All Quiet On the Western Front is an anti-war movie that follows a group of German schoolboys who enlist in World War I without any hint of the dire consequences that lie ahead. They expect to repeat the experience of the previous generation who conquered the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. As the war drags on in the disease-plagued trenches of Europe, the youths come face to face with the cruelty of war. Before long, they realize that the bravura of going to war is a total mirage and the war isn't going to be short and sweet.
The story shows the reaction on the German side but the onset of war was received in much the same on the British side with people reacting in a frenzy of false hope for a quick victory over the "Huns", only to come face to face with the reality of a lengthy war. This movie is a very sober view of that war, made 12 years after WW I was concluded. It was awarded an Academy Award for best picture and Lew Ayres was named the best actor.
While the dialogue, imagery and acting deliver a strong anti-war message, the script is flat and the movie seems "staged". It also shows a great unease among soldiers in battle. The dialogue of the soldiers is unashamedly anti-war. It seems highly unusual that men in battle would allow themselves this luxury with discussions about the merits of war during their timeouts on the battlefield. Can soldiers adopt this mindset and still fight effectively? We even see the leading character, Lew Ayres, nurse and talk to the French soldier he has shot in battle.
While this movie conveys the reasons for not waging war, it doesn't take into account the fact that people in the warring countries of Europe were fired by nationalism and the belief that they were acting in their country's interest. Soldiers have to at least rationalize their mission or turn a blind eye to any doubts they might have. I have never fought in a land war or any other kind of war so I can only surmise how people might react. I can certainly understand that soldiers would come to hate it and never want to see it repeated.
The movie was well received in its time and shows the revulsion that many people must have had for the war. The anti-war message clearly resonated with audiences
The story shows the reaction on the German side but the onset of war was received in much the same on the British side with people reacting in a frenzy of false hope for a quick victory over the "Huns", only to come face to face with the reality of a lengthy war. This movie is a very sober view of that war, made 12 years after WW I was concluded. It was awarded an Academy Award for best picture and Lew Ayres was named the best actor.
While the dialogue, imagery and acting deliver a strong anti-war message, the script is flat and the movie seems "staged". It also shows a great unease among soldiers in battle. The dialogue of the soldiers is unashamedly anti-war. It seems highly unusual that men in battle would allow themselves this luxury with discussions about the merits of war during their timeouts on the battlefield. Can soldiers adopt this mindset and still fight effectively? We even see the leading character, Lew Ayres, nurse and talk to the French soldier he has shot in battle.
While this movie conveys the reasons for not waging war, it doesn't take into account the fact that people in the warring countries of Europe were fired by nationalism and the belief that they were acting in their country's interest. Soldiers have to at least rationalize their mission or turn a blind eye to any doubts they might have. I have never fought in a land war or any other kind of war so I can only surmise how people might react. I can certainly understand that soldiers would come to hate it and never want to see it repeated.
The movie was well received in its time and shows the revulsion that many people must have had for the war. The anti-war message clearly resonated with audiences