Unfortunately, it so happened that I watched in a row 'Battle for Moscow' and 'Liberation' so now I'm not sure the extended version of a small episode of which of these two Ozerov films 'Battalions Ask for Fire' is. But all the same events I clearly saw, sometimes even the same phrases pronounced by the characters word for word. Judging by the fact that I remember the voiceover comments about the fate of the colonel, it was still ' Battle for Moscow'.
In fact, the film is the story of one of the operations on the Dnieper, in which Soviet soldiers had to attract significant enemy forces with the subsequent support of their artillery. But the artillery was needed in another area, which was considered more important. The battalions were surrounded and forced to fight to the last.
A significant difference ' Battalionov' from the same films Ozerov is the presence of characters with their own history, experiences and characters. The problem, in my opinion, is that the degree of a love triangle is slightly higher than the norms allowed for a war film. Formally, there are no norms, of course, but screen time for conversations is allocated very much.
The rest of the film concentrates exclusively on the history of one military episode - there are no constant reports from other fronts, no discussion of the situation by heads of state or anything like that, no references to pre-war events. Everything that happens is here and now, in this place with these heroes. And this goes to the benefit of the film, because the viewer can finally empathize with someone more specific.
In short, a quality, good film, which is a little drawn out.
I watched this film back in the spring of '85 in the company of a frontline uncle who taught me a lot. I was then 18 years old, I was raised on patriotic films, and at first I did not understand why my beloved Mikhail Ivanovich spit so much on this film.
War can be different. There is a war of trench soldiers, there is a war of commanders, a war of commanders and a war of combatants. Everyone has a different perspective.
'Battalions ask for fire' - a look at the war of the battery commander. This must be understood.
Not a bad movie for 1985. Yes, veterans did not accept this film. Because in the film, part of the war is overly romanticized. The picture on the screen does not correspond to real events. And it's not about the technical side. Such smoothed Shurochka in the artillery battery ZIS-3 rifle regiment could not be by definition.
Kashpur as Bulbaniuk is beautiful. I do. He himself had such a commander - cunning, squeezy, careful, guarding his fighters. Best Actress in a Film. I think so.
Spiridonov as Commander Iverzev is organic and beautiful. Yeah, he's in charge of his orders. He's responsible. He has no right to tell everyone. With the unspoken truth and will live his whole life.
The acting work of Oleg Efremov in the film I consider weak, clogged with stamps. Efremov plays the regiment as he used to, harmfully recognizable, with his characteristic facial expressions, with his characteristic tones of speeches, with his characteristic pauses. To the role of regiment commander could not rise.
Zbruev, in my opinion, also could not rise to the realization of the role of the artillery commander; not his strongest work.
The sklar as a communications commander is good. Bold, a little loose and broken. Well, yeah, he doesn't have a battery. Great image.
The modern generation of young people without preliminary explanations, the film will be incomprehensible.
6 out of 10
I saw this movie for the first time and it was probably the last time.
The film is terrible, although it has good moments that hooked many.
For starters, the plot itself is good and dramatic. War, sacrifice, crossing the Dnieper.
But how was it presented? A lot of walking, darkness, empty, unnecessary talk. And most importantly, nothing is clear: who, where, why, why. If you haven’t read the book or seen Liberation, it’s a disaster. Then the colonel swims on one side, then on the other, then cross immediately, then wait, full of nonsense. In the same liberation, everything is clear: we crossed over, we are fighting, why there, why here, everyone explains why it is necessary to make this or that decision, but here it is as if it was just necessary to remove something.
The heroes themselves are terrible. Cowards, brazens, cunning, some children, in the war, when Ukraine was liberated. The authorities are all cattle and bastards, who think more about orders and speed than about efficiency, well, of course, we did not have air and conventional reconnaissance, just artillery immediately forward of all troops sent, and defeated, 2 guns were sent when a whole art regiment is nearby.
Actors play. Now it is very common to believe that this star set of Soviet actors could not play poorly. I think the game is terrible, I don't believe them. Nothing stirred up. It's like they came to the barbecue and they were asked to play in the movie.
Staging. The worst part of the movie. Jesus Christ. Wasn't the film normal? Is it possible to present the plot somehow, so that it was clearer and more logical? Terrible everything, tanks, shooting, guns, river, all wretched filmed.
Well, why did the release come off in 1969 and it had a beautiful film, scale, plot, acting, logic, everything. In 16 years, everything seems lost.
This is a disgrace to the level of modern Russian cinema.
Don't pay attention to the machine guns. What? Leaked on the left flank? Nonsense! Hold your tail with your gun and don't be discouraged, okay? Think about two or three machine guns. Fuck them, let them crawl! Hold the front. Hold the main front!
*heavy sigh* Oh, how hard it is to talk about this film, and in general about any other dedicated to the Great Patriotic War. So much blood and tears were shed. So many people are missing. So many people died of cold, hunger and open wounds. How painful it is. And it is even more painful to see soldiers thrown into a hopeless battle and ordered to hold on to the last bullet. And after all, young guys who are waiting for girls / wives / mothers at home are staying. They hold on to their last strength, because there is nowhere to retreat – we fight for our native land, for children, for women and for that guy whose face is riddled with shrapnel, and whom the orderly is desperately trying to patch up, knowing perfectly well that it is too late. But despite the fact that the picture looks extremely joyless, a simple Russian soldier Petya Ivanov clutches a photo of his beloved girl to his chest and under a hail of bullets and artillery cannonade with a smile tells fellow soldiers how he will get out of this meat grinder and will teach boys and girls only good, to which colleagues say something approving, someone slaps on the shoulder and no, and the soldiers have a ray of hope in their eyes - and what if everything happens? And this hope is born not only in the hearts of the heroes of the movies, but also in the hearts of the viewer, and therefore looking at “Battalions ask for fire” I want to believe that everything will be fine.
I'm sorry, I'm feeling something. All right, let's get to the party guy. What can I say? We have a film that asks difficult questions and answers them. And I would not say that the topics raised were not covered in other Soviet paintings devoted to the war, but they were not raised in such quantity. For example, a model Russian soldier whose wife and child remained in the city occupied by the Fritz decides to go over to the enemy side and fight with their countrymen. In essence, this is a clear confirmation of the phrase that “home is where the heart is”, but the question remains, how will this person look at himself in the mirror? After all, he traded everything he had for... and for what? Does he have a place in the world of victorious fascism? Yeah, there is. Except in the form of soap. Or another, more humane example. Military doctor Shura, was in love with the main character of Captain Boris Ermakov, but when he got to the hospital and did not even write to the girl, she decided to meet with a close friend of Ermakov - Sergey Kondratiev. And not because she is such a windy girl, but because the desire to live is most pronounced at the very moment when your life hangs in the balance and therefore Shura dreams of the only one with whom she will be happy and therefore her soul rushes from one person to another in search of the same prince on the white, kham, tank that will take her to a better tomorrow. Or Colonel Iverzev, who is a controversial person, who really caused me mostly negative emotions and why. After all, we have an officer who adheres to the rule - victory at any cost. He's one of those officers who doesn't care if people think he's lower in rank because the colonel thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong. And yes, he may be right in his mathematical calculations, but he has forgotten one simple truth: all these numbers are living flesh and blood men, not just toy soldiers who can be sent into battle knowing what new ones will bring. And after all, the most terrible thing is that Iverzev is not an idiot and he is not trying to earn new stars for epaulettes, he really believes that this is how we should fight. And after that, historians still wonder why the death toll from the Soviet Union was many times higher than those from Nazi Germany. Yes, of course, one can say that the winners are not judged, and this is partly true, but only partly true. Why? And because our army had such a wonderful General Vatutin, who did not throw soldiers into the meat grinder, but at the same time managed to crush the Fritzians. And as for people like Iverzev, they are just butchers, who did not particularly understand and snort in tactics and strategies.
But this is not all that this film can offer the viewer. Oh, no, not all. We will be shown true courage and courage. The courage that is sung in songs and ballads, about the Russian soldier who did not retreat and did not give up, no matter how bad he was. We will be shown a true friendship and loyalty that is stronger than all orders. And then there will be the hero of Nikolai Karachentsev, whose phrases were long ago embezzled on quotes.
Outcome? A heartbreaking movie. A movie that leaves a strong emotional residue on the soul, and some scenes from the film cut into memory and they simply cannot be forgotten. Here starred great actors of those years, who were able to reveal their heroes and cause the viewer exactly the feelings that the creators intended, at least I would like to believe. And there is also a beautiful soundtrack. Is this movie worth watching? Absolutely.
Artillery captain Yermakov returns after being wounded from the hospital to his unit. His division is now commanded by Colonel Ievlev, and his battery is Senior Lieutenant Kondratiev, his beloved Shura is no longer with him. And he seems to have been deleted from the lists of the living, and now he has to change his attitude to his life and ... death in war. And there is no time for reflection - he is sent to the heaviness of the battles for the city of Dnieper.
The story of Yuri Bondarev is not the most cruel, but rather a tough version of “lieutenant prose”, which took a new look at the Great Patriotic War. Like many frontline writers, he has a question about the responsibility of the commander for the life of each soldier, and, therefore, about the vain sacrifices during the war.
It is noteworthy that the film, shot in 1985 for the 40th anniversary of the Victory, just marks a turn in the display of the Great Patriotic War - from the motives of protecting the Motherland and the state at the cost of life to the value of that very individual human life. So to speak, the rivalry between “big truth” (by the mouth of one of the heroes: the truth and responsibility of the colonel for the entire division) and “small truth” (the truth of Captain Yermakov is responsible for the lives of the dead soldiers). There is a clear trend in this.
Admittedly, the film implements the "little truth" delicately, without attacking specific commanders. Later, the symbol of huge losses will be called specifically Zhukov (not to mention Stalin) and even ascribe to him the phrase “Russian women are still growing”, but “Battalions...” so far just contrast the headquarters, reasoning military units such as battalions, divisions, armies, etc. and the commanders of the battalions themselves, in particular, Bulbaniuk, bitterly saying in one of the episodes that “people did not save...” The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. And the series tries to find this middle ground, arriving at a compromise - plot and ideological.
At the same time, the directors clearly do not reach the “trench truth”. Somewhere go through the part of pathos (for example, an episode with a sniper). Somewhere frankly "bump": chronic explosions for no apparent reason, absolutely reckless behavior of some heroes and much more. Historians and modern reenactors of the film will frankly hurt. Sentimentality and epic, characteristic of almost all Soviet cinema about the war, added to the place and place, so despite a relatively new ideological message (although it was indirectly stated by Herman in the then unreleased “Check on the roads”), the film on the artistic decision is something between, for example, “And the dawns here are quiet...” and “Liberation..” At the same time, numerous technical and historical absurdities do not even bring this mini-series to these samples.
Still, the movie looks good. The directorial imperfection in creating a general military picture is more than compensated by brilliant acting works, creating, as they used to say, a gallery of military images - Captain Yermakov (Zbruev), "dry" Colonel Ievlev between staff and soldiers' lights (Spiridonov), the nervous intelligent Kondratiev (Galibin), the Udal Orlov (Karachentsov), the prudent and savvy peasant officer Bulbanyuk (Kashpur), the cunning colonel Ievlev between staff and soldiers (Spyrikov), the nervous intelligent Yergikov (Gulkov). You won't list them all. As always, a beautiful musical theme of Andrei Petrov, combining Russian lyrics and monumentality. The film has been revised from beginning to end.
And indeed, there is something to think about. Especially understand the programmatic, but absolutely human monologues of Ermakov in the last series. Many sins can and should be forgiven. In the end, not everything in cinema can become art – there is mass cinema, able to speak to a simple audience in the simple language of real characters. This has always been a strong Soviet film. “Battalions ask for fire” is an example.
The courage of warriors will remain in our hearts for centuries!
The film made only a positive and good impression, there was a desire to read the book! This is one of the many films thanks to which the feat of a Russian soldier who stood to his death in the battles for his homeland will remain unforgettable.
The film clearly shows the value of human life for both soldiers and officers with commanders and colonels. Both of them understand perfectly well that if it were not for the heroism of Soviet soldiers, they would not see victory. Courage, dedication, devotion to the Motherland - this is the essence of the film.
In addition, the film reflects the thoughts of soldiers and peacetime: remember the past, dream about the speedy end of the war, love. And I want to go deeper into their thoughts, forget about the war. But immediately near the exploded projectile or stray bullet quickly returns to reality, and they understand – to fight for the future, you can not retreat.
Yermakov makes a very strong impression, as well as remarkable respect. How he commands the remnants of the battalion, the breakthrough, what feelings overwhelm him when he meets Iverzev! For me, it was the most tense moments in the film - you really care about the heroes.
In addition to well-reported combat actions, exciting music, the film leaves a lot of emotions that will long warm the memory of the feat of selfless soldiers.
9 out of 10
I come from an officer's family and probably that's why now the officer's wife "There is such a profession, platoon, defend the Motherland!"
I've heard so much debate and talk about the facets of humanism in war. It should be understood that war in itself contradicts humanism in its essence, but it is in war that humanism is especially acute in its goals and results, as well as in private moments and interpersonal relations. Maybe that's why the frontline friendship is so strong and real. This is the story of Bondarev and the film.
In war, humanism often takes on mathematical chess forms. It is advisable to sacrifice a pawn for the sake of winning a figure. It is advisable to sacrifice two battalions to ensure less losses and victory in the main strike zone. Because math, because a division is much more than two battalions. Only we see people, each in person, behind each a whole universe, and in the division of such universes several times more! But in any case, your splinter hurts much more than twenty someone’s fractures.
But since Sun Tzu or the first collective fights of the Neanderthals, there has been an “art of war” because if the number of guns, soldiers, or stone axes decided everything, then war would have long since outlived itself like stupid nonsense, everything would have turned into banal mathematics “more or less”. Yeah, and commanders don't have to be taught what the difference is if you just have to pay. That is why there is maneuver, reserve, military cunning, intelligence and counterintelligence. That is why each barrel, each shell is thrown to the place of the main attack, because the number of guns and shells is not infinite, so the truth is not told to any of the perpetrators. And not because of the paranoia and fear of spies under every bush, but because the opponent is not stupid. Because if you have to make sacrifices, let them justify themselves, so the battalions believe that they are paving the way for the main forces, so they are fighting for real, so this maneuver brings results - it pulls back reserves and ensures the fulfillment of the main task of the division!
And, unfortunately, as in Afghanistan, the best can go into this distracting breakthrough, because they have to do what is difficult and can be impossible. That's the third toast! It hurts the memory of our dead friends! After all, no commander can order a heroic death, he can only send to a certain place and only the person depends on what and how he will do there. I once asked my grandfather about the detachments, he answered that where he saw it, the detachments entered the battle as a second line of defense, and cowards would not be held by any machine guns. And in the situation of the film, it is difficult to assume that the characters would fight like this if they were just afraid of shooting!
And maybe the special power and power of the film is that the characters and entourage are very qualitatively and reliably prescribed. And great acting, maybe too good. The names of which are Efremov, Zbruev, Karachentsev, Sklyar, Brondukov, Spiridonov, Kashpur, Andreev, Galibin! Bright and real comfreys and against their background Iverzev is a representative of high command. Everyone performs their military work qualitatively and well, everyone performs their task, but everyone has different tasks.
We see the tragedy of two battalions thrown into a hopeless distracting breakthrough, two reinforced companies in terms of the number of people from the force, and against their background, a commander with his wife who came to visit him. In the film, the eyes of combmen - just a scoundrel! And he's superbly played by Spiridonov. Career, cracker, young colonel. That's just the desire to make a career for the military is almost mandatory quality. What would any of us or any of our heroes do in their place? Would you tell the whole truth?! Would he weep on the chest of every soldier saying goodbye and apologizing for the inhumanity of his order and war in general? Running like an institute and sufferingly reflecting?! And how much worse is he than the general from Hot Snow, who, through the mouth of Zhzhenov, says “According to my calculations, this weapon should have been silenced two hours ago...”, only there is a good general, as are Zhukov, Rybalko, Vasilevsky and the entire list of marshals and generals of our great victory.
And who among us is allowed to look into the soul of this colonel? What was General Margelov thinking when he sent his own son to the first landing inside the BMD? Is that why forty-year-old colonels look all sixty and gray?
And behind this stone mask on the face of a man who understood and forgave the officer who committed a military crime, commander Yermakov, who brought the remnants of fighters and gave free rein to emotions, which as an officer had no right.
Perhaps that is why I love Spiridonov so much in this role, who played such a complex role so well and convincingly, showed the dignity of the commander, his strength and humanity, despite and in spite of what they say about the commander of the “first after God”.
But I won’t be evaluating it because this movie has been a classic for a long time and we probably just don’t have the right to evaluate it!