Rating: R
Runtime: 2 hours, 28 minutes
Director: Edward Berger
Quick Impressions:
In June of 2020, my daughter and I watched the 1930 Best Picture winner All Quiet on the Western Front. Then I read Erich Maria Remarque’s novel (in English, the A.W. Wheen translation).
I found both a bit too didactic and heavy-handed for my taste. All Quiet on the Western Front is exactly the kind of story that usually frustrates me because while I agree with its message completely, I don’t necessarily enjoy being beaten over the head with it. Then again, I live in the 2020s. Anti-war propaganda speaking out against the evils of trench warfare isn’t telling me anything new. I also wasn’t completely sure that Lew Ayres’s lead performance as Paul aged as well as it could have. It probably worked better for movie theater audiences in 1930 than it did for me watching on TV in 2020. As Paul, Ayres is really big and intense, and I had trouble not feeling the ninety-year distance between us.
Initially, this new German-language version of the story seemed subtler than the 1930 film. But by the end—as my husband railed against the German leadership—I realized, “No. This is just as much anti-war propaganda as ever.”
It does, however, seem like it was made in the twenty-first century (because it was). The cinematography is captivating. And as a war film, it couldn’t get much grittier. Half the time, the lead character’s face is completely covered in dirt and grime.
I have mixed feelings about the movie. I’d say watching it gave me an existential crisis except that I was already having one when I started watching. But the movie certainly didn’t help. This is a good film. Its cinematography alone makes it memorable. And watching it helped me to realize, “I really did like Triangle of Sadness!” (I watched that last night and have been trying to sort out how I felt about it all this time.)
The Good:
James Friend’s cinematography makes the movie for me. The film is full of eye-catching visuals. (I was tormenting myself asking, “Why are we seeing this? What does it mean? What are supposed to be getting from this shot?” On a second watch, maybe I could tell you. But if you knock off that kind of thinking and just watch for what pleases your eye, this film looks sublime. Volker Bertelmann’s powerful score really worked for us, too. Visuals and sound like that simply weren’t available to filmmakers in 1930, and they do make possible a degree of realism Lewis Milestone’s film could never achieve.
The music also gives the audience a sense of the jingoistic drive propelling the boys to war and prolonging the conflict, so this film is able to show us that less awkwardly and obtrusively than the 1930 version.
Felix Kammerer is very good as Paul. He gives a very natural performance (as opposed to the incredibly stagey one we get from Lew Ayres in 1930). (Weirdly, I see a resemblance between him and Remarque, but maybe it’s just the intensity of their expressions.) I wish we got to spend more time with Paul. There’s a lot of other material folded into the story, and while I appreciate the historical perspective given by the dramatization of what must be actual events, I still think this story works best when we’re right there in the trenches with Paul.
Kat is my favorite character (for the simple reason that if I were at war, I would want to be with him), and I appreciate the more nuanced view we get of him in this film. Albrecht Schuch plays him in a more understated way than Louis Wolheim (whose performance I also liked), and the film reveals him to us both more subtly and more fully than its 1930 counterpart.
I wanted Daniel Brüel to be in the film a bit more. He’s the only actor whose name I recognized, so I kept watching for him and got so excited when he finally showed up. I enjoyed his performance as Niki Lauda in Rush, so I hoped he’d have a substantial part in this. I wanted to see more of the actor, but less of the character, or else, much more of the character. He’s immensely sympathetic, but I wish (since he’s included in the film) we got to see his son. (I realize there’s no reason we should. That would be very cheesy and contrived. His son just happens to be Paul’s best friend or something!) I would rather see the actor I’m most familiar with playing one of the unsympathetic characters. This role isn’t particularly challenging. (Then again 1) German audiences are probably familiar with all the actors, and 2) The terms of that Armistice were notoriously terrible for Germany, so maybe from a German point of view, this is seen as a tricky, problematic role. I don’t know. (I included these thoughts in this section because I like Daniel Brüel.)
If you’re sitting around asking yourself, “Should I start a war heavily relying on trench warfare?” then this is the must-see movie of the century for you. Watching, I kept thinking, “Trench warfare is so pointless. Why did they even think it was a good idea?” The film could not be more effective at demonstrating this point. If you watch this movie all the way through and come away thinking, “You know what’s great? Trench warfare!” then I don’t know how to help you.
At one point, I said to my husband, “Why do they even have trench warfare? Who thought it was a good idea to have a war of conquest using trenches? Why don’t they just…run forward and attack people?” Then toward the end of the movie, I was like, “Ahhh…never mind.” Clearly, I know nothing about military tactics. But I found one of the last bits of information given to us on screen immensely satisfying and nice to have confirmed.
Throughout the movie I also thought, “Imagine if you were one of these young men seeing this, seeing your countrymen sent to slaughter like they were just piles of meat. And then imagine you were a victim of a gas attack. How would these nightmarish experiences influence your thinking if you rose to power and became the leader of Germany later on?” (And there’s a scene with a farmer’s son that kind of makes this point, too. The film has been leading us in this direction, but just in case we haven’t noticed, war is psychologically damaging to people. It changes them. It traumatizes them permanently. They never really recover. Future atrocities shouldn’t be such a surprise.)
And then I thought, “My God! Look at this!” (Even the earlier film is shockingly graphic for 1930.) So much of what American audiences have seen is so sanitized. How did that happen? There’s such an immense disconnect between what happened to young men in World War I and how they saw it depicted on screen when they returned home.
Best Scene/Best Action Sequence:
The scene featuring the tanks and the fire is riveting and horrible (and looks really expensive to film). I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a scene quite like this one. (I’ve watched relatively few war movies, though.)
I also liked the moment when Paul kills the enemy soldier and has no choice but to listen to him dying. That’s very similar to a moment in the other film and works just as well.
Best Scene Visually:
The whole film is arresting visually. Probably most striking is near the very end when the protagonist stands there, begrimed, with his eyes open staring into the sun. His face seems to deliver a tortured monologue. He looks like he’s in an opera on the stage, just waiting for his cue to start singing. (Honestly the moment didn’t quite work for me. It seemed over-the-top, too on-the-nose. The timing! But it looks amazing, and I will not forget it.)
Also quite effective are all our looks at the solitary, frustrated war-mongering general, cut off from others in all his luxury.
Biggest Surprise:
There’s a moment with a fork I was not expecting. I gasped out loud in horror.
The Negatives:
My daughter began this viewing experience complaining about the short-comings of the 1930 Best Picture winner. Then at the end of this movie, we declared—in accidental unison—“I liked the other one better.”
A late scene in this film particularly disappointed us. My husband (unfamiliar with the 1930 film and the book) started getting nervous as my daughter tensed up, and I grabbed his hand. Tears were in the corners of our eyes. Without meaning to give anything away, we were clearly sending strong signals that something awful was about to happen.
On some level, I was looking forward to it. (You know how there’s a visceral pleasure in cathartic release?) The way this movie handles this event disappointed my daughter and me on a really basic, non-intellectual level. We weren’t attempting to have a high-brow take on the moment. It’s simply not as effective as the same moment in the 1930 film. (Imagine you’re waiting for a baseball to hit a bat, and then there’s no crack of the bat.) Intellectually, I know why it doesn’t work as well (for us). There’s a randomness to this event in the 1930 film that makes it so particularly horrible. In this film, the character kind of seems to deserve what happens. There’s a logic to it. His own actions have bought it about. I know we’re getting a message here about how war warps previously innocent minds, but I’m telling of you, watching this event felt more powerful in the earlier film. For me, this was one of two big things that happen in that movie, and it just doesn’t make the same impact here (on the viewer I mean. We see the impact it makes on Paul).
Another thing missing (or altered) in this version is that early scene that culminates in inheriting the boots. That moment when Kimmerick is complaining about a pain in his foot is so awful in this gut wrenching feeling of primal horror kind of way. There’s some dramatic irony at play because the audience absolutely understands the situation before the character does. I really missed that in this movie. This film is going for gritty realism, but the contrived, stagey scenes were some of the most powerful in the 1930 film. There are no equally powerful scenes to replace them in this.
Also, one thing I loved about the 1930 version is that it makes the German soldiers so relatable and sympathetic to American audiences (which was probably kind of shocking at that time, though I haven’t watched enough 1920s film to say for sure). I feel stupid saying this, but the characters seem less familiar and similar to us when they’re speaking German. (I realize this is a very dumb thing to say, but still, it’s something this film loses that the other had.) I don’t mean that German people can’t be sympathetic or anything idiotic like that. But when you hear Lew Ayres delivering Paul’s lines, without realizing it consciously, some part of you thinks, “Wow, he sounds just like a kid who grew up in San Diego,” because he did. Now 1) American audiences today are surely not as surprised to find the Germans so sympathetic, and 2) something similar (and more universal) is achieved at the very end of the movie with a French soldier. Obviously, this is a German film not an American one, and it’s not made a decade after World War I ended, so it has different goals.
Honestly, the greater issue is that Paul does not seem as central to this story, so we don’t spend as much time getting to know his friends here. Half the time, we’re with German leaders signing the Armistice or grumbling about others signing the Armistice. I’d rather spend the time with Paul and his friend group.
Also, at moments, this film reminded me visually of 1917, which was unfortunate because I liked that movie better. This is a good film, though. I’d watch it again. (I probably will watch it again if it gets nominated for Best Picture.) I wish I spoke German because I always feel I’m losing something in translation. (That seems silly, maybe, but at the very end, I understood the French, and I liked being able to understand them on this completely non-intellectual level that I can’t explain.)
Overall:
I prefer the 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front (and couldn’t help comparing the two films, though I didn’t set out with that intention). But this film does have extremely compelling visuals (in terms of both cinematography and production design). The score is good, too, and so are the performances, particularly Felix Kammerer as Paul and Albrecht Schuch at Kat. If you like realistic war movies and find gruesome scenes of trench warfare compelling, then you’ll want to see All Quiet on the Western Front.