This is an English language film (made in America) adapted from a novel by German author Erich Maria Remarque. The film follows a group of German schoolboys, talked into enlisting at the beginning of World War 1 by their jingoistic teacher. The story is told entirely through the experiences of the young German recruits and highlights the tragedy of war through the eyes of individuals. As the boys witness death and mutilation all around them, any preconceptions about "the enemy" and the "rights and wrongs" of the conflict disappear, leaving them angry and bewildered. This is highlighted in the scene where Paul mortally wounds a French soldier and then weeps bitterly as he fights to save his life while trapped in a shell crater with the body. The film is not about heroism but about drudgery and futility and the gulf between the concept of war and the actuality.Written by
Michele Wilkinson, University of Cambridge Language Centre, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In June 2007 it was ranked #7 on the American Film Institute's list of the ten greatest films in the genre "Epic". See more »
When the young recruits go out on their first patrol, to add to the barb wire entanglement; the veteran uses a mallet to drive the post into the ground. While the movie went to the trouble to have the right kind of post they used it completely wrong. That post was developed by the Germans to allow them to put up barbed wire much more quietly then the Allies. The bottom portion of each post is twisted into an auger; this allowed the soldiers to simply put the post on the ground; put a rod through one of the holes in the post and screw it into the ground. This was one of innovations that the Allies copied. Both sides had listening posts near the wire on their sides to listen for infiltrators and wire crews; once detected they would be cut to pieces by machines gun or mortar fire. See more »
Man cleaning doorknob:
From the Russians?
Man cleaning doorknob:
No, from the French. From the Russians we capture more than that every day.
See more »
Later reissues of the film mentioned that the film was an Academy Award winner in the opening credits. See more »
In 1981, we had a screening at the L.A. County Museum of Art of the newly discovered restored version. I took my girlfriend, who was not as savvy on film history as I was, and warned her not to expect much: that the movie was dated, the acting often awkward and broad, and some of the sound effects just plain weird, and so on. When the screening finished, she leaned over to me and said, "This movie hasn't dated at all." I could only agree, because the effect on both of us--and everyone in that theatre--was overpowering.
It's curious to compare it with the very fine tv version with Richard Thomas. The latter version has more scenes from the book and better acting, yet it's still inferior. It suffers from the lack of detail that so many tv productions had then along with comparatively flat lighting. The first version, on the other hand, has a look that resembles a documentary on World War I. They filmed it only eleven years after the war ended, and it contains a power only possible by those who've lived through an era being dramatized. Also, like CITIZEN KANE and DODSWORTH, it baffles one as to how Hollywood of this time produced such a non-escapist piece of entertainment.
50 of 61 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this