Lewis Milestone's "All Quiet on the Western Front" – What is it good for?

I confess I wasn’t greatly looking forward to a three-hour film that I suspected could be summed up in a short sentence: “War is bad.”  But All Quiet on the Western Front is a fascinating film that sometimes seems far more modern than its 1930 date.

WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS
Follow @MichaelHardach

There are some key decisions that make this film successful and which I believe have kept it relevant for so long.

• No musical score is used
• It is based on a decent novel
• It’s a WWI film shown from a German viewpoint
• Given that the Germans are shown speaking English, no attempt is made at comedy German accents
• There are impressive long ranging battlefield scenes
• It pushed the limit of what could be shown on screen so it does not seem excessively sanitized from the reality of war

These points taken together produce a powerful experience and the battlefield scenes in particular are as convincing and harrowing as any of the various modern attempts to show similar scenes.  In terms of tone and choice of shots I would go further and say these scenes are more effective than say the battlefield scenes in Saving Private Ryan, etc.

There is perhaps a question over whether stories as serious and troubling as world war are better handled as documentary or fiction.  In some ways the compromises of fiction undermine the importance of the history.  For example, is it realistic that all the men get on so well in the group?  Perhaps a true fly on the wall documentary (even though it would be impossible to achieve) would show a far messier picture.  And the simple craft of structure, cause and effect, character and symbols (the special boots, to take just one example from this film) that are an unavoidable part of fiction have a tendency to trivialize history, however subtly they are applied (in truth, not very subtly in the case of the ‘cursed’ boots.)

Review continues below...

Inspire your baby with the Visual Baby series of picture ebooks.  Original patterns and art designed for young eyes. Try them today by clicking the covers below.

      

"It's the only thing that stops her crying" Katie Alison

"All three of my children love this book"  Janice Peterson

"Moons, trees, leaves... fabulous!" Linda Matson 

Trouble is, it’s hard to imagine how WWI could be engagingly shown without fiction.  When archive footage tends to be heavily propagandized and limited in its scope and when the people involved are dead, what can you do?  The dreadful reconstructions inserted into television documentaries are clearly not the answer.  Eyewitness interviews such as the holocaust film Shoah are a good solution but are never going to get huge audiences.  Perhaps the only answer is some compromise similar to what Lewis Milestone achieved in All Quiet.  Many ex-German soldiers were apparently used in the making of the film, both as extras and to check authenticity, and the trouble taken pays off.

In the film, the characters have a simple discussion about why countries go to war, and they speculate whether it’s due to leaders wanting posthumous glory or because of the benefits to manufacturing companies.  It’s interesting to see how things have got even worse in modern times as the war technology that was seen for the first time in WWI has become so much more developed.  When countries such as the UK, America, China and Russia spend such a large percentage of their GDP on their military there is only one possible result: war.  If I spend a large chunk of my salary on a flashy car I’m not going to keep it in the garage.

Personal Score: 7/10

Follow @MichaelHardach

This is part of a series of film reviews where I give my comments on IMDB Top 250 films as a writer. The idea is that over time these posts will build into a wide-ranging writing resource.

For more details about the approach I've taken, including some important points about its strengths and weaknesses (I make no claims about my abilities as a film critic or even the accuracy of my comments... but I do stand by the value of a writer's notes on interesting films), see my introductory post here.

Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" – Little Perisher

Roman Polanski’s 1968 film Rosemary’s Baby offers a suggestion about how an indifferent actor can get a chance to make it big on stage and in Hollywood.  It’s as plausible an explanation as any I’ve heard to explain the popularity of certain big name actors in real-life Hollywood.  (Clooney, I’m looking at you.)

WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS
Follow @MichaelHardach

Just kidding, George.  Who could resist your unique mix of easy charm, unforced slapstick and A-list versatility?  Absolutely no need to resort to pimping out a baby to devil worshippers to explain Clooney’s success, but for Guy Woodhouse (played by John Cassavetes), the actor husband of Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) in the film, a little Satanic assistance with his career proves to be irresistible.

A difference between this film and that other classic of childhood demonic possession, The Exorcist, is that Polanski chooses not to show the baby at all and plays throughout the film with the idea that the supernatural conspiracy could be a delusion of Rosemary’s, caused by her pregnancy.  It’s a classy approach and it adds to the spookiness of the film as well as sharing Rosemary’s paranoia with the audience, since there is a sense that we can trust no body, just as Rosemary feels.

However, it is a weakness of the execution that we are never in any serious doubt that the Satanic plot is real.  There are too many telling details from Rosemary’s point of view – from the fact she notices that pictures have been taken down when she visits the weird old neighbours’ apartment (the Castevets, played nicely by Ruth Gordon (as Minnie) and Sidney Blackmore (as Roman)), to the pierced ears of Roman Castevet, to the chalky undertaste in the ‘chocolate mouse’ that she eats before her impregnation etc etc. 

The only time doubt is cast on her view of the world is when she demands that her husband shows her his shoulders, thinking he has been marked by the coven.  It turns out that his shoulders are unmarked (although he doesn’t offer to show her the rest of his body).  Perhaps a few more of these kinds of moments would have strengthened the ‘is she / isn’t she?’ angle.

Review continues below...

Inspire your baby with the Visual Baby series of picture ebooks.  Original patterns and art designed for young eyes. Try them today by clicking the covers below.

      

"It's the only thing that stops her crying" Katie Alison

"All three of my children love this book"  Janice Peterson

"Moons, trees, leaves... fabulous!" Linda Matson 

There is a lot to love in the film.  The details of the main characters’ relationships, their unstated backstory, their ambitions are beautifully put across.  The apartment itself, with its long history of human tragedy has a spooky presence.  And there are some nicely sinister moments pulled out by the slow burn approach, such as the way the husband’s complicity is gradually reviewed, and the jolt as Rosemary realises that the coven has acquired a personal belonging of each of its victims in order to curse them.  When we do get to see the removed paintings in the Castevets’ apartment, they are suitably disturbing – the burning church, for example.

The technical delivery of the filming is unobtrusively superb, with long takes and perfect camera angles.  The many older characters are played by big name actors and that adds a sheen of quality to all the minor parts in the film as well as to the sinister neighbours, the Castevets.  Ruth Gordon’s performance as Minnie is terrifying, perhaps inspiring the character of Ros in Monsters, Inc: "I'm watching you, Wazowski. Always watching. Always!" 

It’s debatable whether Mia Farrow was the best choice of the various actors that Polanski considered for the part of Rosemary.  I’d say Polanski got the best performance out of her that it was possible to get, and that he bent the character to benefit from Farrow’s appearance and personality (she was at the height of her dippy-hippy little girl persona at the time of filming).  But perhaps he wouldn’t have had to work so hard with another actor.  The vulnerability and elfin gauntness of Farrow has ended up becoming part of the character of Rosemary and a keynote of the film – I suspect this more a result of Polanski’s genius than Farrow’s.

One lesson to female viewers of the film is clear.  If your husband spontaneously gets enthusiastic about having a child to the extent of putting up wallcharts marking ovulation dates and filling the apartment with roses, it’s time to run.  Run like the wind and don’t look back.  That stuff NEVER happens without a Satanic motivation.

Personal Score: 8/10

Follow @MichaelHardach

This is part of a series of film reviews where I give my comments on IMDB Top 250 films as a writer. The idea is that over time these posts will build into a wide-ranging writing resource.

For more details about the approach I've taken, including some important points about its strengths and weaknesses (I make no claims about my abilities as a film critic or even the accuracy of my comments... but I do stand by the value of a writer's notes on interesting films), see my introductory post here.

Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" – Scissor Sister

In the UK plays and operas from London are broadcast live to cinemas across the country in a desperate attempt to justify all the arts funding going to the capital in a laudable effort to present the best of the arts to the widest possible audience.  Of course, one consequence of this is that the director must choose where the audiences eyes are looking through his selection of shot angles and zooms.

Films that closely follow an original play and choose to retain the constraints of the staging – such as Hitchcock’s Dial M For Murder – sink or swim on the skill of the director in framing the shots in a skilful way to avoid the action seeming contrived or television-like in its ambition.  Hitchcock does a great job of this and it would be nice if the directors of the streamed operas and plays learned a few lessons from his films.

WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS
Follow @MichaelHardach

What Hitchcock can’t avoid in his close following of the play is the lengthy scenes of explanatory dialogue in the first third of the film, particularly between evil jilted husband, Tony Wendice (Ray Milland), and the slimy spiv he coerces to perform his perfect murder, Robert Cummings (Mark Halliday).  Once the scheme is set up, however, things flow more naturally and enjoyably.

Wendice is a retired pro tennis player who married his wife for her money.  He is then surprised when he finds she is not in love with him and has found love with another man – and he shows his true colours when his first instinct is to kill his wife in order to receive her money through his will.  There is some subtle balancing of character flaws with audience sympathy in this film, because Wendice is an affable, rather likeable character in the Cary Grant mould.  The audience instinctively roots for him and hopes he’ll get away with his murder.  At the same time, the wife, Margot (Grace Kelly) can’t be blamed for her infidelity given that she was effectively hoodwinked into a loveless marriage.  A nice touch that isn’t rammed down our throats is that there are parallels between the respectable Wendice and the conman, Cummings.

Review continues below...

Inspire your baby with the Visual Baby series of picture ebooks.  Original patterns and art designed for young eyes. Try them today by clicking the covers below.

      

"It's the only thing that stops her crying" Katie Alison

"All three of my children love this book"  Janice Peterson

"Moons, trees, leaves... fabulous!" Linda Matson 

Cummings and Wendice studied at Cambridge together.  Cummings was already performing petty theft at college and after graduation got himself into some adult trouble, leading him to be court marshalled and sent to prison.  By following Cummings, Wendice has established that he now supports himself through attaching himself to rich widows, frequently changing his name and skipping rent.  But it’s made clear that without the support of friends, and with his criminal record, Cummings has little choice but to support himself through crime.  What’s nice is that within a conventional, respectable life, Wendice has been equally morally reprehensible in marrying Margot for his money and subsequently feeling no qualms about murdering her.

Perhaps a more interesting film would have been in exploring the desperation and opportunism of Cummings’ life.  Perhaps Margot’s character could have been explored more fully.  Perhaps it would have been more satisfying if Wendice had got away with it and the detectives discovered the truth too late, or if he got away with it altogether with a further twist.

But the play was what it was and Hitchcock did a good job of filming it.

Personal Score: 6/10

Follow @MichaelHardach

This is part of a series of film reviews where I give my comments on IMDB Top 250 films as a writer. The idea is that over time these posts will build into a wide-ranging writing resource.

For more details about the approach I've taken, including some important points about its strengths and weaknesses (I make no claims about my abilities as a film critic or even the accuracy of my comments... but I do stand by the value of a writer's notes on interesting films), see my introductory post here.

Federico Fellini's "La Strada" – A Fool's Errand

In a somewhat Shakespearian set-up, we have a strongman king of his motorbike-caravan, his unofficial wife and a fool who has an overwhelming compulsion to undermine the king and to point out his folly, ideally in front of an audience.  Unlike Shakespeare, however, this is not a licensed fool and the king is so angered by his taunts that he attacks him whenever he sees him.

Imagine if King Lear reacted the same way.

'To give away thy land

Come place him here by me

Do thou for him stand.'

s.d. Lear repeatedly punches and kicks the Fool in the body and head.

…

‘Why, after I have cut the egg i' th' middle and eat up the

meat, the two crowns of the egg. When thou clovest thy crown i'

th' middle and gav'st away both parts, thou bor'st thine ass on

thy back o'er the dirt. Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown

when thou gav'st thy golden one away.’

s.d. Lear takes a knife and slashes the Fool’s face from side to side.

WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS
Follow @MichaelHardach


Zampanò (Anthony Quinn) buys Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina) from her poor family to be his travelling entertainment act assistant and to sleep with him in his motorbike-caravan as they tour the country.  She is a simple girl who doesn’t seem to cope well with life but she enjoys being an artiste.  She doesn’t enjoy Zampanò’s frequent womanizing or his habit of training her like a dog, whipping her until she learns the act.  Sound familiar?  Yes, we are in tart with a heart territory here.  There are few things I hate more in books and films than a tart with a heart.

Review continues below...

Inspire your baby with the Visual Baby series of picture ebooks.  Original patterns and art designed for young eyes. Try them today by clicking the covers below.

      

"It's the only thing that stops her crying" Katie Alison

"All three of my children love this book"  Janice Peterson

"Moons, trees, leaves... fabulous!" Linda Matson 

Among those few things I hate more than a tart with a heart are plaintive melodies played over and over and adult characters who jump around and chuckle with the glee of a child.

This film has those things as well.

I’m also very uninterested in womanizing characters – a problem I’ve faced in other Fellini films.  When Zampanò gets drunk and tearful at the end after hearing of the fate of Gelsomina after he abandoned her, it’s the sentimental emotion of a wife-beater in his cups.  When he sobers up he’d do exactly the same things again.

Personal Score: 4/10

Follow @MichaelHardach

This is part of a series of film reviews where I give my comments on IMDB Top 250 films as a writer. The idea is that over time these posts will build into a wide-ranging writing resource.

For more details about the approach I've taken, including some important points about its strengths and weaknesses (I make no claims about my abilities as a film critic or even the accuracy of my comments... but I do stand by the value of a writer's notes on interesting films), see my introductory post here.