’s (with Russian infantry appropriately riding on them), they dig “tank pits,” and use Hafthohlladungen (magnetic hollow charge mines), Molotov cocktails, and bundled hand grenades, just as in real life. Not many films would take the time to research those sorts of tiny details. In that regard, it’s very reminiscent of Das Boot. (Both were produced by the same people.) *** If you’re looking for other insights into what the war was like outside of the sorts of operational histories you get in Erickson and Glantz, you should read Alexander Werth’s Russia at War: 1941-1945. Werth was a Russian-born English journalist who spent almost the whole war in Russia. In 1100 pages, he gives an overview of the military actions, but he primarily focuses on the life and moods of the people. Additionally, he provides some interesting details on the diplomatic scene before and during the conflict, as well as interviewing various figures, from factory supervisors, to diplomats, to generals. He also relies on memoirs and official histories that are only available in Russian or have been translated into English but are out of print. I’m only on page 400 or so, but I’m quite impressed with the book so far and have learned a lot. Along similar lines, if you want to see more of what it was like in the USSR during the war, you should check out the classic World at War documentary series, available on DVD with many hours of extras (it runs to around 30 hours overall, iirc). The series features a number of episodes on the German-Soviet war, with some unforgettable footage. You’ll see just how incredibly bad the roads got during the Rasputitsa (spring and fall snow melt and rains, respectively), how harsh the winters were, what Stalingrad looked like as it was being obliterated, what the Germans did to supposed Partisans, how imposing a bank of Katyushas looked when firing, and so on. Similarly, you may want to look for the classic Time-Life World War II book series, which you can find in just about any library, it seems. There are a number of books on the Russian front in that series with some incredible photos that speak far louder than words.Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege by Anthony Beevor is an excellent book, covering the German campaign, battle for the city, and then the Soviet counter-offensives to surround 6th Army, and then destroy the kessel It is mostly operational in its scope, but tells some great and horrifying stories about the battles for the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts