This is the 617th movie I've now seen out of the 1,199 films on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.
Director: Lewis Milestone
The earliest adaptation of an astounding anti-war novel, and one that gets the spirit of the author's work correct, even if it's aged very badly in a few respects.
Knowing that I would soon be watching the movie, I read Erich Maria Remarque's novel for the very first time, and I was blown away. In this 1928 book, I was seeing so many of the seeds that would grow into some of the best anti-war books and films in the decades to come, right up to today. Remarque's novel is told in first-person narrative, from the perspective of Paul Baumer, a bright young German man who enlists in the army in the early years of World War I. In the ensuing couple of years, Pauls' entire view of war and humanity shifts, as he realizes the toll that it takes on young men like him, killing many and leaving the rest physically and/or psychologically maimed for life. Amid these grim observations, Remarque was sure to include plenty of authentic-feeling humor, humanity, and description of the strange and sometimes even touching bonds which form in the midst of brutal warfare.
This first film adaptation was made within two years after the book was published and very quickly became an international sensation. Made by the British film council, it used American and British actors playing the German soldiers. I feel that this adaptation got two things very right: one was not shying away from the ugliest aspects of the war, as detailed by Remarque, who himself fought and was wounded in the trenches. The novel details some truly gut-wrenching passages of comrades dying brutal deaths, both on the battlefield and in the medical centers. It even tackles the topics of PTSD, before that particular term existed, along with the horrifying mental effects of seeing friends and comrades die by the scores on a regular basis. To this point in my movie viewing, the only other film I recall looking at such things was 1925's The Big Parade. That previous movie stood out for its stripping away of the glamour often surrounding war, but not quite with the unflinching gaze that Remarque's novel and this particular film did.
The other standout feature of this movie is the battle sequences, which are extremely intense in many moments. There are plenty of large-scale action sequences of the front, the chaos found there, and the gruesome tragedies that unfold. The cinematography during such sequences is highly impressive for its time, and even outdo the aforementioned The Big Parade, which had set the prior benchmark in war films. All Quiet offers a variety of close-ups and wide-angle shots, in both the tight-knit quarters of the trenches and the frightening exposure on the open front. Given their limitations, these aspects of the film still stand the test of time quite well, these 77 years later.
Unfortunately, not all elements of the movie were as strong as the themes and the battle scenes. The dialogue and acting are at times painfully bad, with lines and performances that can be sappy, hokey, and sentimental enough to make one wince. The verbal and visual gags are mostly the sophomoric variety, which I suppose went over well with a broader audience back in 1930 but which are now laughably banal. This is a misstep that, oddly, seems to be somewhat common in war pictures. Deft handling of the war elements are in sharp contrast to misguided or simply unimaginative attempts at levity. It overwhelmed the first half of The Big Parade, but it's even noticeable in the very recent Hacksaw Ridge. I guess if you're only going to get one of those things right in a war picture, it better be the war aspects. Still, this doesn't make lame dialogue any more tolerable, especially when performed poorly.
This is one worth seeing for buffs of older war films, as it contains some of the earliest quality work getting the important themes and aspects correct. That said, one will likely have to be patient with the attempts at humor or slower drama, which for me just don't hold up any more. For a more completely and satisfying version of the story, one is better off just reading the original novel.
That's 617 down; only 582 to go before I can die.
The earliest adaptation of an astounding anti-war novel, and one that gets the spirit of the author's work correct, even if it's aged very badly in a few respects.
Knowing that I would soon be watching the movie, I read Erich Maria Remarque's novel for the very first time, and I was blown away. In this 1928 book, I was seeing so many of the seeds that would grow into some of the best anti-war books and films in the decades to come, right up to today. Remarque's novel is told in first-person narrative, from the perspective of Paul Baumer, a bright young German man who enlists in the army in the early years of World War I. In the ensuing couple of years, Pauls' entire view of war and humanity shifts, as he realizes the toll that it takes on young men like him, killing many and leaving the rest physically and/or psychologically maimed for life. Amid these grim observations, Remarque was sure to include plenty of authentic-feeling humor, humanity, and description of the strange and sometimes even touching bonds which form in the midst of brutal warfare.
This first film adaptation was made within two years after the book was published and very quickly became an international sensation. Made by the British film council, it used American and British actors playing the German soldiers. I feel that this adaptation got two things very right: one was not shying away from the ugliest aspects of the war, as detailed by Remarque, who himself fought and was wounded in the trenches. The novel details some truly gut-wrenching passages of comrades dying brutal deaths, both on the battlefield and in the medical centers. It even tackles the topics of PTSD, before that particular term existed, along with the horrifying mental effects of seeing friends and comrades die by the scores on a regular basis. To this point in my movie viewing, the only other film I recall looking at such things was 1925's The Big Parade. That previous movie stood out for its stripping away of the glamour often surrounding war, but not quite with the unflinching gaze that Remarque's novel and this particular film did.
 |
| The movie is often at its best when depicting the brutal and chaotic nature of being in the middle of a massive-scale firefight. Men get mowed down and blown up without a trace of glamour or glory. |
Unfortunately, not all elements of the movie were as strong as the themes and the battle scenes. The dialogue and acting are at times painfully bad, with lines and performances that can be sappy, hokey, and sentimental enough to make one wince. The verbal and visual gags are mostly the sophomoric variety, which I suppose went over well with a broader audience back in 1930 but which are now laughably banal. This is a misstep that, oddly, seems to be somewhat common in war pictures. Deft handling of the war elements are in sharp contrast to misguided or simply unimaginative attempts at levity. It overwhelmed the first half of The Big Parade, but it's even noticeable in the very recent Hacksaw Ridge. I guess if you're only going to get one of those things right in a war picture, it better be the war aspects. Still, this doesn't make lame dialogue any more tolerable, especially when performed poorly.
This is one worth seeing for buffs of older war films, as it contains some of the earliest quality work getting the important themes and aspects correct. That said, one will likely have to be patient with the attempts at humor or slower drama, which for me just don't hold up any more. For a more completely and satisfying version of the story, one is better off just reading the original novel.
That's 617 down; only 582 to go before I can die.
No comments:
Post a Comment