A Good War Story Without Revisionist History Lessons

Rating: 9/10 (17 August 2001)

As a movie alone "Enemy at the Gates" is well worth seeing, as a "war movie" or as a piece of historical insight into a crucial part of World War II, seeing it is an absolute necessity. More than that, it is worth seeing simply because it is a movie with a plot, characters and story to tell, unlike many of the big-budget, high-tech, special effects failures foisted upon on a weary movie-going public this summer. Springing to mind is "Pearl Harbor", which by most accounts is a lame love story crudely and gratuitously cloned on to a pivitol part of American, and World history. (After I read that Disney Studios toned down that film in deference to the potential Japanese and Germans audiences, trading potential foreign sales dollars for veracity and integrity, I decided never to spend a penny on it myself).
"Pearl Harbor" is pertinent here because "Enemy at the Gates" also uses some very impressive special effects to depict realistic combat (which we all first saw in "Saving Private Ryan"). The horror of Stalingrad, the August '43- February '43 battle in which the story takes place, is remarkably brought to the screen, and the miserable conditions of both the Russian and German soldiers armies are shown, a detail worth noting: the Battle of Stalingrad represented the first loss by Hitler's Nazi forces, and the victory helped to inspire the Russians to begin their hard fought march to Berlin (culminating in April of 1945). To put things in perspective, the Russians lost between 500,000 and one million killed in action during this fight, and the Germans about 150,000 dead; (of the 91,000 Germans who surrendered on January 31st, 1943, only 6,000 ever made it back to Germany after the war). Compare these figures with the 300,000 total Americans killed in both Europe and the Pacific in World War II, or the 58,000 killed in Vietnam from 1963 to 1975. Stalingrad has almost religious meaning for the Russians (and the opposite for the Germans, would would have conquered Russia if this fight had been won).
The story of the movie is of a Russian farm boy thrust into a major propaganda role by a Communist operative looking out for his own advancement as much as that of the Glorious Red Army. The operative had witnessed a sharpshooting display by this unassuming new recruit and realizes that tales of this simple shepherd fighting for the Fatherland would be a potent motivator for soldiers as well as the home front (the sharpshooter did, in fact exist). As the exploits of the new Hero are reported by the Soviet propaganda machine, the Germans learn of him, and decide to send their own top sniper to crush this rekindling of Russian fighting spirit. The second half of the movie follows their personal war, and its conclusion and although slow going at times, is still interesting.
The actors all comport themselves well: the hero is Jude Law (the rich boy in "The Talented Mr. Ripley"), the Communist Party operative who makes him a hero is the guy from "Shakespeare in Love", the pretty Russian Jewish girl who comes to play a big part in the relationship between the hero and his lobbyist is the female lead from the "Mummy" movies. many other people have commented on the use of accents in the film. The Russians speak with English accents, but I think this is just a device to show a) they are foreign and b) the class distinctions between them (the hero has a low class accent, the Jewish intellectual a high class accent). To have had them speaking in corresponding American accents would have been distracting. Also distracting would have been fake sounding "German" and "Russian" accents if employed by the cast.
Most viewers will be surprised by the brutality and cruelty shown by the Communists towards their own people. This was very accurate. The fact that the Germans (although certain atrocities are mentioned) are not shown as evil caricatures (like the British Commander in "The Patriot") is also positive for the overall story. The heros nemesis, (played by Ed Harris), is shown as a high born and high ranking German thoughtful and cunning, as well as cruel, when necessary (he is, after all a sniper). Heavy handed moralizing or messages do not get in the way of the character development or the story. (It is an interesting situation for an American to watch Germans and Russians fighting as a detached third party).
In short, it's a good story, and an interesting look at an important piece of history without minimal Hollywood-style revisionism. See it!