All Quiet on the Western Front, Netflix version

[knittinganddeath]

Could there be a reticence, built on the legacy of WWII, for this German production to fully sympathise with soldiers or to embody military characters who might evoke sympathy? ...I'm probably reading too much into it and it's just the usual pitfalls of a wannabe blockbuster on Netflix...

[AOK4]

18 minutes ago, knittinganddeath said:

Could there be a reticence, built on the legacy of WWII, for this German production to fully sympathise with soldiers or to embody military characters who might evoke sympathy? ...I'm probably reading too much into it and it's just the usual pitfalls of a wannabe blockbuster on Netflix...

You are very much right, I think, about the unwritten rule that any sympathy with German soldiers should be avoided (they should just be portrayed as "victims of the warmongers", hence the final scene, no doubt).

[phil andrade]

You have to relinquish any concerns about accuracy of the narrative to appreciate the film.

The ludicrous huge battle in the dying moments of the war,  for example : a preposterous invention.

 

The depiction of the fighting in 1917 showed men crammed into trenches and attacking and dying in mass formation.

 

A more realistic and maybe a more compelling evocation might have been to show the dispersed shell hole deployment that had developed by that phase.

 

The humanity of the soldiers’ camaraderie was brilliantly portrayed, I thought, and the latrine dialogue was quite moving, if you’ll forgive the pun.

 

The horrors of war extended to men not wiping their botties afterwards !

 

 Phil 

[depaor01]

On 29/10/2022 at 15:43, AOK4 said:

The collecting of dog tags... is portrayed ridiculously unrealistic.

How was it done then? It looked to me quite believable. There are the dead, and there are half tags to collect. Genuinely curious to know. Incidentally I have read the book and enjoyed the film despite its shortcomings and its length.

[AOK4]

10 hours ago, depaor01 said:

How was it done then? It looked to me quite believable. There are the dead, and there are half tags to collect. Genuinely curious to know. Incidentally I have read the book and enjoyed the film despite its shortcomings and its length.

The dead were almost never just left, the German went into great trouble to recover the bodies and give them a proper burial behind the lines. The dead were usually searched and personal belongings were gathered and sent to the family, usually with a letter from the company CO (I've seen examples where the identity disc was returned to the family as well). The dead were listed and this list was then sent forward while behind the lines additions were made in the Kriegsstammrollen/Kriegsranglisten. It was a lot more formal and administrative than just collecting half an identity disc. I feel the scenes were just a bad copy-paste from "Saving Private Ryan".

The scenes in the beginning with the names of half discs (born in 1899 and 1900, fallen in 1917) and only arriving in Berlin in November 1918 are just ridicilous: Germany called up its class of 1919 (born in 1899) in 1917 and the class of 1920 (born in 1900) in 1918. The 1919 class only started arriving in frontline units late 1917 and the 1920 class arrived at the front from the Summer of 1918 onwards. The whole perception of these conscripted underage boy-soldiers is in my opinion a creation of some historians exploiting and misrepresenting these voluntary underage soldiers (remember the Condon story) as a widespread normal practice for all armies. Also, deaths were published usually within a few weeks in the Verlustlisten.

I found the book by Remarque at first not very good. It's only later, when I was researching him a bit more and especially when researching German military hospitals and burials etc, that I started to appreciate him. His personal experiences during the war can be very well traced in his book (he was wounded as a recruit in the Houthulst area I believe on 31 July 1917 while making barbed wire entanglements to get used to the presence of the front line, hence the very important chapter and scens in previous films). He also very well describes how hospitals were run. My "Eureka" moment came when researching German field hospitals in my commune and finding a "dying room" described (for dying and restless patients).

Jan

[AOK4]

Interesting review:

 

[WhiteStarLine]

What a great review Jan.  Thanks for posting it - I'm looking forward to watching it now.

Bill

[AOK4]

1 minute ago, WhiteStarLine said:

What a great review Jan.  Thanks for posting it - I'm looking forward to watching it now.

Bill

I don't fully agree with all of his comments (eg he fails to notice the "bleuet" and thinks it a butterfly), but he has quite a few interesting points as well.

[phil andrade]

What really gets me a bit agitated is this depiction of static warfare and deeply established trench lines at a time when the war had become a war of movement with the combat degenerating into an affair of outposts and small parties encountering rearguards.

 

To impose this 1915-16  trench warfare scenario onto the last hours and minutes of the Great War is really a trench too far.

The suggestion that several thousand men were killed in the last hours of fighting is not going to bear scrutiny. Hundreds, yes…..but let me leave it at that.

That said, I reckon the film was a triumph of sorts, and had great dramatic and visual impact.

 

 Phil 

 

[AOK4]

Just now, phil andrade said:

What really gets me a bit agitated is this depiction of static warfare and deeply established trench lines at a time when the war had become a war of movement with the combat degenerating into an affair of outposts and small parties encountering rearguards.

 

To impose this 1915-16  trench warfare scenario onto the last hours and minutes of the Great War is really a trench too far.

The suggestion that several thousand men were killed in the last hours of fighting is not going to bear scrutiny. Hundreds, yes…..but let me leave it at that.

That said, I reckon the film was a triumph of sorts, and had great dramatic and visual impact.

 

 Phil 

 

I agree with your points that there really wasn't any trench warfare any more by November 1918 (at least not in the northern part of the Western Front). And deaths on 11 November 1918 were probably mostly men who were wounded earlier and especially men who died of sicknes ("Spanish flu").

But visually the film is quite powerful indeed.

[the_ageing_young_rebel]

I really have mixed feelings on the film in general. I enjoyed the cinematography, most of the performances and the general craft of film making on show here. The addition of the armistice talks was interesting (if under used) and juxtaposed well with the arresting horror of the front.

But I thought some of the plots were under developed, some of the additions and edits to the original narative served no purpose or occationally weakened the effect of the story. And obviously the historical inacuracies that have already been mentioned in this thread actively pulled me out of the film.

Overall though, I'd say that it works as an anti-war statement and as an almost characture of the war as it stands in the public imagination more than a historical document, and if viewed in that way can be arresting, engaging, take on the Great War. Overall a 7 out of 10

[Steven Broomfield]

Well, Mrs Broomfield and I have just watched it. Mrs Broomfield summed it up this: 'I didn't hate it'. Neither did I, but neither of us loved it.

 

As previously mentioned, too much padding and no emotional involvement with the characters ('1917' and 'Dunkirk' were the same), and the usual modern delight in technology at the expense of plot development and audience belief.

About 30 minutes too long and with unnecessary plotlines about the peace negotiations cluttering up the story. The essential message 'War is Hell'. We probably knew that.

No doubt, like the other films I mentioned, it will be a hit with the critics.

A resounding 'whatever' from us.

 

 

 

[Coldstreamer]

I thought it was quite a good film

cant say I’m fussed about inaccuracies as its a film not a documentary 

[FROGSMILE]

12 hours ago, Coldstreamer said:

I thought it was quite a good film

cant say I’m fussed about inaccuracies as its a film not a documentary 

I watched the film ‘Warhorse’ again for the first time in some years this evening and, notwithstanding the sentimental equine storyline, I thought the military scenes had received the benefit of a great deal of research and exceedingly high production values.  In particular, during the main battle scene of an infantry assault, I thought it a far superior representation of no-man’s-land with its battlefield detritus, shell holes, and barbed wire entanglements.

Edited 12 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[stripeyman]

36 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

I watched the film ‘Warhorse’ again for the first time in some years this evening and, notwithstanding the sentimental equine storyline, I thought the military scenes had received the benefit of a great deal of research and exceedingly high production values.  In particular, during the main battle scene of an infantry assault, I thought it a far superior representation of no-man’s-land with its battlefield detritus, shell holes, and barbed wire entanglements.

Yes but would they have shot a horse in a street ?

[doyle3]

13 hours ago, Coldstreamer said:

I thought it was quite a good film

cant say I’m fussed about inaccuracies as its a film not a documentary 

watched it twice now and will watch it again despite its faults. Won't be watching 1917, War Below etc again.

Would like to go back to see the original version at some point. Have taken to looking at some of the old films on YouTube : WestFront 1918, Big Parade, Hearts of the World, Tell England etc

No interest at work; more comments re the latest John Lewis advert.

 

[phil andrade]

Westfront 1918 made a big impact on me when I first saw it on tv about fifty years ago.

Teuton noir from Weimar.

 

Time to watch it again, I think.

 

 Thanks for mentioning it.

 

 Phil 

[Hedley Malloch]

Was that a German army officer I saw signing the Armistice agreement, albeit after pen-hovering for some time? 

[the_ageing_young_rebel]

Even if you didn't enjoy this film, I think the making of is an interesting watch and a real showcase of how much work goes into a film like this

 

[stripeyman]

I have only watched the making of AQontWF, it seems a lot of effort has gone into it. If I may 'nit pick' a little I have not seen a small tree trunk on fire on a muddy battlefield. The German trench's are little too good, I suppose they have to be a bit wider for the camera and actors to perform. At this late stage in the war would knife rests be so prevalent ?  Finally I think there are too many men milling about in the battle scenes. Altogether not too bad for what I saw of it.....we shall see.

[phil andrade]

For what it’s worth, my better half was profoundly impressed.

To have the endorsement of one’s wife is quite something when it comes to bearing witness to the obsessive interest shown in the Great War!

 

Lynn was captivated by the film.

 
That speaks well for it.

 

Phil

[Felix C]

The beginning to me was very impressive, before Paul and his colleagues enter the scene. The film is worth a watch. Maybe two.   Did not like it overall. No character development. Lots of battle porn. Seemed AQWF title and character names was applied to a random WWI film. So many of the key subplots of the original did not make it here or where mishandled. Replaced by a side story not in the book. All of the usual know and identify with the character(s) via vignettes of their development is not included. It could have been billed other than AQWF and no one would notice. Much prefer the 1979 version where the actors had charisma and even the 1930 version. Also in the 1979 version Richard Thomas acts like an infantry man, crawling on the ground, quick crouched sprints from cover to cover, etc. not in this one where Paul stands upright and moves slowly in the scene after killing the Frenchman with a knife. Pardon the spoiler. There were a few good scenes and do not wish to ruin it. 

 

 

 

 

Edited 28 November , 2022 by Felix C

[maxi]

I watched the film last night and it felt like two stories that had been cobbled together poorly.

I know it might not be fashionable to say, but it was not a patch on 'Warhorse' or 'Journey's End'.

However, please be aware that my taste in films has been called into question previously on the forum in that I questioned the merits of John Ford's 'The Searchers', so my criticism of this work should be viewed in that light.

 

[slick63]

Just watched it, lack of character development and storyline....again. Director seemed more interested in making arty farty screenshots....again.

I still prefer the original.

Edited 16 January , 2023 by slick63

[Hedley Malloch]

On 16/01/2023 at 14:33, slick63 said:

Just watched it, lack of character development and storyline....again. Director seemed more interested in making arty farty screenshots....again.

I still prefer the original.

Can you give some examples?

It's just been nominated for 14 Bafta awards. It must have done something right.