PDA

View Full Version : Film Review: Enemy at the Gates



János Hunyadi
Friday, April 15th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Enemy at the Gates (2001)

http://www.ewca.ru/images/movie/image/4.jpg

Nazi Major Konig

http://www.filmforum.hu/adat/20015/769/enemyw.jpg

Vasily Zaitsev, elite Russian sniper

http://www.moviemantz.com/review_shots/enemy.jpg

I saw this movie for my second time a few nights ago on TV and I came to a synopsis of some sorts

This film pretty much portrayed all the negative traits of Soviet communism while portraying the Germans as efficient, yet evil fighters on the side. During the course of the movie we learn several things about life in a communist regime.

· The inefficiency of communist rule is starkly shown when their army is sent to the battlefront defenseless. (At the beginning of the movie the Russian sharpshooter, Vassili, along with the rest of the most recent unarmed reinforcements are being hauled to the front at Stalingrad by train.)

· They regard their soldiers like cattle. (The doors are opened to death and destruction at their doorstep. They are rushed to ferry boats in order to cross the river to Stalingrad unarmed. )

· The inability and unwillingness to protect their own troops to the front is a callous attitude from communist authority. (As the boats cross, the Red army has no defense against the Luftwaffe strafing them. As the men are being ripped to shreds some take their chances in the water only to be shot by their commanders in the boat.)

· Communist inefficiency shows itself again when the troops are inadequately armed. (Once ashore those that survived are rushed past dead and dying to an ammo truck whereas every other soldier is given a rifle and told to pair up. When the one with a rifle is shot his partner is to pick up their dead comrade’s rifle and continue in the attack. )

· A cavalier attitude of officers toward troops. (They are then escorted to the battlefield and forced to attack an entrenched German defense, tanks, machine guns and all with no cover fire. Upon being slaughtered to just a few men the Russians retreat only to be machine-gunned down by their officers as cowards.)

· Communists will kill civilians; women, children, old or young. (After the battle Khrushchev arrives via boat facing civilians trying to board the boats to escape the German advance, only to be told to get off the boat or be shot by the officers.)

· Communism solves poor performance with execution. (In a private meeting with the officer in charge of the day’s failed advance, Khrushchev hands him a pistol to commit suicide with. Outside the room he chastises the remaining officers for such a pathetic job. When asking for suggestions he’s answered with, ‘Kill all the officers that retreated.’ and ‘Kill the families of the officers that retreated.’)

· Communism lies to the populace to keep them in control. (The propaganda machine stretches the truth about Vassili to the extreme to give the populace a hero.)

· Despite the equality doctrine of communism there are educational gaps.(Vassili struggles through the writing of a letter and at the same time learns that the woman of his desire has gone to college.)

· Communist authorities have control over life and death over the subservient. (The propagandist uses his authority to put his hero at risk, as well as a young boy, to obtain the love of a woman.)

· There are low aspirations for the future.(Vassili at one point, lets it be known he yearns to be a factory worker)
·
The communists employed the use of female soldiers on the battlefield.

For the German side, the film depicts the following.

· The Germans were well equipped and trained. (The whole movie shows a struggling Russian army.)

· The Germans treated captives poorly. (A Russian sniper tells the tale of his teeth being knocked out by the Germans.)

· The Germans looked after their men’s well being and used captives as bait. (Russian snipers set up base killing the German telephone linesmen. After unknowingly killing a Russian captive the leader is perplexed at the lack of concern the Germans had over the linesman.)

· The Germans killed Jewish civilians. (Tiana tells of her parent’s death at the hands of the Nazis.)

· The Germans killed spies even if they were children. (The German sniper learns of his Russian informant’s spying and hangs him.)

I found many aspcets of the film to be quite annoying however. I couldn't get over the fact that nearly every single Russian in the film was played by either a Brit or a Jew. Ralph Fiennes and Jude Law's English accents grew myself quite tiresome. The Jew Ron Pearlman was a big nuiscance as well.

Why couldn't Hollywood Jews actually cast Russians or any other Slavic people for these roles?

Another annoying feature of the film:

Even though it's set in 1942 Russia, Hollywood Jews manage to get in their bits of miscgenation.

Early in the film Major Konig is hiding out in some abandoned apartment building where he is pursued by Zaitsev and two of his companions. One of whom is a red-haired Russian woman. But however, look closely at her love interest which is a Turko-Mongoloid Asiatic mud (Most likely either a Kalymk or a Khazak). Right before she enters the Apartment building and walks into Major Konig's trap the two kiss passionately on the lips :mad:

Zaitsev, the young Russian soldier, falls for a Jewish girl, Tania (Rachel Weisz), and soon takes up her cause. The cameras are on Tania and she tells "her story." Her parents, being Jewish, were rounded up by those "evil Nazis." To save bullets they were tied to each other so when one was shot off the bridge they'd both drown. This is told with soft music in the background with a soft light radiating from Tania.

So this is the real reason the Russians are fighting the Germans: not for the "motherland," but because the Germans are killing Jews.

Also worth noting is that the two Jews in this movie are the only educated people. Zaitsev, being a farmer (something practically blasphemous to a Jew), doesn't know how to write letters and is corrected on his spelling by his Jew propagandist friend Danilov. Zaitsev soon realizes his life isn't worth saving, only those "educated ones" -- that is "why they must survive." I wanted to retch at this point.

So once again we see how stupid and uneducated Slavs need to rely on the Jews in order to save themselves and to triumph over adversity. Yeah just like how the Bolshevik Jews saved Russians from the tyranny of the Tsar and the Romanov Royal family, right? :rolleyes:

This film is pure Jewish Zionism. What's new, right?

Some more thoughts about this movie:

The Jews are so clever with their movie-making business they don't forget to show that the communists were "anti-Semitic" too. When Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) asks Danilov, "Don't you have a fiddle to go play?" the audience is made to feel guilty. Ah, the poor persecuted Jew, always working hard for others and someone has to go and make a statement like that, ah poor thing.

This movie propagated the idea of White men falling for Jewish women and fighting for their cause and their agenda. But the Jewish woman's loyalty is not to her romantic partner but toward her Jewish brethren. This is seen when Major Konig executes the poor little Russian child and Zaitsev does not shoot back because that would reveal his position. So Tania runs to her Jewish kinsman, Danilov, so perhaps he could exact some revenge.

All in all, when one looks past the Jewish agenda and just focuses on the fighting between the Russians and Germans and on the intense sniper battles between Konig and Zaitsev it's still a decent film.

It's worth seeing once, but twice or more would be unnessary.

Death and the Sun
Friday, April 15th, 2005, 07:22 PM
I saw this one in a cinema when it came out back in 2001. I recall having very mixed feelings about it.

It's true that the one thing the Soviet Union had in abundance was manpower, Stalin knew this and took full advantage of the fact. Hell, the guy only managed to get twenty million Soviets killed during the war. No wonder he's such a hero in Russia even today. :rolleyes:

Well, perhaps it is because he did get the job done: after all he won the war, even if it was at a horrific cost.

Regarding the film itself: I think it is tiresome, depressing in all the wrong ways, and definitely pushes anti-European propaganda. And the High Noon -type showdown between the two snipers was simply ridiculous.

Some additional remarks: the Soviet woman fighter was a partisan, not a conscript - a civilian who fought along the with men in the regular army.

The Nazi officer played by the always superb Ed Harris was the most annoying character in the film: since he is an aristocratic, high-ranking officer and member of the Nazi party, he must necessarily also be a monster, with no qualms whatsoever about murdering a child after the kid had given him the information he needed.

People don't often understand this, but the fact is that Germans between 1939 and 1945 were human beings, too. ;)

RoyBatty
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 12:39 AM
This is not a film I have personally seen but have heard a lot of negative things about, particularly from Russians and Ukrainian sources who found it factually inaccurate, sloppily made and an insult to them.

Here's a review from a disgruntled patron which was originally posted at www.battlefield.ru. Apologies for the length.





ENEMA AT THE DOOR:
a Foreigner Will Not Notice, a Russian Will Not Forgive.

I got to see the widely publicized in the West movie "Enemy at the Gates", directed by Jean Jaques Annaud. After "Saving Private Ryan", which had left an overall good impression, I hoped that this Hollywood product would turn out to be on the same level. But contrary to my expectations... Well, let's start from the beginning.

From the first moments I was struck by the rosy, well-fed faces of the Russian soldiers going to the front. Of course, I understand that life in the West is nice and sweet, but where were the makeup artists? All Soviet soldiers wore brand new greatcoats. Throughout the entire movie I only saw well-fed, not to say fat, faces, and even Danilov's three day stubble (incidentally, why does he walk around unshaven in the army?) badly masks his well-groomed face. I think the director never even considered the fact that life on the Soviet homefront in 1942 wasn't sweet, McDonalds restaurants just weren't there, and sausages didn't get buttered. I was also amused about how people riding inside the freight rail cars were standing. I think the director has never even tried to imagine how it felt to ride in such a car, how it shakes you from side to side, and far from anyone would manage to stay on his feet.

Meanwhile, the train arrives at some station, all the civilians are unloaded, soldiers are herded inside, and... some men started locking the cars! That's right! It turns out that Soviet soldiers had to be padlocked. Why? I don't know. Probably, the director believes that our grandfathers fought only from fear, that if it was up to them, they would've ran away, and nobody would've been left to fight the valiant German army.

Meantime, the train arrives at the Stalingrad station, the padlocks are unlocked, and evil officers start dragging the soldiers out of the cars! And another political officer stands nearby (probably, the chief one, and a big boss above the other political officers), waves a red flag, and yells into a tin megaphone. I don't know how our Western comrades see this picture, but it sent me into a spasm of laughter. I haven't seen such a silly scene even in the comedy series "Fitil'" (Fuse). But speaking seriously, this is already an insult, and it's more serious than it could seem in the beginning. Russian soldiers are shown as dumb cattle, led by the evil devils-political officers. And incidentally, political officers were different. Sh*t can occur anywhere, not just among the political officers, that's why depicting them in such perverted manner looks extremely insulting. And that is exactly how they are depicted! I specifically made several screenshots so that you could see that people with the most disgusting faces were selected for the roles of political officers. I don't know, why Jaques Annaud feels personally slighted by the political officers, maybe they stole his money or a cow, but his bitter hatred for our grandfathers literally oozes from the screen!

The scene where the soldiers were unloaded from the train reminded me of a mass escape from a psychiatric hospital, but not the Red Army. I don't know, perhaps the US Army troops unload in just such a manner?

The scene of an attack. I was simply shocked by the fact that the attack began at the whistle of a mad officer! Who proposed this nonsense to the director? Or did he think really hard, and then couldn't come up with anything better? Probably it's what they call "artistic license". The attack itself follows the best traditions of the Western idea of how could the Russians attack. In other words - complete rubbish. Soldiers simply run as fast as they can at the machine guns, like a herd of cattle! Machine guns fire long bursts at them. This insulting stupidity, under the name of "Human Waves", was invented in the West during the times of the Cold War, and Jaques Annaud simply faithfully portrayed that fairy tale on the big screen.

An NKVD zagradotryad (blocking detachment) was depicted. I don't know if such detachments were at Stalingrad, probably they were. However, the thing is not that all, from privates to officers, were wearing infantry and not NKVD uniforms. The thing is how they were portrayed. They started shooting at our retreating soldiers, and shot them all. After that, with doleful music in the background, mountains of our soldiers' corpses are shown. The message is clear: "These Russian zagradotryads shot probably more soldiers than the Germans! Only Russian barbarians could think of such a thing!" It's hard to argue against that. It's hard not because it is true, but because in order to refute it you would have to read a boring lecture on the number of losses. Meantime the viewer doesn't want boring facts, he wants spectacles, and the more violent the better! By the way, blocking detachments were widely used in the Ancient Rome! Also decimation (execution of every tenth soldiers) was made up not by the "Russian barbarians", but by the "civilized" West!

Let's return to the movie. There are three main characters: sniper Vasiliy Zaitsev, commissar Danilov, and a woman sniper. Why Danilov is a commissar throughout the entire movie is not clear, because the institute of commissars was abolished in the Red Army as early as 9 October 1942. Despite he introduced himself to Zaitsev as "politruk", Zaitsev stubbornly continues to call him commissar through the entire movie. I suspect that Annaud was simply unaware that "commissar" is not a post, but a military rank, and that it corresponds to Major (battalion commissar) or higher. While "politruk" corresponds to Senior Lieutenant. That's why calling a politruk a commissar is a gross error! "Overranking" in the Red Army considered as serious fault. By the way, I noticed some confusion in Danilov's rank. In the beginning of the movie he had three cubes - the rank of a politruk, and that's how he introduced himself to Zaitsev. However at some moments he suddenly had four cubes on his collar tabs! The Red Army simply didn't have such rank! Perhaps I confused "cubes" with "ties"? If so, Danilov suddenly "jumped over" three ranks up and became a regimental commissar! Still some sort of nonsense! Well, let's leave the commissar alone, it is excusable for Jean Jacues Annaud, as an incompetent dabbler, not to know such simple facts. But another thing is interesting, why everyone calls Zaitsev "Vassili", even his own grandfather?! Why didn't the director find out about the standard addresses of two Russians who are close relatives? Even if in the X-Files Mulder and Scully work together for years and still call each other only by their last names, and everyone thinks it's normal, in Russia this stands out like a white crow in a black flock! For example, I don't remember a single case when my Mom or Dad called me by my last name or even my full name -- Valeriy. But very often they called me by pet names. It would've been normal if the grandfather called his grandson "Vasen'ka", but the grandfather keeps hissing "Vassili!"

The boy Sasha plays a double game in the style of the best secret agents too intelligently for his age. Regular James Bond in his youth! What amused me was his clean, well-fed face and white teeth among the piles of corpses, the stink and dirt of Stalingrad, as well as walking around in his shorts with exposed legs in the city. The frosts had already started at that time! This reminds me of another Hollywood "masterpiece" with Kurt Russel, where he ran around dressed lightly and without headgear in a -50 C frost in the Antarctic. Apparently, Annaud can't even imagine what real winter is. That is a person making a movie about Russia doesn't have a clue about the subject matter.

I was literally shocked by Sahsha's mother, calmly and seriously discussing how it would be better for Sasha among the Germans than Russians! I've never encountered such idiocy before!

One of the dialogs between Danilov and Zaitsev was an unpleasant surprise, and again proved that Jaques Annaud is nothing but an incompetent dabbler. The subject was the fact that they had written about Zaitsev in a newspaper. Here's their dialog:

"I am now a star!" Vasiliy exclaims joyfully.
"Yeah!" enthusiastically agrees Danilov.
"It's great!"
"Yes! Great!"
"I'm famous!"
"We are famous!"
"Yeah!"
"Great!"

And they started hugging. Ah, what a joy! "They are now famous and will have a lot of money" I said to myself. However, for some reason the everlasting "Western Dream" sounds very pathetic in the ruins of Stalingrad. Perhaps, because the Russians fought not for the sake of being mentioned in the newspaper and becoming famous, but for some other reasons? It remained a secret to Jaques Annaud.

Danilov's denunciation of Zatsev was really precious. Danilov accused Vasiliy Zaitsev of having a relationship with a Jewish girl! First of all, there weren't any repressions against Jews at that time, and this argument is not just silly, but dangerous for Danilov himself. The denouncer himself could get arrested and executed "within twenty-four hours" for inciting interethnic conflict during a wartime! Secondly, the face of Danilov himself looks far from Russian, indeed.

Another "scene" in Annaud's "best" tradition: an official celebration at Khruschev's. Actually, I recognized Khruschev only after he introduced himself while marching in front of a formation of moronic officers. And the celebration began with Zaitsev being surrounded by reporters. I wasn't surprised at all at the fact that Jaques Annaud has no idea how Soviet front reporters differ from the Western paparazzi! And then... then they showed a portrait of Stalin which simply horrified me! Something gloomy looked heavily from a huge portrait with the background in the color of blood and mourning. If any artist in the time of Stalin painted this "masterpiece", I think he wouldn't have lived to see the next sunrise. Khruschev led Zaitsev to that portrait with the words of praise to the Great and Mighty, and... I waited for them to immediately fall to their knees in front of that monstrous portrait! I would've done it for sure! Of course, I understand that this portrait was painted specifically to make even the "dumbest Yankee" (or dumbest Russian?) understand that Stalin was evil, but believe me, perversion of History is not the best way to prove that you're right.

A scene with Russian soldiers dancing after bloody street fighting made an oppressive impression on me. On top of that, the director couldn't find anything better than the melody of "Svetit mesiats, svetit yasnyy" (Moon is shining, moon is serene - this is a Russian ethnic song) for music! It looks as stupid as if the Americans after their heavy losses at the Ardennes started dancing rock'n'roll to the music of Elvis Presley! All those who fought at Stalingrad, both the Russians and Germans, written about total exhaustion, about how the things they wanted most in the world were: to eat and to sleep. Unfortunately these feelings are unknown to well-fed Jean Jaques Annaud, making insulting comics about the things which he doesn't understand at all.

A point of special pride for the Annaud are vehicles, but even here mistakes couldn't be avoided. Almost in the very beginning of the movie, a train bound for Stalingrad got an armored car attached with two turrets from T-34-85 tanks, from which stubs of some unknown guns were sticking out. Somewhere in the middle of the movie a panorama of ruined Stalingrad was shown. In the center stood a T-34-85 tank, which appeared eighteen months later than the events in the movie.

I also want to say a couple of "warm" words about the Soviet slogans. Yes, all slogans are quite dumb, but I haven't ever seen such idiotic slogans! Believe me, I know many of them, like any other person that lived in the country of "victorious" Socialism! There are many stupid slogans in the movie, but the most common one - "Everything for the Front, everything for Victory" - doesn't appear anywhere.

In a nutshell, what do I think of the movie? It can be described in two words: persistent antipathy. The movie lacks depth, it's flat as a table, and dumb as a door nail. It's not that the main characters are played horribly, but they reek of artificiality and provincial play-acting from a mile away. Both Zaitsev and Danilov seemed somehow not real, marionettes, made me feel neither sympathy nor antipathy. They didn't make me feel anything at all besides a purely sporting interest: what will happen to them later? The only thing I liked was the German sniper. I think the part of Major Koening was played brilliantly, there you had both the icy demeanor of a tiger, and a minimum of emotions. And purely on the surface it made me believe - yes, that is the Enemy! Although I heard from my German friends that they weren't happy with their hero.

Some might say: "Calm down! Go easy on the emotions! This movie is not for the Russians!" Unfortunately, I cannot agree with such interpretation. This movie is about the Russians, about our history, about our grandfathers. It cannot be "not for us" by definition. There is a movie called "Stalingrad", made by the Germans. The story - the sad fate of German soldiers. I didn't feel much compassion toward the protagonists while watching it, which is understandable: I cannot and do not want to sympathize men who were killing my ancestors. You could say that that movie is not for us, this is true. However, the problem is that the German "Stalingrad" is a lot more truthful and interesting that this completely fake hack job.

Maybe it is possible that Annaud blindly followed the Western public opinion of that war on the East? Would the Western audiences understand a movie like "V boy idut odni stariki" (Only Veterans are Going to Die) or "U tvoego poroga" (At Your Threshold)? I think there is no director's merit here either. This is true, they wouldn't understand "V boy idut odni stariki" in the West. Do you know why they woudln't? Because it would be the only movie of THAT kind in the West, and the rest - various "Enemies at the Gates" and other cheap fairy tales. And they will not understand our movies until the time they start making truthful movies about us.

Someone might say that Ozerov or Bondarchuk (Soviet-era movie makers) also made movies like that. No, not like that! Perhaps, Ozerov also had problems with tanks, but he didn't have problems with people. In his movies I see an interesting plot, shown with good (if not talented!) play acting by actors understanding who and why they were. Perhaps, you will be amused by the office files behind Khruschev (see screenshot). You might ask, why did I notice them? I'll tell you. I noticed them because there was nothing else to see on the screen! There was some gray bald dude walking in front of a formation of some idiots and carrying on about how that dude's soldiers (literally what he said) "fouled their pants from fear". To tell you the truth, I didn't give a damn about the problems of that dude and his pathetic soldiers. It was boring on the screen! Fifteen minutes after the start of the movie it became clear to me that I had nothing to say to my American friend who sent me this film as a gift saying "This is our best movie about your War". I felt only shame.

I remember how tears came to my eyes when watching "They Fought for the Motherland", an old black'n'white movie. It also had errors with equipment, and the plot wasn't all that involved. However for some reason I don't remember that, I remember the excellent roleplay by Burkov and Shukshin, Tikhonov and Nikulin (there are most talented Russian actors), and the individuals they played.

In conclusion, I would like to ask if the Westerns are in general capable of making movies "about us"? That is, movies without idiot Russians with disgusting unshaven mugs wearing fur hats (look at the "Armaggeddon" for example!). It turns out they can! Once they showed an American movie about Soviet infamous serial killer Chikotillo. During the first five minutes my wife and I were amused by the somewhat comical cast, and then... then we forgot that it's not "our" movie, that all the heroes speak English, and that the decorations barely resemble USSR. We completely forgot it and watched the movie with a lot of interest! Why? Because this movie was made without the stupid cliches of the Cold War, without the moronic ideas passed off as "artistic license". This movie was made simply and honestly, and even if it described the odious Socialism, it could be watched easily. While from Jaques Annaud we got... well, basically, what we got. I can only recommend this movie to those who like searching for a diamond in a pile of sh*t.

tuddorsped
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Yep, it was dross. Josef Vilsmaier's Stalingrad was ten times better.

werwolf1488
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 02:32 AM
I only have one correction. When the other Russian sniper tells about, how he got his teeth hammerd out, that was not by the Germans, that was by the Soviets. The Russians don't trust him, because he was training with the German snipers and he was sent over by the Soviets to learn new things and when he comes back, they hit his teeth out. I don't think that I would fight any longer for this country, that doesn't trust you anyways.

Lissu
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 01:48 PM
Here's the pictures of REAL Vasiliy Zaitsev:

http://216.198.255.120/russianpart/zaitsevsn.jpg

http://www.paginaplastico.com/Zaitsev.jpg

...:rolleyes:

János Hunyadi
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 06:01 PM
He looks quintessentially Ladogan to me. Sorry, but I'd have to accept him as a 'Europid'. Nordid, possibly not, but Europid definitely. (Personally, I'm more suspicious of the Dinaric's claims to being 'Europids'.).

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/sub_ladogan.jpg

While being a ways off from being Nordic, Dinarics are much more Europid in appearance then Ladogans are. Dinarics are an aboriginal Euro subrace who have dwelled within Europe proper for thousands of years ranging from Central France through the Balkans and inbetween, mainly in the Highland mountain regions of Central Europe.

tuddorsped
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 06:06 PM
The picture you posted, doesn't show.

I really doubt there is such thing as "Ladogan".

It is also a disgrace that a fine creature like Jude Law made the role of Zaitsev. But - nothing is holy to Hollywood...

True enough.

I'm very wary of using any of the old subracial typologies. I don't think any of them are very 'scientific'. However I did think he bore a striking resemblance to the textbook definition.

Let's just say that Zaitsev wouldn't look out of place in the Eastern European fringes.

Oh, here's the pic anyway. The website is down I think.

tuddorsped
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 06:24 PM
While being a ways off from being Nordic, Dinarics are much more Europid in appearance then Ladogans are. Dinarics are an aboriginal Euro subrace who have dwelled within Europe proper for thousands of years ranging from Central France through the Balkans and inbetween, mainly in the Highland mountain regions of Central Europe.

I am aware of this. It's just when someone uses the term 'Dinaric', I often think it is just a diplomatic way of saying they look like a swarthy Levantine. I bet a large portion of self-confessed 'Dinarics' are merely the biological remnants of more recent immigrants. Sorry, but that's just my opinion. Until someone shows me some polaroid photos of some prehistoric Central Europeans, then I am unconvinced. Even building faces from modern skulls is a rather problematic endeavour. How can you correctly establish what people looked like millenia ago? Most of us here can't even agree on when predominantly 'Nordid' physical characteristics emerged.

I enjoy reseaching physical anthropology but I sometimes feel, that due to unfortunate recent historical events, it has become a bit of a sophisticated parlour game. It probably ceased to be a rigorous science well over a century ago. Sad but true.

János Hunyadi
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 06:34 PM
I am aware of this. It's just when someone uses the term 'Dinaric', I often think it is just a diplomatic way of saying they look like a swarthy Levantine. I bet a large portion of self-confessed 'Dinarics' are merely the biological remnants of more recent immigrants. Sorry, but that's just my opinion. Until someone shows me some polaroid photos of some prehistoric Central Europeans, then I am unconvinced. Even building faces from modern skulls is a rather problematic endeavour. How can you correctly establish what people looked like millenia ago? Most of us here can't even agree on when predominantly 'Nordid' physical characteristics emerged.

I enjoy reseaching physical anthropology but I sometimes feel, that due to unfortunate recent historical events, it has become a bit of a sophisticated parlour game. It probably ceased to be a rigorous science well over a century ago. Sad but true.

Not sure what to think!

Altough I don't take some sites seriously. I've been to many of those skull measuring fetishist sites based on the work of a couple of fossilized Anglo-Saxons who portray Dinarids as Swarthy Semitic hybrids or East Baltids as semi-Mongoloids with round races and snub noses!

tuddorsped
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Not sure what to think!

Altough I don't take some sites seriously. I've been to many of those skull measuring fetishist sites based on the work of a couple of fossilized Anglo-Saxons who portray Dinarids as Swarthy Semitic hybrids or East Baltids as semi-Mongoloids with round races and snub noses!

Absolutely.

I largely employ the terms as convenient points of reference. (As I did originally on this thread). I sometimes feel that it is simply much easier to use national/regional stereotypes to describe people. Unfortunately, with the massive gene flow of the past century, due to increasing urbanisation, even these terms are becoming largely meaningless.

I'm not saying that the discipline should be abandoned altogether, as it obviously fills a much needed gap. But I've yet to be convinced that, when someone employs a term like 'Dinarid', they really uneqivocally know what they mean. (I still think they mean "swarthy Levantines" ;) )

János Hunyadi
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 06:53 PM
Absolutely.

I largely employ the terms as convenient points of reference. (As I did originally on this thread). I sometimes feel that it is simply much easier to use national/regional stereotypes to describe people. Unfortunately, with the massive gene flow of the past century, due to increasing urbanisation, even these terms are becoming largely meaningless.

I'm not saying that the discipline should be abandoned altogether, as it obviously fills a much needed gap. But I've yet to be convinced that, when someone employs a term like 'Dinarid', they really uneqivocally know what they mean. (I still think they mean "swarthy Levantines" ;) )

Out of curiosity, how old is McCullough and Coon's research on European sub-races?

tuddorsped
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Out of curiosity, how old is McCullough and Coon's research on European sub-races?

Comparatively recent. Coon died in the 80s. But he was somewhat of a maverick in the Post War academic world, to say the least. Did you know that he was in the OSS in North Africa dring WW2? Was wounded several times. Fascinating chap.

Lissu
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Oh well, back to topic ;)

I happen to have this flick as DVD, and I dare to say it's hardly worth the 6,90 € I spent on it :rolleyes:

It is amazing how Hollywood is able to spend lots and lots of $ to produce a film which is quite accurate in scenery and has excellent special effects, but then the main thing, the story and acting are complete shyte, raping the history and memory of soldiers fighting on both sides. Anti-European describes this film quite well. Not to mention how the actors spoke. Both Russians and Germans spoke American and British accents, depending on the origin of actor/actress.

Enemy at the Gates did have some priceless scenes, like one of the weirdest sex-scenes in film history, Tania and Vasili having sex as quietly as possible in the middle of sleeping soldiers...

My rating in the scale of 1-10 would be 2+, points from landscapes and special effects, + from the sex scene :P

Arcturus
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 08:49 AM
+ from the sex scene :P

I know what kind of tapes I'm getting you for you birthday then....:king2001:
:love-smil

anonymaus
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 08:51 AM
Enemy at the Gates did have some priceless scenes, like one of the weirdest sex-scenes in film history, Tania and Vasili having sex as quietly as possible in the middle of sleeping soldiers...

Hahaha, I remember this scene. 'Tis not your usual sex scene though, this is true!


My rating in the scale of 1-10 would be 2+, points from landscapes and special effects, + from the sex scene :P

:O :blushing:

It was entertaining at times, if you swtich your brain off first.. though perhaps I should revisit it for this sex scene :suomut:

edit: Anyone else find the painful irony in this?
swtich your brain off :doh00000: Need more sleep.

Lissu
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 09:02 AM
Looks like I should have never mentioned anything about the sex scene :speechles

anonymaus
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Looks like I should have never mentioned anything about the sex scene :speechles

:laugh: Nonsense, we're just having fun.. :D

Arcturus
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 09:42 AM
Looks like I should have never mentioned anything about the sex scene :speechles


Don't mind us, we're just a bunch of sad :viking8: nerds.

:chatten:

Lissu
Thursday, April 28th, 2005, 10:13 AM
Off-topic posts are now splitted and moved here (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8227) :)