Westfront 1918: Vier von der Infanterie

This movie has an awful lot in common with another film that also debuted in 1930. Both this film and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT are terrific World War I films that give an awful and realistic view of the war from the perspectives of ordinary German soldiers. As a result, both are also profoundly anti-war films that were later banned by the Nazi government that took power just a few years later. Of the two, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a slightly better film because it has an excellent back story (in other words, setting up the characters and giving them some depth). Instead, WESTFRONT 1918 is more like a hidden camera that just shows parts of the war--only towards the very end of WWI. Also, unlike ALL QUIET, this film only once follows one soldier home and shows life outside the battlefield. Mostly, the film is just one battle scene after another after another. Despite seeming a tiny bit out of context because of this, it is still a super effective and moving piece of film. A truly well-made and exceptional film with ultra-gritty realism. It is occasionally tough to watch, as there are corpses everywhere and the action is often up close and very personal.

As I said, this film isn't quite as perfect and profound as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, though it actually is better than the exceptional French film, J'Accuse or THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK--two other terrific WWI films that emphasize the futility and waste of this stupid war.

Invariably any piece of art banned by the Nazis as degenerate or in this case "cowardly defeatism" has something to offer. G.W Pabst crafts a powerful antiwar film by simply showing so many of its truisms - the senseless, horrific death of course, but also many other subversive elements, e.g. the possibility of friendly fire, the idiotic decisions made by leaders who are out of harm's way being served posh courses of food, one's wife or girlfriend being unfaithful, and the psychological trauma. At his best he simply leaves the camera stationary in longshot while men scurry about and kill one another for no good reason, letting the viewer draw their own conclusion about the madness they're witnessing.

I have to say though, the impact of it all was a little lessened because the images and concepts weren't as novel for me 90 years later, as unfair to the film as that might be. It lags as well when it's off the battlefield, showing among other things an uninteresting (and long) performance at a canteen, and the confrontation with the wife in bed with another man. I think it was trying to balance out the warfare and build up characters so that we were invested in them, but I struggled to stay interested (this and the bleakness of the thing make it one I wouldn't reach for again). Kudos to Pabst for making it, and I loved the way he closes it with "The End?!", certainly well aware of growing militarism and possibility for another devastating war.

Very much worth viewing. I caught it on Turner Classic Movies recently, and was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of this film.

This film transcends the limitations of the sensibilities of the time and the special effects available to movie makers. It makes no sweeping statements or judgments about war and aggression. It simply gives you a glimpse of what it was like to live and die in the trenches of The Great War.

Although not as intense as "All Quiet on the Western Front" (whose subject matter it shares), it has its moments of artistry. It is also more narrowly focused than "All Quiet..", but its story is compelling and riveting. Should be in anybody's serious list of worthy war movies.

My husband and I just finished seeing this movie. We hadn't heard of it before. We were quite impressed. It's an old movie. It was made just at that time when overacted stage conventions were being abandoned for the more subtle gestures of film. Taking that into account, this movie for us packed quite a wallop.

This is a movie about people attempting to fight a war as a group of small-towners who get to know each other and build a society as they go. Although they don't like the war, they are willing to go and do their part. But can these deep relationships endure in the face of an impersonal war machine? And whose fault is it if they can't? Who is responsible for the situation?

There's a fairly slow start, during which the movie establishes relationships, etc. Then there is a decisive battle. Somehow there isn't another trench warfare movie I can think of which really gets the nuances and habits of the people who were in the trenches in World War I, on either side. We don't have anything like it now. And yet it's not gruesome, so don't be worried about that. I'd definitely recommend this movie, especially in mid-2006 in the U.S. This movie asks all the right questions, subtly but effectively.

This is the story of life in the trenches during World War 1 from the perspective of 4 German soldiers, one of them a Lieutenant. The fact that they are on the 'other' side makes no difference to the feel of the story or the film's message. War is bad.

There is no particular story to focus on. The film is a sequence of events during wartime and it just carries on after the film has ended, just like it was already in existence once the film had started. It does have dramatic segments, eg, the home visit granted to Gustav Diessl (Karl), the exploits involving Hans-Joachim Mobis (the student) and various battlefield situations, confrontations and realizations.

The film occasionally has slow segments but it is interesting from a social history perspective. What was the point of it all?