Come And See

Orizio

:eek: ****ing hell - one of the greatest war films of all time?

seanybiker

care to elaborate?

Orizio

seanybiker wrote: »

care to elaborate?

That depends if you've seen it or not, assuming you haven't...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HkMK3Pk61A

Essentially an extremely brutal and dark but brilliant film set in Belarus in 1943, following a the story of a young local partisan.

Hank_Jones

Haven't seen it yet, don't even want to watch that trailer either (don't like trailers, think they ruin films).

I've heard it is something special though.
Certainly up there for films I have to see, but haven't got round to yet.

Anything that views war from a different perspective to American films gets a thumbs up in my book.

Duggy747

It truly is an excellent film.

I had put off watching this film for so long until I finally got around to it. By the end I realised this film had more of an impact on me than any other war film I'd seen.

It's a shame so many people haven't seen this, it belongs to up there with the other widely-reconigsed war films.

ginoginelli

Its an absolute classic. I have it in the top 5 war films of all time.

Morlar

Elements of it are pure soviet propaganda but it is very good. The performances and realism are outstanding. The 'aging' device if you can call it that is disturbing. I read somewhere that they even used live explosions and live tracer rounds in some scenes for added realism. It is one of those ''all germans were evil SS Baby killers'' and "all communists were stoic reluctant heroes" kind of films not surprising as it came out of Soviet era Russia. Those reservations aside it's an outstanding film and makes a nice counterpoint to the spielberg version of things.

conorhal

Like Apocalypse Now, Come And See is less of a 'war movie' then it is a fever dream, a surreal nightmare that plunges you into the sheer horror and absurdity or war. It's amazingly viceral, more of an experience then a film really.
Spielberg clearly pays homage to Come and See with the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan with it's desaturated look, brutally realistic violence and the way he manipulates the sound design during the Normandy landing scenes, and Spielberg always borrows from the best.

I couldn't disagree more however with Morlar's suggestion that it's propaganda protraying "all Germans were evil SS Baby killers'' and "all communists were stoic reluctant heroes".
Klimov's film was actually deeply subversive given when and where it was made.
The film portrays war as pretty senseless, and at times absurdly comic madness rather than a heroic endevor. Klimov subtly critiques both sides and portrays them as caricatures (but when you read about what the advancing German's actually did in the Ukraine, it doesn't actually seem all that exagerated). There is no glory heaped on the partisans that's for sure, they recruit child soldiers, pillage supplies and sing patriotic songs but their fight for the Motherland is pretty ineffectual, they are portrayed as just another part of the madness.
Klimov clearly stands on the sided of the innocent civilians caught up in other men's insanity. Florya's story is not about the hero of the resistance that he wishes to be when we first meet him at the beginning of the film, digging for discarded weapons on a beach so that he can join the partisans. Instead Klimov explores the impact of war on such naive young boys, and that impact is clearly and literally etched on Florya's face.

Come and See is a definite 10/10 for me.

Morlar

conorhal wrote: »

Spielberg clearly pays homage to Come and See with the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan

I have seen both movies and the assertion that the beach landings of SPR are a 'homage' to 'come and see' is not neceassarily one I'd agree with. For sure he mimiced some of the look and feel and this was after all a groundbreaking film, but whether or not to call SPR a 'homage' is another matter.

conorhal wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more however with Morlar's suggestion that it's propaganda protraying "all Germans were evil SS Baby killers'' and "all communists were stoic reluctant heroes".

You are talking about a soviet made movie, made in an era of total soviet communist control over the artistic output of half the continent and made for the 40th anniversary of the ending of WW2 and compulsorily shown to East Germans by the soviets.

I would call it propaganda for several reasons - including those already mentioned.

conorhal wrote: »

Klimov's film is actually deeply subversive given when and where it was made.

It is not even remotely subversive in my view. It's made for a reasonably educated audience not given to accept simplistic propaganda but that doesn't mean it doesnt contain elements of pure propaganda within.

conorhal wrote: »

The film portrays war as pretty senseless, and at times absurdly comic madness rather than a heroic endevor.

There is a difference between including elements of the absurd in with the horror and it being somehow a subversive film. If it were a subversive film then perhaps it might have veered a fraction of a degree from the portrayals of the uniform cruelty of all germans and uniform selfless heroism of all communists. If that had been the case you may have a point.

conorhal wrote: »

Klimov subtly critiques both sides and portrays both sides as caricatures

There is nothing subtle about the critique of the germans in that movie and not all propaganda has to be as simplistic as you seem to think.

All germans in that movie are bloodthirsty rapists of women and enthusiatic killers of infants & children. Not only that but it is gleefully, sadistically done on their part.

All communists are reluctant selfless fighters herioc to a fault. No mention of red army crimes within a million miles of that movie. Given events like the Holdomor, Katyn, Neustettin, the rape of berlin etc etc it is hard to see it as anything other than propagandaistic in it's utterly positive and historically selective treatment of the communists.

conorhal wrote: »

(but when you read about what the advancing German's actually did in the Ukraine it doesn't actually seem all that exagerated).

Actually the germans were welcomed into large parts of the ukraine as saviours. Let's not skip over the Holdomor of a decade previous to this movie when a communist created famine cut the population of the ukraine by about 50%. Somewhere around 4-10 million people killed in the Ukraine by communists. Not alluded to in that movie whatsoever.

conorhal wrote: »

There is no glory heaped on the partisans that's for sure,

Yes there clearly is and you would have to be blind not to notice it.

It's just that the movie is not aimed at an audience of 5 yr olds. It is aimed at an adult audience aware of some of the logistical realities of a war and tailored to it's audience. I have said already that it is an impressive movie, technically, artistically and in terms of portraying the horror of it all. Those facts do not preclude acknowledging it's propagandaistic tone which is undeniable.

conorhal wrote: »

they recruit child soldiers, pillage supplies and sing patriotic songs but their fight for the Motherland is pretty ineffectual, they are portrayed as jsut another part of the madness.

They did all of the above in reality too yet their barbarism is tempered and justified and portrayed as purely reluctant stoicism. As mentioned compare this to any of the red army warcrimes above or elsewhere.

conorhal wrote: »

Klimov clearly stands on the sided of the innocent civilians caught up in other men's insanity.

I would say this is accurate but not 100% accurate. He is clearly also on the side of the red army which is understandable considering his background and the climate the movie was made in.

jonsnow

bought it on dvd a few months ago as it was on sale.had heard a lot about it but was disappointed.It is definetly more of a experience than a plot driven film and i found parts of it jarring which is fair enough but also just plain boring.however i did think that the last scene in the village was haunting and shocking.I felt that it certainly didnt glorify the russian partisans.the commander came across as pretty ineffective and it was hinted at that he had a relationship with the naive girl in the film. Other partisans couldnt even raid a farmer for some milk without getting themselves all killed.and at the end most of them were prepared to burn their prisoners alive.

Orizio

In no way whatsoever could that film be described as Soviet 'propaganda'. The partisans are portrayed as bastards who cruelly steal a child away from his family and execute unarmed prisoners. Yes, the SS are portrayed worse, but they are the ****ing SS, nor was there anything historically inaccurate about the village massacres.