I liked how the new film pointed out the cyclical, never-ending nature of the conflict when it opened with a soldier's death, only for his uniform to be washed, repaired, and given to Paul
i like all the shit they made up for this trash propaganda movie, adding plotlines that never existed to go completely counter to the authors original message while sprinkling in a little bit of nazi dolchstoßlegende. great job promoting revisionism and spitting on the authors grave.
That scene near the end where Paul has to tell the school kids that his professor’s tales of war isn’t all that great and mostly propaganda - still one of my favorite movie moments.
I completely disagree. It further establishes the point of Paul's frustration with how Germany during WW I glorified the pact of heroism and serving for their country. It becomes even more heartbreaking how the students boo him out and call him a traitor, making Paul look hopeless in that situation, only for him to resort going back, cause living at him with that knowledge and experience at war is as painful. It doesn't speak as propaganda, but more so trying to establish the point.
Personally, I'm a BIG fan of the initial montage of the 2022 version. It shows clearly how men are pointless dying only to be replaced by yet another batch that has, unfortunately, succumbed to propaganda. And it does so in a very concise, effective way. It encapsulates the themes of the movie, almost explicitly tells you it is an anti-war movie, and set's the tone perfectly for what follows. Great piece of film-making right there.
Aside from that, due to how many dialogues the book and the 1930 film had, they completely humanize Paul's struggle as a soldier and most importantly, as a human. The dialogue helped us understand what's going on inside Paul's head, how he think, and how he lament his current predicament. In contrast, the 2022 film show nothing of sort. Therefore, dehumanize Paul completely by portraying him as "another soldier involved within the war". In my opinion, comparing both version seemed to be unfair as they brought up different spirit in how we could see the war. The 1930 film seems kinda hopeful at the end, while 2022 is extremely nihilistic in comparison throughout the movie up until the end.
@@Vandalgia imo, making paul "another pair of boots" is the best anti-war part of these kind of films. you're just a sack of meat hoping you don't expire in the frontline
Being German, the 1930 US version was nothing but a milestone in movie history - still incredible by modern standards. As for the new adaption and it's critics, Remarque himself made clear he has no trouble with movie adaptions deviating from his book, as long as the message remains unchained, and in this regard the new version did an outstanding job, imo.
Please, look that video again ! It explicitly states ( at the 7:00 mark) that Remarque ONLY accepted to sell the rights of his novel on the grounds that Universal had to promise him NOT to make any considerable alterations or additions to his novel.
are you kidding? the original movie and book were ALL about how it was to live on the western front and then to die and the news just says "all quiet here!" modern movie makers can't concieve that "small" stakes are enough for audiences, so they try to shoehorn in the political scenes. it's the same thing as every superhero movie needing "america", no, "earth", no, "the galaxy" no, "the universe" is at stake! aqotwf is about how shitty it was to be in the western trenches, how civillians are being lied to and a a bunch of bumbling idiots and then you die. in the 2022 version, paul sees the end of the war and sees how it resolves. and don't ket me into kat's death... no, the 2022 film doesn't deserve the title of "all quiet on the western front"
the 2022 movie is great dont get me wrong, but its not good compared to the book. the book and the other two movies have a message that the 2022 movie fails to convey. they show how war truly destroys a persons psyche until they are no longer able to function normally in a society. the 2022 movie conveys the view, that if the war ended the soldiers could finally return to their families and live in peace, while that is certainly not possible.
Thank you for this. The 1930 version has long been one of my favorite films and still, after all these years, one of the best statements ever made on the horrors of war. I found myself appreciating the differences of the 2022 version, though, and love your critique. Both versions have different endings, yet they are equally poetic and, sadly, scary.
I think both versions came out right when they needed to. 1930’s came out right at the beginning of economic fallout, extremism popping up all over the world, and the fear of war looming in Europe. (Though it was pre-Hitler so I don’t think people realized just how close it was.) 2022’s also came out at the beginning of economic fallout, extremism popping up all over the world, and the threat of war looming in Europe. This time there’s already war, but the threat of it getting bigger has us all on edge. Both reminds us that war is inevitable, but it is only us, the people, who will suffer.
@@kristinak6092 Interesting! I felt the opposite. My biggest issue with the new ending was that it was historically inaccurate- no infantry made a last minute charge at the behest of their superiors in WWI right before the armistice. There were plenty of examples of bad leadership and throwing away lives needlessly, it seemed unnecessary to manufacture that drama just to have it be "extra" pointless. The hopeless despair of the original ending, created from the mind of someone who lived through the events themselves, feels much more realistic to me and not a manufactured cinematic moment.
To be honest, the "race against the clock" change doesn't bother me because I see it as ultimately similar. Maybe I read too much into it, but Kat was the guy "they're saving for last" so for him to die made me think the war was almost over. I saw both as more of a "so close and yet so far" as far as Paul's survival went.
I'm a fan of the 1960s adaptation. The ending is he goes to draw something he sees above the trenches, sticking his head up to far and is gunned down. Then some text goes over the screen saying the date and summarizing that it was relatively uneventful in the trenches, saying the movies title. It really hits home for me about how the higher ups felt about the lives of those actually on the front lines, and how easy it is for them to just throw them away.
I think i watched that version too. I was confused during the video when she didn't mention it's existence. The movie was deeply impactful to me in my youth.
It wasn’t the 60’s. It was 1979 and it was a TV movie. She mentions it off hand in the first minute of the video LOL. Why do people not ever think of googling stuff before commenting?
That scene with general speech might not be true as such, but it does portrait the general idea of things that did happen. The armistice was signed after 5 am, but it didn't came into force till 11 am and in that time both sides still were fighting and pushing forward, and close to 3000 people died just because armistice didn't have immediate effect.
There's a huge difference between soldiers who didn't know and hadn't gotten the news yet and soldiers and generals who did and knew that no matter what happened, that final battle would be completely meaningless and the Germans were still going to lose the war and be unable to avoid the subsequent economic struggles and humiliation. The general essentially executes hundreds of his own men for absolutely no reason, because he won't get any personal glory either. And I guess we're supposed to believe that his superiors would be cool with that (and let's face it, they probably would be, but showing that would be critical of the system, which we cant' have). Truth be told, all of these significant changes (the exact same kind Remarque warned against) were awful and hurt the movie greatly. That and Kat's death made no sense whatsoever and destroyed whatever narrative had been built up. This isn't a good movie because there's a war going on somewhere else in the world with completely different technology and for completely different reasons.
More like what's to come in Germany vs how the soldiers felt at the time of the armistice. The only ones attacking at that point were the Entente, as the Germans were suffering from mutinies at home and large-scale red movements, and I can guarantee that a german general tried that ( as the German army was in retreat for over a month at that point) there would've been another mutiny ( as the Kaiserliche Marine had mutinied just a few days earlier after being given suicidal orders to attack the blockade).
@@kristinpie I can't speak to any German generals, but there were absolutely American troops that were ordered to fight up until 11am on armistice day and their commanders absolutely had knowledge of the armistice and some of them did it for the personal glory. The final person to die in WWI was an american who had recently had a reduction in rank and charged german troops apparently to redeem his reputation. He was killed a minute before the armistice went into effect. There was even a congressional investigation into why so many people were killed in those final hours. Some people did not know of the armistice when they continued fighting, but many people knew and continued to fight despite the meaninglessness of it all. Like I said, I don't know if any German generals did this, but it did happen so it is at least somewhat historically accurate. I think it's not a bad addition at all because it highlights that meaninglessness of the war as a whole.
@@kristinpie In fact, there has been an actual exemple of this, not on the German side but on the American side. General William Wright launched an offensive that resulted in several hundreds casualties during the last hours of the war. He was criticized, but not punished. So, there were people in fact who died at the last moment exactly for the same reason the protagonist does in the movie.
As a german myself, the new movie really resonated with me. It's not just the way they speak, but the film language and the castig itself made is so much more immidiet for me. I get that it's very different from the book, but i think that any adaptation priding itself on realism should move away from it more, since the rousing speaches really clash with the idea of a traumatized north german teenager for me. I suppose i had a similiar reaction to watching the 1984 Wannseeekonferenz (german production) vs the 2001 Kenneth Branagh Wannseekonferenz. The second one was just so British, and made such a point to find heroes and do speaches, that it didn't work for me at all. The 84 movie in contrast was so realistic , in the actors demeanor, the language, the utter mundanity, that it chilled me to the bone.
@@megaman3029 of course. the movie itself doesnot compare to the 1930 version. check it out. the new version is also quite loosely based on the book. the ridiculous flamethrower scen, the used uniform scene, the made up general for the peace negotiations that are none ta ll in the book. this "movie" does give zero fucks about everything. book starts End of 1914 beginning 1915 this in late 1917. They had a perfectly good story but had to hammer it home.
I love when remakes or new adaptations go their own way. If I wanted to see the original again, I would simply go do that. I think this new All Quiet is a valiant effort to invite modern audiences to contemplate the actual toll of war in a more intimate way that not even news coverage of the war in Ukraine can. It's a scary time, but I think they did the best one could hope for to communicate their message.
I think in the USA we romanticize War, we romanticize how "awesome" the USA military is even if it can be awful. We are told the Vietnam War was justified, or aren't told the ful extent of it. Just how much it ruined Vietnamese people's lives and how over there, we are the villains. We see ourselves as the heros when in many people's eyes, we invaded their country and destroyed their homeland. All Quiet is a good slap in the face to that ideology. War is awful, war is bloody and useless. I wish more Americans would understand that joining the military isn't as good as they think it is.
The parallels or connection they've attempted to paint between AQotWF and the current Ukraine conflict are improvised for marketing, and (mostly) superficial. Any sensible adult should already be well aware by now that "war is hell", and many war films convey that well-enough already.
@@shaft9000 Every subject under the sun has been covered in art, yet we continue to make art about said subjects. There will be war movies as long as there are movies.
none of the books intent and messaging has been carried over to this propaganda piece of shit, and deliberately so. it's like they consulted the US army again and got pentagon funding. awful trash. remarque is spinning in his grave.
As a German I think it’s important to remind people that the new version of this movie is widely disliked in Germany. From left wing newspapers to right wing circles, it is seen as a flop. The reason for this is, like you said, it has almost nothing to do with original. The original is simple, intimate and understated, which makes it so moving. This version is bombastic and adds so many uncomfortable things (why show a German as a good guy vs stubborn french generals in the negotiation scenes?) that it feels like a movie Berger wanted to make anyway, while adding some bits from the movie to make people recognise and watch it.
I don’t know if the negotiation plot was meant to be “German good guy vs French bad guy”. I guess if you had no historical knowledge you wouldn’t understand the context, but for anyone who knows the basics of WW1 (which I’d hope is most people), you can understand the stubbornness. Germany started the war (at least from the French perspective), they invaded France, and have been destroying French soil for the last 4 years; it’s not like he’s just being a jerk for no reason. You should also have enough context to know that the terms imposed on Germany *were* excessively harsh and bad for the whole world in the long run, so you don’t think his hardline-ness is a *good* thing, but him being blinded by his sense of vengeance is understandably human.
I agree. This film shows the Germans much more sympathetic. The horrors of the Kaiser's regime should never be downplayed. The actions of the German occupation of Belgium being the primary example. However, the theme should be that ALL soldiers are victims. All should have sympathy for the horror they're sent into. Be it Right Wing Nationalists or Left Wing Communists it doesn't matter.
I am writing from Germany and I disagree - its a new movie and its liked from everybody who saw it. Its a new movie and a fresh perspective about an eternal theme. Its a really good movie.
@@josephgilorma6979 Which is why the scene of the pit with paul and the french soldier and one of the last scenes in the french trench exist, the soldiers are both just trying to survive.
I find that a shame, I think the movie did a good job in showcasing how bad the war was all around for the soldiers, and do remember that the german "good guy" faced a lot of resistance from other germans, high command and stuff, it's not trying to paint germany as blameless, but someone had to initiate the surrender and they included it in the movie to showcase how both sides were stubborn in a war that cost thousands of lives each day it raged on.
One thing about the continuing attacks in the time between the signing of the armistice and when it kicked into effect: that really did happen! The armistice was signed at 5 or 6 am but didn’t go into effect until 11, and fighting continued right up until that time. I recommend the channel The Great War’s video on the last week of the war for information on this.
Exactly! It may not have explicitly been in the book, but it did really happen, so of course there were soldiers shot and killed in the time between the signing and it actually taking place. I see no issue with showing that on screen and I think it really drives home the theme of the film about the pointless nature of that war on the western front.
I don't understand how you m0rons don't see the difference between soldiers who hadn't heard the news yet and a general who did. It's not remotely the same thing. Paul didn't die in the middle of a "random" battle that happened to be on the war's final day, he died knowing he was being meaninglessly sent into another battle literally 15 minutes before the armistice officially took effect. And who were those soldiers supporting this idiot general by executing anyone who rightfully complained about this decision? This was a terrible creative decision that isn't remotely like what you're explaining, and absolutely should not have been made.
What you're talking about was done by the allies, not the Germans (Specifically Americans and others fresh to the frontlines). German morale was so low and they knew that the war would soon be over if they were ordered an attack like that they would have mutinied on the spot.
Best one is probably Joyeux Noël, also about WWI set during the winter where all sides called a truce and celebrated Christmas together. Such a poignant movie.
It was so good. The cinematography, the score, the acting, contrasts between trench and officer life. Hollywood has exhausted WWII so it was a fascinating dive into WWI.
Yeah but with how much experience they have with WW2 scenarios, they need to be careful not to project the ideas of WW2 movies onto WW1. Because portraying it as some kind of good vs evil narrative would do it totally injustice and miss how WW1 started and what it was about. It was an easily avoidable tragedy caused by ALL leaders involved together, having too high egos to step down for one second. So showing the pointlessness and horror of the trenches is the only way to go in this narrative, no glorification, just dirt, blood and steel
The European Theatre anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing WWII through the lens of a Chinese grunt, a Philippine insurgent, or the mixed-loyalty drama out of India or Korea at the time.
What comes to officers, junior front officers had the worst chances to survive, at least in WW2, and I think as "well" in WW1. Anyways they were in the front line with common soldiers. But you probably mean senior officers in staffs? Then again, in staffs there were common soldiers (drivers, horsemen, guards, cooks), NCOs and junior officers too much more safe and sound. So what's your point actually? That officers are guilty for all evil? Uhm... disagree. How about politicians and rulers?
As a Russian who left the country last year because it's unbearable to watch what's happening from the inside, I became drawn to Remarque, but it's too hard to read him still. The movie I did however watch and it left me hoping that Russia will too one day be able to look at what's going on critically. It's an anti war movie if I ever saw one.
@@edvsilas8281 I would guess, seeing how so many young Russians get drafted, many against their will. Seeing how the economy downhills, even though it happens slow. And even seeing how the Russians state lies to its people. I have family in Russia and except one person, all of them now support the putin. Most of them haven’t before the war. They even told us to move to Russia (I’m from Germany), since we will freeze to death here, which they obviously got out of the propaganda. Seeing „your people“ become more brainwashed by any day hurts, so I can understand why you would want to leave a country like that.
@@marcel_kleist At one time ,I said that if I were Russian , I would join to fight for the cause in a heartbeat. I am Canadian, even so, I am extremely irritabled,tired and pissed off at the US and its vassal Europeans and their arrogance, and meddling in world. I believe most of the world is sick of the west's threats and sanctions. If you live in Germany, a country that is even afraid to acknowledge that the US blew up the NS pipeline, I pity that you live in a country with no backbone . This conflict is over US insistence for NATO expansion. Up to very last day, Putin wanted a WRITTEN guarantee for no expansion and was denied. Do you think for one moment the US would accept enemy nukes ,armaments ,troops in its hemisphere ? I sure as hell would not accept that ! Neither should any great power.
I've gone from never considering watching All Quiet (neither the 1930 nor 2022 adaptation), to being incredibly invested. This is such a great, nuanced breakdown of the international implications of both, I was awed by the analysis.
The 1930 might not be gory, but the focus on the men's faces and how you appreciate each dead and dying man's humanity makes it all the more wrenching. The book is really wonderful, but I haven't brought myself to reread it in many years. I think the film is truly anti-war, more so than many other more graphic films because it depicts how war strives to utterly annihilate individuality, even though nothing can kill kindness and friendship completely. How incredibly tragic that after the book was written and the film was made the world would soon face an even more brutal war.
So glad you brought up Top Gun. Because the propaganda involved in the new film is the first thing I thought after being amazed by the action. The US War propaganda is terrible. So glad the all quiet on the western front film got recognized.
I watch as many Oscar’s movies as I can so February gets a little packed with movies for me. I ended up watching top gun and all quiet on the western front on the same day and to say I got whiplash from the difference in opinions of the military between the two films is quite an understatement
@@chrishackett554 didn't you watch the video? There's no point making another adaptation as faithful to the book as the old one. That's what the old one's for. The new movie has a more modern perspective, ya know, for a modern audience. Plus its nice that German soldiers are played by Germans, speaking German, and maybe Germans will actually hear about and see the film this time and the message will be more powerful for them. Both movies bring something to the table and promote an anti war message, so really there's no reason we shouldn't appreciate them both
I watched the new movie shortly after reading Remarque's book. I really think he would have approved of what they did with his novel. It ramped up the theme of futility so that you're left with a bad taste in your mouth at the sheer wrongness of things after watching. Best war movie since Saving Private Ryan, hands down.
I disagree solely because of the ending. I think it still could've worked if it kept true to the book in that sense. The title, after all, refers to Paul's death, on a day where there was no significant fighting - the reports to high command read simply "all quiet on the western front". He literally dies for nothing. In the movie however, he dies in a huge bombastic last minute battle to claim land for the fatherland - the farthest thing from a quiet western front. Even though it fails his death fits a more conventional hero's death, dying at the last minute so close to victory. In the book, it makes it clear that "heroes" don't exist
I really did enjoy both these two versions and they're both good versions. I think both endings are perfect since in neither he's not really framed as a hero, he just dies for no reason in both.
@@joechisten7176 To me, it made his death even more hollow, he didn't die a hero's death, he died a dog in a trench they were routed from just the other day, he died without having his tags taken, he died just before finally making it out alive because of someone else's greed, you're right in that it doesn't do the title justice but to me it made his death feel worse, in the other adaptations he died because he still had some humanity in him and did something that got him killed, in this one he was sent to the slaughter to take a piece of land they frankly didn't need without any input of his own because his superior didn't care about him.
@@joechisten7176 I see your point but at the same time I like how the 2022 version's ending highlights the ultimate futility of war as a concept. If Paul had been given another 10 seconds then he would have survived. 10 seconds between being surrounded by enemies to being in peacetime. You had people who would had slaughtered each other not minutes ago just walking around the trenches together like they're people on the street, simply because "the War is over now." All that fighting that might have mattered in the moment is rendered completely meaningless. There is no lasting purpose. It was simply the time to kill each other and now it's not. We never even find out (in the film) if they technically 'won' that battle or not because it doesn't matter. They would have died for nothing even if they won.
@@Ted_Curtis yes it's a good ending, but for a different film. If they hadn't called the file "all quiet on the western front" my thoughts would be different. But since it is directly tying itself to an existing story it has to be judged for its deviation that undermines the original story
I truly loved the 2022 version. It was so melancholy. Making you feel how pointless the war was. It deserved a best picture nod. This is making me want to check out the 1929 version though. It must have been surreal back then. Integrated sound was a new invention, then BAM you're in the middle of a war.
i loved that the movie wasn’t like 1917 with a big overarching plot that will save the world, it’s just 2 and 1/2 hours of paul’s life as he watches all his friends die
I finally got to see the 1930’s version today so now I’m coming back to this! I think the main scene/part of the original that I really wish still made it into the 2022 version was the whole bit with the teacher because that was my favorite scene and it was just so powerful. They definitely should have kept him going on leave. It’s ironic that you said the 1930 ending is poetic cause I put exactly that word in my letterboxd review.
All Quiet has been my favourite novel ever since I was a teenager, and I’ve been following the 2022 production ever since it was announced. Although I agree with your criticisms, I still greatly appreciate the newer reimagined adaptation. The book and movie kinda exist separately in my mind and inform each other rather then directly impact one another (if that makes sense). Also if it can get modern audiences to turn to the book, all the better!
They are too different. The ending in the 2022 film is terrible and completely inaccurate. It lost the soull of the novel. They should not have used the title
29:25 "this obviosly did not happen". As per wikipedia article: "During the six hours between the signing of the armistice and its taking effect, opposing armies on the Western Front began to withdraw from their positions, but fighting continued along many areas of the front, as commanders wanted to capture territory before the war ended"
There are actually two versions of the 1930 film, shot side-by-side. One has sound dialogue and one has music but the dialogue is on title cards, like a silent. Because sound was so new, the superior version is the “silent” one, and watching that one would solve your issues with the boys and the mics.
Thanks for your comment, I was beginning to think I was loosing my mind, because I thought I could distinctly remember seeing a silent All Quiet on the Western Front 40-odd years ago but it was clearlly a Talkie. Ill have to find "La Grande Illusion", and watch it again ... not just because it was one of the best fims I have seen but also to confirm it really was a silent movie.
When it comes to war films I much prefer the German and Russian aesthetic. American and British films still have that positive heroic undertone. Compare AQOTWF to 1917.
It's been said that Americans like tragic stories with happy endings. The same goes for Canadians like me -- with the exception of "All Quiet On The Western Front". I much prefer the 1930 version. That lead actor Lew Ayres became a conscientious objector during World War II -- which took enormous moral courage -- and later became a medic in the war in the Pacific lends poignancy to his acting.
@@nepnepguythegreatestofall The US will invade your country, make movies about how it made their veterans sad that noone wanted them there and then call these movies "anti-war"
@@nepnepguythegreatestofall Also M*A*S*H, Catch 22, Paths of Glory, The Great Dictator, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Born on the 4th. of July, Gallipoli, The Battle of Algiers, Dr. Strangelove, Hair, Fail Safe. There are many.
This is the most haunting video from you yet. But very needed. I appreciate it and I appreciate your work so much.. I’m so happy you’re doing this full-time now. It’s inspiring to me and again I’m so grateful for all of your content and research because I’ve learnt so much. Thank you 🙏🏻
The original is my favorite war film and one that I revisit at least once a year; your video prompted me to give the new one a look. Overall, it was a work of immense craftsmanship and, in the context of German history and politics, the deviations from the book have a logic to them, although they do alter the emphasis and characterization such that the end product is far different from the book. So, a good movie in its own right but a bad adaptation of the material. Laying aside the accuracy of the adaptation, I still prefer the 1930 film, just as a piece of cinema. The fact that, in an era where talkies were so new, it used practically no music whatsoever; that they fashioned such visceral environments with their rudimentary technology; that they created such a rousing and honest and fearless work of art at a time when the politics of WW1 were still felt the world over - absolutely astounding. It's also one of the few war films I can think of that incorporates the indoctrination of youth and the "chess game" mentality of the home front - both aspects that I missed from the new iteration. The two scenes with the professor are some of the most powerful things to come out of Hollywood.
A very important point to hilight is that these two movies were filmed almost 100 years apart. The language of movie making and the technologies available to the filmakers has changed beyond all recognition. The audiences are also very different. The majority of the 1930s audience would have been directly involved in the war with personal memories and scars. The emotions were still raw. They had no idea what horror was about to unfold as the 20th century progressed. From the 2023 historical perspective the First World War has a very different meaning. For the German audience whom it was intended the significance is deeply profound. The addition of the Armistice negotiations helps place the narrative in a wider historical perspective for a less well informed younger audience. The 2023 version is a good movie with some great scenes. It's difficult not to make direct comparisons with the recent 1917 movie- particularly as both lead actors bear a striking similarity and audiences could be forgiven for making that assumption. It is certainly a far more effective piece when watched in the native German rather than the English dub. In my opinion both WW1 movies are superior to Nolan's Dunkirk which I believe to be totally overrated. Dunkirk makes no attempt to portray the French coastal town as it would have looked during that period of the war and so many obviously 21st century elements are present throughout which totally ruin the continuity and give the movie the feel of those cheap knock off Hollywood B war movies made during the 60s where all the actors had 60s hair styles etc. The original movie although almost a century old still has the power to move people in a way that few movies of the period can do today. Yes some of the dialogue and delivery is stagey and ham by modern standards but the battle scenes in particular are epic and thrilling. An important point made is that this was the first war movie filmed with SOUND. That must've had a significant impact on audiences who were HEARING the sound of war and battle for the very first time. I can only imagine the experience might have been similar for audiences as that for those of us who sat through the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For anyone who hasn't seen the 1903 movie I recommend you watch it.
I understand your sentiments with Dunkirk. I enjoyed it but the beaches would have been teeming with soldiers. The film makes it look like a few hundred soldiers were waiting to be collected. Not 300000. The scale was not portrayed correctly. Also, I wish they used some CGI and made the Spitfires the correct model. For a very harrowing movie, there is a Russian one called "Come and See" "Идти и смотри" which may be on RUclips. It is set in Belarus, I believe, where 1 in 4 died. I suspect you are German, so I don't wish to offend and I wouldn't advise you watch the film in aspects because of this.
@@knockshinnoch1950 you talked about a film being in native German, which would be more important in general, to a native German speaker. It is more authentic to read subtitles with actual German spoken than hear a cockney or Texan accent that is supposed to be a German. My mistake )
I actually liked the "Final Battle" on Armistice Day to make Paul die. When you think that 3000 men died during those last 6 hours of the war, it just underscores the futility and the nonsense it was. His numbness after Kat died, it looked like a ghost fighting - only really looking at peace in death. Also, as a German, I really loved the "Germanness" of it all - the songs I knew from childhood they were singing (when the steal a goose and go onto "Fuchs, du hast die Gans gestohlen, gib sie wieder her..." - it was the sort of silliness that actually brought tears to me eyes). I heard the cadence that the teachers employed - it's a very refined speech I am used to from documentaries and immediately thought of authority figures you pay attention to. How easy the young men were to lead on, when they had no way of questioning these figures and their stupid cadence. That being said, I was more shocked by the 1930 film, but perhaps because it hit me. We had to read passages of "Im Westen nichts Neues" in school, but not the whole book, so when it just goes all in... I was really shocked. This time, I was prepared for it.
Excellent video. I feel like many young people who watch this movie may go into it with a wrong mindset. But its a great preservation of history and people like you explaining and making interesting content like this helps get those points acrossed much better.
The thumbnail says it all. A man staring into the abyss on the left, vs a confused schmo looking around nervously on the right. Also looks like Kylo Ren in a ww1 helmet lmao
I think my biggest problem with war films is their obsession with the big, flashy fight sequences and omitting the human element. I feel that's where Band of Brothers really stood out and the original AQotWF did right. The explosions are fun, but we lose the humans in the middle of all the carnage. Also: can we please let Daniel Bruel play something other than a German soldier in a world war!!!
God I feel like I'm going crazy when I hear everybody praise the 2022 film. It has none of the subtlety or universality that made the original so good. Great video
Read this novel in high school (circa 1975) It was a very intense, emotional read that was difficult to shake. Interesting because it was from a German soldier's POV which humanized "the enemy" & brought home the horrors of war for all involved. Very powerful book. I don't think I've ever seen the film in its entirety.
Just wanted to say how deeply I appreciated this excellent presentation. Vividly remember seeing "All Quiet" on TV in Los Angeles when I was a child. A shattering experience to say the least. Thank you so much for treating this film with the respect and appreciation it deserves.
As someone who generally isn’t a big fan of war movies, I thought the new All Quiet was well made, but it didn’t leave much of a lasting impact. Love your videos for always giving me a greater appreciation & enhanced perspective.
What! No, I don’t feel that feeling, I hope they remake this movie every few decades! These things shouldn’t be forgotten and the remakes should be taken seriously like this one was!
You are better than my cinema professor at NYU back in the early ‘90s. Seriously. Much better. You gave me so much to think of. Anyway, this new AQOTWF is the best war movie that I have ever seen. Ever since I saw the 1930 version over 20 years ago, I have wished that a German language version would be made. So I was incredibly excited when I saw that there was one Netflix. It never dawned on me that it would be an Oscar contender and I was elated when it got all those nominations. I only wish they would release it in theaters. I have never thought of this story as being about World War I. To me, that war is just as stand-in for all warfare in the history of humankind. It is the most universal of war stories. And the 2022 version I think most obviously illustrates the FDR quote, “ war is old men, talking and young men dying.”
i find Australian Director Peter Weir's anti-war moves to be brilliant. Unfortunately, they do star Mel Gibson, but they are from the 80s so well before he revealed what a colossal aubergine he is
I pointed out the ideological tension between Top Gun and AQOTWF to my roommate and she literally acted like I was making it all up- Americans really do not have a good sense when they are being pandered to. Thanks for validating my thoughts!
To be honest we generally only notice if something is propaganda when we don’t agree with it. As a Brit, it is funny to see when people praising Maverick claim it’s successful because it isn’t political.
@MarkyBoy I think in fact that you can compare the two. The fact that you could watch a movie that glorifies war and the military without thinking and for pure entertainment is precisely what I think is telling. I honestly can't watch this kind of movie without being repulsed by this glorification of war and seeing it as a form of propaganda reflecting an American cultural bias. And I think that the fact that the US military does actively support the production of such movies (by loaning material, allowing on site filming, etc..) while it denies any support when it disapproves of the script shows that it's not all innocent.
The majority of discussion I read about Top Gun was not about it being apolitical or not in terms of foreign policy, it was about the film having no pandering to certain groups of society for "inclusion". I think that part of the popularity for the film in the USA was because it celebrated the USA when so much media in the USA has someone saying how terrible it is. Perhaps the self loathing of the nation by some makes other people feel as if they are blamed as well...
@commentsAlwaysDeletedbyYT Personally I could never mindlessly watch a movie about real-life military conflicts that glorifies war, my hate for militarism won't allow me.
Great take on this, but your comment at 29:30 is inaccurate, or possibly misleading. The fighting did continue right up until 11am in many places, even though they knew the armistice had been signed. Generals, and even some soldiers trying to prove themselves, on all sides, continued the fighting, including the US Navy firing long range guns timed to land on German forces as late as possible. It's astonishing and horrifying how many instances of this kind of activity there actually are - but I think this give more value to the ending scene of the 2022 film. Also, I'm now really interested in watching the 1930 film, so thank you.
The work and thoughtfulness you put into these videos truly astonishes me (in such a good way). Honestly you increase my love and appreciation for film. Bravo👏👏👏👏 *Edit.... And regards the new film, I was personally moved strongly by it. With truly awful horrors of war again now in Ukraine fresh in mind, and our own flirtations with autocracy here of late, it hit me hard. I loved Remarque's book when I was younger and it felt more like a personal story in a war setting (I need to re-read it now) and this new film felt like a different story altogether - more like a scathing general indictment. The book hit me on a micro level while this new film hit me on a macro level. I was okay with that and like both simultaneously. Thanks again for such a particularly thoughtful episode among your truly excellent channel! I will now seek out the older b&w version.
I love your review/comparison/history. So well done. And so refreshing from the usually pulp we usually find on RUclips. I’d add that the ending of the new version is very Blackadder. The ending to season 4 set in WWI is so heartbreaking. They go over the top in the final push to victory…with the caption, 1917.
I love the book for its message and the way it so simply delivered it. I remember we watched sections of the 1930 film in history class, which always stuck with me. Honestly, the ending of the book works so well because there is no bigger point to his death, the 1930 film kept this so well and I'm not quite on board with the 2022 film's direction. Still an amazing film!
Along with the poems of Wilfred Owen and Sigfreid Sasson the greatest anti war statement ever made.The fact that Hitler burn every copy he came across says it all.
To add my perspective as a native German, the first adaptation from 1930 still resonates to me in a way that the new one simply can't. The original is kind of my go-to example when it comes to the (very few) examples of actual "anti-war" war movies - which, in my view, was only surpassed by Come and See. The new one adds bells and whistles but still makes a spectacle out of war - the action is exhilarating, suspenseful, the gore is upped, you have subplots that add ticking clock-elements...which make for a more exciting movie, but never surpass the original in terms of shere desperation. When I watch the 1930 one, even today, it really underlines the whole senselessness and cruelty of that awful war. Amazing, well-put and nuanced video, as always, by the way. This is my favorite youtube channel by far and you can plainly see the effort and amount of thought you put into each of your high-quality videos.
I've listened to a few of your film critiques and analysis of the (sometimes) chaotic ways they were made as well as reviews of the actresses who made them special. You're really quite good providing critiques that are well researched, thoughtful and insightful. You also have a great voice. Keep up the good work...
Your work succeeds in illuminating the topics you select, as well as heuristically leading your audience to become better human beings and global citizens. You demonstrate the very best of RUclips. Thank you.
This is not a knock on the 2022 version, because I do think that the way it told the story was well-done in many ways, but I do wish that modern cinema could embrace the voice-over a little more. I understand it could be used as a crutch or can seem cheesy today, but it really just depends on how you use it. If a film like AQOTWF, which follows singularly one character and their introspections, having their voice-over inner monologue could be rather poetic. Classics from previous decades of cinema have used voice over and are still lauded to this day. But we still seem at odds at creating work that uses it.
Where exactly do you see a voiceover benefitting a scene in AQOTFW? I personally think emotions and inner thoughts should be portrayed by other means and interpreted by the viewer. You don't need a character to "say" he is sad for the audience to know he is sad, for example.
A couple of years ago, I would have told anyone that remaking a Best Picture winner was a doomed exercise, and that there would never be an example of a good remake of one (see All the King’s Men, Rebecca). Now we have two in consecutive years, which did so well that they were also nominated for Best Picture. That’s incredible.
The trench warfare aspect of WW1 came more from the pre-war assumption by the Germans that their invasion of France would be as sweeping a route as the Franco-Prussian War. The planned that they'd take Paris in about 2 weeks or so. The Dutch didn't give the Germans free passage and fought back, delaying the Germans. Invading the Netherlands caused Britain to enter the war. After finally making it into France, Germany did push to the far outskirts of Paris, but rather than evacuating the capital, the French dug in and counter-attacked (with the help of the British). This caused a problem with Germany's planned schedule so the consolidated and dug in temporarily while they gathered their forces for the next offensive push toward Paris. The allies built complex trenches to defend their positions keeping the Germans from quickly advancing... then it became a stalemate as both sides holed up, Germany not being able to capture meaningful gains and the French not being able to push the Germans back enough to cause them to quit or sue for peace. In the trenches, modern weapons took over and made the space between the trenches impassible. Before the trenches, artillery was the big technological stand-out when used as siege weapons against forts and cities in the Netherlands.
I watched the 1930 version in high school. Even though the acting is obviously hokey, various scenes have stayed with me since like the one guy discovering that his leg has been amputated, the conversation the friends have about why they are even fighting, and when Paul dies. I am intrigued to watch the 2022 adaptation as well as the 1979 miniseries. Thank you so much for your analysis!
Dietrich and Remarque were lovers in the late 1930's. Just as the second world was starting, Dietrich's daughter was in the south of France. It was Remarque who drove her to Paris and ultimately to safety. Maria recounts this story in detail at an OSS event. Wonderful writer. Thank you for sharing this and all your hard work and research.
I’m so glad this video exists. I had numerous conversations with people where I said I was disappointed with the changes the made to the plot, only to be met with responses like “it’s real life, how could they have gotten it wrong?” As if this wasn’t a book written about fictional characters
29:29 over 2,000 people died on Armistice day. there were plenty of skirmishes, plenty of last ditch efforts to "gain glory" from both sides. the last person to be killed, an American called Henry Gunther was killed 60 seconds before ceasefire at 10:59am. this sort of thing did happen in real life to a lot of people.
The whole point of the title is Paul's death was on a day like any other. A day when All was Quiet on the Western Front, not in a battle, not to achieve anything. The second movie not only takes away the whole meaning by creating his death at the last moment of the war but makes him into a man blindly obeying orders. Charging into battle with almost seconds left, the Germans could have simply gone to ground before reaching the French trenches. Paul never shows any thought of why he is there. The attack also does not line up with history. A full week before, the German Navy in Kiel revolted, making demands on their officers and the German revolution had started with the Kaiser fleeing into exile before Armistice day. Yet the soldiers obediently attack when only hours away from surviving the war EDITED: I knew Paul was going to be killed but I wanted him to live. When he took part in the last minute attack I wanted him to be killed. I lost all sympathy for his character. The very opposite of the Frenchman in the shell hole where the killing was forced on him, he had the opportunity to hold back. That was the biggest problem AQOTWF2, the central theme of being forced to be a brute was missing.
I'm immediately annoyed by the idea that war movies are "designed to garner awards attention". Why is it a stretch to assume war movies are just... good? 1917, Dunkirk, Fury, All Quiet, Midway, and Hacksaw Ridge are all incredible films, each for their own reason. Each film explores a different premise or cinematic style, with 1917 and Dunkirk being the most immediately obvious. I also don't think it's a stretch to say All Quiet deserved a modern remake after 93 years - and shouldn't we be comparing it to the source material, the book, as opposed to a previous adaptation?
Thank you for this! While I liked the remake a lot overall, I had issues with the changes it made to both the book and the 1930 version, and your perspective on those changes is something I had not considered. Also literally said “YES, THANK YOU” aloud at your pointing out the irony of this film being nominated right beside Top Gun- it’s absolutely wild.
This did happen in real life, but it was the American officers who did it. American officers wanted to return home Heroes so in the hours leading up to the fighting American units would charge at German lines. The last person to die of World War 1 is thought to be a Canadian Corporal who was shot in the head 2 minutes before 11:00 a.m.
The 2022 film immediately became one of my favorite films of all time. It's a masterpiece. I don't even usually like war movies all that much, but this was a flawless film with so many powerful messages. There's not a thing I would change.
While the final battle itself is fictional, there was the Battle of Mons during the day the armistice took effect, so it's not outside the realm of the theme expressed, that wars are fought absurdly until the very end.
This is one of those videos that forces people to subscribe. Holy shit, the depth of this analysis is great. Your research has made you on expert, that's blatantly obvious.
Has anyone read Eleven Eleven by Paul Dowswell? It's set during combat activities on the final day of WW1, where 2,738 men died IRL before 11am. I know the last-minute assault is fictional, but it's absolutely true that soldiers died in industrial proportions just for the 'significance' of 11am on 11/11. 'Cynical' doesn't come close. Loved this new version. A statement of intent for modern German cinema, and they deserved to tell this story.
Great video, very educational. The scene with the french soldier had me in tears...Just thinking about it makes me want to cry. Truly heartbreaking movie.
See, I disagree about the ending of the new film. Having Paul die in an entirely needless attack which only serves to bolster the ego of a warmongering man of privilege is a perfect, simple representation and critique of the complex systems that led to WWI.
I'm trying to do better about watching classic films (literally watched Wings for the first time a few days ago!) and trying to catch up on my current BP nominees watch so what lovely timing tbh. And I've occasionally wondered about the 'can any war film, no matter intent, be anti-war really?' tbh so to hear that audiences for the 1930 version (the ones that were allowed to see it without rats mid-monologue) did in fact come away shaken and horrified is a nice film history fact to know. Kinda helps with answering that question for myself. And having Erzberger framed as a hero in this current version is pretty poetic. I don't think this latest version will snag BP like its predecessor, but I think I'll give it a watch. Thanks for this!
I loved Wings, impressive recreation of the war a few years after it finished and especially the flying scenes, it's almost like the Top Gun from the 1920s, both movies were produced by Paramount having almost 60 years of difference, I fell in love with Clara Bow (not literally), I loved her ability to convey emotions through her expressiveness, I can clearly see why she had "it" (don't know if you've watched "It" ye)t, many 1927 movies entered the public domain this year, like Sunrise directed by F. W. Murnau (the one of Nosferatu which turned 100 last year), and the first "talkie" The Jazz Singer though only 2 scenes had dialogue recorded but they still revolutionized everything.
@@jesustovar2549 Wings was amazing! I don’t know what I expected going in, but it was legitimately brilliant. There were shots and sequences where I was like ‘they did this in the 20s??’ So good.
@@colinpsykes I def recommend Wings! I talked non-stop about how great it was the day after and the full thing is up here on RUclips since it’s in the public domain now. I hope you like it!
I think that from now (more than a century after), we should officially, by that I mean academically, as well socially refer to World War I and World War II not just as such, but we should insert the word “part” before the numeral used as “World War PART 1 and World War PART 2” as in all sense this wasn’t two separate wars but rather it’s one big war with a twenty year interlude.
I literally just saw the '79 TV film version and really liked it, Richard Thomas was really fantastic (IMO) and the whole tone of the film *almost* reminded me of Bergman
I never expected that a channel that talks mostly about classic Hollywood and actresses would make a video of these 2 movies, I'm not saying that it can't be done, it's just that war movies generally attract more male audiences than women (it can be said so about action movies, although there are very good action movies with female protagonists, now that I think about it, I haven't seen many war movies narrated from the female point of view, it would be interesting to see recommendations) even so, I knew from the beginning of the video that there was going to be a good analysis and criticism of both films, since the videos on this channel are generally of very good quality and more so for a fan of history and classic Hollywood as I am. So thank you very much for this quality content, greetings from Venezuela!
This movie (2022) was the most depressing war movie I've ever seen, yet as someone who generally struggles to watch movies these days, was completely captivated by it. It's so real, so devoid of war movie tropes. The way the main character switches from being a normal human being to a savage killer, is just... haunting.
_Paths of Glory_ is another and might be the best film about trench warfare in WW1. As for war films in general, neither of these two films are pre-school compared to _Threads_ and the original animated _Grave of the Fireflies._ (both were made in the '80s) Even _Full Metal Jacket_ and _Apocalypse Now_ are like grade school compared to those two.
A word should be said about Lew Ayres who played Paul in the 1931 version. He became lifelong pacifist after making "All Quiet on the Western Front." His career suffered because of his identifying as a CO status when registering for the draft during WWII. He served as a medic & army chaplain during the war and was one of 16 medics who arrived under fire during the battle of Leyte Gulf. He donated his service pay to the American Red Cross and experienced a comeback in the 1960s. Fine actor. Even better human being
I just watched the movie today and I must say, as a German, I was disappointed but not surprised. I read the original novel (of course) and also watched the original movie, which I really enjoyed. For me, the 2022 version just seemed too focused on portraying the violence (as graphic and often as possible) and weaponry and didn't focus enough on the personal realtionships or the detachment and pointlessness of it all that was felt by Paul and the others. The whole ending just made me angry. SPOILER: Why would they risk stealing yet another goose from the farmer, who they know got a gun, literally 6 hours before the war ends, when Kat says he wants to go home to his wife and have more kids? Kat's death felt stupid, they turned a really amazing and thoughtful character into an idiot. His death in the original movie/books was pointless and heart-breaking, his death in the 2022 version just left me shaking my head. Also, as a German I allow myself to say this, why do most German directors feel the need to over dramatize everything? Paul dies, on a none specific date, on a none specific field, making him one in thousands, the news just reports "Nothing new happening on the western front" (in the German version). Paul's death is pointless, he isn't special and that just gets the point across in the perfect way. Why do we need a final 15min battl? In such a politically divided Germany at that time (even in the front lines), I don't believe that they would have ever just mindlessly go into some last "heroic" battle and walked 15 minutes over to the French???? To enjoy the movie one is asked far too often to put away one's disbelieve. It really made me angry. This is a war movie not an action movie, not need to dramatize, actionize? Something so sad, based on a real person's experience! Paul's home visit, which I consider to be one of the most important scenes in the book. Since it shows that he really is part of a lost genartion of men and there is nothing to come back to at home either, he can't fit into the world he used to live in anymore. This is such an important message and they left it out!? For what? More brutal death scenes? Sorry that this is so long, the movie just made me genuinely angry and I think many people in Germany agree. I haven't met anyone who read the original book and didn't feel like the messages were partly lost in the 2022 movie. He should have just made a war movie and never have given it the title "All Quiet on the Western Front", then it would have been fine,.... Let's be real, it's still gonna win the best foreign movie, but I can't believe "decision to leave" wasn't even considered...
i also really did not like kat's death in this one, just like implying it's kind of his fault as opposed to some fluke accident like it is in the book rubbed me the wrong way--although i liked how it was shot. like, the point is that it's pointless and they totally just wrote around that!! agree with everything else you said too (including decision to leave haha)
@@bkrewind Thank you for the support and sorry for leaving my rant about the new "All Quiet on the Western Front" movie below your video, I just really needed to be angry about it for a bit. Your video was of course amazing as always and I do look forward to each and every one of them. Your love for cinema is really palatable through the screen and contagious. The way the videos are cut make them feel like their very own movie, super enthralling, interesting and always eye opening :D
The 1930 “All Quiet on the Western Front” was one of the first movies to have an emotional impact on me. I absolutely loved watching old movies in an era where there were only five TV stations in NYC, (we had more than other areas because of two local channels; WPIX which broadcast the Yankees, and WOR which broadcast the Mets after their inception in 1962),so the opportunity to watch old films wasn’t readily there; that is until The Early Show which, I believe was on CBS, was started and I could watch the movies after school,,,weather permitting; nice days were spent outside! The scene with the French soldier dying in the trench is one I never forgot. How could two young men who didn’t know one another, be whipped into a frenzy to want to kill each other over some abstract ideas that were not even impactful on their everyday lives, until going to war. When he went through the man’s pockets and found photos of his wife and child, I lost it; and I was in grammar school! This film inspired me to be a Vietnam war protester. Not mentioned here, it also had a great impact on Lew Ayres who, as I recall, was blacklisted for years due to his subsequent conscientious objector status during WWII. Eliminating the transformation of the cheerful postman, and the return to classroom scene, seems to me, to remove any doubt how people are transformed by war experiences depending on whether one was in combat or not. I can see making clear the way Germany was not transformed by defeat with “the war to end all wars”, and after so much carnage, but the original story was by a German frontline soldier’s personal combat experiences, and subsequently, reforming his ideas about war. It already is a story told from a German point of view. It shows no matter what side one is on, an “enemy” is just another fellow human being very similar to you.
The best part about the 1930 version is that actual German veterans were in the movie and made sure the uniforms and action were all as authentic as 1930s film standards could get
To me, the inclusion of the treaty of Versailles in the 2022 film really contributed to the sense that WW1 would not be the end: the harsh terms of the treaty, which are explicitly referenced, strongly contributed to Germany's economic difficulties after the war, and therefore (arguably) to the outbreak of WW2. This also hints at the necessity of European collaboration: by insisting on crushing Germany as much as possible after its defeat, the European allied forces contributed to a new conflict that would devastate them as well. For this reason, I watched those scenes with a knot in my stomach - the treaty had to be signed, and given the fact that every second of delay meant the loss of yet more lives, it had to be signed quickly. However, there is also the continuous sense that in finally stopping this war, the seeds for the next one had been sown, and that Erzberger is choosing between two evils - even if he doesn't know what the other evil will be yet. It is a bleak kind of nuance that I think may contribute to your argument that this is ultimately a very German film.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I liked how the new film pointed out the cyclical, never-ending nature of the conflict when it opened with a soldier's death, only for his uniform to be washed, repaired, and given to Paul
Didn't the original do the same showing pauls boots being reused in a montage?
i like all the shit they made up for this trash propaganda movie, adding plotlines that never existed to go completely counter to the authors original message while sprinkling in a little bit of nazi dolchstoßlegende.
great job promoting revisionism and spitting on the authors grave.
@@whatagreatnameaye1169 yes
Ominous and chilling first few scenes
It told me that the uniforms were more important than the lives of the young men that were being extinguished for dreams of imperialism.
That scene near the end where Paul has to tell the school kids that his professor’s tales of war isn’t all that great and mostly propaganda - still one of my favorite movie moments.
I just finished reading the book and I don't remember that scene being part of it at all.
@@rhythmandblues_alibi Its not, that is an invention of the 1930 film
@@brickingle3984 ahh I see.
I completely disagree. It further establishes the point of Paul's frustration with how Germany during WW I glorified the pact of heroism and serving for their country. It becomes even more heartbreaking how the students boo him out and call him a traitor, making Paul look hopeless in that situation, only for him to resort going back, cause living at him with that knowledge and experience at war is as painful. It doesn't speak as propaganda, but more so trying to establish the point.
@@toastydanny9136 not sure who you're disagreeing with?
Personally, I'm a BIG fan of the initial montage of the 2022 version. It shows clearly how men are pointless dying only to be replaced by yet another batch that has, unfortunately, succumbed to propaganda. And it does so in a very concise, effective way. It encapsulates the themes of the movie, almost explicitly tells you it is an anti-war movie, and set's the tone perfectly for what follows. Great piece of film-making right there.
Yes I love the way how Paul gets the uniform of a dead soldier showing how many die just to get replaced
Loved the way the guy just plays dumb when Paul asks about the name tag on his uniform.
Aside from that, due to how many dialogues the book and the 1930 film had, they completely humanize Paul's struggle as a soldier and most importantly, as a human. The dialogue helped us understand what's going on inside Paul's head, how he think, and how he lament his current predicament.
In contrast, the 2022 film show nothing of sort. Therefore, dehumanize Paul completely by portraying him as "another soldier involved within the war". In my opinion, comparing both version seemed to be unfair as they brought up different spirit in how we could see the war. The 1930 film seems kinda hopeful at the end, while 2022 is extremely nihilistic in comparison throughout the movie up until the end.
They did the same thing but with boots in the original
@@Vandalgia imo, making paul "another pair of boots" is the best anti-war part of these kind of films. you're just a sack of meat hoping you don't expire in the frontline
Being German, the 1930 US version was nothing but a milestone in movie history - still incredible by modern standards.
As for the new adaption and it's critics, Remarque himself made clear he has no trouble with movie adaptions deviating from his book, as long as the message remains unchained, and in this regard the new version did an outstanding job, imo.
True, it gives the same criticism of the uncaring larger power structures, but just does it in an entirely different way.
Please, look that video again !
It explicitly states ( at the 7:00 mark) that Remarque ONLY accepted to sell the rights of his novel on the grounds that Universal had to promise him NOT to make any considerable alterations or additions to his novel.
are you kidding? the original movie and book were ALL about how it was to live on the western front and then to die and the news just says "all quiet here!"
modern movie makers can't concieve that "small" stakes are enough for audiences, so they try to shoehorn in the political scenes. it's the same thing as every superhero movie needing "america", no, "earth", no, "the galaxy" no, "the universe" is at stake!
aqotwf is about how shitty it was to be in the western trenches, how civillians are being lied to and a a bunch of bumbling idiots and then you die.
in the 2022 version, paul sees the end of the war and sees how it resolves.
and don't ket me into kat's death...
no, the 2022 film doesn't deserve the title of "all quiet on the western front"
this did a little more than deviate
the 2022 movie is great dont get me wrong, but its not good compared to the book. the book and the other two movies have a message that the 2022 movie fails to convey. they show how war truly destroys a persons psyche until they are no longer able to function normally in a society. the 2022 movie conveys the view, that if the war ended the soldiers could finally return to their families and live in peace, while that is certainly not possible.
Thank you for this. The 1930 version has long been one of my favorite films and still, after all these years, one of the best statements ever made on the horrors of war. I found myself appreciating the differences of the 2022 version, though, and love your critique. Both versions have different endings, yet they are equally poetic and, sadly, scary.
The original was heartbreaking...but I felt like I was watching a movie. The new was heart-wrenching and felt like I was watching documentary.
I think both versions came out right when they needed to. 1930’s came out right at the beginning of economic fallout, extremism popping up all over the world, and the fear of war looming in Europe. (Though it was pre-Hitler so I don’t think people realized just how close it was.)
2022’s also came out at the beginning of economic fallout, extremism popping up all over the world, and the threat of war looming in Europe. This time there’s already war, but the threat of it getting bigger has us all on edge.
Both reminds us that war is inevitable, but it is only us, the people, who will suffer.
@@kristinak6092 Interesting! I felt the opposite. My biggest issue with the new ending was that it was historically inaccurate- no infantry made a last minute charge at the behest of their superiors in WWI right before the armistice. There were plenty of examples of bad leadership and throwing away lives needlessly, it seemed unnecessary to manufacture that drama just to have it be "extra" pointless. The hopeless despair of the original ending, created from the mind of someone who lived through the events themselves, feels much more realistic to me and not a manufactured cinematic moment.
To be honest, the "race against the clock" change doesn't bother me because I see it as ultimately similar. Maybe I read too much into it, but Kat was the guy "they're saving for last" so for him to die made me think the war was almost over. I saw both as more of a "so close and yet so far" as far as Paul's survival went.
I did nit enjoy it, if you are going to make changes then write a new story.
I'm a fan of the 1960s adaptation. The ending is he goes to draw something he sees above the trenches, sticking his head up to far and is gunned down. Then some text goes over the screen saying the date and summarizing that it was relatively uneventful in the trenches, saying the movies title. It really hits home for me about how the higher ups felt about the lives of those actually on the front lines, and how easy it is for them to just throw them away.
You mean the TV film?
@@kostajovanovic3711 I don't know if it was made for TV, I've only seen it in the context of a college course about the world wars.
I think i watched that version too. I was confused during the video when she didn't mention it's existence. The movie was deeply impactful to me in my youth.
I have never seen that version but that's how it's in the book. And without a scene like that the movie title just doesn't make sense.
It wasn’t the 60’s. It was 1979 and it was a TV movie. She mentions it off hand in the first minute of the video LOL.
Why do people not ever think of googling stuff before commenting?
That scene with general speech might not be true as such, but it does portrait the general idea of things that did happen. The armistice was signed after 5 am, but it didn't came into force till 11 am and in that time both sides still were fighting and pushing forward, and close to 3000 people died just because armistice didn't have immediate effect.
There's a huge difference between soldiers who didn't know and hadn't gotten the news yet and soldiers and generals who did and knew that no matter what happened, that final battle would be completely meaningless and the Germans were still going to lose the war and be unable to avoid the subsequent economic struggles and humiliation. The general essentially executes hundreds of his own men for absolutely no reason, because he won't get any personal glory either. And I guess we're supposed to believe that his superiors would be cool with that (and let's face it, they probably would be, but showing that would be critical of the system, which we cant' have). Truth be told, all of these significant changes (the exact same kind Remarque warned against) were awful and hurt the movie greatly. That and Kat's death made no sense whatsoever and destroyed whatever narrative had been built up. This isn't a good movie because there's a war going on somewhere else in the world with completely different technology and for completely different reasons.
More like what's to come in Germany vs how the soldiers felt at the time of the armistice. The only ones attacking at that point were the Entente, as the Germans were suffering from mutinies at home and large-scale red movements, and I can guarantee that a german general tried that ( as the German army was in retreat for over a month at that point) there would've been another mutiny ( as the Kaiserliche Marine had mutinied just a few days earlier after being given suicidal orders to attack the blockade).
@@kristinpie I can't speak to any German generals, but there were absolutely American troops that were ordered to fight up until 11am on armistice day and their commanders absolutely had knowledge of the armistice and some of them did it for the personal glory. The final person to die in WWI was an american who had recently had a reduction in rank and charged german troops apparently to redeem his reputation. He was killed a minute before the armistice went into effect.
There was even a congressional investigation into why so many people were killed in those final hours. Some people did not know of the armistice when they continued fighting, but many people knew and continued to fight despite the meaninglessness of it all.
Like I said, I don't know if any German generals did this, but it did happen so it is at least somewhat historically accurate. I think it's not a bad addition at all because it highlights that meaninglessness of the war as a whole.
@@kristinpie In fact, there has been an actual exemple of this, not on the German side but on the American side. General William Wright launched an offensive that resulted in several hundreds casualties during the last hours of the war. He was criticized, but not punished. So, there were people in fact who died at the last moment exactly for the same reason the protagonist does in the movie.
@@kristinpieBut that’s exactly what happened. There were attacks that morning on both sides AFTER the timing of the armistice was known.
As a german myself, the new movie really resonated with me. It's not just the way they speak, but the film language and the castig itself made is so much more immidiet for me. I get that it's very different from the book, but i think that any adaptation priding itself on realism should move away from it more, since the rousing speaches really clash with the idea of a traumatized north german teenager for me.
I suppose i had a similiar reaction to watching the 1984 Wannseeekonferenz (german production) vs the 2001 Kenneth Branagh Wannseekonferenz. The second one was just so British, and made such a point to find heroes and do speaches, that it didn't work for me at all. The 84 movie in contrast was so realistic , in the actors demeanor, the language, the utter mundanity, that it chilled me to the bone.
Uhhh, Branagh
This movie is an ahistorical waste. Why is everythingnowadays just a cheap copy of older stuff.
@@kostajovanovic3711 He also directed a version of The Magic Flute framed within WWI. That was bizarre.
@@MaLoDe1975 Can you explain why?
@@megaman3029 of course. the movie itself doesnot compare to the 1930 version. check it out. the new version is also quite loosely based on the book. the ridiculous flamethrower scen, the used uniform scene, the made up general for the peace negotiations that are none ta ll in the book. this "movie" does give zero fucks about everything. book starts End of 1914 beginning 1915 this in late 1917. They had a perfectly good story but had to hammer it home.
I love when remakes or new adaptations go their own way. If I wanted to see the original again, I would simply go do that. I think this new All Quiet is a valiant effort to invite modern audiences to contemplate the actual toll of war in a more intimate way that not even news coverage of the war in Ukraine can. It's a scary time, but I think they did the best one could hope for to communicate their message.
I think in the USA we romanticize War, we romanticize how "awesome" the USA military is even if it can be awful. We are told the Vietnam War was justified, or aren't told the ful extent of it. Just how much it ruined Vietnamese people's lives and how over there, we are the villains. We see ourselves as the heros when in many people's eyes, we invaded their country and destroyed their homeland.
All Quiet is a good slap in the face to that ideology. War is awful, war is bloody and useless. I wish more Americans would understand that joining the military isn't as good as they think it is.
The parallels or connection they've attempted to paint between AQotWF and the current Ukraine conflict are improvised for marketing, and (mostly) superficial.
Any sensible adult should already be well aware by now that "war is hell", and many war films convey that well-enough already.
@@shaft9000 Apparently not bc many Americans still glorify war. But IG they aren't sensible adults
@@shaft9000 Every subject under the sun has been covered in art, yet we continue to make art about said subjects. There will be war movies as long as there are movies.
none of the books intent and messaging has been carried over to this propaganda piece of shit, and deliberately so. it's like they consulted the US army again and got pentagon funding. awful trash. remarque is spinning in his grave.
As a German I think it’s important to remind people that the new version of this movie is widely disliked in Germany. From left wing newspapers to right wing circles, it is seen as a flop. The reason for this is, like you said, it has almost nothing to do with original. The original is simple, intimate and understated, which makes it so moving. This version is bombastic and adds so many uncomfortable things (why show a German as a good guy vs stubborn french generals in the negotiation scenes?) that it feels like a movie Berger wanted to make anyway, while adding some bits from the movie to make people recognise and watch it.
I don’t know if the negotiation plot was meant to be “German good guy vs French bad guy”. I guess if you had no historical knowledge you wouldn’t understand the context, but for anyone who knows the basics of WW1 (which I’d hope is most people), you can understand the stubbornness.
Germany started the war (at least from the French perspective), they invaded France, and have been destroying French soil for the last 4 years; it’s not like he’s just being a jerk for no reason.
You should also have enough context to know that the terms imposed on Germany *were* excessively harsh and bad for the whole world in the long run, so you don’t think his hardline-ness is a *good* thing, but him being blinded by his sense of vengeance is understandably human.
I agree. This film shows the Germans much more sympathetic. The horrors of the Kaiser's regime should never be downplayed. The actions of the German occupation of Belgium being the primary example. However, the theme should be that ALL soldiers are victims. All should have sympathy for the horror they're sent into. Be it Right Wing Nationalists or Left Wing Communists it doesn't matter.
I am writing from Germany and I disagree - its a new movie and its liked from everybody who saw it. Its a new movie and a fresh perspective about an eternal theme. Its a really good movie.
@@josephgilorma6979 Which is why the scene of the pit with paul and the french soldier and one of the last scenes in the french trench exist, the soldiers are both just trying to survive.
I find that a shame, I think the movie did a good job in showcasing how bad the war was all around for the soldiers, and do remember that the german "good guy" faced a lot of resistance from other germans, high command and stuff, it's not trying to paint germany as blameless, but someone had to initiate the surrender and they included it in the movie to showcase how both sides were stubborn in a war that cost thousands of lives each day it raged on.
One thing about the continuing attacks in the time between the signing of the armistice and when it kicked into effect: that really did happen! The armistice was signed at 5 or 6 am but didn’t go into effect until 11, and fighting continued right up until that time. I recommend the channel The Great War’s video on the last week of the war for information on this.
Exactly! It may not have explicitly been in the book, but it did really happen, so of course there were soldiers shot and killed in the time between the signing and it actually taking place. I see no issue with showing that on screen and I think it really drives home the theme of the film about the pointless nature of that war on the western front.
I don't understand how you m0rons don't see the difference between soldiers who hadn't heard the news yet and a general who did. It's not remotely the same thing. Paul didn't die in the middle of a "random" battle that happened to be on the war's final day, he died knowing he was being meaninglessly sent into another battle literally 15 minutes before the armistice officially took effect. And who were those soldiers supporting this idiot general by executing anyone who rightfully complained about this decision? This was a terrible creative decision that isn't remotely like what you're explaining, and absolutely should not have been made.
What you're talking about was done by the allies, not the Germans (Specifically Americans and others fresh to the frontlines). German morale was so low and they knew that the war would soon be over if they were ordered an attack like that they would have mutinied on the spot.
The Great War is a great channel ❤
@@kingchirpa which doesn't mean they didn't try anyways. the "kiel mutiny" probably being the most famous example for that.
Who else absolutely lives for this content 💀
very much me
Me
Me too!
This is one of my absolute favorite channels!!!
Me for the last 4 years
Daniel Bruhl being in almost every war movie they need a German guy is sometimes funny.
If they make a movie with a German it's with Brühl, Till Schweiger or Christoph Waltz they hire.
Yeah when he showed up I was like of course he is here
Best one is probably Joyeux Noël, also about WWI set during the winter where all sides called a truce and celebrated Christmas together. Such a poignant movie.
Not a war movie, but "Good Bye, Lenin!" was very good. War ... adjacent?
All two? i dont think stolz der nation counts...
It was so good. The cinematography, the score, the acting, contrasts between trench and officer life. Hollywood has exhausted WWII so it was a fascinating dive into WWI.
Yeah but with how much experience they have with WW2 scenarios, they need to be careful not to project the ideas of WW2 movies onto WW1. Because portraying it as some kind of good vs evil narrative would do it totally injustice and miss how WW1 started and what it was about.
It was an easily avoidable tragedy caused by ALL leaders involved together, having too high egos to step down for one second. So showing the pointlessness and horror of the trenches is the only way to go in this narrative, no glorification, just dirt, blood and steel
The European Theatre anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing WWII through the lens of a Chinese grunt, a Philippine insurgent, or the mixed-loyalty drama out of India or Korea at the time.
What comes to officers, junior front officers had the worst chances to survive, at least in WW2, and I think as "well" in WW1. Anyways they were in the front line with common soldiers. But you probably mean senior officers in staffs? Then again, in staffs there were common soldiers (drivers, horsemen, guards, cooks), NCOs and junior officers too much more safe and sound. So what's your point actually? That officers are guilty for all evil? Uhm... disagree. How about politicians and rulers?
As a Russian who left the country last year because it's unbearable to watch what's happening from the inside, I became drawn to Remarque, but it's too hard to read him still. The movie I did however watch and it left me hoping that Russia will too one day be able to look at what's going on critically. It's an anti war movie if I ever saw one.
Лмао ботом текст, как там в Израиле сидится?
Catherine, since I don't live in Russia, could you tell me what was so unbearable in Russia that you had to leave ? Just curious .
@@edvsilas8281 there's a war going on over there ED
@@edvsilas8281 I would guess, seeing how so many young Russians get drafted, many against their will. Seeing how the economy downhills, even though it happens slow.
And even seeing how the Russians state lies to its people.
I have family in Russia and except one person, all of them now support the putin. Most of them haven’t before the war.
They even told us to move to Russia (I’m from Germany), since we will freeze to death here, which they obviously got out of the propaganda.
Seeing „your people“ become more brainwashed by any day hurts, so I can understand why you would want to leave a country like that.
@@marcel_kleist At one time ,I said that if I were Russian , I would join to fight for the cause in a heartbeat. I am Canadian, even so, I am extremely irritabled,tired and pissed off at the US and its vassal Europeans and their arrogance, and meddling in world. I believe most of the world is sick of the west's threats and sanctions. If you live in Germany, a country that is even afraid to acknowledge that the US blew up the NS pipeline, I pity that you live in a country with no backbone .
This conflict is over US insistence for NATO expansion. Up to very last day, Putin wanted a WRITTEN guarantee for no expansion and was denied. Do you think for one moment the US would accept enemy nukes ,armaments ,troops in its hemisphere ? I sure as hell would not accept that ! Neither should any great power.
I've gone from never considering watching All Quiet (neither the 1930 nor 2022 adaptation), to being incredibly invested. This is such a great, nuanced breakdown of the international implications of both, I was awed by the analysis.
The 1930 might not be gory, but the focus on the men's faces and how you appreciate each dead and dying man's humanity makes it all the more wrenching. The book is really wonderful, but I haven't brought myself to reread it in many years. I think the film is truly anti-war, more so than many other more graphic films because it depicts how war strives to utterly annihilate individuality, even though nothing can kill kindness and friendship completely. How incredibly tragic that after the book was written and the film was made the world would soon face an even more brutal war.
funnily enough, as "ungory" as we think it is nowadays, simply having people die on screen was shocking back in the 30s
@@Klaevin the hands on the barbed wire would be something X rated today
I've been waiting for this one I love the 1930 version sadly it's an underrated version
So glad you brought up Top Gun. Because the propaganda involved in the new film is the first thing I thought after being amazed by the action. The US War propaganda is terrible.
So glad the all quiet on the western front film got recognized.
I watch as many Oscar’s movies as I can so February gets a little packed with movies for me. I ended up watching top gun and all quiet on the western front on the same day and to say I got whiplash from the difference in opinions of the military between the two films is quite an understatement
I loved the new readaptation of the book. It deserves all the praise and awards it's been winning. Now, I have to watch the old version.
yes i deffs agree, i loved it
The recent version doesn’t hold water when compared to the original. It’s not even close to as powerful as the original messaging is.
@@chrishackett554 well - no. This version is much more up-to-date and more impact - but its very subjective if you don't like it you don't like it
@@chrishackett554 didn't you watch the video? There's no point making another adaptation as faithful to the book as the old one. That's what the old one's for. The new movie has a more modern perspective, ya know, for a modern audience. Plus its nice that German soldiers are played by Germans, speaking German, and maybe Germans will actually hear about and see the film this time and the message will be more powerful for them. Both movies bring something to the table and promote an anti war message, so really there's no reason we shouldn't appreciate them both
I watched the new movie shortly after reading Remarque's book. I really think he would have approved of what they did with his novel. It ramped up the theme of futility so that you're left with a bad taste in your mouth at the sheer wrongness of things after watching. Best war movie since Saving Private Ryan, hands down.
I disagree solely because of the ending. I think it still could've worked if it kept true to the book in that sense. The title, after all, refers to Paul's death, on a day where there was no significant fighting - the reports to high command read simply "all quiet on the western front". He literally dies for nothing. In the movie however, he dies in a huge bombastic last minute battle to claim land for the fatherland - the farthest thing from a quiet western front. Even though it fails his death fits a more conventional hero's death, dying at the last minute so close to victory. In the book, it makes it clear that "heroes" don't exist
I really did enjoy both these two versions and they're both good versions. I think both endings are perfect since in neither he's not really framed as a hero, he just dies for no reason in both.
@@joechisten7176 To me, it made his death even more hollow, he didn't die a hero's death, he died a dog in a trench they were routed from just the other day, he died without having his tags taken, he died just before finally making it out alive because of someone else's greed, you're right in that it doesn't do the title justice but to me it made his death feel worse, in the other adaptations he died because he still had some humanity in him and did something that got him killed, in this one he was sent to the slaughter to take a piece of land they frankly didn't need without any input of his own because his superior didn't care about him.
@@joechisten7176 I see your point but at the same time I like how the 2022 version's ending highlights the ultimate futility of war as a concept. If Paul had been given another 10 seconds then he would have survived. 10 seconds between being surrounded by enemies to being in peacetime. You had people who would had slaughtered each other not minutes ago just walking around the trenches together like they're people on the street, simply because "the War is over now." All that fighting that might have mattered in the moment is rendered completely meaningless. There is no lasting purpose. It was simply the time to kill each other and now it's not. We never even find out (in the film) if they technically 'won' that battle or not because it doesn't matter. They would have died for nothing even if they won.
@@Ted_Curtis yes it's a good ending, but for a different film. If they hadn't called the file "all quiet on the western front" my thoughts would be different. But since it is directly tying itself to an existing story it has to be judged for its deviation that undermines the original story
I truly loved the 2022 version. It was so melancholy. Making you feel how pointless the war was. It deserved a best picture nod.
This is making me want to check out the 1929 version though. It must have been surreal back then. Integrated sound was a new invention, then BAM you're in the middle of a war.
Yeah, it wasn't Oscar winner for nothing.
i loved that the movie wasn’t like 1917 with a big overarching plot that will save the world, it’s just 2 and 1/2 hours of paul’s life as he watches all his friends die
I finally got to see the 1930’s version today so now I’m coming back to this! I think the main scene/part of the original that I really wish still made it into the 2022 version was the whole bit with the teacher because that was my favorite scene and it was just so powerful. They definitely should have kept him going on leave. It’s ironic that you said the 1930 ending is poetic cause I put exactly that word in my letterboxd review.
All Quiet has been my favourite novel ever since I was a teenager, and I’ve been following the 2022 production ever since it was announced. Although I agree with your criticisms, I still greatly appreciate the newer reimagined adaptation. The book and movie kinda exist separately in my mind and inform each other rather then directly impact one another (if that makes sense). Also if it can get modern audiences to turn to the book, all the better!
They are too different. The ending in the 2022 film is terrible and completely inaccurate. It lost the soull of the novel. They should not have used the title
29:25 "this obviosly did not happen". As per wikipedia article: "During the six hours between the signing of the armistice and its taking effect, opposing armies on the Western Front began to withdraw from their positions, but fighting continued along many areas of the front, as commanders wanted to capture territory before the war ended"
There was no large scale attack like that
There are actually two versions of the 1930 film, shot side-by-side. One has sound dialogue and one has music but the dialogue is on title cards, like a silent. Because sound was so new, the superior version is the “silent” one, and watching that one would solve your issues with the boys and the mics.
Wow. Thank you. I had no idea. I will attempt to find the silent version.
Thanks for your comment, I was beginning to think I was loosing my mind, because I thought I could distinctly remember seeing a silent All Quiet on the Western Front 40-odd years ago but it was clearlly a Talkie. Ill have to find "La Grande Illusion", and watch it again ... not just because it was one of the best fims I have seen but also to confirm it really was a silent movie.
@@ColBlimpIV "La grande illusion" is definitely not silent.
When it comes to war films I much prefer the German and Russian aesthetic. American and British films still have that positive heroic undertone. Compare AQOTWF to 1917.
Americans and Britians make war films. Germans and Russians make anti-war films.
It's been said that Americans like tragic stories with happy endings. The same goes for Canadians like me -- with the exception of "All Quiet On The Western Front". I much prefer the 1930 version. That lead actor Lew Ayres became a conscientious objector during World War II -- which took enormous moral courage -- and later became a medic in the war in the Pacific lends poignancy to his acting.
@@Reggie1408 I thought western movies like Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, AQOTWF 1979, and some others were anti-war films?
@@nepnepguythegreatestofall The US will invade your country, make movies about how it made their veterans sad that noone wanted them there and then call these movies "anti-war"
@@nepnepguythegreatestofall Also M*A*S*H, Catch 22, Paths of Glory, The Great Dictator, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, Born on the 4th. of July, Gallipoli, The Battle of Algiers, Dr. Strangelove, Hair, Fail Safe. There are many.
This is the most haunting video from you yet. But very needed. I appreciate it and I appreciate your work so much.. I’m so happy you’re doing this full-time now. It’s inspiring to me and again I’m so grateful for all of your content and research because I’ve learnt so much. Thank you 🙏🏻
The original is my favorite war film and one that I revisit at least once a year; your video prompted me to give the new one a look. Overall, it was a work of immense craftsmanship and, in the context of German history and politics, the deviations from the book have a logic to them, although they do alter the emphasis and characterization such that the end product is far different from the book. So, a good movie in its own right but a bad adaptation of the material.
Laying aside the accuracy of the adaptation, I still prefer the 1930 film, just as a piece of cinema. The fact that, in an era where talkies were so new, it used practically no music whatsoever; that they fashioned such visceral environments with their rudimentary technology; that they created such a rousing and honest and fearless work of art at a time when the politics of WW1 were still felt the world over - absolutely astounding. It's also one of the few war films I can think of that incorporates the indoctrination of youth and the "chess game" mentality of the home front - both aspects that I missed from the new iteration. The two scenes with the professor are some of the most powerful things to come out of Hollywood.
A very important point to hilight is that these two movies were filmed almost 100 years apart. The language of movie making and the technologies available to the filmakers has changed beyond all recognition. The audiences are also very different. The majority of the 1930s audience would have been directly involved in the war with personal memories and scars. The emotions were still raw. They had no idea what horror was about to unfold as the 20th century progressed. From the 2023 historical perspective the First World War has a very different meaning. For the German audience whom it was intended the significance is deeply profound. The addition of the Armistice negotiations helps place the narrative in a wider historical perspective for a less well informed younger audience. The 2023 version is a good movie with some great scenes. It's difficult not to make direct comparisons with the recent 1917 movie- particularly as both lead actors bear a striking similarity and audiences could be forgiven for making that assumption. It is certainly a far more effective piece when watched in the native German rather than the English dub. In my opinion both WW1 movies are superior to Nolan's Dunkirk which I believe to be totally overrated. Dunkirk makes no attempt to portray the French coastal town as it would have looked during that period of the war and so many obviously 21st century elements are present throughout which totally ruin the continuity and give the movie the feel of those cheap knock off Hollywood B war movies made during the 60s where all the actors had 60s hair styles etc. The original movie although almost a century old still has the power to move people in a way that few movies of the period can do today. Yes some of the dialogue and delivery is stagey and ham by modern standards but the battle scenes in particular are epic and thrilling. An important point made is that this was the first war movie filmed with SOUND. That must've had a significant impact on audiences who were HEARING the sound of war and battle for the very first time. I can only imagine the experience might have been similar for audiences as that for those of us who sat through the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For anyone who hasn't seen the 1903 movie I recommend you watch it.
I understand your sentiments with Dunkirk. I enjoyed it but the beaches would have been teeming with soldiers. The film makes it look like a few hundred soldiers were waiting to be collected. Not 300000. The scale was not portrayed correctly. Also, I wish they used some CGI and made the Spitfires the correct model.
For a very harrowing movie, there is a Russian one called "Come and See" "Идти и смотри" which may be on RUclips. It is set in Belarus, I believe, where 1 in 4 died. I suspect you are German, so I don't wish to offend and I wouldn't advise you watch the film in aspects because of this.
@@kentl7228 I don't know why you think I'm German, that has me puzzled! I agree about the Spitfire and CGI.
@@knockshinnoch1950 you talked about a film being in native German, which would be more important in general, to a native German speaker. It is more authentic to read subtitles with actual German spoken than hear a cockney or Texan accent that is supposed to be a German. My mistake )
I actually liked the "Final Battle" on Armistice Day to make Paul die. When you think that 3000 men died during those last 6 hours of the war, it just underscores the futility and the nonsense it was. His numbness after Kat died, it looked like a ghost fighting - only really looking at peace in death.
Also, as a German, I really loved the "Germanness" of it all - the songs I knew from childhood they were singing (when the steal a goose and go onto "Fuchs, du hast die Gans gestohlen, gib sie wieder her..." - it was the sort of silliness that actually brought tears to me eyes). I heard the cadence that the teachers employed - it's a very refined speech I am used to from documentaries and immediately thought of authority figures you pay attention to. How easy the young men were to lead on, when they had no way of questioning these figures and their stupid cadence.
That being said, I was more shocked by the 1930 film, but perhaps because it hit me. We had to read passages of "Im Westen nichts Neues" in school, but not the whole book, so when it just goes all in... I was really shocked. This time, I was prepared for it.
For anyone interested in seeing the original 1930 All Quiet, Turner Classic is showing it on March 13th at 1:30am!
"The Old Lie: Dulce Et Decorum Est. Pro Patria Mori." -Wilfred Owen
Excellent video. I feel like many young people who watch this movie may go into it with a wrong mindset. But its a great preservation of history and people like you explaining and making interesting content like this helps get those points acrossed much better.
The thumbnail says it all. A man staring into the abyss on the left, vs a confused schmo looking around nervously on the right. Also looks like Kylo Ren in a ww1 helmet lmao
I think my biggest problem with war films is their obsession with the big, flashy fight sequences and omitting the human element. I feel that's where Band of Brothers really stood out and the original AQotWF did right. The explosions are fun, but we lose the humans in the middle of all the carnage.
Also: can we please let Daniel Bruel play something other than a German soldier in a world war!!!
God I feel like I'm going crazy when I hear everybody praise the 2022 film. It has none of the subtlety or universality that made the original so good. Great video
Read this novel in high school (circa 1975) It was a very intense, emotional read that was difficult to shake. Interesting because it was from a German soldier's POV which humanized "the enemy" & brought home the horrors of war for all involved. Very powerful book. I don't think I've ever seen the film in its entirety.
Just wanted to say how deeply I appreciated this excellent presentation. Vividly remember seeing "All Quiet" on TV in Los Angeles when I was a child. A shattering experience to say the least. Thank you so much for treating this film with the respect and appreciation it deserves.
I’m a European historian. This was fascinating.
As someone who generally isn’t a big fan of war movies, I thought the new All Quiet was well made, but it didn’t leave much of a lasting impact. Love your videos for always giving me a greater appreciation & enhanced perspective.
As someone whose mother's maiden name is Kammerer I feel weirdly proud of seeing someone with that last name on the world stage
What! No, I don’t feel that feeling, I hope they remake this movie every few decades! These things shouldn’t be forgotten and the remakes should be taken seriously like this one was!
Would like to hear your opinion on the German tv show Babylon Berlin
You are better than my cinema professor at NYU back in the early ‘90s. Seriously. Much better. You gave me so much to think of.
Anyway, this new AQOTWF is the best war movie that I have ever seen. Ever since I saw the 1930 version over 20 years ago, I have wished that a German language version would be made. So I was incredibly excited when I saw that there was one Netflix. It never dawned on me that it would be an Oscar contender and I was elated when it got all those nominations. I only wish they would release it in theaters.
I have never thought of this story as being about World War I. To me, that war is just as stand-in for all warfare in the history of humankind. It is the most universal of war stories. And the 2022 version I think most obviously illustrates the FDR quote, “ war is old men, talking and young men dying.”
I'm still going with Everything Everywhere All at Once as the best picture.
Good for you
i find Australian Director Peter Weir's anti-war moves to be brilliant. Unfortunately, they do star Mel Gibson, but they are from the 80s so well before he revealed what a colossal aubergine he is
Gallipoli?
Well they're also from before he was a star so he's a second fiddle despite what later posters might imply
@@kostajovanovic3711 and "the year of living dangerously"
@@shadowmaster1313 he was a star here in Australia
@@darkhalf75 which is why Mark Lee was in the lead role?
I pointed out the ideological tension between Top Gun and AQOTWF to my roommate and she literally acted like I was making it all up- Americans really do not have a good sense when they are being pandered to. Thanks for validating my thoughts!
To be honest we generally only notice if something is propaganda when we don’t agree with it. As a Brit, it is funny to see when people praising Maverick claim it’s successful because it isn’t political.
@MarkyBoy I think in fact that you can compare the two. The fact that you could watch a movie that glorifies war and the military without thinking and for pure entertainment is precisely what I think is telling. I honestly can't watch this kind of movie without being repulsed by this glorification of war and seeing it as a form of propaganda reflecting an American cultural bias. And I think that the fact that the US military does actively support the production of such movies (by loaning material, allowing on site filming, etc..) while it denies any support when it disapproves of the script shows that it's not all innocent.
The majority of discussion I read about Top Gun was not about it being apolitical or not in terms of foreign policy, it was about the film having no pandering to certain groups of society for "inclusion".
I think that part of the popularity for the film in the USA was because it celebrated the USA when so much media in the USA has someone saying how terrible it is. Perhaps the self loathing of the nation by some makes other people feel as if they are blamed as well...
@commentsAlwaysDeletedbyYT Personally I could never mindlessly watch a movie about real-life military conflicts that glorifies war, my hate for militarism won't allow me.
Great take on this, but your comment at 29:30 is inaccurate, or possibly misleading. The fighting did continue right up until 11am in many places, even though they knew the armistice had been signed. Generals, and even some soldiers trying to prove themselves, on all sides, continued the fighting, including the US Navy firing long range guns timed to land on German forces as late as possible. It's astonishing and horrifying how many instances of this kind of activity there actually are - but I think this give more value to the ending scene of the 2022 film. Also, I'm now really interested in watching the 1930 film, so thank you.
The work and thoughtfulness you put into these videos truly astonishes me (in such a good way). Honestly you increase my love and appreciation for film. Bravo👏👏👏👏
*Edit.... And regards the new film, I was personally moved strongly by it. With truly awful horrors of war again now in Ukraine fresh in mind, and our own flirtations with autocracy here of late, it hit me hard. I loved Remarque's book when I was younger and it felt more like a personal story in a war setting (I need to re-read it now) and this new film felt like a different story altogether - more like a scathing general indictment. The book hit me on a micro level while this new film hit me on a macro level. I was okay with that and like both simultaneously. Thanks again for such a particularly thoughtful episode among your truly excellent channel! I will now seek out the older b&w version.
I love your review/comparison/history. So well done. And so refreshing from the usually pulp we usually find on RUclips. I’d add that the ending of the new version is very Blackadder. The ending to season 4 set in WWI is so heartbreaking. They go over the top in the final push to victory…with the caption, 1917.
I love the book for its message and the way it so simply delivered it.
I remember we watched sections of the 1930 film in history class, which always stuck with me.
Honestly, the ending of the book works so well because there is no bigger point to his death, the 1930 film kept this so well and I'm not quite on board with the 2022 film's direction.
Still an amazing film!
I also love how the interpretation of Paul’s death in the book made it into the 1930 version!
Along with the poems of Wilfred Owen and Sigfreid Sasson the greatest anti war statement ever made.The fact that Hitler burn every copy he came across says it all.
Damn, in the 1930, when the teacher mentioned the old lie, Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori, I was thinking about Wilfred Owen 😢
@@alfredwang7607 I find it strange that the 2nd. World War did not produce any outstanding war poets.
To add my perspective as a native German, the first adaptation from 1930 still resonates to me in a way that the new one simply can't. The original is kind of my go-to example when it comes to the (very few) examples of actual "anti-war" war movies - which, in my view, was only surpassed by Come and See. The new one adds bells and whistles but still makes a spectacle out of war - the action is exhilarating, suspenseful, the gore is upped, you have subplots that add ticking clock-elements...which make for a more exciting movie, but never surpass the original in terms of shere desperation. When I watch the 1930 one, even today, it really underlines the whole senselessness and cruelty of that awful war.
Amazing, well-put and nuanced video, as always, by the way. This is my favorite youtube channel by far and you can plainly see the effort and amount of thought you put into each of your high-quality videos.
I've listened to a few of your film critiques and analysis of the (sometimes) chaotic ways they were made as well as reviews of the actresses who made them special. You're really quite good providing critiques that are well researched, thoughtful and insightful. You also have a great voice. Keep up the good work...
Your work succeeds in illuminating the topics you select, as well as heuristically leading your audience to become better human beings and global citizens. You demonstrate the very best of RUclips. Thank you.
This is not a knock on the 2022 version, because I do think that the way it told the story was well-done in many ways, but I do wish that modern cinema could embrace the voice-over a little more. I understand it could be used as a crutch or can seem cheesy today, but it really just depends on how you use it. If a film like AQOTWF, which follows singularly one character and their introspections, having their voice-over inner monologue could be rather poetic. Classics from previous decades of cinema have used voice over and are still lauded to this day. But we still seem at odds at creating work that uses it.
Where exactly do you see a voiceover benefitting a scene in AQOTFW? I personally think emotions and inner thoughts should be portrayed by other means and interpreted by the viewer. You don't need a character to "say" he is sad for the audience to know he is sad, for example.
And considering a majority of the book is the main character's inner thoughts, it would have made sense for them to include a voice-over in the movie.
Completely disagree.
A couple of years ago, I would have told anyone that remaking a Best Picture winner was a doomed exercise, and that there would never be an example of a good remake of one (see All the King’s Men, Rebecca).
Now we have two in consecutive years, which did so well that they were also nominated for Best Picture. That’s incredible.
Outstanding review thanks
A shout-out to the TV version featuring Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine and Donald Pleasence.
The trench warfare aspect of WW1 came more from the pre-war assumption by the Germans that their invasion of France would be as sweeping a route as the Franco-Prussian War. The planned that they'd take Paris in about 2 weeks or so. The Dutch didn't give the Germans free passage and fought back, delaying the Germans. Invading the Netherlands caused Britain to enter the war. After finally making it into France, Germany did push to the far outskirts of Paris, but rather than evacuating the capital, the French dug in and counter-attacked (with the help of the British). This caused a problem with Germany's planned schedule so the consolidated and dug in temporarily while they gathered their forces for the next offensive push toward Paris. The allies built complex trenches to defend their positions keeping the Germans from quickly advancing... then it became a stalemate as both sides holed up, Germany not being able to capture meaningful gains and the French not being able to push the Germans back enough to cause them to quit or sue for peace. In the trenches, modern weapons took over and made the space between the trenches impassible. Before the trenches, artillery was the big technological stand-out when used as siege weapons against forts and cities in the Netherlands.
I watched the 1930 version in high school. Even though the acting is obviously hokey, various scenes have stayed with me since like the one guy discovering that his leg has been amputated, the conversation the friends have about why they are even fighting, and when Paul dies. I am intrigued to watch the 2022 adaptation as well as the 1979 miniseries. Thank you so much for your analysis!
1979 one was really nice, personally my favourite
Dietrich and Remarque were lovers in the late 1930's. Just as the second world was starting, Dietrich's daughter was in the south of France. It was Remarque who drove her to Paris and ultimately to safety. Maria recounts this story in detail at an OSS event. Wonderful writer. Thank you for sharing this and all your hard work and research.
I’m so glad this video exists. I had numerous conversations with people where I said I was disappointed with the changes the made to the plot, only to be met with responses like “it’s real life, how could they have gotten it wrong?” As if this wasn’t a book written about fictional characters
29:29 over 2,000 people died on Armistice day. there were plenty of skirmishes, plenty of last ditch efforts to "gain glory" from both sides. the last person to be killed, an American called Henry Gunther was killed 60 seconds before ceasefire at 10:59am. this sort of thing did happen in real life to a lot of people.
The whole point of the title is Paul's death was on a day like any other. A day when All was Quiet on the Western Front, not in a battle, not to achieve anything.
The second movie not only takes away the whole meaning by creating his death at the last moment of the war but makes him into a man blindly obeying orders. Charging into battle with almost seconds left, the Germans could have simply gone to ground before reaching the French trenches. Paul never shows any thought of why he is there.
The attack also does not line up with history. A full week before, the German Navy in Kiel revolted, making demands on their officers and the German revolution had started with the Kaiser fleeing into exile before Armistice day. Yet the soldiers obediently attack when only hours away from surviving the war
EDITED: I knew Paul was going to be killed but I wanted him to live. When he took part in the last minute attack I wanted him to be killed. I lost all sympathy for his character. The very opposite of the Frenchman in the shell hole where the killing was forced on him, he had the opportunity to hold back. That was the biggest problem AQOTWF2, the central theme of being forced to be a brute was missing.
this is me today learning that there's a 2022 version of this movie
I'm immediately annoyed by the idea that war movies are "designed to garner awards attention". Why is it a stretch to assume war movies are just... good? 1917, Dunkirk, Fury, All Quiet, Midway, and Hacksaw Ridge are all incredible films, each for their own reason. Each film explores a different premise or cinematic style, with 1917 and Dunkirk being the most immediately obvious. I also don't think it's a stretch to say All Quiet deserved a modern remake after 93 years - and shouldn't we be comparing it to the source material, the book, as opposed to a previous adaptation?
Unfortunately, that's Hollywood ignorance for ya
Thank you for this! While I liked the remake a lot overall, I had issues with the changes it made to both the book and the 1930 version, and your perspective on those changes is something I had not considered. Also literally said “YES, THANK YOU” aloud at your pointing out the irony of this film being nominated right beside Top Gun- it’s absolutely wild.
This did happen in real life, but it was the American officers who did it. American officers wanted to return home Heroes so in the hours leading up to the fighting American units would charge at German lines. The last person to die of World War 1 is thought to be a Canadian Corporal who was shot in the head 2 minutes before 11:00 a.m.
The 2022 film immediately became one of my favorite films of all time. It's a masterpiece. I don't even usually like war movies all that much, but this was a flawless film with so many powerful messages. There's not a thing I would change.
The caracter devekopment is awfull.
One of the most overrated movies I have ever seen.
Which one?
@@kostajovanovic3711 Edited my comment because I should've clarified 😂
@@ClashGamerGTA maybe because of the language barrier
@@helloworld-td4mn No it's just not that great.
I'm glad someone is finally treating the 1930 film with the analysis and respect it deserves. It is a monumental film and still one of the greats.
While the final battle itself is fictional, there was the Battle of Mons during the day the armistice took effect, so it's not outside the realm of the theme expressed, that wars are fought absurdly until the very end.
This is one of those videos that forces people to subscribe. Holy shit, the depth of this analysis is great. Your research has made you on expert, that's blatantly obvious.
Has anyone read Eleven Eleven by Paul Dowswell? It's set during combat activities on the final day of WW1, where 2,738 men died IRL before 11am. I know the last-minute assault is fictional, but it's absolutely true that soldiers died in industrial proportions just for the 'significance' of 11am on 11/11. 'Cynical' doesn't come close.
Loved this new version. A statement of intent for modern German cinema, and they deserved to tell this story.
Great video, very educational. The scene with the french soldier had me in tears...Just thinking about it makes me want to cry. Truly heartbreaking movie.
See, I disagree about the ending of the new film. Having Paul die in an entirely needless attack which only serves to bolster the ego of a warmongering man of privilege is a perfect, simple representation and critique of the complex systems that led to WWI.
A new BKR video is the best news to wake up to!
I'm trying to do better about watching classic films (literally watched Wings for the first time a few days ago!) and trying to catch up on my current BP nominees watch so what lovely timing tbh. And I've occasionally wondered about the 'can any war film, no matter intent, be anti-war really?' tbh so to hear that audiences for the 1930 version (the ones that were allowed to see it without rats mid-monologue) did in fact come away shaken and horrified is a nice film history fact to know. Kinda helps with answering that question for myself. And having Erzberger framed as a hero in this current version is pretty poetic. I don't think this latest version will snag BP like its predecessor, but I think I'll give it a watch. Thanks for this!
I loved Wings, impressive recreation of the war a few years after it finished and especially the flying scenes, it's almost like the Top Gun from the 1920s, both movies were produced by Paramount having almost 60 years of difference, I fell in love with Clara Bow (not literally), I loved her ability to convey emotions through her expressiveness, I can clearly see why she had "it" (don't know if you've watched "It" ye)t, many 1927 movies entered the public domain this year, like Sunrise directed by F. W. Murnau (the one of Nosferatu which turned 100 last year), and the first "talkie" The Jazz Singer though only 2 scenes had dialogue recorded but they still revolutionized everything.
Good for you! I was impressed by myself for loving “Grand Hotel” and “Camille”. I need to watch “Wings” next!
@@jesustovar2549 Wings was amazing! I don’t know what I expected going in, but it was legitimately brilliant. There were shots and sequences where I was like ‘they did this in the 20s??’ So good.
@@colinpsykes I def recommend Wings! I talked non-stop about how great it was the day after and the full thing is up here on RUclips since it’s in the public domain now. I hope you like it!
@@malikamaybe Id recommend Tora Tora Tora and the entirety of Alfred Hitchcock's works for classic films
I think that from now (more than a century after), we should officially, by that I mean academically, as well socially refer to World War I and World War II not just as such, but we should insert the word “part” before the numeral used as “World War PART 1 and World War PART 2” as in all sense this wasn’t two separate wars but rather it’s one big war with a twenty year interlude.
I love your channel!!! ❤❤❤
This is a really good retrospective, thank you for your video 😀
I literally just saw the '79 TV film version and really liked it, Richard Thomas was really fantastic (IMO) and the whole tone of the film *almost* reminded me of Bergman
I never expected that a channel that talks mostly about classic Hollywood and actresses would make a video of these 2 movies, I'm not saying that it can't be done, it's just that war movies generally attract more male audiences than women (it can be said so about action movies, although there are very good action movies with female protagonists, now that I think about it, I haven't seen many war movies narrated from the female point of view, it would be interesting to see recommendations) even so, I knew from the beginning of the video that there was going to be a good analysis and criticism of both films, since the videos on this channel are generally of very good quality and more so for a fan of history and classic Hollywood as I am. So thank you very much for this quality content, greetings from Venezuela!
What a weird comment. Being suprised a woman can analyze a war movie..
This movie (2022) was the most depressing war movie I've ever seen, yet as someone who generally struggles to watch movies these days, was completely captivated by it. It's so real, so devoid of war movie tropes. The way the main character switches from being a normal human being to a savage killer, is just... haunting.
_Paths of Glory_ is another and might be the best film about trench warfare in WW1.
As for war films in general, neither of these two films are pre-school compared to _Threads_ and the original animated _Grave of the Fireflies._ (both were made in the '80s)
Even _Full Metal Jacket_ and _Apocalypse Now_ are like grade school compared to those two.
My husband likes the 1980s version because one of his favorite actors Ernest bargained plays kat
Oops Ernest borgnine
Meh. Watch the 1930 one, or Come and See (1985)
Fantastic evaluation. Best film crunching I've run across in any media in ages.
A word should be said about Lew Ayres who played Paul in the 1931 version. He became
lifelong pacifist after making "All Quiet on the Western Front." His career suffered because of his identifying as a CO status when registering for the draft during WWII. He served as a medic & army chaplain during the war and was one of 16 medics who arrived under fire during the battle of Leyte Gulf. He donated his service pay to the American Red Cross and experienced a comeback in the 1960s. Fine actor. Even better human being
Beyond just burning All Quiet, the Nazis tried to kill Remarch himself and he had to flee the country. In response to this, they killed his sister.
I just watched the movie today and I must say, as a German, I was disappointed but not surprised. I read the original novel (of course) and also watched the original movie, which I really enjoyed. For me, the 2022 version just seemed too focused on portraying the violence (as graphic and often as possible) and weaponry and didn't focus enough on the personal realtionships or the detachment and pointlessness of it all that was felt by Paul and the others.
The whole ending just made me angry. SPOILER:
Why would they risk stealing yet another goose from the farmer, who they know got a gun, literally 6 hours before the war ends, when Kat says he wants to go home to his wife and have more kids? Kat's death felt stupid, they turned a really amazing and thoughtful character into an idiot. His death in the original movie/books was pointless and heart-breaking, his death in the 2022 version just left me shaking my head.
Also, as a German I allow myself to say this, why do most German directors feel the need to over dramatize everything? Paul dies, on a none specific date, on a none specific field, making him one in thousands, the news just reports "Nothing new happening on the western front" (in the German version). Paul's death is pointless, he isn't special and that just gets the point across in the perfect way. Why do we need a final 15min battl? In such a politically divided Germany at that time (even in the front lines), I don't believe that they would have ever just mindlessly go into some last "heroic" battle and walked 15 minutes over to the French???? To enjoy the movie one is asked far too often to put away one's disbelieve. It really made me angry. This is a war movie not an action movie, not need to dramatize, actionize? Something so sad, based on a real person's experience!
Paul's home visit, which I consider to be one of the most important scenes in the book. Since it shows that he really is part of a lost genartion of men and there is nothing to come back to at home either, he can't fit into the world he used to live in anymore. This is such an important message and they left it out!? For what? More brutal death scenes?
Sorry that this is so long, the movie just made me genuinely angry and I think many people in Germany agree. I haven't met anyone who read the original book and didn't feel like the messages were partly lost in the 2022 movie. He should have just made a war movie and never have given it the title "All Quiet on the Western Front", then it would have been fine,....
Let's be real, it's still gonna win the best foreign movie, but I can't believe "decision to leave" wasn't even considered...
i also really did not like kat's death in this one, just like implying it's kind of his fault as opposed to some fluke accident like it is in the book rubbed me the wrong way--although i liked how it was shot. like, the point is that it's pointless and they totally just wrote around that!! agree with everything else you said too (including decision to leave haha)
@@bkrewind Thank you for the support and sorry for leaving my rant about the new "All Quiet on the Western Front" movie below your video, I just really needed to be angry about it for a bit.
Your video was of course amazing as always and I do look forward to each and every one of them. Your love for cinema is really palatable through the screen and contagious. The way the videos are cut make them feel like their very own movie, super enthralling, interesting and always eye opening :D
The 1930 “All Quiet on the Western Front” was one of the first movies to have an emotional impact on me. I absolutely loved watching old movies in an era where there were only five TV stations in NYC, (we had more than other areas because of two local channels; WPIX which broadcast the Yankees, and WOR which broadcast the Mets after their inception in 1962),so the opportunity to watch old films wasn’t readily there; that is until The Early Show which, I believe was on CBS, was started and I could watch the movies after school,,,weather permitting; nice days were spent outside! The scene with the French soldier dying in the trench is one I never forgot. How could two young men who didn’t know one another, be whipped into a frenzy to want to kill each other over some abstract ideas that were not even impactful on their everyday lives, until going to war. When he went through the man’s pockets and found photos of his wife and child, I lost it; and I was in grammar school! This film inspired me to be a Vietnam war protester. Not mentioned here, it also had a great impact on Lew Ayres who, as I recall, was blacklisted for years due to his subsequent conscientious objector status during WWII. Eliminating the transformation of the cheerful postman, and the return to classroom scene, seems to me, to remove any doubt how people are transformed by war experiences depending on whether one was in combat or not. I can see making clear the way Germany was not transformed by defeat with “the war to end all wars”, and after so much carnage, but the original story was by a German frontline soldier’s personal combat experiences, and subsequently, reforming his ideas about war. It already is a story told from a German point of view. It shows no matter what side one is on, an “enemy” is just another fellow human being very similar to you.
A very concise and well thought out comment.👍🙂
I enjoyed reading it.
I love your channel! Watch every video!
The best part about the 1930 version is that actual German veterans were in the movie and made sure the uniforms and action were all as authentic as 1930s film standards could get
Contrary to these other Oscar bait movies you mentioned "All Quiet.." is not a war movie but an ANTI-war movie!
The 1979 version was better! But "Stalingrad" (1993) is the BEST!
To me, the inclusion of the treaty of Versailles in the 2022 film really contributed to the sense that WW1 would not be the end: the harsh terms of the treaty, which are explicitly referenced, strongly contributed to Germany's economic difficulties after the war, and therefore (arguably) to the outbreak of WW2. This also hints at the necessity of European collaboration: by insisting on crushing Germany as much as possible after its defeat, the European allied forces contributed to a new conflict that would devastate them as well.
For this reason, I watched those scenes with a knot in my stomach - the treaty had to be signed, and given the fact that every second of delay meant the loss of yet more lives, it had to be signed quickly. However, there is also the continuous sense that in finally stopping this war, the seeds for the next one had been sown, and that Erzberger is choosing between two evils - even if he doesn't know what the other evil will be yet. It is a bleak kind of nuance that I think may contribute to your argument that this is ultimately a very German film.
Another excellent analysis as usual.
You should review the 1979 TV version with Richard Thomas as Paul and Ernest Borgnine as Kat. I think that it was the best of the three versions.
Came here right after watching the movie, looking for the broader context. And, oh boy, you delivered it! Thank you!