Im Westen nichts Neues

To say that this movie is one of the greatest war films of all time would be an understatement. Naturally, since the picture is based on Erich Maria Remarque's marvelous novel, the screenwriter was given quite a powerful story to begin with. The three main reasons why I consider this movie so forceful are the acting, the cinematography, and simply the sincerity.

Lew Ayres, the man who plays Paul Baumer, convincingly portrays the main character in many ways. First of all, the sheer innocence of his facial appearance adds a poignant touch to the film, because the overwhelming theme of the story is how the war effects all young people of each nation, whether that person dies in the trenches or survives only to lament his days in the war. Ironically, when the film was initially being put together, Remarque, the novelist who won critical acclaim for writing the book, was asked to play the role of Paul. Having seen time in the war the producers must have thought him aptly prepared to play the role. But he declined because he had other commitments and because he felt he was not such a great actor. Lucky for us, because Ayres gives a powerful performance. Other characters with relatively minor roles have major importance in the film because they portray touching, heart wrenching scene s of death. These peripheral characters all help add to the general tone of the film (and the book) because they show how dark and terrible the war can be; and they in turn show how propaganda can be so harmful, because most of the soldiers in Paul's regiment are volunteers who receive a very rude awakening when they discover what the war is really all about. The acting is simply superb, and perhaps this is due to the fact that the famous director George Cukor was an assistant who, although uncredited, came onto the set to help supervise the actors (possibly because director Lewis Milestone's English was not too good).

The cinematography of this film is absolutely magnificent. The film rarely has gory sequences because the director finds other ways to imply death and still have the same emotional effect. One way in which he does this is by showing single body parts (such as a hand or a leg) and allowing these appendages to show the death of the soldier as a whole. Also, the cameraman uses overhead angles at times with great skill and also focuses on the trenches at times as the soldiers fall back into them after being shot (which implies that the trenches are a symbol of hell, because soldiers fall into them to die). In short, the cinematographer Arthur Edeson allows the camera to do the talking and to drive the film, rather than the dialogue (speaking of which, there is relatively little; the actors' facial expressions do the bulk of the talking in the film).

When I say this film is sincere I really can't give you any tangible evidence to prove the point; all I can tell you is to see the film. The film at times overwhelmed me with emotion to the extent that I got goose bumps from watching some of the more agonizing scenes. In a way, this movie is much like a silent film. This stands to reason because it came at the very beginning of the 'talkie' age, only three years after The Jazz Singer (1927). Also, Milestone directed silent films before this one, and he seemed to know that less focus on dialogue and more focus on acting would bring about an overwhelmingly emotional and well, sincere, film. The film obviously had an effect on its star, Mr. Ayres, because once World War II began and he was drafted into the war, he conscientiously protested serving in the army because of his opinions towards war. I believe he admits that his opinions stem from his work in this movie. Certainly this is a powerful admission, because his protest caused him and his films to be blacklisted in Hollywood, and his career suffered greatly because of his ideals. So if you don't believe my words about the power of this film, believe his.

World War 1 and a young German, Paul Baumer, enthusiastically joins the Army. With romantic notions of war and idealistic dreams in his head he undergoes training and then is sent off to the Western Front. In due course the romantic notions are replaced by the harsh reality of war and he becomes disillusioned with it all.

Great World War 1 movie, made when the war was still fresh in everyone's minds.

Might well be the first anti-war war movie, as it depicts the grim realities of war, rather than the romantic, heroic non-existent version of it.

Harrowing, shocking, original, unpredictable, and just as relevant today as in 1930.

Surprisingly good production values for 1930.

Solid performances all round.

Far far better than the 1979 remake.

The film begins in a classroom. Outside, martial music is blaring and the professor inside the room is lecturing the boys about their duty to the Fatherland and encouraging them all to as a group in the German army at the outbreak of WWI. The film is exceptional in how it captures the enthusiasm and naiveté of the boys--as they imagine glory awaiting them after they enlist! Even in boot camp, the mood is light and the new recruits are excited about seeing their first action. This perfectly sets the stage for the actual war--not the sanitized or "fun" war of many films but the hellish and pointless mess that was WWI. The rest of the film is brutally honest and harsh and shows how the students die off one-by-one and the remaining students become more and more jaded and emotionally dead due to the fighting.

I love this film and strongly recommend it to anyone who considers themselves to be a film buff. Part of my love of the film is because it was made relatively shortly after the war and the uniforms, trucks, etc. all appear correct for the period. Many years later, a made for TV version of this film appeared with Ernest Borgnine and Richard Thomas. It, too, was excellent but also was perhaps a bit too polished and pretty--lacking some of the grit of the original. Great acting, direction and production all made this original THE best of the anti-war films of the 1920s and 30s.

Other similar great movies I strongly recommend are J'ACCUSE (French), WESTFRONT 1918 (German), THE BIG PARADE (USA--silent) and THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK (USA). All excel at portraying war in a truthful and non-glamorized manner--it's just a shame that their impact of the world as a whole was negligible--particularly in Germany--where Fascism would soon replace the anti-war sentiment of the book ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. In fact, his books and this film were banned once the Nazis came to power just a few years later.

The first temptation can be to define it as a classic. But its basic virtue remains the status of admirable crafted adaptation of the novel. In simple , precise manner, the war, the civil life, the kick of teacher to become volunteers, the portraits of characters and , sure, the lines of book are reflected in honest way , offering a clear image of war without ambition to impress.

A beautiful film , for me, i admitt, the best version of the All Quiet on the Western Front, for the noble simplicity , offered first by the masterpiece of Erich Maria Remarque, but, not less, for the context of its aparition and for the echo in our time.

In short, easy to define it as gem or masterpiece or example for proper war film.

In fact, a profound honest work. It is enough for be one of memorable films.

The horrors of war, The Great War, seldom better summarised by: 'It's dirty and painful to die for your country, when it comes dying for your country it's better not to die at all. There are millions out there dying for their countries, and what good does it do?'. And yet the wars continue, death and destruction sustained, lessons seldom learnt, the cries remain unheard.