Comparing All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) with the original 1930 film
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 фев 2023
- Get a whole month of great cinema FREE on MUBI: mubi.com/bekindrewind
In this video I take a look at the historical context for the original 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front and how the latest adaptation from Netflix responds to that film.
If you’d like to support me on Patreon, click here: / bkrewind
Watch the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front free here: archive.org/details/All.Quiet...
Watch Westfront 1918 for free here: archive.org/details/westfront...
Music by Epidemic Sound
Find me on social at:
TikTok: bkrewind
IG: bk_rewind
Twitter: bkrewind
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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've been waiting for this one I love the 1930 version sadly it's an underrated version
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.
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
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?
@@nepnepguythegreatestofall6032 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"
@@nepnepguythegreatestofall6032 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 🙏🏻
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.
"The Old Lie: Dulce Et Decorum Est. Pro Patria Mori." -Wilfred Owen
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...
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.
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"
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.
As someone whose mother's maiden name is Kammerer I feel weirdly proud of seeing someone with that last name on the world stage
I’m a European historian. This was fascinating.
Great stuff! I appreciate both the message this video sends but also the work put into this project. A nearly 40-minute video essay about such a rich topic takes a lot to finish and make it of such quality. Hats off to you!
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 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!!!
For anyone interested in seeing the original 1930 All Quiet, Turner Classic is showing it on March 13th at 1:30am!
I show your videos to my class and to my family and friends. We started to have afternoons & tea with your videos. Keep your amazing work. I can't wait to see you grow in this subjects .
Loved your detailed and thoughtful analysis, one of your best videos yet! And the bewildering contrast with fellow BP nominee Maverick was startling after your examination of Remarque’s worldview for the past half hour
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.
I'm still going with Everything Everywhere All at Once as the best picture.
Good for you
I’m so happy to see a new video on the channel! 👏🏽
Alot of the time BKR videos are about things and on topics that I ordinarily would not watch.
However I'm pretty sure I've watched every one of the videos on this channel. I watch because I'm absolutely confident I will enjoy it and i will definitely learn something.
Thank you for that.
Good job!🤩
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.
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 this channel. These visual essays are the highlight of my RUclips experience. ❤
i seriously love your videos so much each one is so rich and packed with so much interesting education
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.
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.
Fantastic evaluation. Best film crunching I've run across in any media in ages.
This is a really good retrospective, thank you for your video 😀
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"
@@ellenh5468 he was a star here in Australia
@@darkhalf75 which is why Mark Lee was in the lead role?
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.
Another excellent analysis as usual.
I was looking on RUclips for some in depth analysis to channel the impact watching this film on me. This video was exactly what I needed.
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 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!
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 honestly prefer the “show don’t tell” approach of the new film. Just think about the year. This is 2022 where we can look up anything about WW1 on our smartphone instantly. The original was made in the 30’s when talking in movies was new and perhaps the greater implications of the war needed to be spoken out loud, because it was still too raw and too soon for normal people to say it. The 2022 version respects its audience’s intelligence because there is now such a massive anoint of info available to us. I love how none of the actual dialogue feels like throw away words or filler. It all has meaning. And the level of physical and facial acting involved is immense and really draws you in. I was left feeling horrified, not just for the main character, but for the fact that he so reminded me of my own friend from high school in the US who joined the Navy right after graduation. It reminded me of the recruiters who came to my school with the same gusto as those who spoke to Paul and his friends. It reminded me that we aren’t as different as we’ve been led to believe. And that any high school kid could end up a “Paul” on a battlefield where tue only consolation is the hope that the conflict he gives his life for is actually worthwhile.
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.
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.
Great job as always!!!
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.
A shout-out to the TV version featuring Richard Thomas, Ernest Borgnine and Donald Pleasence.
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.
Outstanding review thanks
Really great analysis. I loved this video - thank you so much!
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.
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.
Funny I normally don't like the wartime films genre BUT when I saw your new post, I made sure to watch!! I read the book in HS and saw the original in film school. Yes both were exquisite; now (because of you) I need to see the current one
I love this channel so darned much.
I love your channel! Watch every video!
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!
I’ve been waiting for a video on this very topic.
Thanks for your hard work. Really enjoyed the video.
I love your channel!!! ❤❤❤
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
Your channel is fantastic, love your videos!
Excellent video. You give us much to think about.
Would like to hear your opinion on the German tv show Babylon Berlin
Great analysis as usual.
Although I'm not familiar with the book, I saw the original movie version a few years ago and found it amazing. So I was in anticipation when they announced the 2022 movie and guess what: I loved it also.
A new BKR video is the best news to wake up to!
Excellent and informative discussion of the relationship between the two films, and the cultural political contexts in which both were made and now could be viewed. A worthy and insightfull commentary
Contrary to these other Oscar bait movies you mentioned "All Quiet.." is not a war movie but an ANTI-war movie!
I am excited for you to continue branch outside of Oscar content! I’d love to see more if it ever inspires you again but I think you’re gonna do great work no matter what! ❤️
Izzy. Another great video essay. Thank you.
Came here right after watching the movie, looking for the broader context. And, oh boy, you delivered it! Thank you!
I live for this content because I’m a cinephile 🎞️ NERD! The reboot was very stressful and bleak but, very well executed!
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)
thank you for yet another entertaining video!
Well-researched review. Thanks.
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.
As always, a well thought-through criticism. It seems to make sense that Germans would want to make this film and make it for Germans, do perhaps there's a perspective of it that we Americans don't see.
I enjoyed your comments on the new Top Gun movie. I'm appalled at how many are celebrating this homage to the military.
i really like your videos, thanks vert much for making them. you are my favvourite channel
Stellar, excellent analysis.