+Ben Wasserman It's easy to draw a parallel to the modern American hate machine and that of Nazi Germany in regards to the press whipping people into a frenzy over things like Terrorism and Religious "Threats". Media and propaganda has advance in it's transmission methods, but the anger and hate it has to power to incite remains just as strong. Some people are ruled by fearful passions as opposed to rational contemplation, and many march under a banner of aggression when subjected to too much bad press for too long. It's subversive brainwashing in a manner of speaking.
+LeHappiste The Germans surrendered when the Russian Revolution got into Germany and caused a civil war in Germany. In other words, half the German Army was fighting for the Communists while the other half was fighting for the Imperial Army. Read up o n the Soviet Bavarian Republic.
Germany surrendered before war reached its soil, so the people could never see the true face of war.Former soldiers who tried to explain what war truly was were censured, like Erich Maria Remarque, the author of the novel this movie is based on.
+DarkBeing18 Based on the timeline this movie takes place and the age of the professor, he looks like he is around 65. However, 45 years earlier, the year was 1870, which was the Franco-Prussian War. Based on how he talked of an "easy walkthrough" I am willing to bet that he was a veteran of the Franco-Prussian War, since that war was decided over a couple of battles early in the war where even Napoleon 3 himself got captured, and the Germans simply marched straight towards Paris almost unopposed afterwards, which means they did take "little" losses, which he talks about at the beginning.
All Quiet On The Western Front Trailer 1930
All Quiet On The Western Front Trailer 1930 Director: Lewis Milestone Starring: Lew Ayres, William Bakewell, Russell Gleason, Slim Summerville, Louis ...
All Quiet on the Western Front (3/10) Movie CLIP - Dish It Out! (1930) HD
All Quiet on the Western Front movie clips: //j.mp/15w2NbN BUY THE MOVIE: //amzn.to/tZdc5e Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: ...
+The Traveller The acting is a little hokey, but I think that is because these guys were all probably trained as stage actors. So they're used to having to project out to an audience rather than a camera. But nonetheless, a powerful film in so many regards.
I haven't watched it in something like 35 years I think without doing the
exact math. It was part of my childhood and adolescence along with Shogun,
the Holocaust mini series, Roots, and others I'm probably forgetting. From
what I remember of it, it was good enough to leave an impression on me even
if I still bought into the Rambo craze later.
+kakashi101able I haven't seen paths of glory but I'll make a point to check it out some. Ironic about certain 80s media. Judging from the plot of Rambo First Blood, it actually had a somwhat anti-govt message, that you can't trust Uncle Sam to take care of its vets. George Bush I think came out and said "Now I know what to do," referring to the movie. What's the asshole saying when the movie starts with the premise that the govt left the vets out to dry?? Reagan coopted the song Born in the USA when the song was really also about the plight of Vietnam Vets who came home to nothing but anguish. So we were all taken in by the 80s Rambo craze and if you're like me you went into the military because of it.
The acting I think was a little bit unnatural or sentimental. Hollywood at
this time I think was heavy with gangster movies and if they were going to
make a war movie I think it would've been something like proto John Wayne
unless our main characters were Germans and enemies of the U.S. Maybe the
only way to make the audience empathize with them was to make to make them
overly sentimental. I think the remake with Ernest Borghein and the guy
from the Waltons in the 70s came off more natural and less awkward. I don't
know if the idea of the sensitive male especially a soldier came natural to
the Hollywood of then.
+Ronald Bittner I don't think Paul's death has anything to do with wanting to live or to die, it has to do with wanting peace. Paul has seen enough death and there is no point to it, he reaches out to touch the butterfly to try to reconnect to his life and humanity, but the coldness of war won't allow him to do it. I agree that symbolically the sniper sets him free, like the butterfly, which signifies Paul attaining the peace he wants, but it doesn't solve the horror and futility of war. The butterfly is unattainable.
+Thomas Templeton That's a fair interpretation but i think your second conclusion ("cared not if he did") is more accurate, Paul didn't "want" to die, but death had no meaning to him any more, nor did life. Beauty still meant something to his broken soul, and the butterfly embodies that. It's his last connection with humanity before the sniper sent him to whatever comes next, if anything. Much has been written about Lewis Milestone's brilliant device in recreating the emotion of Remarque's understated telling of Paul's death in the novel; more should be written IMO. Milestone pulled a rabbit out of his hat with this ending.
Man, I loved this scene, because of how Paul just dies nonchalantly, one of
millions of casualties, instead of in a blaze of glory like you'd expect
other war movies to portray the hero as. People too gung-ho on war should
probably watch this film a couple of times.
I think it had such an effect on people that it was banned in ALL countries mobilising for war. What I also like about this story is that it shows the soldiers on both sides were just ordinary men.
1776, 1812, 1847, 1860, 1898, 1914, 1939, 1950, 1965, 1991, 2001, 2003.
Bankers concoct wars that slaughter millions so that thes old f..k..rs can
get even richer than they already are.