Enemy at the Gates: your thoughts

[hugsandmarxism]

One of my favorite books ever is War of the Rats, and not too long ago, a film was made entitled "Enemy at the Gates." This movie butchers history, is very poorly cast, and is incredibly slanted towards a capitalist perspective.

What do you think? Any better media on this topic to recommend? Anyone else find it funny that Jude Law of all people was cast as Vasili Zeitsev?

[Wanted Man]

Mediocre movie, a historical wreck. All Russians are dirty, unshaven pigs, all Germans are neatly-cut gentlemen. It spreads the idiotic idea that Soviet strategy basically consisted of throwing unarmed human waves at the enemy. Understandably, the film deeply offended Soviet WWII veterans.

A good review for anyone who thinks this is a good film: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=108

[hugsandmarxism]

Mediocre movie, a historical wreck. All Russians are dirty, unshaven pigs, all Germans are neatly-cut gentlemen. It spreads the idiotic idea that Soviet strategy basically consisted of throwing unarmed human waves at the enemy. Understandably, the film deeply offended Soviet WWII veterans.

Agreed. Thanks for the link.

[JimmyJazz]

and is incredibly slanted towards a capitalist perspective.

?

Aside from a little speech at the end about how there will "always be rich and poor; rich in love, poor in love...[etc]", I'm not sure how this is so. I mean, it's Hollywood, there has to be a little obligatory speech about how communism can never work, but I don't remember it permeating the movie really.

[Wanted Man]

True, the movie doesn't directly make a political statement, except for dumb navel gazing like: "Communism can't work, because it doesn't account for love." But the film does constantly reinforce prejudices and historical urban legends. These things are not divorced from politics, they are interconnected. That's why it's reactionary cack.

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah. I read your link, and it did make some good points, but they seemed to be criticisms from the perspective of a Russian nationalist more so than a communist. They were still valid points though, and I guess there's some overlap between communists and Russian nationalists in terms of both wanting Soviet Russia to be portrayed accurately and not like it was utter crap.

[Wanted Man]

It's not a matter of "Russian nationalists" opposing the movie, it's that the matter is opposed because it's chauvinist against Russians. If a movie about the WWII occupation of the Netherlands showed Dutch soldiers as a bunch of cowards on bicycles, Dutch civilians as a bunch of collaborators and Dutch women as a bunch of sluts who slept around with the occupiers, people here would be pissed off too, regardless of whether they are nationalist. Same if a WWII movie showed all German soldiers as a bunch of anti-semitic murderers, or as ignorant morons who were all misled by Hitler.

[JimmyJazz]

Right. I was just commenting that the author didn't seem like much of a socialist--didn't seem to have much problem with the fact that "an officer of such rank would never have a drink with this man", for example. As a criticism of historical inaccuracies however, it seemed right on.

[hugsandmarxism]

Any better media on this topic?

[Random Precision]

I mostly agree with Wanted Man, although I would argue that it had some occasional good moments. A much better movie about the battle is Stalingrad (made by the guys who did Das Boot), which is done from the perspective of a group of German soldiers. It's wicked brilliant.

[Black Sheep]

and it says something before the main character's friend is shot, that "we tried to build a society where everyone is no rich and poor,but there will always be rich and poor,rich in gifts,poor in gifts..." etc

so fucking counter revolutionary, that movie is.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

And, yeah; Jude Law was completly the wrong person to play Vassili Zaitsev

[hugsandmarxism]

And, yeah; Jude Law was completly the wrong person to play Vassili Zaitsev

Exactly!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=986

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=149&pictureid=987

[Guerrilla22]

The book "Enemy at the Gate" was great. It fully detailed the entire battle for Stalingrad from start to finish and included declassified documents from both sides. It took the author, I forget his name several years to gather all the research for the book. The sniper battle was only a small portion of the book.

The movie on the other hand was shit, it included things that never actually happened, including a love story. In reality the Soviet sniper killed the German sniper brought in to kill him, pretty quickly.

[hugsandmarxism]

The book "Enemy at the Gate" was great. It fully detailed the entire battle for Stalingrad from start to finish and included declassified documents from both sides. It took the author, I forget his name several years to gather all the research for the book. The sniper battle was only a small portion of the book.

The movie on the other hand was shit, it included things that never actually happened, including a love story. In reality the Soviet sniper killed the German sniper brought in to kill him, pretty quickly.

I need to get that book... I've read "War of the Rats," which I thoroughly enjoyed. The story is a classic tale of heroism, and Zeitsev was indeed the man.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I love Enemy at the Gates, not much has been done to show the Russian perspective of World War II and anything is better then nothing. The opening scenes with the commisars shooting soldiers that retreated is also eye-opening to the brutality of Stalin's regime and makes one consider the feelings of urgency and desparity that war can bring.

[Invader Zim]

Mediocre movie, a historical wreck. All Russians are dirty, unshaven pigs, all Germans are neatly-cut gentlemen. It spreads the idiotic idea that Soviet strategy basically consisted of throwing unarmed human waves at the enemy. Understandably, the film deeply offended Soviet WWII veterans.

A good review for anyone who thinks this is a good film: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=108

I don't think it portrays the Russian's as pigs, quite the reverse; rather as highly skilled and, in many cases, highly efficent soldiers. Furthermore the idea that they were under-armed and poorly armed further accentuates the 'underdog' image that the film attempts to promote.

[Guerrilla22]

the book was well researched and really is basically like a history text, and is pretty much unbiased. It portrays Stalin as beinf pretty much incompetent at first, however he eventually starts listening to his Field Marshalls and generals, mostly to Kruchev, who devise a brilliant counter offensive. It portrays Hitler as being egotisitcal, someone who much like Bush was more interested in saving face than doing rational things. Millions of German soldiers died because Hitler thought it would look bad to retreat.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I haven't seen the movie, but I heard it was good. Mind you, that was coming from a Capitalist's prespective afterall...

[Vanguard1917]

The film was quite boring.

[red republican]

'Notes of a Sniper' by V Zaitsev

Very cheap on a few online booksellers

Highly recommended

'Enemy at the gates/war of the rats' are both anti-communist rip offs.

[hugsandmarxism]

'Notes of a Sniper' by V Zaitsev

Very cheap on a few online booksellers

Highly recommended

'Enemy at the gates/war of the rats' are both anti-communist rip offs.

Your first post was on my thread? I'm touched. ;)