roman_9999

I can agree that the film has a lot of oddities from the point of history. Sure in 1942 the Russian Army did not suffer such a shortage in weapons as they did in 1941. Sure at the battle of Stalingrad officers did not say to soldiers that they would find their rifles in a battle. And special NKVD troops did not force ordinary regiments to assault shooting them from behind. They did that with the penal battalions mainly (which were formed of both officers and soldiers committed some crimes such as cowardice, looting, deserting, self-inflicted wounding and so on). But all those things did happen in the Eastern front so who cares that the did not happen at this particular place in this particular time. Anyway this war is still unknown to the West. I was pleased seeing allusions to the old neglected Russian Ballada o soldate - Ballad Of A Soldier (Jude Law resembles young Ivashov and Aliosha was a prototype for Vassiliy, both love stories started in echelon) Producers called the film a mysterious thriller and I would agree with them. The questions raised in the film stayed unanswered: Why and what for did the Russians struggled in that war and how they could win. They did not fight for loot definitely, they did not protect their rights since they did not have any. The usual Western answer (according to some books and Hollywood productions) is that they were propaganda addicted, slaves by nature, robots, speaking machines. But Law's character was not. Even a peanut named Volodia, Vassiliy's assistant, when captured by Germans did not even try to change his destiny, did not betray his friends. He put on the German uniform and was shot by the man whose life he saved. Germans kept saying that they had come to liberate them from bolshevism, Russian soldiers did not have any weapons, they suffered from propaganda and coercive violence from both their chiefs and German forces but they fought, made love, danced, survived and won many battles in comparison of which Al-Alamain looks like a petty bicker. When Tarkovskiy's Ivan returned from his missions he got a glass of vodka and a piece of bread, and sometimes a little bit of candies. Major Konig gives Sasha good portion of ham and a lot of chocolate. But Sasha helped Vassiliy and never Konig. Yes I agree that Konig's execution of the kid does not look natural. But on the other hand. What Konig was doing in Stalingrad in the middle of nowhere? Yes, he was a soldier and had to do his duty. Sure. But what should be his choice when he realized that the execution of the kid was the only way to complete his mission? Why should he stop doing his duty at this particular point? Sasha was not sure the first non-combatant kid killed by fair people doing their duty on that war. He was not even a non-combatant.

Summarizing: I like the film. Actors were great (though Law was a bit emotionless trying to play innocence). It was a good try.

Guys, before saying that Alexander Nevsky is a propaganda film, please keep in mind that it is about a Russian saint, prince and patriot and it was produced in the country which totally denied religion, patriotism and nobility. If you look more attentively you can notice that the Novgorod churches had no crosses on top. The full helmets Eisenshtein took from ancient manuscripts and followed the history precisely. The portable organ the monk plays was an exact copy of the real thing from the 13th century which crusaders used. The children auto-da-fe was taken from ancient chronicles (both Russian and German). But in addition it had religious meaning since it draws parallel with Herod's slaughter of the innocents (used later once again in Ivan The Terrible). Alexander Nevsky is a Russian historical saga which has everything in common with old Russian cultural and historical tradition but nothing (or very little) with the Soviet propaganda. The film definitely has allusions to the Stalin's time: free Novgorod republic fights for its freedom at the expense of prosperity, elected prince Alexander (leader but not czar) etc. But nevertheless I think that the French critic Robert Brasillach (he was very close to nazis) was right when he called Alexander Nevsky the slavic war carol which has nothing to do with bolshevism, communism etc.

But IMHO Serghey Eisenshtein was against the war and followed the tradition of War And Peace by Leo Tolstoy. The same plot with common people uniting to oppose the uppish professional army. If you remember the scene when Russian soldiers alike in color with the earth and trees butted into the German close formation they use axes the same way they did when chopping woods. No pride, honor or awards but every day job. I think it is an excellent film which is larger then our judgements.