All Quiet On The Western Front (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

This new version certainly works better in the original German, but the 1930 version is miles ahead in all but the gore. -- Al

It’s been years since I read the book and a few since I saw the movie but, unless senility has crept in, the parts about Compiegne and Erzberger (later assassinated, as I’m sure you know) wasn’t in either.

 

[lancer]

It’s been years since I read the book and a few since I saw the movie but, unless senility has crept in, the parts about Compiegne and Erzberger (later assassinated, as I’m sure you know) wasn’t in either.

Think you are correct. None of the stuff about the attempt to end the war was in either the book or the previous films. Not a huge deal as producers are always adding or subtracting from source material, but I was especially iritated by the almost total elimination of the school, training, and the home visit sequences, all of which are instrumental in establishing Baumer's growth from naive schoolboy to disillusioned veteran. Also, by choosing to set the movie in 1917 and then even later, the experience of seeing Baumer move through the entire length of the war is lost, along with the irony of living through all he did only to die days before the end of the war. Thought the contrived ending, with Baumer's demise coming right at the moment of the armistice, was really too lazy of the film. -- Al

 

[Combat]

Movies made from the German perspective are always unsettling. There is a certain amount of narrative sympathy for the main characters, then you realize they are the bad guys. "Cross of Iron" and "Das Boot" come to mind.

 

[JL01]

It’s been years since I read the book and a few since I saw the movie but, unless senility has crept in, the parts about Compiegne and Erzberger (later assassinated, as I’m sure you know) wasn’t in either.

They weren’t but given the movie industry’s leanings they had to add something to make conservative elements in Germany appear bad and liberal elements, referred to in the movie as the “social democrats” look good. The victors write the history as we all know.

 

[jazzeum]

Think you are correct. None of the stuff about the attempt to end the war was in either the book or the previous films. Not a huge deal as producers are always adding or subtracting from source material, but I was especially iritated by the almost total elimination of the school, training, and the home visit sequences, all of which are instrumental in establishing Baumer's growth from naive schoolboy to disillusioned veteran. Also, by choosing to set the movie in 1917 and then even later, the experience of seeing Baumer move through the entire length of the war is lost, along with the irony of living through all he did only to die days before the end of the war. Thought the contrived ending, with Baumer's demise coming right at the moment of the armistice, was really too lazy of the film. -- Al

Exactly. The only thing the movie seemed to have in common with the book or the other movies was the title. The home visit sequence, as you mentioned, was a key part in Paul’s disillusionment.

 

[Combat]

How accurate was the depiction of the German attack after the armistice was signed? I know that the Americans continued to order attacks to be carried out that morning. There were about 3,000 American casualties that day. Nothing short of murder. After the war there were hearings about the attacks ordered on Nov. 11, but nothing ever came of them. Impossible to understand how anyone would have ordered those attacks knowing the war was ending in a few hours. Or how they got the soldiers to carry them out.

 

[mestell]

Watched for about an hour then lost interest. I found the background music/percussion noise distracting . . .
Mike

 

[jazzeum]

I may have mentioned this before but this is another good novel told from the German perspective, Schlump.

https://www.nyrb.com/collections/classics/products/schlump?variant=19280884359

 

[Warrior]

Think you are correct. None of the stuff about the attempt to end the war was in either the book or the previous films. Not a huge deal as producers are always adding or subtracting from source material, but I was especially iritated by the almost total elimination of the school, training, and the home visit sequences, all of which are instrumental in establishing Baumer's growth from naive schoolboy to disillusioned veteran. Also, by choosing to set the movie in 1917 and then even later, the experience of seeing Baumer move through the entire length of the war is lost, along with the irony of living through all he did only to die days before the end of the war. Thought the contrived ending, with Baumer's demise coming right at the moment of the armistice, was really too lazy of the film. -- Al

BINGO.

Having read the book and viewed both of the previous versions, this was a tire fire.

They left out so many important parts; it seemed like Baumer entered the war in 1917/steel helmet vs pickelhaube early in the war, zero character development, you never got to experience his journey from raw, idealistic recruit to grizzled veteran. The movie was 2.5 hours long...................it went from the initial bombardment when he was a raw recruit, then it skipped to November of 1918..............and there was still a ton of time left, I was wondering "So no character development/showing his journey along the way"...also, Kat the veteran, no teaching lessons like in the first two versions or the book?

What a lazy film.

The battle scene when the tanks first arrive was very well done, it depicted just how horrible WWI combat was.

And that ending; oh boy.

Awful.

 

[lancer]

How accurate was the depiction of the German attack after the armistice was signed? I know that the Americans continued to order attacks to be carried out that morning. There were about 3,000 American casualties that day. Nothing short of murder. After the war there were hearings about the attacks ordered on Nov. 11, but nothing ever came of them. Impossible to understand how anyone would have ordered those attacks knowing the war was ending in a few hours. Or how they got the soldiers to carry them out.

Interesting question. I would think that this contrived final assault by German troops was pulled right from the US experience as a film makers point about how stupid the whole thing was. I can't imagine, in any way, shape, or form that the German troops, with their moral lower than whale poop for months, could have been ordered into an attack at that point. I'm guessing outright mutiny would have been the result of any such order, considering the state of things in Germany, at home and at the front. Instances of mutiny has already occurred behind the lines. It just doesn't seem realistic to me, but, as I said, I believe the filmmakers just grabbed onto the useless, last minute assaults by US troops to make their point about the waste of war. -- Al

 

[Rutledge]

A big remembrance from my reading of the book, many years ago, was the soldiers' struggles with viciously aggressive rats. Horrible. Rats were never mentioned in the movie, and barely shown.

 

[jazzeum]

BINGO.

Having read the book and viewed both of the previous versions, this was a tire fire.

They left out so many important parts; it seemed like Baumer entered the war in 1917/steel helmet vs pickelhaube early in the war, zero character development, you never got to experience his journey from raw, idealistic recruit to grizzled veteran. The movie was 2.5 hours long...................it went from the initial bombardment when he was a raw recruit, then it skipped to November of 1918..............and there was still a ton of time left, I was wondering "So no character development/showing his journey along the way"...also, Kat the veteran, no teaching lessons like in the first two versions or the book?

What a lazy film.

The battle scene when the tanks first arrive was very well done, it depicted just how horrible WWI combat was.

And that ending; oh boy.

Awful.

The comment about character development occurred to me also. The most interesting part of the film was the intro where the uniforms of killed soldiers were reused.

The movie was a lost opportunity.

 

[lancer]

Watched for about an hour then lost interest. I found the background music/percussion noise distracting . . .
Mike

Agree. Took me a while to figure out what all the staccato notes were supposed to be. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Interesting question. I would think that this contrived final assault by German troops was pulled right from the US experience as a film makers point about how stupid the whole thing was. I can't imagine, in any way, shape, or form that the German troops, with their moral lower than whale poop for months, could have been ordered into an attack at that point. I'm guessing outright mutiny would have been the result of any such order, considering the state of things in Germany, at home and at the front. Instances of mutiny has already occurred behind the lines. It just doesn't seem realistic to me, but, as I said, I believe the filmmakers just grabbed onto the useless, last minute assaults by US troops to make their point about the waste of war. -- Al

That’s a good point. After the war ended it was touch and go whether Germany would turn into another Russia. That’s what makes the history of Germany in the early 20s so interesting.

 

[lancer]

The comment about character development occurred to me also. The most interesting part of the film was the intro where the uniforms of killed soldiers were reused.

It was a very telling scene. Also found the scene were Baumer is ordered to collect ID tags from the dead very grim, especially when he ran across his mutilated friend. -- Al

 

[lancer]

That’s a good point. After the war ended it was touch and go whether Germany would turn into another Russia. That’s what makes the history of Germany in the early 20s so interesting.

Interesting book on that subject by Richard Watt, When Kings Depart. Also there are several works by Gerald Feldman that cover Germany during and after the war in regards to economics and other important factors regarding the home front. -- Al

 

[JL01]

The fictional final German attack fits the narrative of the film, i.e., Germany bad.

Also, it’s implied in the movie that the “hero” Erlanger’s son died at the front. He actuality he died of the Spanish Flu like many others, combatants and non-combatants.

 

[Combat]

There is a great show called "America in Color" that recently covered the 1930s. It included footage of the American WWI vets protesting for their bonuses during the Great Depression. They were eventually routed out of DC by Douglas MacArthur. Interesting stuff and the colorized footage of that era is fantastic. I'm a big fan of b&w movies, but the colorized footage of that era is like a trip on a time machine. Even random footage of NYC in the 1930s is great stuff. It adds an entirely new dimension.

 

[lancer]

There is a great show called "America in Color" that recently covered the 1930s. It included footage of the American WWI vets protesting for their bonuses during the Great Depression. They were eventually routed out of DC by Douglas MacArthur. Interesting stuff and the colorized footage of that era is fantastic. I'm a big fan of b&w movies, but the colorized footage of that era is like a trip on a time machine. Even random footage of NYC in the 1930s is great stuff. It adds an entirely new dimension.

I'm a big fan of those shows, too. -- Al

 

[bradleyl30]

Watched it with the English dubbed version, no subtitles. Was perfectly adequate. I am currently re-watching with the German version, subtitled in English, but have noted that this versions subtitles have the annoying addition of noting sound effects instead of just letting the sound effects speak for themselves. Do I really need to read 'wind blowing', explosions and gunfire occurring', 'shouting', etc.? -- Al

Mine did not have this issue. I wonder if they fixed it or it is TV dependent?