by Jake Bourgeois, Contributing Writer
Awards season appears to be upon us as early contenders start trickling in. One of the international frontrunners is taking a bayonet stab at updating an anti-war classic.
The story of All Quiet on the Western Front is a well-known one. It chronicles a young German’s experiences in World War I, and how coming face-to-face with the horrors of said conflict takes his initial enthusiasm to enlist and replaces it with abject horror. Even if you’re like me and never had to read the classic anti-war tale in school, or never saw the 1930 American adaptation, which won both Best Picture and Best Director that year at the Oscars and earned an additional five nominations, it’s permeated culture enough that you get the gist.
While remakes, and their necessity have become easy internet fodder, the idea of this particular remake intrigued me on a number of levels.
First, when it comes to modern filmmaking, there are few subgenres (perhaps martial arts) that have benefitted more from what’s possible to do visually nowadays. Particularly given the message of this film, being able to show the visceral violence of war would seem to add to the impact. And oh, boy does it. The film gets off to a brutal start, pulling no punches when it comes to the reality of war in the trenches. It also utilizes the opening sequence to show the industrial nature of the war and its scale. It uses actual battle scenes sparingly; there are only four I think over two and a half hours, but the reminders of the violence are ever-present. The way the opening scene is turned back around for the finale is a nice structural move.
From the first moment, there are a couple other items that stood out immediately.
This may be the most visually stunning film of the year. The cinematography from James Friend is masterful. He makes the colors pop off the screen. The red of the blood. The green of the uniforms. The white flare against the night sky. The blue haze as troops prepare for another ill-fated attack to reclaim the same stretch of land. It’s all striking. If not for one moment with a flamethrower, it’s a nearly flawless piece of visual art. The way director Edward Berger compares the silence of nature with the sounds of war through splicing cuts of the natural world through scenes in the film — a technique I generally find myself turned off by — works for me here.
The fact that this is not another American remake also gives it some clout — as well as the fact that it’s already been selected as its country’s submission for consideration for Best International Feature Film. It’s originally a German tale about a German’s experience in the First World War, and I think that adds something to the experience. Felix Kammerer plays Paul, the young soldier we largely follow at the front. The name was new to me, but he does a commendable job of morphing from enthusiastic schoolboy at the beginning of the film, to the shell of his former self he is by the end of the conflict. When he and the other members of his unit aren’t trying to survive their latest battle, there are down moments we get to spend with them, which only serves to make the tragedy of war hit harder. Which, of course, is the point.
There aren’t many names here that will be recognizable to most, outside of Daniel Brühl, who plays the lead negotiator on the German side when it comes to peace talks. His opposite number on the Germans, a hardline general determined to get his shot at glory he feels he deserves (Devid Striesow), is our stand-in for the numerous officers whose stubbornness in dealing with a new type of war come with disastrous results. However, whether diplomats or high command, the opulence that they live in when compared to the hellish conditions of those actually on the front is a cross cut that never fails to land.
Perhaps the biggest negative is the film’s main piece of score. Whenever the three-note piece is injected back into proceedings, which happened periodically when things are set to go south again, it never got easier to accept. Maybe that is the point, but it doesn’t mean I enjoyed it. And, as beautiful as the film is, there were occasional times when I felt the two-and-a-half-hour runtime.
I can’t speak to whether the visual are enough to entice those who find themselves weary of tales of war. I also didn’t want to be constantly comparing it to the classic, (so I made the decision to not strike it from my list of shame before this viewing). However, I feel pretty confident that, even on just a technical level, there’s enough new here to make it worth a watch.
Will it match its predecessor’s Best Picture win? Likely not, but matching its cinematography nom is certainly on the table. For those curious about the international players come the Academy Awards, this is one is sure to be on the shortlist, and is a must watch.
Score: 8/10
You can follow Jake Bourgeois on Twitter and Letterboxd