"It Has Become Quiet on the Western Front"

This was a Film Review I wrote in the Winter of 2015 for a Great Novels in Film course I took.  I had to pretend that I was watching the film in the year 2030 for its 100th Anniversary and write a review.

This year marks the 100th Anniversary of the release of All Quiet on the Western Front directed by Lewis Milestone.  Winner of two Oscars at the third Academy Awards ceremony for Best Picture and Best Director, it is the first film to accomplish such a feat.  To celebrate the centennial occasion, Universal Pictures has decided to have several special screenings of beautiful film prints in select theaters.  While there are several screenings around the country, I was fortunate enough to be invited by Universal to attend one these special screenings directly on their studio lot in Burbank, California.  Not often as a cinephile in today’s world are you able to see a beautifully restored 35mm print of a film that is a century old. Especially one with such significance as this.

The film is an adaptation of the novel All Quiet on the Western Front written by Erich Maria Remarque and published in 1929.  The film, like the book, follows the story of Paul Baumer and his fellow German soldiers in WWI.  Paul is the protagonist so the film’s events revolve around his perspective.  He and his fellow comrades begin the film as wide eyed school boys being coaxed into recruitment by their overzealous professor.  He and his classmates then go on to experience the horrors of war, not only the grueling physicality of trench warfare, but also psychological trauma of seeing your friends die.  The film depicts war in an inglorious way to show how the true victims of war are its soldiers.  If they are fortunate enough to live through the war, their experiences change everything about their character. 

While viewing old films, I find it necessary to put them within the proper context when judging their technical merit. The older a film, the more important that frame of mind is.  I find All Quiet on the Western Front to be a technical achievement considering the time in which it was made, specifically the battle sequences.  The camera work during the battle sequences is extraordinary because of how well the cinematographer, director, and editor are able to utilize camera placement and movement. At the beginning of the first battle sequence the camera is used to build suspense. The sequence begins with a dolly shot along the line of German soldiers in a trench, then a cut to a distance shot across the empty battle field, then back to the soldiers, then to more soldiers, then to quick cuts back and forth of bombs dropping, then to soldiers, and then this glorious crane shot of the enemy soldiers advancing. Then the battle begins and we as viewers are treated to a visual feast.  The editing is so fast that as a viewer you can not even blink or else you will miss a shot.  Bombs are dropping, bullets are flying, soldiers are dying at a frenetic pace comparable to modern action films. But what is being depicted at this fast pace is the chaos of war, how quickly and how easily life can end.  If we slow down and take a breath, I believe the Director is trying to ask the question, what is the purpose of this death and violence? All we can really answer as viewers is probably the same as Paul and his comrades: it’s either kill or be killed. 

Another technical achievement that I find impressive about the film is the sound.  The film originally came out in the early years of talkie cinema. The Silent Era was not quite dead yet  in the early 1930s, but the wave of the future was the talkie.  It was painstakingly difficult just to properly incorporate dialogue into a film let alone the elaborate sound effects that were used in All Quiet on the Western Front.  During the action sequence previously mentioned, the sound plays a crucial role in tandem with the camera work to create the warfare atmosphere.  The sound effects of the bombs, bullet fire, and men screaming, are layered in a manner that must have been technically difficult to achieve.  What it accomplishes is reinforcing the visual chaos of war with the auditory chaos of war.  As viewers we are placed into the fray of battle because we both see and hear what the protagonist does.  So we are able to better understand the toll that the war is taking on his person.

The acting is also significant in the film because at the time a big studio would use a big star to sell their film to an audience, especially a film this big and expensive.  But, in this case the main protagonist, Paul Baumer, is portrayed by Lew Ayres, an unknown and essentially unproven actor at the time. Despite his relative newness to film acting, he gives an exceptional performance.  There is a particular brief moment in a hospital where he is being wheeled away and he begins to scream frantically about not dying. It’s slightly theatrical, but I feel that works for the scene because when someone expresses great fear, they are not in control of their emotions. Another scene where he is next to a dying soldier and frantically pleads for him to die is similar in that it shows the psychological effect that his experiences are having on him.  He no longer has the ability to process clearly what the war is doing to him; the only reaction is uncontrolled, incessant babbling. It’s is almost as if his brain can no longer function on a normal level.  His ability to process thoughts in a coherent manner is lost because of all the trauma he is going through.  A main message to be taken from this scene is that the chaos of war has destroyed a once young, fertile mind.

As with many book to screen adaptations throughout the history of film certain artistic license was taken when translating All Quiet on the Western Front to screen.  A most notable omission from the book is the internal monologue of Paul. This monologue was filled with beautiful poetic and philosophical language to depict his tattered thoughts.  Although it works extremely well in the book, it would have been difficult to use in the film. A heavy use of internal monologue narration would have perhaps alienated the audience at the time. But, there are several instances within the film where Paul’s internal monologue is externalized effectively. One such instance is when Paul is addressing a group of young school boys who are expecting to hear great tales of the glory of battle and how honorable it is to fight for their country.  Instead, Paul externalizes his pain and anguish about the war in a powerful speech.  He sees the same same wide eyed Naiveté that was in the faces of his fellow schoolmates and can not stand that the same lies are being told to them.  These lies have doomed his generation to death and despair and he feels they need to hear the harsh truth.  His anti-war sentiment receives harsh backlash from the young minds who have been fed nothing but propaganda about the war.  The scene is important because it shows the contrast between the reality and fantasy of war.  It also emphasizes a theme of stolen youth that appears throughout the film.  Paul and his fellow schoolmates youthful lives were stolen by not only the war but the war fervor that took over the citizens of Germany prompting them to send their men into war.

The anti-war sentiment that is contained in the heart of the novel is also contained in this scene.  The lasting legacy of the film is its ability to portray the timeless themes like chaotic warfare, corruption and sacrifice of youth, physical and mental toll of warfare, and ultimately an antiwar sentiment.  This film along and the novel should be viewed in tandem because they are both important in their specific media format.  The film should be appreciated for its technical feats as well as its bold storytelling.  Films of its nature have been duplicated several times over the years, but I think we owe it to ourselves as film fans, cinephiles, film buffs, film enthusiasts, or whatever adjective you use to describe your love for movies, to preserve the legacy of this film.  It is our responsibility to keep the legacy of classic film intact.  

"Foreign Correspondent"

This was paper I wrote about Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 film "Foreign Correspondent" in an Alfred Hitchcock course I took in the Fall of 2013.  In this paper I discussed how Hitchcock was able to make a pro Allies film within a spy-thriller film.

Hitchcock’s 1940 film “Foreign Correspondent” was nominated for Best Picture at the 13th Annual Academy Awards along with his film “Rebecca”.  The film takes place during the time right before Great Britain is about to declare war on Germany at the outset of WWII.  It contains a pro Allies message, but is told through method of  Hitchcock spy thriller.  It is also used as a message to the countries outside Europe that are neutral, specifically the United States, to rally to the Allies‘ side against the Axis Powers. 

As an American viewer you are aware of the war right from the beginning of the film.  The first scene of the film begin with the head of an American newspaper receiving a message from one of its foreign correspondents in Europe.  The message directly mentions the war in Europe.  He is frustrated with the lack of information that it contained, he decides he wants a reporter to go there and discover information, specifically someone one with an objective perspective.  The viewers’ introduction to the main protagonist shows, John Jones, is that of the everyman. Having John Jones being portrayed as the everyman it gives the viewers someone whom they can relate to. In this case probably an American viewership putting themselves in his shoes of the American protagonist at the outbreak of WWII. 

There are two scenes in the film that I believe are directed towards the viewers of the time to support the Allied cause.  The first is the scene that I find to be the most memorable, it is the scene where Mr. Van Meer is confined to a bed and Mr. Fisher is trying to get him to say what clause twenty-seven is.  But, Van Meer comes to the realization that Fisher is working with the enemy and delivers a powerful monologue saying, “I see now. There's no help. No help for the whole poor suffering world. Oh! You cry peace, Fisher. Peace. And there was no peace. Only war and death. You're... You're a liar, Fisher. A cruel, cruel liar. You can do what you want with me. That's not important. But you'll never conquer them, Fisher. Little people everywhere who give crumbs to birds. Lie to them, drive them, whip them, force them into war. When the beasts like you will devour each other, then the world will belong to the little people.” It seems to be a message to those who think war is avoidable but the reality is that war and death is inevitable. He also says that regardless of what they do to him, they will never conquer them. The ‘Them” I believe he is referring to is the Allied nations.  He describes them as little people who give crumbs to birds, they will be sent into war. The little people he refers to will ultimately live on while the beasts will kill each other off. A powerful message of good vs evil from Van Meer to the viewers. 

The second scene is the very last scene of the the film where Jones is giving a radio message to America while London is being bombed.  He forgoes fleeing to a bomb shelter to deliver a message to the American people saying,  “Keep those lights burning, cover them with steel, ring them with guns, build a canopy of battleships and bombing planes around them. Hello, America, hang on to your lights: they're the only lights left in the world!” It is a message to the United States to get involved in the war.  Hitchcock is using Jones‘ speech as a way to convey Britain’s message for help from the United States by appealing to the film viewers.  At the time the film was made the U.S. was neutral, even though history shows they were sending supplies to Great Britain, they would technically remain neutral until the attack on Pearl harbor in 1941. Coincidentally Hitchcock was working on “Saboteur” during that attack, another anti-nazi film.

While “Foreign Correspondent” can be viewed as a pro Allies propaganda film, it is also contains elements of a Hitchcock spy thriller.  Similar to the thrillers that preceded it and those that would come after it, “Foreign Correspondent’ contains a leading man who starts as an ordinary everyman, who then gets involved in events that are much larger than himself.  Along the way he develops a romantic relationship with a leading woman, in this case Laraine Day portraying Carol Fisher. Their relationship begins as an antagonistic one when Jones dismisses her father’s peace organization because it is made up of well meaning amateurs who can not go up against pro war organization members.  She takes particular offense to his remarks and proceeds to chide him in her speech.  But, I found it interesting that while giving her speech she seemed to become flustered by his notes and the way he gazed at her from the crowd. It seems that his forward romantic advances towards her caught her off guard. 

In typical Hitchcock fashion the main antagonist is someone who is wealthy.  A respectable person in society is someone that would be least expected to be a villainous Nazi spy.  His public persona is a facade for him to be able to mask his malevolent dealings.  Van Meer even calls him out as cruel liar because he talks about peace but in actuality he wants war.  The antagonists in Hitchcock’s thriller films seem to all be powerful wealthy public figures who fool the masses.  Van Meer calls Fisher his friend when in actuality he is his enemy. i also find it interesting in the end Fisher ends up as hero in sacrificing himself to put less weight on the wing they were latching onto.  But I think as a viewer you have to ask was he doing it unselfishly or did he just not want to be caught and humiliated by being put on trial? Hitchcock enjoys creating those questions in the viewers’ mind.

It would not be a Hitchcock thriller without its moments of suspense.  There are several sequences of suspense in the film.  One such sequence is that at the windmill where jones discovers than Van Meer is really alive and his assassination was staged.  As Hitchcock did so well throughout his career he uses the art of editing to create suspense. During the scene it cuts back and forth from the kidnappers tending to a drugged up Van Meer to Jones hiding from them. From time to time Van Meer will look up at a spot Jones is hiding but when the camera moves there Jones is not there.  There is a wonderful birds eye view shot of Jones hanging on the outside of the windmill that gives the viewers a good look at the dangerous position he is in.  

Another scene that contains suspense is the scene atop the Cathedral tower when a bodyguard named Rowley, portrayed by Edmund Gwenn,  hired by Fisher is really a hit man who is suppose to get rid of Jones.  As viewers we know what his intentions are but jones does not.  During the scene the Rowley glances towards the elevator to see if everyone leaves and makes sure to keep Jones occupied near the ledge. When he moves in to push Jones off, the camera angle is that directly facing the viewers as if he was walking right at them and pushing them off the ledge. That was a great sequence where Hitchcock played with the viewers by using a point of view camera shot.  What is also great is that all we see is man’s body fall but we do not know who until the next scene. For a brief moment the viewers could possibly think that Jones is dead. Yet another way Hitchcock plays with the audiences emotions.

I must also comment on the final climactic event of the film and that is the plane crash scene.  i though it was absolutely brilliant how Hitchcock was able to capture the chaos of a plane crash landing in the ocean. What I failed to mention before is that while he uses editing to create suspense he also uses the score very effectively in those scenes.  But in this scene he decides to not use any score but let the sounds of the scene speak for itself.  The only time a score comes in is at the end of the sequence, specifically when it swells up with Fisher sacrificing himself. It is remarkable to look at the entire sequence and realize that it was done on a studio set.  The sound effects, the water, the wind, everything was placed into the scene perfectly to capture the fear of the moment.  There is also a sense  of unpredictability for the viewers. The chaos of the moment can lead to one or perhaps all the characters dying. 

      

For as serious a subject that the film deals with, Hitchcock lightens the mood with humorous dialogue throughout.  Most of the humor comes from secondary characters like Stebbins who sarcastically remarks about his jitters due to alcohol consumption. Or Ffolliott, portrayed by the great George Sanders, who comes up with some of the best humorous lines.  The humorous lines come so quick that they are easy to miss and contain that dry sense of British humor.  For example there is the scene right after Rowley has attempted to kill Jones and Ffolliott is revealed to have an inclination as to what is going on.  His dialogue is so matter of fact, the way he humorously states all the facts he knows including that war will be declared tomorrow weather permitting as if it were a sports game I find funny.

“Foreign Correspondent” successfully blends pro Allied propaganda and Hitchcockian thriller into one film.  Through his artistry as a film maker Hitchcock was able to deliver a propaganda message through one of his films, something he would also do In “Saboteur”.  i think that one of the big questions is was how affective was his propaganda message. As I said earlier that the U.S. would not officially enter WWII until late 1941 and a western front would not be established until D-Day, June 6, 1941. Of course having the U.S. enter the war was a big game changing moment. But I guess one of the questions that are probably pondered by Historians even today is what would have happened if the U.S. entered the war earlier than they did? Would a film like “Foreign Correspondent” even have been made? I for one am happy that it did because we get yet another solid Hitchcock film that can be viewed today and it actually holds up very well.