The real story of Lyudmila Pavlichenko, deadliest female sniper of all time and one of the top 10 most successful after all, is fascinating enough in itself that it wouldn't need embellishment, but of course movies aren't reality and even documentaries tend to be manipulative one way or the other, so here we are.
What is harder to ignore is the fact those same embellishments tend to diminish Pavlichenko's accomplishments.
By now I've seen enough films to know I may have some issues with the current state of Russian cinema. While I hold its indie cinema darlings like Lopushansky and Zvyagintsev dearly, and all of soviet era cinema is a treasure trove of often unexpected masterpieces, contemporary Russian mainstream movies tend to be filled with thick pathos, bad acting, unpleasant stereotypes and even propaganda, minus the budget and kitsch value that makes their similarly tainted and flawed US counterparts so entertaining. A rare but welcome counter-example being a movie like Salyut 7.
Battle for Sevastopol aka Red Sniper had my hopes up for a bit by not immediately going as deep into the pathos and romantization of world war 2 and the red army, although there remain trace elements. Particularly the depiction of pre-war Soviet union just a year or two after Stalin's great purge as a literal pastel-colored wonderland seems tasteless at best, revisionist at worst.
Most of the demonization of the USSR in western media is sensationalized too of course, but in over-correcting to such a degree it does a disservice to the historical accuracy it otherwise adhers to.
I will give the movie quite a bit of credit for actually being thoughtfully critical of certain elements of the Red Army which is rare. Ironically there are many recycled elements from the superior Enemy at the Gates that was at the time mercilessly bashed by russian critics for doing exactly that.
Director Sergey Mokritskiy who is perhaps more famous as a cinematographer does a great job enriching the film with creative and pleasing visuals. While the smaller budget compared to many western productions remains visible it's never a distraction.
There are also some attempts to give Pavlichenko some psychological depth too, making her out to be more than patriotic poster art. There is humanity, struggle, love and post-traumatic stress in soldiers (that we generally still don't talk about nearly enough) alas how many of this was handled is the movie's biggest problem in my book.
There's no use bandying about, despite ostensibly celebrating a real life warrior and heroine to many the movie is deeply rooted in outdated stereotypes that become harder to ignore the longer it goes on.
Here's this real person, who volunteered to be in the dangerous and psychologically taxing profession that was the sniper corps, excelled at it, survived grave injuries many times and yet kept fighting as long as she was physically able to and thus helped stem the tide of German expansion on the eastern front.
And yet if you are to believe this movie and virtually every character in it her only value as a human being is not derived from her dedication, intelligence or her deeds, no, it is based solely on her value as a woman, to be precise on how desirable she is to the men in her life and how many children she might give them.
I know this sounds like I'm reading way too much into this but bear with me. Lots of war films have love stories in them too, for better or worse, as a trope this deserves some scrutiny but strictly historically speaking, being in a war has never stopped people from falling in love, so I don't think including a love story is intrinsically bad or outdated, in fact it can give a lot of humanity to an otherwise unworldly horror scenario like a war.
However many characters here go out of their way to treat Lyudmilla like this poor little woman that should have been protected better by the strong men in her life. The only character telling her it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman when you're a soldier is made out to be a villain. There's also an extended recurring plotline about how many men desperately want to be Lyudmilla's lover that is as unnecessary as it is creepy. Among them was a persistent doctor named Boris who for the life of me I couldn't figure out if the depiction of him and his family wasn't actually some kind of anti-semitic dogwhistle. A lot to unpack here, most of which really rubbed me the wrong way...
Beyond the subtext (which was mostly text to be honest) the movie often fails in execution itself. Jumping back and forth between different locations and time periods dissolves tension and makes for an uneven viewing. A lot of the acting, especially by the badly ADRed russians playing americans was questionable to laughable. Main actress Yulia Peresild as Pavlichenko was a standout performance, but she looked very uncomfortable with a rifle, which probably should have been avoided in a movie about a master sharp-shooter.
All in all a very uneven film with many questionable elements that drag it down even further.
What is harder to ignore is the fact those same embellishments tend to diminish Pavlichenko's accomplishments.
By now I've seen enough films to know I may have some issues with the current state of Russian cinema. While I hold its indie cinema darlings like Lopushansky and Zvyagintsev dearly, and all of soviet era cinema is a treasure trove of often unexpected masterpieces, contemporary Russian mainstream movies tend to be filled with thick pathos, bad acting, unpleasant stereotypes and even propaganda, minus the budget and kitsch value that makes their similarly tainted and flawed US counterparts so entertaining. A rare but welcome counter-example being a movie like Salyut 7.
Battle for Sevastopol aka Red Sniper had my hopes up for a bit by not immediately going as deep into the pathos and romantization of world war 2 and the red army, although there remain trace elements. Particularly the depiction of pre-war Soviet union just a year or two after Stalin's great purge as a literal pastel-colored wonderland seems tasteless at best, revisionist at worst.
Most of the demonization of the USSR in western media is sensationalized too of course, but in over-correcting to such a degree it does a disservice to the historical accuracy it otherwise adhers to.
I will give the movie quite a bit of credit for actually being thoughtfully critical of certain elements of the Red Army which is rare. Ironically there are many recycled elements from the superior Enemy at the Gates that was at the time mercilessly bashed by russian critics for doing exactly that.
Director Sergey Mokritskiy who is perhaps more famous as a cinematographer does a great job enriching the film with creative and pleasing visuals. While the smaller budget compared to many western productions remains visible it's never a distraction.
There are also some attempts to give Pavlichenko some psychological depth too, making her out to be more than patriotic poster art. There is humanity, struggle, love and post-traumatic stress in soldiers (that we generally still don't talk about nearly enough) alas how many of this was handled is the movie's biggest problem in my book.
There's no use bandying about, despite ostensibly celebrating a real life warrior and heroine to many the movie is deeply rooted in outdated stereotypes that become harder to ignore the longer it goes on.
Here's this real person, who volunteered to be in the dangerous and psychologically taxing profession that was the sniper corps, excelled at it, survived grave injuries many times and yet kept fighting as long as she was physically able to and thus helped stem the tide of German expansion on the eastern front.
And yet if you are to believe this movie and virtually every character in it her only value as a human being is not derived from her dedication, intelligence or her deeds, no, it is based solely on her value as a woman, to be precise on how desirable she is to the men in her life and how many children she might give them.
I know this sounds like I'm reading way too much into this but bear with me. Lots of war films have love stories in them too, for better or worse, as a trope this deserves some scrutiny but strictly historically speaking, being in a war has never stopped people from falling in love, so I don't think including a love story is intrinsically bad or outdated, in fact it can give a lot of humanity to an otherwise unworldly horror scenario like a war.
However many characters here go out of their way to treat Lyudmilla like this poor little woman that should have been protected better by the strong men in her life. The only character telling her it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman when you're a soldier is made out to be a villain. There's also an extended recurring plotline about how many men desperately want to be Lyudmilla's lover that is as unnecessary as it is creepy. Among them was a persistent doctor named Boris who for the life of me I couldn't figure out if the depiction of him and his family wasn't actually some kind of anti-semitic dogwhistle. A lot to unpack here, most of which really rubbed me the wrong way...
Beyond the subtext (which was mostly text to be honest) the movie often fails in execution itself. Jumping back and forth between different locations and time periods dissolves tension and makes for an uneven viewing. A lot of the acting, especially by the badly ADRed russians playing americans was questionable to laughable. Main actress Yulia Peresild as Pavlichenko was a standout performance, but she looked very uncomfortable with a rifle, which probably should have been avoided in a movie about a master sharp-shooter.
All in all a very uneven film with many questionable elements that drag it down even further.