Enemy at the Gates Reviewed

ROVIN' AND RAVIN' WITH MIKE

A Very Welcome Enemy at the Gates

Rejoice, fellow film-fans! After several lean, dry weeks, there is something worth traveling to the megaplex to see, Enemy at the Gates. Based on an episode in the history of World War II, the Siege of Stalingrad, which, since it involved the Nazis and the Soviets, is rather exotic to an American audience, the film even gives a little educational bonus. A couple of minutes of historical background at the beginning, establishes the historical importance of the events, but a talented director and superb cast give the story its emotional weight.

The film, loosely based on a true story, tells of the duel of guns and wits between a Soviet sniper Vassily Zaitsev (Law) and his German counterpart Major Koenig (Harris). Snipers have about as easy a life as anyone in wartime, since they are long-distance fighters. Part of what gives the film its tension and interest is that the results of this encounter do not depend so much upon the pure shooting skills of the antagonists as upon their cunning at outmaneuvering each other, as if they are playing some gruesome chess game.

The story also gains poignancy in the relationships of the characters. Zaitsev becomes a poster boy for the desperate and demoralized Soviet troops, under the leadership of our old foe Nikita Kruschev (Hoskins, whose portrayal of the foul-mouthed peasant is not that far from his cartoonish role in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?). In a few deft moments, the film handles the theme of the cost of fame, even celebrity, so much better than Fifteen Minutes, which doesn't deal with much of anything else. Zaitsev's mentor, perhaps handler, Danilov (Fiennes), shares his attraction for Tania (Weisz), and the complexities of friendship, jealousy, and power that bind the men makes their symbiotic friendship one of the most intriguing aspects of the film.

By the way, I have previously complained about how embarrassing and often unnecessary sex scenes are in movies. There is one brief, restrained sex scene in this film, almost painful to watch, that is perhaps the most necessary sex scene I've ever seen in a film. In a terrible silence and a terribly ruined city, Tania and one of her admirers seek a little comfort, a little companionship, in a brief encounter that is more about the heart than about the genitals.

One of my professors once remarked, as we were bogged down in some Russian literature, that no one can suffer like a Russian. Well, those poor people, under various regimes and various names (Stalingrad is now Volvograd), facing various enemies. have certainly had plenty of practice, and this film shows the despair and determination of the Soviet people suffering the worst that the Nazis could inflict. It was a brave move to release in the United States a film about World War II that concentrated on the Soviet Army, rather than the Americans (just wait till May for Pearl Harbor). Near the end of the film, however, there is a heavy, artificial speech in which one of the most loyal Soviet operatives laments the failure of their vision. I agree with what he says, but I do not agree with its placement in this film. Neither do I agree with the ending of the film, which feels too much as if it were stuck on in order to appease a skittish studio honcho and, perhaps, sell a few more tickets.

The film's fascinating texture captures the physical and emotional realities of the ruined city. It is a terribly irony that the truly awful Stalinist art (almost a contradiction in terms) seems to have survived the Nazi onslaught better than anything else. The broad but detailed canvas against which the characters play out their sad lives reminds me of director Annaud's 1986 film, Name of the Rose. In fact, a Medieval monastery is no more distant from our lives than the ruins of a Russian city half a century ago.

Enemy at the Gates is a powerful evocation of war, from its opening scenes, with Soviet soldiers boated into the doomed city, shot from above by German planes or shot by their own officers if they attempt to escape. Landing, they are divided into pairs, with one rifle for each pair and with the instructions that when the man carrying the rifle is shot, the man who is following will take up the rifle. Later, in another example of the grisly lower mathematics of a war in which humans are worth less than the guns and bullets needed to kill them, the Germans similarly divide their prisoners into pairs. They tie them together, shoot one (to save bullets), and push both into the water, with the dead body carrying both under.

The film drags at times, as if the director were determined to reach two hours, whether or not he needed that much time. But when the screen is graced by Law, Fiennes, or Weisz--or any combination of the three--there is enough intensity and chemistry to keep things very watchable.

Next week, we'll finally find out who will be adding an Oscar to the curio cabinet. At the moment, I would guess Gladiator, Russell Crowe, and Julia Roberts will take home top honors. Not my choices, necessarily, but if Roberts will at least make a graceful acknowledgement of Ellen Burstyn's work (in Requiem for a Dream, which, since the film is not a blockbuster, doesn't stand a chance for the recognition it deserves), I won't rave too much.

Keep your feet dry and your heart full of noble thoughts. As I've said before, I write these columns out of a love for film, not to show off my ability to write put-downs. This time, I am leaving room in my heart for a little gratitude for Enemy at the Gates; after a few miserable weeks, I actually enjoyed going to the movies again.