Skip to main content

Back to the Feature: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

“And our bodies are earth. And our thoughts are clay. And we sleep and eat with death.”
                A Variety article characterized Lewis Milestone’s All Quiet on the Western Front as a film that should be mass-produced and reprinted in every language until the concept of war ceased to exist in the world. Which is a pretty big declaration for a film made prior to most of the past century’s most terrible wars. But at the same time, the explicitness of its anti-war message and effectiveness at conveying that message make it even more relevant today because of those many terrible wars that have illustrated how important this film is.
                The film based on Erich Maria Remarque’s novel is about a bunch of eager young men in Germany at the outset of the First World War. They enlist in the prospect of glory and heroism only to be exposed to the reality and terrors of the war. Primarily the story follows Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres) and his personal experiences and tribulations as he endures harsh conditions, friends and companions dying around him, and losing hope and understanding in the world. And so the film follows the narrative of the war which is that of excitement and hope followed by mass slaughter and trauma.
                One thing that strikes me instantly in All Quiet on the Western Front is that it sticks to the source material’s German leads. It would have been easy and typical for Hollywood back then to transition the story into an American setting with American heroes. And while these Germans are very Americanized it’s still a pleasant surprise that they were bold enough to humanize the enemy only twelve years after the war ended. It shows audiences that these feelings about the war and what it did to people was universal regardless of which side you were on. And while if this film had been made a few years later, I doubt the Germans would have been portrayed so sympathetically (what with you know, Hitler being around), it still strikes me as very open-minded and honest for its time. Another thing to really appreciate about this film is that it was made before the Hays Production Code took effect allowing the violence of war to be portrayed with a much better sense of realism and dreariness. It’s one of the last times before the 1960s that this level of gritty imagery of war is seen. The films feels legitimate when we see people losing limbs, getting injuries, blood appearing with the bodies on the battlefields and helps the viewer experience the horrors as the characters do.
                The film really employs the ideology and honesty about the war in a number of interesting scenes. One of my favourites is when the group are gathered around discussing why they’re fighting in a half-serious manner. It’s hard to believe those kind of conversations didn’t take place for the average tommies many unaware of the nature of the war’s beginnings, or alternatively in full understanding of how ridiculous it was. The older mentor figure of their group Kat (Louis Wolheim, there are a lot of Louis’ in this film!) ends it by giving a comparatively sound alternative to letting millions die over a dumb conflict. The price of war gets plenty of exposure,, no better than in the church-hospital scene where Paul’s trying to comfort a dying man while a friend tries to get his good boots them being such a rare commodity. I feel like for the first time, people who didn’t experience the war were getting an idea of how horrific it was in these scenes, and with a notable death scene later on even more so. There’s a scene where their training instructor arrives at the front and finds the respect to rank has broken down in the anarchy of the trenches, showing the meaningless of the chain of command when all boils down. At one point Paul winds up abandoned in No Man’s Land with an enemy French soldier who he tries to keep alive despite having shot him in the first place. Ayres really sells the lamentation and it’s so effective that similar scenes have been enacted in many war films since. They’re the kind of scenes beyond the comprehension of Professor Kantorek blissfully unaware of the true nature of war but endlessly promoting it for its glory and majesty. After the almost satiric but sadly ironic scene at the beginning, we eventually get to a point where Paul confronts him and it’s just awesome as he does all to discredit him and discourage the students from believing his bullshit. It’s slightly preachy but by this point we’ve seen enough to be firmly on his side. And all of these in addition to the final couple scenes are just beautiful.
                Speaking of beauty, the shots in this film are wonderful. They’re so great and realistic, I wonder if they fooled me by inserting actual footage from the war. But we still see our characters in some of these shots so it’s still really impressive. And for a film made in 1930 it’s all the more amazing. This was one of the earliest talkies so the music and dialogue synching is a little noticeably off but the editing and cinematography which looks better than a lot of films today more than make up for that. And while the film can be accused of being driven by its message, it has a really decent story backing it up, well-written and complete with great characters. There are admittedly a number of nameless figures but the three or four characters you get know in their misery grow on you. Kat in particular, his cynicism and insights as well as intelligence and guidance make him immediately likable. And being a war film it’s very important to create likable relatable characters for the audience to latch onto but also like in any war film be careful about getting attached. Though that is actually an important part of the experience.
                All Quiet on the Western Front is certainly one of the greatest war films ever made if not the best. It’s attention to capturing the reality of war in vivid detail creates one of the most profoundly effective anti-war messages ever. It turned Lew Ayres into conscientious objector during the Second World War which was almost Hollywood suicide at the time. And for him to be pushed to do that based on a film is incredibly telling of the power of the medium. What it accomplished for its time is a marvel and is as relevant today as it ever was. Which is unfortunate. This is one of those films that really has the power to change the world and that Variety article hoped it would. The fact that we’ve had many terrible wars since this film shows we may not have been listening. And whether it has the power to end such an awful thing or not, it wouldn’t hurt to watch All Quiet on the Western Front every so often as a reminder, a testament to the millions of lost souls, and a warning.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...