vincit qui se vincit

So the first and most important thing to be aware of when discussing the disrespect of this adaptation is that, while it is not technically an explicit memoir, All Quiet on the Western Front is not a work of fiction. Everything that happens is based on something either the author or a soldier he interviewed really experienced. The main character is based on the author himself. Remarque's middle name was Paul before he changed it, he entered the German military at the same age as Paul, he had a passion for writing and poetry like Paul (a passion which if I recall correctly was omitted from the movie, but my memory may be off) and several of the things that Paul experiences are directly taken from his own life. While it is not explicitly a memoir, it is a collection of the real lived experiences of these soldiers, put to page in the form of a story with names changed. I think it is inherently disrespectful to dramatically change the events of a true story, but the way in which the 2022 movie went about it somehow took it further than just that.

So one thing you should know if you haven't read the book, which I HIGHLY recommend, Remarque wrote a preface to the book that was included in all the movies EXCEPT this one, and it states the exact purpose of the story. this is quoted from memory,

“This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who come face to face with it. It will simply seek to tell the story of a generation of men who, while they may have survived the shells, were destroyed by the war.”

He explicitly did not want it to be sensational, or “an adventure.” He wanted to tell real stories about real people, and all those stories were scrapped in favor of what we got. If you remove maybe two scenes and changed the title and character names, the film would not even be recognizable. How can you (not you the asker but the general you) do that to real people's lived experiences? How can you disgrace the author’s wishes like that? The book takes a humanistic approach. You learn about these people, you care about them. You spend time with them goofing off in boot camp, hassling newbies in the trenches, playing cards in the latrines, you see Paul go home and you see how his time at home affects him. How his father parades him around, how he lost interest in everything that once made him happy, how he sees Russian POWs and knows that they are just like him, how his mother, dying of cancer, strokes his hair and cries when she thinks he is asleep because she knows her baby has been lying when he said that things were fine, and he's going back into that hell.

I cannot go into everything the movie portrayed differently to the book because I would have to just copy and paste practically the entire script lol. And having differences isn't inherently a bad thing! Both other movies added or removed or slightly altered a scene here and there. But there are two specific scenes, at the beginning and at the end, that I think are the most indicative of this movie’s failure and disrespect.

In the beginning of the book, which is not told in chronological order, we are introduced to the main friend group and find out that their friend is dying in the infirmary. They visit him, they crack jokes and tell him he's lucky he'll be going home, but he's obviously not improving. He is unaware that his leg has been amputated. One of them asks for his boots, since he has nice military boots, for when he “goes home”, and the others kind of shut him up. Later they discuss how they all know Franz is dying. Paul reminisces about Franz, how he was always timid, how his mother made Paul promise to protect him. He goes to visit Franz again, and he's doing real bad. The author describes in detail how you can see the death in his face. He is now aware his leg was amputated. He wistfully tells Paul that he wanted to be a forester when he grew up, and now he never will. Paul tries to reassure him that “prosthetics are great these days!” (This was written in 1920 lmao) and insists Franz will go home. Franz asks “Do you think so?” And then when Paul remains insistent, he quietly replies, “I don't think so.” He tells Paul to give their friend his boots. Paul sits in silence with him, foreheads pressed together, watching as his friend slowly dies from infection. His internal monologue is distressed about the orderlies ignoring them. “I want to grab them and I want to scream, ‘his name is Franz Kemmerich, he is nineteen years old, he doesn't want to die, don't let him die!’” As he hits in silence until the end. All these characters are emphasized to be nineteen years old.

This is the most important scene in the book. It sets the tone for the whole rest of the story and happens very early on.

Meanwhile in the movie, an unnamed character who we vaguely see hanging around Paul gets instantly blown to shrapnel and his severed leg gets blown off and Paul finds it, cries for 8 seconds, and we move on.

So that's a pretty big failure, I would say. This was the point in the movie I started getting a real bad feeling.

So that's the beginning, now the ending which, while it is the insulting cherry on top of the disrespect pie, I cannot get over how absolutely ridiculous this film ending is. First of all, the whole bit with the military officials? Not in the book at all. That big end battle after the armistice for literally no reason? Yeah, that didn't happen. I don't know how the writers forgot that you cannot completely fabricate an entire battle in a film about an actual war that really happened. And what disgusted me was they have Paul die in a vicious killing spree, bashing heads in, storming the trench (in this fake battle that didn't happen) stabbing people, shooting people, strangling people, throwing bombs, going nuts, getting nearly DROWNED IN SHIT WATER. Need I remind you this was the self-insert of the author who they had doing this? I get what they were trying to to do, show how an innocent non-violent guy got “broken” by the war but that is not faithful to the story. It borders on fetishizing violence, which as previously mentioned was the exact OPPOSITE of what the author directly stated that he wanted his work to be perceived.

Paul did what he had to do, but he was never sadistic and never liked killing and certainly never went on a killing spree. Again, this is meant to represent the AUTHOR.

So how does he die in the book? It's where the title comes from. “He fell in October, 1918 on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to a single sentence: All Quiet on the Western Front. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long. His face bore an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.”