Talk:Come and See

"Some Viewers" explanation
In response to Anton, when I said "some viewers" I meant that this topic was discussed on the IMDB message boards among the people who saw this movie, and this was one of the arguments made against the people who said that this film was just propaganda. I thought it would be usefull to have this point mentioned in the Wiki article as a counterpoint to that other quote from the New York critic, and as a pre-emptive counterpoint to any future mentioning of the propaganda criticism (which I think is ridiculous - if this movie is propaganda, then so is Schindler's List... but anyway...). Esn 09:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying who "some viewers" are.


 * I understand your reasons perfectly. If this movie was half as popular in the U.S. as, say Team America: World Police, we'd have to deal with people adding all sorts of redundant things.


 * But anyone who's read even a tiny bit of Elem Klimov's life story would think twice before calling any of his films "propaganda." Anton Mravcek 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Speculating on the MPAA rating
I don't know if you guys have seen American Pie, but you might know that the MPAA threatened to give the film an NC-17 rating if Jim thrust into the pie one too many times. So I think it's entirely plausible that the MPAA would've given this Russian film a PG-13 if there was no nudity, even with all the violence. This is still speculation, regardless of how plausible I might think it is. Robert Happelberg 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to tell readers that this would rate a PG-13 for violence, it's at least as violent--I would contend much more violent--as Saving Private Ryan, which was R. And that film had nothing comparable to Glasha's final scenes, the barn scene, Florya's village after the invasion, etc. I'd be willing to bet MPAA would give it an R for violence alone. Movies depicting rape (or in this case, its bloody aftermath)usually get an R.--Son of Somebody 08:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg?

 * From the article as of April 30:


 * The film heavily influenced Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. Spielberg screened it before making them.

If this movie really influenced him, why it's not mentioned in relevant articles about his films? --Yonkie 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried a Google Scholar search for "steven spielberg" AND "elem klimov" and got just two results, and as far as I can tell Klimov is not even mentioned in the same sentence as Spielberg. So I'm removing the statement about this film's influence on Spielberg. Anton Mravcek 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The influence was the shellshock effect (used twice in SPR). --HanzoHattori 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Spielberg has forced everyone working on the film "saving private ryan" to see the Klimov film, in order to be in the mood (excuse my poor english...)93.80.40.78 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"War will go on forever"
How does the appearance of the newcomer in the final scene imply the war will go on forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.118.26 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never liked that paragraph. It sounds too much like one person's creative reading of the closing shots; that scene doesn't read the same way to me. All "the appearance of the newcomer" says to me is that yet another innocent boy is going to be subjected to the horrors of war. We all know from history class that World War II eventually came to an end, even though it continues to have consequences to this day. Robert Happelberg (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Censorship
I just saw the 137 minute DVD version of the film and was shocked at how it had been censored in the West. The most important – and if I may say so – the most beautiful scene of the film had been cut out. In fact original release seems to contain a total of 8 extra minutes which seem to be included in this Russian DVD.

Do we have a reliable source on the censorship of this film? What scenes were removed and why? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know that, too. This would be an important thing to mention in the article. Esn (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Psychological thriller and/or horror thing
What are sources for that? --Niemti (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal cruelty
The scene where the cow is shot - I am pretty sure that is real, and a short Google seems to indicate so. That is animal cruelty (and it certainly didn't die fast/peacefully by the looks of it...), which is worth noting in the main article? Arfed (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Because film snobs don’t care about innocent animal lives, as long as they are sacrified for their self important art films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.214.135 (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

58th Academy Awards
Why was this film not accepted as a nominee at the 58th Academy Awards? OrodesIII (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think they call Hollywood Tinseltown? Missaeagle (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda
What classifies this film as propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.9.15 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Come and See. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316084353/http://moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=1985 to http://www.moscowfilmfestival.ru/miff34/eng/archives/?year=1985

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The link #47 (https://blogs.iu.edu/aplaceforfilm/2020/09/21/the-undeniable-power-of-come-and-see/), that is supposed to corroborate the anecdote about the elderly Wehrmacht officer giving a speech after watching the movie in a theatre, is broken. I would remove this paragraph unless the source can be found so readers can verify this, somewhat amazing, story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7553:BC00:350B:A561:4CD0:3352 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

with 28,900,000 admissions in the Soviet Union alone
if it was only allowed to be produced eight years after the "invention" in 1985 we have the year 1993, by which time the Sovjet Union did not exist anymore! So it was possibly Russia but not the USSR! 87.145.81.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, work began in 1977, and the production finished eight years later in 1985. Double sharp (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Utopian Films"?
Why is this listed under "Category:Utopian films"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.219.171 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * For "the famous sequence at the end...[that] pretends to roll back history" (Roger Ebert). --82.84.17.213 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Which has nothing to do with Utopia. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * True, but for a reason totally opposite to yours. Utopia means Neverland, and Klimov thought and hoped for something completely different. --82.84.28.179 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Testament quote
The original Greek quote provided in the discussion of the film's title, Apocalypse 6:1-7, does not have the word "see" (ἴδε), even though it may be  implied. In the original Greek, "come and see" is in a completely different passage, John 1:46, with a significantly different mood. The  discussion here bases itself on the KJV, which does supply the implicit "see", but it might be more appropriate to reference the Russian bible quote. The Greek version only muddles matters.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ --82.84.16.46 (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Expansion
Looking at the article, the production section seems to be a bit small, undersourced, and should be expanded in more detail than what it currently is at. It should be split into sub-sections detailing the film's development, casting, and filming; with each sub-section properly expanded in detail with proper citations from reliable sources. The article is also missing information on the film's themes which also needs to be added from reliable sources. Information on the film's legacy should also be added to the article with proper citations from reliable sources. This article has the potential to make FA status if enough attention and work is given to it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Belorussian?
What makes this a Belorussian film? It was made in the Soviet Union by a (as far as I can tell) non-Belorussiun director. Location couldn't possibly be the reason for the label, so what is it?

Seems to be OR, at the very least this needs a source. --84.132.147.249 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

On collaborators
can you tell me the timestamp in the movie where the Russian Liberation Army insignas come up? I appreciate your edit, I just want to confirm it - it seems unlikely that the film would show Russian collaborators in this depiction based on the Khatyn massacre, which was carried out by Ukranian collaborators. Thank you. Eurekaed (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Eurekaed In the YouTube version of the movie you can see it at 1:45:29, on the soldier holding the empty briefcase and on another soldier in the background. Seen again at 1:43:25-30, or 1:48:08 in the Bluray version, on the three soldiers bullying the hiwi collaborator. And again at 1:44:39. Most of the soldiers wearing the overseas cap also wear the POA insignia. Meeepmep (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it, you're exactly right. Though a Criterion article does suggest there were explicitly Ukranian collaborators depicted in the film too, but I can't find any evidence of this just skimming through the film. I suggest we change the sentence to "Russian" collaborators (with a link to the Russian Liberation Army) to avoid any ambuigity over whether they were Russian or Ukrainian. Is that ok? Eurekaed (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Eurekaed Actually I'm not sure that would be entirely accurate either since some of the collaborators wear black Schutzmannschaft uniforms, so they could also be Belorussian or Ukrainian Meeepmep (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I was thinking. I saw some black/dark uniforms with lighter/different-coloured wrists, which I think is Schutzmannschaft, but couldn't see any insigna, only white sleeves with German writing that is too low-res to read. So what do you wanna do? Eurekaed (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with just "Soviet collaborators" or specifying the collaborators as both Russian Liberation Army and Schutzmannschaft. Meeepmep (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect, done! Eurekaed (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

One of greatest films ever?
I simplified this poorly sourced material by removing the sources: "It has since come to be considered one of the greatest films of all time." The WP linked article never mentions Come and See. The footnote-cited article, while very interesting, does not say that it is one of the greatest films of all time, it only says it is a great Soviet anti-war film. I didn't see a feasible correction. The proper sourcing is found in the section of assessments. Zaslav (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Zaslav (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @2601:81:c400:dc30:2cc3:22f6:daff:c96f, sorry for my mistake in the reversion edit summary: The Calvert article does mention this film but does not say it is one of greatest films of all time. The linked WP article does not mention this film.  Zaslav (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)