Lewis Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front has been hailed by critics and moviegoers alike as one of the greatest early war films ever made. Before this 1930 film hit the big screen, it was (and remains) a lauded novel by Erich Maria Remarque written amidst the disillusionment of the post-World War I period. There is never a huge number of students that watch this film due to its age, but those that do dare to dive in are rewarded by a brooding, timeless film that contemplates the realities of war. There are a few things that, in my opinion, make this 1930 Best Picture winner quite unique. First of all, there are no big name movie stars to be seen. Even in the 1930s, most audiences did not readily recognize the actors. Why was this deliberately done? Can well-known movie stars be distracting when considering such serious material? Another thing that is unique about this film is the musical score. There is none! Why would this be? So many war epics, from the earliest days of film to the most recent, are generally accompanied by these sweeping instrumental scores. Why does Milestone completely avoid this in his direction? The most major merit of this film is the perspective that it provides. Most war stories are told from the point of view of the nationality of the writer. In the case of All Quiet on the Western Front, however, all of the main characters that are focused on are German. How can an approach like this be effective? All too often in Hollywood's war films, the opposition is made out to be a group of faceless villains, completely devoid of feelings. The reality however, is so much the opposite. Humans are humans, and humans have similar reasons for going to war. Perhaps they have been brainwashed of the evil of the opposition, they have been taught to hate, or perhaps they simply see it as their patriotic duty to bravely serve one's country. Regardless of the reasons, be they noble or otherwise, humans all fight in war for similar reasons, both sides. What this film beautifully illustrates is that every soldier on a battlefield, regardless of the side, has baggage, has feelings, has a family or a wife or a girlfriend or someone they desperately miss and can't wait to see again. How does war effect men? That is the question posed by this film. What I would like to discuss more here is the merit of alternate points of view when it comes to any matter regarding history. Why is simply one point of view ineffective in the study of history? What point of view have most in the western world studied history from over the past several decades and centuries? If you have found this discussion and this film to be intriguing, you may want to consider viewing Clint Eastwood's most recent films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima. What Mr. Eastwood does with these two films is remarkable-- he takes the exact same event, the Battle of Iwo Jima, but tells it from an American point of view in Flags of Our Fathers and from a Japanese point of view in Letters From Iwo Jima. I will particularly look forward to furthering this discussion in the days and weeks ahead.
8 comments:
All Quiet On the Western Front, other than the demonstration of trench warfare, that WWI is going on, certain bits of dialogue such as "Push on to Paris", and small displays of WWI German culture, is not very historical. I don't think it was meant to be. There are no names of battles or events and no real people. I think this is deliberate to focus more on the theme of war and its effect on men as you stated. I think the absence of a musical score is also deliberate, because the point was to show the horrors of war, not to glorify it. The movie is based on a novel that was written by a German author. While the historical presentation of WWI German culture and perspective is unique and demonstrates the idea that perspective is important in understanding history, it isn't really all that important to the movie. Other than that WWI had just finished about a decade before the film was made and that WWI was a very bloody war due to trench warfare, any other war could have been used to demonstrate the anti-war message equally as well. I don't think that the German perspective is all that important to the movie itself either, other than it is used to help demonstrate just that. This can be seen in the scene in which Paul stabs and kills a French soldier and asks him for forgiveness, realizing that he was a person just like him. In one scene the men discuss the reason for the start of the war. The only way they can explain it is that one country "offended" another. While All Queit on the Western Front is an excellant and thought-provoking film, it fails in presenting traditional WWI history and is used rather to demonstrate the effect that WWI and wars in general have on men.
The movie didnt have an "historical people" but it did have a reference to a real person. the author of the book was a german WWI veteran and he was writing to show how he was opposed to the war. he might not have put his name as the character, but it was in reference to his experience. Otherwise , this was a good movie and definately had a meaning
This movie was not meant to show all the facts. It was meant to show what war is really like. All Quiet on the Western Front only has one character based on a real person, Paul Baumer. The real Paul Baumer was a German fighter pilot in WWI and later became a dentist. Erich Maria Remarque was one of his patients and used his name for the protagonist. Therefore the fictional Paul Baumer was not like his real-life counterpart. All Quiet on the Western Front showed what people thought war was like and what soldiers knew war was really like. In the beginning of the movie, the professor is encouraging Paul Baumer and the other students to join the army with stories of grandeur and honor. He quotes, "Dulce est decorum pro patria mori," or, It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country, a line from the Roman poet Horace. Paul sees his friends killed one by one, and even his surrogate father figure, "Kat" Katczinsky, is killed by an airplane bomber. When Paul is on leave and sees the professor telling the same stories to the students, he knows it is not true. At the end of the movie, when Paul is reaching for the butterfly, he is shot down. It could represent him reaching for freedom, and being deprived of that because of war. All Quiet on the Western Front shows settings, weapons, vehicles, etc. accurately, but does not give any specific names of people, places, or battles. It is meant to show reality and emotion without showing as much of history. I believe that this movie moves a little slow, but it has a new, thought-provoking way of showing war that I would recommend to others.
One point of view is ineffective in the study of history in most cases because then you are not getting the whole picture. I think that in All Quiet On the Western Front, only having one point of view didn't really matter because of the message they were trying to get across. They were trying to paint the picture of war and the hardships of it and they were able to get the message across with only having one point of view. The absence of a musical score helped to show the negatives of war and not to make it glamorous. I also think that reason why there isn't any famous people in the movie is because they want the viewer to focus all of their attention to the theme of the movie, real life at war. The movie was good and it really got the point across to me of the real hardships of war.
i accidentally deleted adam printz' comment, so here it is (sorry about that)...
All Quiet on the Western Front was a great war movie to describe ONE part of WWI. Yes it did a very good job on showing how young men joined the war and how fighting for the father land was an honor. It showed how being a trench war soldier was very difficult and scary. But i think they could of done a better job of showing not only one side of the war but two.
I personally thought the movie was good...kind of different, but it was made it interesting.
All Quiet on the Western Front did in fact have a character based on a real person, but not with the correct history. I looked up that Paul Baumer was actually an air pilot and also trained to be a dental assistant.
i think the reason why the director did not add anyone 'famous' in the movie was because it was a war movie showing viewers that this was the real thing. Any real war does not have a movie star fighting as a soldier unless it was just another movie. All Quiet on the western Front showed viewers one man's opinion, thoughts, and effort through the hard times and the insight of what really goes on during a war. I think All Quiet on the Western Front was more of a lesson that war is no joke at all, even though most of the world today might think that it's not as bad as some people say it is.
I thought that All Quiet on the Western Front was a great stand-alone movie. The picture seizes the audience's attention and holds it tight throughout the film with extensive action and drama. However, from the historical aspect, the film is not very informative. Sure, the film gives an inside look at trench warfare, but it doesn't give much information on the big picture of history at the time. There are not many details on the battle strategies or movements of the armies in WWI. It is focused in on the exploits one group of people in the war. Also, it is hard for someone who doesn't already know about WWI to know why there is a war and fighting, as one's knowledge of the war is taken for granted. In addition, the film is biased and contains a lot of anti-war propaganda. Although war can be a terrible thing, it is sometimes easier to portray history with an unbiased view. The film is not very accurate in terms of the whole war, but the small details were pretty accurate. The guns and uniforms employed by the soldiers in the army seemed rather realistic. The movie had a pretty good special effects array considering the time period in which it was created. Overall, All Quiet on the Western Front is a good movie, but is not objective and informative about the events of WWI.
All Quiet on the Western Front made me think of an older version of band of brothers. It showed the dangerous and scary side to trench warfare. This flim did a great job at demostrating the German side of WW1 and how horrible the soldiers had it during the war. Though it showed how the war had an effect on the soliders it failed to show how bad the American side had it too.
Post a Comment