The year of the 40th anniversary of the end of the Second World War saw the release of several war films in the Soviet Union, many of which were mediocre and decidedly unremarkable. However one film, winner of the top prize at the Moscow Film Festival, stands undoubtedly as one of the most uncompromising, harrowing war films ever made. It is a film that blends the epic scope of the Socialist Realist film with the personal, poetic sensibilities of films such as Kalatozov’s The Cranes Are Flying (1957) and Chukhrai’s Ballad of a Soldier (1959).
Based on actual events, Elem Klimov’s Come and See depicts the brutality of Nazi invaders in the Belorussian village of Khatyn through the horrifying odyssey of Flor (Alexei Kravchenko), a naïve teenage boy who leaves his family to join the partisans.
Klimov employs all the aesthetic devices at his disposal (widescreen photography, stereo sound) to plunge the viewer into a hellish, apocalyptic world. Indeed it is the medium more than the narrative itself which conveys the horror of war. Klimov’s mobile, muscular camera follows Flor as he makes his way across a devastated landscape. The images are accompanied by an extraordinarily complex, multi-layered soundtrack and both elements serve to reflect the ordeal of the film’s young protagonist whom we see losing any remnants of childhood innocence as the film spirals toward the epic savagery of the final scenes.
Featuring a powerful, grueling performance by Kravchenko, Klimov’s Come and See is an essential war film, more than deserving of mention with Tarkovsky’s Ivan’s Childhood (1962) and Wajda’s war trilogy of the 1950s.
Hailed as one of the greatest war films ever made, this is a hallucinatory cinematic experience that does for World War II what Apocalypse Now did for the Vietnamese conflict. The film also includes some of the most frighteningly realistic battle scenes ever committed to celluloid, thanks to Klimov's insistence on using live ammunition during filming to ensure maximum authenticity.
Most reviews of the film that I have seen rate it as outstanding cinema (although I should acknowledge that the positive reviews are all on sites selling the movie!). ... more >
Most reviews of the film that I have seen rate it as outstanding cinema (although I should acknowledge that the positive reviews are all on sites selling the movie!). Indeed, I bought the film based upon these reviews and the subject matter.
Even allowing for the fact that Eastern European cinema is unlikely to set the world alight, this offering is depressingly poor. Clearly a limited budget offering, this constraint does not excuse the inept, wooden "acting", where most of the characters are little more than ridiculous stereotypes, or the inane dialogue which runs throughout.
The "lead" character becomes more and more of a comical figure as the movie progresses. His change of mood and demanour throughout the film is of course designed to reflect the growing horror that he experiences. Unfortunately, the only way in which the "actor" can portray this is by pulling more and more comical facial expressions.
The one genuine attempt at horror in the film comes near the end and deals with the massacre of a village by the German army. The Germans are naturally depicted as murderous brutes but, again, the obvious stereotyping and poor acting take away from the potential tension of the scenes. Again, an opportunity to display the revulsion of war is missed. Incidentally, it is unclear, and wholly incompatible, that our "hero" is spared after the German officer holds a gun to his head for the camera (the image shown on the front of the movie).
The finale to the movie again reaches comical proportions after the partisans capture some of the German soldiers. (It is unclear how this happened, but never mind.) Once again, the acting and dialogue plumb new depths.
Overall, this is a very poor piece of cinema and misses a very real opportunity to make a statement. I understand that the director retired after this work. Most imply this is because he achieved perfection. I can only assume that, in reality, this movie finished his career for other reasons.
Come And See stands no comparison with other serious war films. The movie is painful viewing, but not for the reasons intended. < less
By Nicholas Hill on 3rd April 2006
What really can be said about this? Without doubt the best piece of Russian propoganda since Eisenstein turned up his toes. Believe me when I say, that is intended as ... more >
What really can be said about this? Without doubt the best piece of Russian propoganda since Eisenstein turned up his toes. Believe me when I say, that is intended as a compliment. The Nazis are leering, smirking, insane psycopaths. The hero a naive farmboy going insane from his experience, the violence, brutality and inhumanity as expressionistic, impressionistic and ugly as anyone could possibly wish for. From its opening scenes of the two boys searching for weapons, to its final image of a photograph of Hitler as a sweet child sitting on his mother's lap and everything inbetween, the message is hammered home with relentless single mindedness. None of which should come as any suprise considering the horrendous losses experienced by Russia during the war. Klimov's early death (as was his wife's) was a great loss to any film industry, anywhere, and this film, beyond any other that I am aware of, should be compulsory viewing for every school kid taking a tentative step into the realms of bigotry and intolerance. A warning to the wise. < less
The Humphrey Jennings Collection 
MovieMail Latest
RSS Feeds | Podcast | October Film Catalogue | Subscribe to our email newsletter!
Come and See
