Even recognizing that this is a fictionalized, romanticized account of Lyudmila Pavlichenko's life, I can't say I care for the additional framework that makes Eleanor Roosevelt a consistent background character. It just feels unnecessary; I understand that Pavlichenko's reception by the Roosevelts was an important moment, but it's overemphasized here, I think, in its distinction as a sort of wraparound structure. Putting that aside, there's unfortunate inelegance in aspects such as editing (transitions and sequencing, particularly), and wildly exaggerated voiceovers serving as dubbed English dialogue in select scenes. This Russian-Ukrainian production is also not immune to the tropes and ham-handedness that more commonly plague Hollywood features, and those portions of the movie that focus on the heroine's life outside the war, or her activities outside military context, are more than a little overblown and gauche where they manifest - and that goes for Eleanor above all. This is an unfortunate instance where balance does not work in the picture's favor: 'Battle for Sevastopol' would have been stronger were it more tightly focused on the war, with only sparing, painstakingly considered perspective on Pavlichenko as a person.
Where the film falters, it's most often in the fine details of writing and direction: The picture lacks the gracefulness to treat its component parts with all due care, and the dexterity to maneuver between the lines and words in the screenplay (notably including scene changes). Balance is one issue; unseemly stylization is another, too prevalent to recount every instance. That's not true across the entirety of the feature, but more than enough to make it necessary to mention. One prime example: In the second half, as Pavlichenko amasses an ever greater body count, we see at once both her thirst for blood, and her growing weariness - but 'Sevastopol' embellishes the disparity with a modern pop song. This heavy-handed approach is regrettable, because in the broad strokes - the concept of the narrative, and of each scene - this is an excellent movie. It's a story very much worth telling, a life worth commemorating, a flurry of jumbled emotions worth exploring as thematic content. And I don't think this rendition treats it with appropriate seriousness or sincerity; the emotional beats that should carry immense weight pass by with no real impact. The movie isn't even certain what Big Ideas it wants to convey: Is Pavlichenko an example of a strong woman beating men at their own game, a feminist icon, or is she a delicate creature who had no business being on the battlefield? 'Sevastopol' wants her to be both, but it doesn't at all convincingly sell that difficult dual nature.
I think Yulia Peresild gives a swell performance as Pavlichenko, a portrayal characterized by accented poise, force of personality, and nuanced range. Peresild has the skills to embody the ferocity of the sniper's antifascist fervor, the spiral of her increasingly scattered and unstable mentality, and the shell-shocked, war-weary exhaustion that follows from them both. Would that director Sergey Mokritskiy employed his guiding hand to maximize the impact of this maelstrom of disparate feelings: I assume it's by Mokritskiy's overarching instruction that moments emphasizing the very human side of Pavlichenko struggling to keep up with her effectiveness and loyalty as a soldier are rushed, or garnished with unwelcome flavor, thereby reducing their gravity. I assume it's by Mokritskiy's command that tropes and convention weakly and unnecessarily fill some moments, and clumsy, unwieldy bluntness defines others.
With the unsightly flaws so glaring in our vision, the great craft of other critical details is overwhelmed and forgotten. Sound design is impeccable, and I appreciate the work regarding hair and makeup, costume design, and blood and gore. The execution of battle scenes is quite good, and vividly harrowing. There's no small sense of tension and suspense at the psychological moments. But what do these matter when they are subsumed by so much poor consideration in the writing and direction?
I had high expectations when I began watching. I anticipated enjoying this movie, and I wanted to like it. I don't think it's outright bad - but it's not half the film it should have been. There are so many moments in Pavlichenko's life, as seen here, that were surely profound for her, and should have been for we viewers. That sagacity is all but lost with the flimsiness and failures of writing and direction that I have discussed here. Frankly, I'm frustrated and disappointed with the misuse of powerful potential. At length, this isn't outright bad, and if you come across it, it's worth watching as a portrait of a very special life. But don't go out of you way, and do keep in mind the terrible shortcomings that drag it down. 'Battle for Sevastopol' should have captured the imagination, but instead leaves much to be desired.
Where the film falters, it's most often in the fine details of writing and direction: The picture lacks the gracefulness to treat its component parts with all due care, and the dexterity to maneuver between the lines and words in the screenplay (notably including scene changes). Balance is one issue; unseemly stylization is another, too prevalent to recount every instance. That's not true across the entirety of the feature, but more than enough to make it necessary to mention. One prime example: In the second half, as Pavlichenko amasses an ever greater body count, we see at once both her thirst for blood, and her growing weariness - but 'Sevastopol' embellishes the disparity with a modern pop song. This heavy-handed approach is regrettable, because in the broad strokes - the concept of the narrative, and of each scene - this is an excellent movie. It's a story very much worth telling, a life worth commemorating, a flurry of jumbled emotions worth exploring as thematic content. And I don't think this rendition treats it with appropriate seriousness or sincerity; the emotional beats that should carry immense weight pass by with no real impact. The movie isn't even certain what Big Ideas it wants to convey: Is Pavlichenko an example of a strong woman beating men at their own game, a feminist icon, or is she a delicate creature who had no business being on the battlefield? 'Sevastopol' wants her to be both, but it doesn't at all convincingly sell that difficult dual nature.
I think Yulia Peresild gives a swell performance as Pavlichenko, a portrayal characterized by accented poise, force of personality, and nuanced range. Peresild has the skills to embody the ferocity of the sniper's antifascist fervor, the spiral of her increasingly scattered and unstable mentality, and the shell-shocked, war-weary exhaustion that follows from them both. Would that director Sergey Mokritskiy employed his guiding hand to maximize the impact of this maelstrom of disparate feelings: I assume it's by Mokritskiy's overarching instruction that moments emphasizing the very human side of Pavlichenko struggling to keep up with her effectiveness and loyalty as a soldier are rushed, or garnished with unwelcome flavor, thereby reducing their gravity. I assume it's by Mokritskiy's command that tropes and convention weakly and unnecessarily fill some moments, and clumsy, unwieldy bluntness defines others.
With the unsightly flaws so glaring in our vision, the great craft of other critical details is overwhelmed and forgotten. Sound design is impeccable, and I appreciate the work regarding hair and makeup, costume design, and blood and gore. The execution of battle scenes is quite good, and vividly harrowing. There's no small sense of tension and suspense at the psychological moments. But what do these matter when they are subsumed by so much poor consideration in the writing and direction?
I had high expectations when I began watching. I anticipated enjoying this movie, and I wanted to like it. I don't think it's outright bad - but it's not half the film it should have been. There are so many moments in Pavlichenko's life, as seen here, that were surely profound for her, and should have been for we viewers. That sagacity is all but lost with the flimsiness and failures of writing and direction that I have discussed here. Frankly, I'm frustrated and disappointed with the misuse of powerful potential. At length, this isn't outright bad, and if you come across it, it's worth watching as a portrait of a very special life. But don't go out of you way, and do keep in mind the terrible shortcomings that drag it down. 'Battle for Sevastopol' should have captured the imagination, but instead leaves much to be desired.