top of page

Blog! Blog! Blog!

Search

All Quiet on the Western Front: 1930 versus 2022 as Anti War Films

ree

Introduction


In 1928 Eric Remarque wrote the novel All Quiet on the Western Front, based on his own experience serving Germany in WWI. The novel quickly gained traction for being anti-war, being banned in Germany in 1930 by the Nazi party as well as in several other countries. Remarque, ashamed of his German nationality, changed the spelling of his name from “Remarke” to “Remarque”, the French spelling. The story All Quiet on the Western Front follows a band of young men who enlist in WWI to serve Germany, eager to become heroes. However, Paul, the main character, reveals the truth behind warfare, something that many young boys in Germany were groomed to participate in. 


Multiple movies have been made based off of the story, one in 1930, one in 1979, and another in 2022. There is something to notice between the original movie and the latest remake, a message about how the same anti-war story differs between 10 years after WWI versus 100 years after, as well as the difference between an American perspective versus a German perspective on WWI. 


There are stark differences between the films, such as differences in technology, characters, and certain scenes. It is clear that through these differences, the American version is focused on brotherhood and the perseverance of humanity/human nature while the German version is focused solely on war and the detrimental effect it has on the human psyche. In the essay "Representing Pain in Literature and Film: Reflections on Die  Brücke by Manford Gregor and Bernhard Wicki” by Christiane Schonfield, she describes how war comes to life in film, specifically in Bernard Wicki’s The Bridge. Certain elements that can only be showcased in film such as soundtrack, sound effects, dialogue, costume, environment bring a story of war to life, one that may be hard to imagine due to its horrors. By watching a story unravel in front of one’s own eyes, one can place themselves in the war (as much as possible without actually having to experience it), and form relationships with the characters and their dreams, and can watch them be ripped away through the immersiveness of cinema.


Perspectives

Only two years after the novel was published, American director Lewis Milestone worked with Universal Studios to produce a film based off of the novel. It was a Hollywood hit due to the freshness of the war. Film critic Pauline Kael states in her book 5001 Nights at the Movies, “The year 1930 was, of course, a good year for pacifism, which always flourishes between wars; Milestone didn't make pacifist films during the Second World War—nor did anybody else working in Hollywood. And wasn't it perhaps easier to make All Quiet just because its heroes were German? War always seems like a tragic waste when told from the point of view of the losers”. By producing an American film about poor German Soldiers, using them as scapegoats to illustrate the horrors of war, Milestone was able to avoid painting the American military in a negative light. 


However, in the 2022 version, directed by Edward Berger and produced by Netflix, Berger takes it upon himself to criticize his own nation. Although any war story delivers a message to any warring nation, the message hits deeper when a country chooses to criticize itself through film, a medium that will be shared internationally. It’s almost as if Germany has made a step to not only make amends with Remarque, after Nazi Germany stripped him of his German citizenship, but every German who experienced WWI. 


In Generic Histories of German Cinema: Genre and Its Deviations, Jaimey Fisher talks on the importance of war films in a “war-making and recovering nation”, specifically Germany. Demythologization is brought up in how war films utilize it to disclose every facet of war, such as emotional and physical stress, brainwashing, and especially in the case of Germany, generational trauma. Fisher brings up the point that demythification strays from the predictability of Hollywood cinema. The more realistic a film is, the more effective it is at creating a shocking image or disturbing the audience to get the message across rather than following a common archetype that has been seen before.


Technology & Production


The 2022 version also had more modern technology and a higher budget when filming, allowing for the use of hyper realistic special effects, makeup and costumes to emphasize that war is not a glorious, heroic event, but something that strips men of their lives slowly and painfully. This is shown as Paul, the protagonist, gets dirtier and more battered as the film progresses and life drains from his face. By the end of this film, Paul is almost unrecognizable as he is covered in mud, feces, and blood, completely blending in with the blue and black trenches, showing how he has become one with the battlefield.

The 1930 version lacks the grime and decay of the soldiers’ appearances. Their uniforms remain cleaner and they overall appear to be in better shape. The makeup for their wounds is minimal compared to the realistic gore of the 2022 version. The characters appear dirty at times but due to the film grain and lack of color, the details do not stand out. There are no shocking moments regarding this. It feels very fictional, and it is a detail that could be so important in portraying the filth and overall disgustingness of war yet Milestone chose to keep his actors' faces clean and their uniforms well kept. Perhaps this was for aesthetics, something that does not exist in war, therefore weakening the anti-war message of the story.

The 2022 version is filmed using a variety of shots, the most notable being during action scenes, where the camera follows Paul, like a first-person view. This immerses the audience in the dirt and violence. Paul and the other soldiers writhe around in the trenches and ditches like the rats they fight for food with. Scenes of brotherhood are kept to brief moments where the boys are doing less than desirable tasks such as defecating in the woods while Kat reads his wife’s letters, stealing a goose from an already starving family, and Paul carrying Kat to safety as he dies on his back. The color-grading is drenched in a pale blue filter, washing out all vivid colors, making everything seem bleak and pallid. 


An important factor in the 1930 version is the fact that it is in black and white film. The lack of color and graininess make it obvious that this is a movie. The use of still shots also emphasizes this effect, it removes the audience , positioning them so that they are just observers. Due to the technology of their camera, there is an underwhelming sense of immersiveness with this film regarding the cinematography. However, this version seems to be aware of this and focuses on showing the characters and their relationships to get the audience emotionally engaged. There may be a lack of extravagant battle scenes in the film that are described in the novel due to technology, but dialogue is stressed through still shots that focus on the characters rather than the action. This is seen all throughout the first half of the film where the boys are shown bonding through basic training. More time is spent on the intimate scenes between characters as well, the audience sees when Kemmerich dies, and they witness the abuse they suffer under Himmelstoss. This creates a fictional feel, the audience grows attached to the boys, turning them into heroes, which is not the case in any successful anti-war film.

There is overall a jollier feeling in the 1930 version. When the boys decide to enlist during school, they sing and dance around, getting up on desks and throwing papers in the air. This scene is reminiscent of a musical, and the scene ends with a shot looking down on them from the top of the classroom as they rejoice. Moments like these solidify the 1930 adaptation as a film about brotherhood, with war being an adversity that threatens it but cannot destroy. It feels fictional and unrealistic. As Paul’s friends die off one by one, the end scene is what destroys any possibility for this film to cement itself as anti-war. 


Plot & Scenes


There is a noticeable plot difference between these films as well. The 2022 version almost completely disregards the training arc, even cutting out a prominent character from the novel, the man who is in charge of their basic training, Himmelstoss. Himmelstoss is present in the 1930 version, as he is used to bring the boys closer together in their hate for him, highlighting the theme of brotherhood. He is like a school yard bully and the boys tease him even in the throes of war. Himmelstoss is an unserious character, although a product of his environment, he is an exaggerated character archetype that would not fit into the seriousness of the 2022 version. 


Another main difference in plot is the armistice arc of the 2022 version. Taking place completely separate from the battlefront, it follows the politicians of the war as they negotiate the armistice on a train far away from the violence. This seems to be added in based on the brief paragraph of the novel where Paul reflects on the people controlling the war and how they have so much control and power yet they do not know the horrors their commands cause. This plot becomes important to Paul’s demise, giving his death a deeper shock factor.

Paul’s death may be the most prominent difference between the films, a scene that if removed from the rest of the film, on its own delivers different messages. In the 1930 version, Paul dies while reaching out towards a butterfly. In the 2022 version, Paul dies in a final charge only 15 minutes before the armistice starts, making him the final, and most useless soldier fatality of WWI. It goes to show how every death that occurs within war is unnecessary, as the people who actually care about the outcome sit in luxurious train cabins sipping whiskey. The difference reflects the American approach to the film, which goes entirely against the message of the story, where the audience sees Paul maintaining his humanity until the end in a final expression of softness and compassion. He dies a human being with feelings. However, the German perspective more accurately reflects how the war has traumatized Paul, turning him into a killing machine. He is quickly discarded as just another dead body. He dies with nothing, not even a unique experience as the war comes to an end, nothing glorious happens.


Conclusion


This point reflects François Truffaut's claim “that it is impossible to make an antiwar narrative film, because any film will inevitably sanitize and glamorize war”. The 1930 ending provides a sliver of hope and peace amidst a horrific war, romanticizing it. The film also focuses on brotherhood between the characters, in which one could argue that something good could come out of war if it brings people closer together and creates fond memories. The 2022 version also reflects on the boys’ relationships, but there is a much heavier focus on the goriness and shock of battle. The 2022 version does not dwell on each character’s death, making for a more realistic approach to how warfare actually plays out. What seals the deal for the 2022 version being antiwar is the painfully long scene of Paul killing the French soldier; it is an extremely uncomfortable scene and the audience sees the battle between human and machine within Paul, with the machine ultimately winning in the end.

Agnieszka Soltysik sides with François Truffaut in his claim in her essay “Is There Such a Thing as an Antiwar Film?”. There is a blurry line between heroizing the soldiers who go to war and lose their lives in the fight versus critiquing the bleakness of it all. An interesting point is brought up in determining how efficient an anti-war film is by looking at enlistment rates after the film is released. Soltysik argues that if one wants to showcase the horrors of war, there is no better way to do so than through a documentary because turning something into fiction demeans it and romanticizes it. However, a narrative film is more likely to be watched, especially by an audience that already sides with its message. A fictional film can also be used to heighten the viewer's emotions regarding the topic, as they can immerse themselves within the relationships and environment versus watching real footage and interviews on a screen, things that seem more distant because they are dated and not actively happening. 

The 2022 version works to demythologize war through a detached narrative, turning Paul into a machine, especially after Kat dies, while the 1930 version portrays a story of a band of boys who bravely go into battle and although he loses many of his friends, Paul maintains his innocence and humanity until the end. So, although the 1930 version may be more digestible, it loses its ability to produce an anti war message because of this, as war is not meant to be digestible. 






Bibliography


Fisher, Jaimey, editor. Generic Histories of German Cinema: Genre and Its Deviations. Boydell & Brewer, 2013. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt31nhth. Accessed 7 Apr. 2025.


Lighter, Jonathan. “All Quiet on the Western Front 1930, 1979, 2022.” WLA : War, Literature & the Arts, vol. 35, 2023, pp. 1–13.


Pauline, Kael. 5001 Nights at the Movies. New York: Picador, 1982. Web.


Schonfeld, Christiane. "Representing Pain in Literature and Film: Reflections on Die  Brücke by Manfred Gregor and Bernhard Wicki." Comunicacao E Cultura., 2008. 55–76. Web.


Soltysik, Agnieszka. “Is There Such a Thing as an Antiwar Film?”. Cunningham, Douglas A., and John C. Nelson. A Companion to the War Film /, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118337653.


Comments

bottom of page