Myth

Rating: 1/10 (8 March 2019)

By the time the horrible events depicted in this film took place, the USSR had spent a quarter of a century murdering tens of millions of people and sending even more people to gulags. Also, prior to Germany's attack on the USSR, the USSR had invaded Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Finland. After invading Poland, the USSR executed the entire Polish elite in the Katyn forest.
Yet, in this film, the memorable scene where the boy shoots a photograph of Hitler suggests that all the evil of that time period was caused by him. This is simply not true.
Also, while the murder of the entire population in the village is like a picture from Hell, one can't help but wonder how it had come to that. The film focuses on German reprisals, but doesn't seem to acknowledge that the village supported partizans, and partizans were illegal guerrilla units. They were essentially civilians who occasionally became soldiers. If you are not regular army, you can be executed when caught. But what about a village these partizans used for protection and support? Well, we know what America and the USSR did with such villages in Vietnam and Afghanistan, respectively. The difference is that in Vietnam and Afghanistan neither America nor the USSR faced total annihilation in case of losing the war. Germany had to win, or face annihilation. It was a total war. Let us not pretend Germans were not aware that sparing partizans and those who supported them meant running the risk of their own people getting murdered and enslaved.
Also, the film seems to suggest Germans were completely undisciplined and drunk. The Wehrmacht was the most disciplined military force in the world at the time, and frankly, the trope of drunk Germans, so popular in Russian cinema, is something I find hard to accept. But I admit, I wasn't there, so I don't know. What I do know is that regardless of that, Germans are not getting a fair representation of their ideology or the motivation behind their actions in this film. Their actions are cruel, but at the same time entirely provoked. And that, I think, should be the core question. I wish the film had explored that, rather than treating us to the image of a boy shooting hitler's photograph. Then again, can we blame Russians for being too upset about what happened to their people to have any interest in trying to even partially absolve the Germans from their guilt? Perhaps not. But the film is still propaganda, mainly on the meta-level, where all the blame is focused not even on Germany, but her leader alone. Looking at WWII from this historical distance, I am more interested in understanding what happened and how, rather than indulging in outbursts of emotion coupled with highly ideological, abstract notions about good and evil.