The Tragedy of Blind Belief

The Tragedy of Blind Belief

By XP

Generally speaking, I do not like war movies. War is about man killing man, fast and undisguised. And often times it is about a large number of people slaughtering each other mercilessly for the sake of a few who hide themselves in the safest spots. Traditionally there have been two kinds of stereotypical war movies in my view. The western type emphasizes a super hero, who is a master of killing. Usually he wins the heart of a beautiful woman by being a hero with all the blood in his hand. The oriental type, on the other hand, focuses on the nature of the war. There are the righteous and the wrong, the good and the evil, sharply demarcated as black and white. The righteous side is glorified by eternal truth, hence everyone does heroic sacrificing deeds whereas none of the evil guys has a heart. Perhaps in a war, the hateful war in which all lose, many of such stories indeed happen. However, to me a war movie that single-mindedly or unilaterally portrays the picture out of the consideration of material interest or political propaganda could not bring the audience anything meaningful other than a momentary excitement or an awkward moral lesson.

The 2000 “Enemy at the Gates”, however, is a very well made war movie. Of course, I say this not because it carries all the basics of a typical western war movie as summarized above, but because of its fine depiction of the inside of those involved in a war, including those of the heroes, from the angle of humanism. The movie is based on a true historic character: former Soviet Union soldier Vassily Zaitzev, a great sniper with unbelievable skills, killing over 250 enemies during the second world war, including 221 in the battlefield of Stalingrad and 11 snipers. It tells the story of how a shy young shepherd from Urals became a national hero with his amazing shots, calm wisdom and honest courage in the cruel battle of street fighting. The plot outline is as follows: In 1942, Stalingrad, both Soviet Union and German suffered from tremendous losses and low morale. Soviet general Kruschev, following the order of the boss, was determined to resist and hold fast to the city that bore the name of Stalin, at whatever prices it might take. To inspire the red army soldiers, he accepted the proposition of a second-class political officer Danilov: to set a heroic icon as an example of bravery and love of the motherland. The talented crack gunner Vassily became that icon. The Germans quickly responded to it by sending a prestigious snipe specialist major Konig from Berlin to kill Vassily. After a long, hard and brutal duel, Vassily finally shot the major, for himself, for his country, for those who loved him and lost lives for him.

Doubtlessly, after more than half a century, when we look back upon the history, the world owes the brave red army for their huge sacrifice in their defeating the Nazi Germans. However, when it comes to each individual life fighting in that war, the movie presented things that shocked me to certain extent. Perhaps due to the background in which I grew up, I have always pictured every Soviet Union red army soldier only with iron will and determination. I have never imagined that in the midst of all the sacrifice in the bloody battle, there are ones who were frightened and wanted to retreat. Neither have I imagined a loving mother straight up and down, after hearing mistakenly that her son betrayed the country and had gone over to the Germans, would think that “perhaps he’s made the right choice”. Her brave little Sacha collected intelligence about the major at the risk and eventually paying the price of life, just because he so innocently wanted Vassily to “win”. Even Vassily himself was not a perfect hero in the traditional sense. As a sniper, he clearly saw the enemy through the sight “if he has a wedding ring” or “if he shaved that morning”; he saw them not as uniforms but as human faces, and “those faces don’t go away”. He was brave; but after realizing the impossible skills and tactic of major Konig, he found Danilov and told him that “you have to stop writing about me. You promised a victory I can’t deliver.” He fought with every bit of his energy; but he could also miss the ideal chance to shot out of mere fatigue and sleepiness. He devoted himself to the country; but his ideal was not to give all he had to the cause of communism, but to run a factory, becoming the man who “sees and knows everything” there. All those figures, those who sacrificed themselves for the greater good, were first human and then courageous and respectable heroes.

But some people did not realize this. They were blinded by the shining, perfect ideal and could not see the world or themselves clearly in the objective way. The character Danilov in the movie carried such typical trait. Perhaps many despise him as a “snake”, I personally feel the deepest and most painful sympathy for him. As a young promising political officer, Danilov was well educated and sincerely believed in communism. He believed in truth, believed in his own pursuit for the truth, but failed to observe himself and others in real forms. Although his belief was all equality, deep down he also considered himself “born for a different purpose” and more useful than those fighting in the battleground. Both Danilov and Vassily fell in love with a beautiful female soldier Tania. But no matter how Danilov tried and how reserved Vassily was at the beginning, the girl’s heart of course only went to the hero. Danilov was integrated, yet he could not see his own selfishness. He was sincere, yet he could not see his own envy. He used his power to transfer Tania for he wanted her to be safe. He let Sacha risk his life for intelligence, because he had to answer to Kruschev with a final victory. After finding out Tania’s love for Vassily, he was so overwhelmed by jealousy that he wrote in fury a report that in that circumstance could kill a person: Vassily’s “indescribable duration of his duel with the Nazi shot and public defeated comments could only be due to his lack of belief of the communist ideal”. Well, no wonder a lot of audiences do not like him.

I sympathize, because I see a piece of myself and perhaps of many others from Danilov. I cared for truth and the beautiful so much that I did not have the courage to confront the real self and the real world, making small or large mistakes without knowing. I know that Danilov was sincere, because when Tania was hit by shred in a commotion, he knelt down in front of the girl in blood who he loved so dearly. He shouted an aching cry, disclosing and tearing the deepest bottom of his own mind. He found Vassily who was still in duel with the major and painfully spoke the following words. “I’ve been such a fool, Vassily. Man will always be man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there would be nothing to envy on neighbor. But there will always be something to envy, a smile, a friendship… In this world, or even a soviet one, there will always be rich and poor, rich in gifts, poor in gifts, rich in love, poor in love… Tania is dead. She was going to come back for you. She was right, you are a good man…” In a despondent composure Danilov made a decision, “Let me help you Vassily. Something useful for a change. Let me show you where the major is.” He took off his helmet and raised his head from the hiding place, instantly shot on the forehead by major Konig, whose position was hence exposed by Danilov’s life.

I understand his decision. I understand the pain when one sees something valued so high and dearly vanishing into the thin air, when love and belief are destroyed or mocked by reality. A vulnerable heart that dreams of light with eyes closed simply cannot handle the despair that is so profound. It makes one fall to an abyss, doubting all, losing the motivation to live. Death is the perfect annotation for sincerity, the only escape and extrication. He had not had the courage of confronting before. He still didn’t. The only thing he could do was to give the broken world a useful gift when he departed. Danilov was also a hero. At least in that last moment, he became a hero of truthfulness.

But Danilov was only a tragic hero. No matter how bad the world needs more heroes, we do not need them in such a sad way. Although everyone has to find his/her own path, tragedy in the past may help avoid repeating itself in the future. We believe in truth, not just because of its soothing glow, but also because it is reality. I often think that love and belief have something in common- perhaps that is exactly why in many people including Danilov’s hearts, the two emotions are so tightly entwined. We love for it is beautiful. But if only for it is beautiful and refusing to acknowledge or accept the parts that are not so beautiful, then it is not true love. Rather, it is merely a pretty yet pale dream a heart weaves for itself. The more passion one has, the more lost, excruciating, desperate it will be when waken up by reality. We can never give up love and belief. We have to be brave to believe, to face the world and ourselves. To believe does not only require piousness, it also requires honest courage. The imperfect does not mean that it is not beautiful or not worth pursuing. It does not deserve to be discarded. To believe is not to be destroyed, not to create tragedies, but to fill all our lives with hopes and meanings. At least, I am talking about myself. I hope with true, healthy belief I can passionately see the world, see myself, and live.

03/13/05