I have decided to start a new installment on my blog, two truths and a lie, where I review movies using the game as a framework. Of course, my reviews are entirely my opinion; you can take them or leave them. But I thought this would be a fun way to look at some of the recent war films I've been watching, starting with the new Netflix release of All Quiet On The Western Front.
The book of the same name was instrumental in providing insight into the German war experience along with Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger. There are a ton of resources on the Allied war experience. Still, it was challenging to find anything on the Central Powers. It made writing my World War One alternate history series, The Kaiser's Machines, a bit difficult, for I wanted the story, although fictional, to have some semblance of reality woven into it.
So, let's dive in.
Truth #1: The Cinematography Is Fantastic
One of the things you understand immediately from the trailer is that modern filmmaking equipment can be used to great effect when used with the art of filmmaking in mind. The director and film crews on All Quiet On The Western Front did a superb job from a cinematography perspective. It reminded me of 1917, which was filmed in one shot and is difficult to surpass in this sense.
However, All Quiet benefited from showcasing the brutality of World War I battlefields while juxtaposing seemingly beautiful shots of landscapes torn apart by the war and others left untouched. Compared to earlier interpretations of the book into a film, this one surpasses the others simply because I think today's technology can do the battle sequences justice. But also, in reading about James Friend, the cinematographer for the film, his approach was focused on not redoing the previous movies but rather adopting the book. He was a fan of the 1930 adaptation, but he intentionally read the book over rewatching the previous versions.
Truth #2: It Felt Like A Foreign Film…Because It Was
This version of All Quiet was different because it was the first time a German film production company translated Remarque's work to the big screen. And as an American watching the movie, you could tell it had a foreign feel to it. While it's dubbed in English, even the writing and the way they filmed certain things made it feel that you wouldn't be getting a Saving Private Ryan. They were trying to bring the German experience to life through their lens.
I think people will react differently to this aspect of the movie, but it did not bother me too much. I think it stood out from the other film versions because the 1930 and 1979 adaptations were made by production companies based in the US and the UK, respectively. In sum, it helped bring a fresh take to something already well-trodden.
The Lie: The Terms Were Not Entirely Non-Negotiable
Matthias Ezrberger (played by Daniel Brühl), head of the Catholic Center Party, was tasked with leading the German Delegation to negotiate an armistice with the Allies. In the movie, Field Marshall Foch said the terms were non-negotiable, and they had 72 hours to sign their demands.
The terms historically were:
A German withdrawal to the east of the Rhine within fourteen days
Repudiation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and a withdrawal to eastern borders of August 1, 1914
The surrender of five thousand artillery pieces, three thousand mortars, thirty thousand machine guns, and two thousand aircraft
Surrender of Germany's possession in Africa
All the while, the Allied naval blockade would continue.
However, the terms were adjusted to allow the Germans to retain some of their machine guns to help fight against a Communist takeover (which I intend to cover in my next fictional series). The scene's tone made it seem like the Allies were the bad guys for not wanting to bring a swift end to the war.
Granted, previous adaptions reflect the book's warning regarding war and attempts to promote peace.
However, the scene just appeared like the filmmakers were trying hard to drive home their peace-over-war thesis. And there's no problem with doing that (it's a piece of art, after all), but overall, this extra plotline was unnecessary. If you didn't determine that peace is always preferred over war through countless scenes of explosions, flamethrowers, dead young men, and tanks, I would say you must have been asleep.
I think it was a good movie and you should give it a chance. I could have done without the Armistice side plotline. And was it my favorite adaptation? No. I still prefer the 1979 version. I think that one does a better job of telling a story. This movie felt like a horrific dream, getting the viewers lost in the grit and mud to overemphasize things that had already been emphasized without saying.
Sources:
Meyer, G. J. (2007). A world undone. Bantam Dell.
Photo Credit: Ryan Inzana
コメント