Stalingrad

I first saw Stalingrad about 7 years ago and to this day it still hits me as hard as the first time I watched it. It is the story of Leutnant von Witzland, Unteroffizier Rohleder, Obergefreiter Reiser, and Oberschütze Müller and their desperate fight for survival in the deadliest battle in the history of war: STALINGRAD. The film starts off in Italy in the summer of 1942 where their platoon is resting following heavy combat in North Africa. Soon they are on a train heading for the Eastern Front. The men of 1st Platoon laugh and joke, play games, write letters home, and enjoy the view of western Russia as they head for the Ukraine. This is as light-hearted as the film gets. What follows is a very accurate and graphic portrayal of the infamous battle. It pulls no punches. It's main antagonist is Hauptmann Haller, a field police officer who thinks nothing of allowing his men to abuse and murder Russian and Ukrainian prisoners. At one point he lines up a group of civilians and has them shot saying they were partisans.

The combat scenes themselves are even more horrific. In one scene a German soldier hits a Russian over the head with a shovel as the Russian is trying to kill Ltn. von Witzland. In another scene a German soldier is cut in half by a Russian tank shell. There are many other gruesome scenes in the film, but they are necessary. The world has to see what happened in the Battle of Stalingrad. To see its brutality. To have its heart broken at the horrendous waste of the soldiers' lives. Over 2 million people lost there lives. Only 6000 of Field Marshal Paulus' 250,000-man 6th Army survived the battle. As with the battle, the film itself does not have a happy ending. And that's the way it should be. And as you watch this film, remember one thing, not every German soldier who fought in the war was a criminal. They were mostly decent people caught up in events well beyond their control.

The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.

The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.

Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.

There can be no real victors in war if we value human life at all. That so many German and Russian boys should die in the snow-bound wilderness around Stalingrad is a tragedy beyond comprehension. The camera crew did a great job in bringing to the screen the vastness of Russia with soldiers camouflaged in white struggling on the point of death across frozen landscapes. Far from home and missing their loved ones the German soldiers are depicted as rough diamonds with kind hearts sharing their last crust of bread with starving Russian children. The over-all German plan is to take certain cities important in the flow of oil and supply of food to the Russian enemy, but their plans are thwarted when the Russian armies encircle them. The close fighting is well filmed with lots of explosions, flames and shattered bodies among fallen masonry. I liked particularly the contrast of the opening scenes in sunny Porto Cervo (where the Germans are celebrating their recent victories) with the tragic scenes which followed when calamity overtakes them.I thought too that the three struggling figures exhausted in defeat symbolised the horrific loss of human life and the futility of war. While none of the actors shone above the others, their characterisations were adequate enough though I got somewhat confused with such a large cast and all the same uniforms. The lasting impression is not with individual performances but with the over-all mood of this tragic event captured superbly under expert direction. One soldier says to another:"This will give us the Iron Cross" The reply:"Yes...it will look good on your coffin!"

Well-meant attempt to depict the events concerning the battle of Stalingrad, though the individuals Vilsmaier concentrates on, remain - due to his direction - too far away from the viewer to have him/her really involved and the result is that the drama of the war is never really felt. Thus the film's last and symbolic shot is devoid of a deeper meaning, Thè anti-war film based on the Stalingrad event - as Vilsmaier has clearly given himself as task - is never established. An anti-war film it may be, but "die Brücke" by Bernhard Wicki still has far more impact. It also noteworthy that the film concentrates on the German soldiers only and hardly shows anything on the Russian side.

Moreover as far as the political side is concerned the film never surpasses the level of the 08/15 films by Paul May: it is simple in its division between the politically "good" and "bad" soldier, finding the latter in the higher ranks only, while the lower and lowest in rank are basically decent people; the soldier is just another victim of the regime. Compare this, if you have ever the opportunity, to what 6 German ex-soldiers tell about their experiences at the Russian front in the documentary "Mein Krieg" by Harriet Eder and Thomas Kufus (q.v.). I certainly do not want to suggest that Vilsmaier excuses the war (or worse), but he does not succeed in incorporating the socio-political situation, if he had ever the intention to do so..

There are surely impressive scenes (short truce in the plant; attack of Russian tanks, shooting of Russian civilians e.g.) and the battle scenes ar extremely well choreographed; the cinematography is sometimes stunning. But on the minus side: the cast is never more than average and the music is heavy handed.

In short: despite elementary shortcomings, certainly worth a view.

I can believe this movie will be a serious disappointment for a person, who is used to and likes to watch Hollywood war movies. Four reasons: 1. It's made in a world, where movie makers tries to have some personality. If you think 'When We Were Soldiers'... well, there are hundreds of directors who you can imagine making a similar war movie with personality and values of a hamburger.

2. Screenplay has a different structure. There's no shocking opening scene like in 'Saving Private Ryan'. This movie starts slowly in a very nice place and ends slowly in a very bad place, without hope or feeling that the characters have achieved something by their heroic actions.

3. It is first a movie about lost causes in the world of war, and only secondly a war movie which takes place in Stalingrad.

4. War scenes portray the horror, insecurity and confusion of a battle, instead of how cool, heroic and exciting fighting looks like. In this sense, this movie is closer to reality than most of the war movies you will ever see. 'Thin Red Line' also had similar "I would probably crap in my pants in that situation"-feeling.

Stalingrad, whether you think it as a movie or a war movie has so many good things in it... like honesty. Even the ordinary German soldiers were dreaming about farms in Russia when they were advancing. What a disappointment they must have had in Stalingrad! If you like to watch war movies, meaning also other war movies than When We Were Soldiers or Saving Private Ryan, you should see this one. (9/10)