All Quiet on the Western Front

Yesterday, I saw the 1979 American rendition of this movie, and while it had its flaws, the creators stayed true to the book, albeit loosely at times. On the flip side, despite the correct title and character names, the new German version diverged significantly from Remarque's book. Unlike the American version, the German one painted a more realistic picture of the war—the trenches looked right, and it effectively portrayed the impersonal war machinery where soldiers were treated as mere expendables. However, the creators took the de-personalization to an extreme, resulting in flat characters (except for Paul and Katczinsky), making it difficult for me to connect with any of them. Even when they made an effort to make the battles realistic, there were lapses, like extras wandering around destroyed trenches after artillery bombardments. Fortunately, the French machine gunners were apparently on a smoke break. Putting the book aside (which is a challenge for me), it was a decently crafted film depicting the senselessness of warfare, showing the ludicrous pursuit of a two-hundred-meter strip of land, resembling the moon's surface, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides. / Lesson learned: Running towards machine guns is not a healthy sport. (02/01/2023)

In All Quiet on the Westen Front, there is only one shot - a long sequence with an imperceptible travelling forward - where the face of the actor Felix Kammerer (arguably the main character of the movie) appears in full screen, in its absolute and preserved peacefulness. The viewers understand he has just been passing, in the franco-german trenches, ironically by the exact time of enactment of the Armistice. Edward Berger seems to tell us: Death is beautiful. Yes it can be so after more than two hours of tragic absurd and dreadful description of events seen from the exclusive point of view of the (German) losers of the First World War, where no death is spared to the viewers. And where so many young men fell to their death or became orendously mutilated in the name and for the honour of their country and its political and military leaders. Such a unique waste may be alluded to by Edouard Berger in the first scene of the movie, filmed in a low angle, of a mother fox and her babies, warmly pressed against each other below earth in their burrow. Only human animals can find in themselves the will, strength and illusion of fighting till death for an abstract political concept such as that of territorial homeland. We are thus reminded of those so-called "primitive" societies that were shedding tears upon the birth of any new born child, in anticipation of the difficulties and challenges to come that she or he would have to face later on in life. And, as can be expected from said people, the members of these tribes were celebrating joyfully the passing of any of them, as a testimony of the end of earthly hardships for the deceased. And in between birth and death, according to what may be one of the meaning of this movie, there is only cynism. No place for any hope of redemption for any of its characters, all passively blown away by the craziness of war. At the end ,what remains is the impression of a too long and familiar scenario of the same senselessness . The quality of the photography by James Friend is to be highlighted. (09/11/2022)

I’ve read the book once in high school and don't remember much of it, I'm not burdened by the demands of faithful adaptation. What I demand of a historical war film, however, is that it somehow expresses its thesis in a meaningful way, which All Quite on the Western Front (and Boredom and Ash) fails to do. There is no character development, no profiling in the opening and no emotion in the scenes where we are supposed to sympathise with the protagonists. The whole thing is mired in the bias of war scenes, of which only the transporter sequence leaves a bigger impression, otherwise every scene from the trenches has the same aesthetic: stick the camera on the protagonist and let it bang around. This is supposed to increase the suggestiveness and perhaps the subjectivity of the experience, but the film soon disproves this by layering melodramatic clichés and haphazardly involving "big stories" from the peace negotiations – by that point, it's already mixing together Come and See (in a weak concoction of the hero's suffering), 1917 (steadicam in the trenches), Paths of Glory (a moral about the futility of human sacrifice and the irrational thinking of generals), and Dunkirk (the role of condensed time during the negotiations, cutting to the impending battle). Together, of course, it's a mess, which mostly looks nice, but the sheer disjointedness of the journey leads to inevitable boredom and tedium. When I checked the progress bar and found that I still had over 40 minutes to go, I almost wanted to turn the film off. Of course, it only takes the basic ideas and motivations from Remarque, I know that, even with the rather clouded memories of the book (and unfortunately that's the least of the problems). (02/11/2022)

I haven’t read the novel, so I’m reviewing this strictly as a war movie. In technical terms, it’s fine. There is nothing to criticise when it comes to the sets, costumes, camerawork or the depiction of the battle and negotiation scenes. However, the detailed portrayal of the characters and, mainly, the dialogue come up short, feeling flat and failing to emotionally engage the viewer. The film lacks a strong screenwriting focus on the personal stories of the protagonist and several other characters. (13/11/2022)

Erich Maria Remarque is one of my most beloved authors, one I come back to repeatedly throughout my life, and I have long postponed reading the first German adaptation of his most famous novel and the one most required in school curricula. There were many rumors about an inaccurate or even arrogant revision, so I am now shocked by how good the adaptation is. Not necessarily as the adaptation of a work, but rather as the comprehensive work of the filmmaker. It is precisely in the much criticized storyline of the negotiations over the end of the war that a few words or sentences are used to express the eternal pain that also appeared in books taking place long after the conflict or between the world wars. The minds and thoughts of the heroes mostly only harbor complaints about the unnecessary prolongation of the armistice, which results in the deaths of many innocents. For greater effect, such subjectivity is replaced with infuriating images and feelings of injustice. In the front lines, it is not about which scenes from the book were successfully transferred to the film (although the famous unbearable waiting in the trench with the enemy does not go lacking), but about the atmosphere of damnation, despair, and eternal damage that permeates every minute. I'm ultimately giving this the highest rating despite the omission of the storyline that troubled me the most in the book. In it, the main character returns home for a few days while on leave and realizes that the kind of return he imagined will probably never be possible. That people who have not experienced the battles will never understand the trauma and horror that a veteran carries. Within the condensation of the plot and the insistence on the destructive environment of contact with the enemy, I understand such a change and am happy to look past it. Because the literary work was created almost a hundred years before this film, and the warnings are no less relevant. (12/03/2023)