I wonder how many AQOTWF viewers will make the connection with the war in Ukraine. I don’t watch war movies because they make me remember the Vietnam War. The part of the book that stays with me most strongly is Paul’s visit home, where the non-combatants fail to understand the reality he has been immersed in. Is it virtual signaling to say, I didn’t have to go to Southeast Asia to know and reject what America was doing over there in the 60’s? So much of the country’s fascist devolution, in my opinion, arose from deciding we should glorify that inexcusable war - sort of like 1930’s Germany, no? If real war doesn’t convince everyone it’s a moral disaster, how can a film.
Yeah, I watched this a few months back and it was…fine? It’s all well-done (acting, cinematography, score, etc.) and I forgot about it five minutes after it ended. It seems like it ought to be the kind of film that leaves you a bit shaken or at least makes you think. I was just mildly entertained for whatever the runtime is and that was that. I was bit surprised to see it get a nom, thought maybe I’d missed something, but maybe not.
I was put off by the changes from the original source material. This is admittedly shaped by my per-existing prejudice. I've read the novel several times, and the 1929 movie completely blew my twelve year old mind. I never looked at a war movie the same way after that.
Anyone making an adaptation has to weigh what to cut or add or outright change. They want to make a coherent film that hopefully keeps the audience engaged. In this case, they managed to miss Remarque's main points. Paul's death is set a few weeks before the end of the war, and is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. No big deal to anyone, not worth mentioning in the daily reports. And that is what impacts the reader or the viewer. In the novel, the first person narration simply stops. A final paragraph notes that he fell, but gives no cause. In the 1929 version gives us the wrenching butterfly scene, a masterclass in understated horror. Again, the banality of Paul's demise makes it's impact stronger. The filmmakers decided that a huge battle in the final moments leading up to the armistice would have more impact than Remarque's quieter original ending. They read abut the use of irony in school, and bludgeoned us with it. They forgot the maxim, "Sometimes Less Is More."
The new version gives us a stereotypical evil Prussian Officer sending his starving men out to die while he picks at his gourmet meal. We've seen this guy a thousand times. I guess they decided to use him to replace the much more effective Corporal Himmelstoss. The more life experience on has, the more one recognizes Himmelstoss as a real person. Or even someone like ourselves - what would we do if we suddenly had absolute power, backed by the state? Yesterday I was the village postman, smiling and nodding to people I despise. Now, I have a room full of kids on whom to unleash years of pent up sadism.
Another quibble, which I may have ranted about here, was the farmhouse raid. I just can't see farmers who want to survive the war taking potshots at occupying army troops, no matter how many chickens get stolen.
I'll give credit where it's due. The opening sequence of the uniform getting salvaged, patched, and handed to the next cannon fodder was masterfully done. Then I realize that it was a re-imagining of Remarque's tale of the expensive, (and cursed), boots everyone envies.
The fact that they kept zooming out to the larger political situation about trying to get the armistice done was a weird choice. I haven't read the book, but there's none of that in the 1930 version. And the way It plays out in the new one seems to reinforce a lot of very old and bad German ideas about how badly they were swindled by the sneering allied armies. Some real 'stabbed in the back'-adjacent stuff. That said, the scene in the huge shell crater with the French soldier could have been the whole movie almost.
"I’ll add that while the violence is disturbing and its persistence grinds, it is remarkably tasteful considering what a meat-grinder the war is." This reminds me of a scene A.J. Liebling described in Mollie and Other War Pieces after a plane went down: “When we arrived where the plane had fallen, we found three trucks and at least fifty men already there. The plane had been a Messerschmitt 109 belonging to the bombers’ fighter escort. Flames were roaring above the portion deepest in the earth, which I judged was the engine. Screws, bolts, rings, and unidentifiable bits of metal were scattered over an area at least seventy-five yards square. Intermingled with all this were widely scattered red threads, like the bits left in a butcher’s grinder when he has finished preparing an order of chopped steak. ‘He never even tried to pull out,’ a soldier said. ‘He must have been shot through the brain. I seen the whole thing. The plane fell five thousand feet like a hunk of lead.’ There was a sour smell over everything — not intolerable, just sour. ‘Where is the pilot?’ Norgaard asked. The soldier waved his hand with a gesture that included the whole area. Norgaard, apparently for the first time, noticed the red threads. Most of the soldiers were rummaging amid the wreckage, searching for souvenirs. Somebody said that the pilot’s automatic pistol, always the keepsake most eagerly sought, had already been found and appropriated. Another soldier had picked up some French and Italian money. How these things had survived the pilot’s disintegration I do not know. While the soldiers walked about, turning over bits of the plane with their feet, looking for some object which could serve as a memento, an American plane came over and everybody began to run before someone recognized it for what it was."
I haven't seen any version of the movie or read the book, so I really shouldn't comment. But I feel that being a character writing in someone else's blog's comment section practically compels me to write about topics I know nothing whatsoever about. Funny how that works, eh?
But I guess I know a little something about why I didn't see the film, even though I really wanted to in hopes of actually having something interesting to contribute. Unfortunately, it came out long enough ago that I read some reviews before I had any idea it would be nominated for an Oscar and the reviews made it sound like homework more than any kind of quality cinematic experience. And Roy's review does little to alter that perception. The film seems to be all about the message and the message, it seems, couldn't be more obvious. I tend to prefer a bit more ambiguity in my art, and lacking that, at least some subversive humor. From what I can tell, All's Quiet on the Western Front contains neither. When I was younger I might have been up for a bit of the old ultra-violence, but those days are long gone, and even then I liked my ultra-violence with a bit of the old ambiguity and subversive humor.
Anyhoo, I enjoyed the review. Looking forward to the next one.
Haven't seen this movie, and probably won't, but thanks for callback to Famous Monsters of Filmland. That magazine (and the movies it championed), along with comic books, got me through my miserable childhood.
I wonder how many AQOTWF viewers will make the connection with the war in Ukraine. I don’t watch war movies because they make me remember the Vietnam War. The part of the book that stays with me most strongly is Paul’s visit home, where the non-combatants fail to understand the reality he has been immersed in. Is it virtual signaling to say, I didn’t have to go to Southeast Asia to know and reject what America was doing over there in the 60’s? So much of the country’s fascist devolution, in my opinion, arose from deciding we should glorify that inexcusable war - sort of like 1930’s Germany, no? If real war doesn’t convince everyone it’s a moral disaster, how can a film.
Yeah, I watched this a few months back and it was…fine? It’s all well-done (acting, cinematography, score, etc.) and I forgot about it five minutes after it ended. It seems like it ought to be the kind of film that leaves you a bit shaken or at least makes you think. I was just mildly entertained for whatever the runtime is and that was that. I was bit surprised to see it get a nom, thought maybe I’d missed something, but maybe not.
I was put off by the changes from the original source material. This is admittedly shaped by my per-existing prejudice. I've read the novel several times, and the 1929 movie completely blew my twelve year old mind. I never looked at a war movie the same way after that.
Anyone making an adaptation has to weigh what to cut or add or outright change. They want to make a coherent film that hopefully keeps the audience engaged. In this case, they managed to miss Remarque's main points. Paul's death is set a few weeks before the end of the war, and is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. No big deal to anyone, not worth mentioning in the daily reports. And that is what impacts the reader or the viewer. In the novel, the first person narration simply stops. A final paragraph notes that he fell, but gives no cause. In the 1929 version gives us the wrenching butterfly scene, a masterclass in understated horror. Again, the banality of Paul's demise makes it's impact stronger. The filmmakers decided that a huge battle in the final moments leading up to the armistice would have more impact than Remarque's quieter original ending. They read abut the use of irony in school, and bludgeoned us with it. They forgot the maxim, "Sometimes Less Is More."
The new version gives us a stereotypical evil Prussian Officer sending his starving men out to die while he picks at his gourmet meal. We've seen this guy a thousand times. I guess they decided to use him to replace the much more effective Corporal Himmelstoss. The more life experience on has, the more one recognizes Himmelstoss as a real person. Or even someone like ourselves - what would we do if we suddenly had absolute power, backed by the state? Yesterday I was the village postman, smiling and nodding to people I despise. Now, I have a room full of kids on whom to unleash years of pent up sadism.
Another quibble, which I may have ranted about here, was the farmhouse raid. I just can't see farmers who want to survive the war taking potshots at occupying army troops, no matter how many chickens get stolen.
I'll give credit where it's due. The opening sequence of the uniform getting salvaged, patched, and handed to the next cannon fodder was masterfully done. Then I realize that it was a re-imagining of Remarque's tale of the expensive, (and cursed), boots everyone envies.
“a high-budget Black Forest Chainsaw Massacre without any of the horror genre’s usual pleasures”
might not describe the film to Roy's taste, but you KNOW Roy could not resist posting such a tasty phrase. Professional courtesy illustrated.
“it takes [an] artist to give hell a unified visual structure”
Hieronymus Bosch and a flock of bird-lizard demons clap in approval.
The fact that they kept zooming out to the larger political situation about trying to get the armistice done was a weird choice. I haven't read the book, but there's none of that in the 1930 version. And the way It plays out in the new one seems to reinforce a lot of very old and bad German ideas about how badly they were swindled by the sneering allied armies. Some real 'stabbed in the back'-adjacent stuff. That said, the scene in the huge shell crater with the French soldier could have been the whole movie almost.
Great review!
And "Thibault de Montalembert " is a great name!
"I’ll add that while the violence is disturbing and its persistence grinds, it is remarkably tasteful considering what a meat-grinder the war is." This reminds me of a scene A.J. Liebling described in Mollie and Other War Pieces after a plane went down: “When we arrived where the plane had fallen, we found three trucks and at least fifty men already there. The plane had been a Messerschmitt 109 belonging to the bombers’ fighter escort. Flames were roaring above the portion deepest in the earth, which I judged was the engine. Screws, bolts, rings, and unidentifiable bits of metal were scattered over an area at least seventy-five yards square. Intermingled with all this were widely scattered red threads, like the bits left in a butcher’s grinder when he has finished preparing an order of chopped steak. ‘He never even tried to pull out,’ a soldier said. ‘He must have been shot through the brain. I seen the whole thing. The plane fell five thousand feet like a hunk of lead.’ There was a sour smell over everything — not intolerable, just sour. ‘Where is the pilot?’ Norgaard asked. The soldier waved his hand with a gesture that included the whole area. Norgaard, apparently for the first time, noticed the red threads. Most of the soldiers were rummaging amid the wreckage, searching for souvenirs. Somebody said that the pilot’s automatic pistol, always the keepsake most eagerly sought, had already been found and appropriated. Another soldier had picked up some French and Italian money. How these things had survived the pilot’s disintegration I do not know. While the soldiers walked about, turning over bits of the plane with their feet, looking for some object which could serve as a memento, an American plane came over and everybody began to run before someone recognized it for what it was."
I haven't seen any version of the movie or read the book, so I really shouldn't comment. But I feel that being a character writing in someone else's blog's comment section practically compels me to write about topics I know nothing whatsoever about. Funny how that works, eh?
But I guess I know a little something about why I didn't see the film, even though I really wanted to in hopes of actually having something interesting to contribute. Unfortunately, it came out long enough ago that I read some reviews before I had any idea it would be nominated for an Oscar and the reviews made it sound like homework more than any kind of quality cinematic experience. And Roy's review does little to alter that perception. The film seems to be all about the message and the message, it seems, couldn't be more obvious. I tend to prefer a bit more ambiguity in my art, and lacking that, at least some subversive humor. From what I can tell, All's Quiet on the Western Front contains neither. When I was younger I might have been up for a bit of the old ultra-violence, but those days are long gone, and even then I liked my ultra-violence with a bit of the old ambiguity and subversive humor.
Anyhoo, I enjoyed the review. Looking forward to the next one.
Haven't seen this movie, and probably won't, but thanks for callback to Famous Monsters of Filmland. That magazine (and the movies it championed), along with comic books, got me through my miserable childhood.