's two previous works, a film in 1930 and a TV version in 1979, reflect the cinematic techniques and contexts of that era while also working to capture the horrific truths of war. The latest interpretation of the 2022 adaptation by writer-director Edward Berger is much the same as the previous story, but takes a different approach, removing many narrative threads from the original material while introducing some important other clue. These additions take the work out of the fantasy that just being aware of the horrors of war can have a big impact on preventing it. Despite its cynical undertones, the film finds brutal truth in this reimagined way, refreshingly in the calm rage brewing behind it. More than a century has passed since
's so-called " world war ", with little awareness that the inhumane portrayal of this conflict has even had an impact on the depravity that drives it. The film has a "dialogue" with anti-war artistic heritage, but isn't so obsessed with the fact that the visibility of what war really is would somehow prevent it from happening. The crisis it depicts does not stem from a lack of information, as those looking down from the safe and comfortable towers have a wealth of intelligence about what really happened, but it is a brutality fueled by nationalism.
The movie still follows the novel's central character, Paul Bowman (Felix Camiller), who and other young recruits are thrown into the chaos of the front lines, with explosions and gunfire, and we Seeing that millions of people will be killed in a battle that will last for many years. The film strips away all the training and a shred of order at the beginning of the novel, leaving the story completely immersed in chaos, with some people driven mad trying to survive, while others mired in ego. It is only when the director shows us the calm of nature that we get a breather, as if we saw what it would have been like if the war hadn't happened. These quiet moments are short-lived, but they contrast sharply with the hellish violence of war. This destruction is positioned as unnatural and an affront to the world around it that is being swallowed.
Even far from the front lines, the echoes of the battle can never fully escape. The people here know what is going on at every moment and what awaits them when they are sent back to the depths of this earthly hell. In the book and past films, such conflict stems from a lack of a broader understanding of how terrifying it is to be in it, and this work takes it a step further. Starting with why Paul didn't get permission to go back to see his family, it's the most notable change from the original, and shows a shift in what the film is interested in. Specifically, we're seeing high-level figures in the military and government leadership talking candidly about what's going on. None of these characters appear in the novel, and their pivotal placement throughout the film speaks volumes about what director Edward Berger wants to say. He shows us those who have the power to stop the violence and tragedies that cost thousands of lives every day they delay.
The only character who cares about this is Daniel Bruch 's Matthias Elzber, also a historically real new character who desperately wants to stop the war in order to stop the endless death . However, he's an outsider, which draws more attention to how cool and aloof everyone around him is. Despite his attempts to change the course of the conflict, his plea for peace came too late for millions of people who knew they would die. Paul is representative, but there are countless people like him who have been abandoned as if they were nothing, even the uniform he wears is from a man who was killed before him and has had his nameplate thrown away.
's story centers on a general who enjoys a sumptuous meal while his men die in the mud. It's a recurring element in the film, where we see those in power enjoying their feasts in safety, then switching to the queues waiting in silence before being sent to the slaughterhouse. It's an anger that, in the novel, reaches a breaking point here when the men discuss their conflict. Although ordinaryThe public may not know the full extent of the war distorted by propaganda, nor have the power to stop it alone, but those in power definitely know. Every order that sent soldiers charging over the walls and ultimately tearing them to shreds was a choice made by those who understood the consequences.
The description of the phenomenon in the film, an extended segment in the middle of the film, proves to be particularly horrific, representing a reality well known to those who made the decision. They do this with full awareness of what will happen and the damage that will be done, and there is no reason and no excuse to justify these decisions because they send people into the meat grinder time and time again. The "true face" of this war is that they have been staring and sending people to die.
So what is the role of anti-war movies or such art? Is it to illuminate the truth, to bring out what actually happened, so that we understand not to do it anymore? This idealistic premise is based on the idea that the only cause of war is a lack of awareness of its human cost. The latest release of "All Quiet on the Western Front" reveals that not only is this untrue, but that most people with the power to destroy countless lives do so without hesitation. Trying to get sympathy from those who have nothing is futile, the result is always the same. The film deliberately avoids glorifying such conflict as one would hope, and it also understands that it's all in vain, and Paul's ending, which once again expands from the novel, is very different from any previous adaptation, making this even more obvious. The film takes on a more pessimistic poetic, because no matter how steadfast the old and new versions of All Quiet on the Western Front are, it doesn't change the basic fact that the gears of the war machine will always turn with the operating levers of power.
