A War Film at its Core that Attempts to be a Thriller and Love Story

Rating: 7/10 (19 May 2017)

The Cold War was an awkward time for the English-speaking film industry. Despite the industry's penchant for depicting World War Two, depicting Russians as the heroes in this epic conflict has always been a "no-no" given the political climate of the Cold War. When one considers the means through which the Soviet Union achieved its narrow but decisive victory over Nazi Germany, it feels more than a little distasteful to glorify the faction's role in the struggle. But it is historically dishonest to deny it as well. Enemy at the Gates is a good attempt by western filmmakers at capturing the story of the Battle of Stalingrad from the perspective of Vasily Zaitsev played by Jude Law. This character is loosely based on a famous legendary Soviet sniper with the same name.
In the opening scene of the film, a rough Cossack father guides his son, a much younger Zaitsev, as he attempts to hunt a wolf in the cold Russian winter. Shortly thereafter, a much older Zaitsev is seen being transported by train to Stalingrad where he participates in a disastrous Soviet assault on a German position as patriotic music plays in the background. Zaitsev is eventually used as a propaganda figure by a political officer who discovers his talent for marksmanship. Zaitsev becomes a symbol of the epic Soviet struggle against the Nazi regime. The stark contrast between the beautiful background music and the carnage depicted on screen has certainly been used before. It is cliché, but it succeeds in adding some dramatic effect. Unfortunately, it is the only time when such embellishments succeed to that end in the film.
Enemy at the Gates is a flawed film at its core. But the biggest flaw in the film lies in the historical inaccuracy. It's a shame too, because otherwise it could have been both a satisfying and thought- provoking war flick. The production value is certainly there. A deep investment was definitely made to capture the raw carnage of battle. But the historic embellishments in the film take away from the powerful effect of the true story. Why add so much Hollywood style flair when the true history of Stalingrad is gritty enough by itself. The embellishments were unnecessary and instead of augmenting the emotional effect of the film, butcher it.
Any member of the audience with a keen understanding of the true history will find some of the historical inaccuracies in the film to be cringe-worthy. While everybody knows the Soviet Union won the Battle of Stalingrad, Enemy at the Gates portrays Soviet leadership as so blatantly incompetent, that after watching the film, one can't help but wonder, how? Perhaps this is why most western audiences still think World War Two was won in Western Europe. This is simply untrue. Soviet leadership was far more competent and German leadership was far more incompetent than they are portrayed in Enemy at the Gates. That doesn't do justice to the history.
Enemy at the Gates tries to raise broader questions about topics such as loyalty, the role of class in Communism, and the pain of having to remember the faces of individual soldiers as a sniper. But the film only briefly touches on these larger topics. There is barely any depth. Perhaps the greatest scenes in the film are the tense battle of wits between Zaitsev and his German rival, a talented major who teaches at Nazi Germany's sniper school. Amidst all of this, the film attempts to weave a romantic narrative into the carnage that simply feels out of place. The female lead character, Tania Chernova, played by Rachel Weisz is interesting enough by herself. But barring one intensely erotic scene where Chernova and Zaitsev get intimate in a crowded barracks, her character's role in the entire film seems questionable at best and altogether out of place at worst. So perhaps Enemy at the Gates tries to do too many things at once. But it's still an enjoyable film. It's just not a profound or historical one.