No two people feel the same way about a movie. That's why Team Experience is joining forces to defend the merits of all award-winning films this year. Here are Eric Blum and Claudio Alves at the German Oscars.
Eric: Claudio, let's work on the Western Front by Edward Burgers . I think I'm in the "like" camp and you in the "dislike" camp. The only real disagreement I've heard from people is that it 'says nothing new about the war' (I want to get into that). But let's start with the general idea of the film.
Claudio: Well, it's about the adaptation of a mid-war novel, perhaps an anti-war novel set before the Second World War, which has already won the Oscar for best film . So he didn't have much hope to say anything new on the subject. However, Edward Berger and company brought a lot of "new stuff" to the story in his writing and previous adaptations, so here goes…
Either way, I don't see anything new being a detriment to the film's success or the reason for my hack. Rather, deviations from book form feel like a betrayal or misunderstanding of the core ideas that made Erich Maria Remarque so powerful.
I don't want to go back to the 1930s. Lewis Milestone movie, or I don't think plot betrayal is an unforgivable sin. Likewise, restoring this myth to its original vocabulary is a laudable mission. However, I can't help but be very happy with the calm we have had on the Western Front .
Eric I am glad to follow your agenda because I wholeheartedly agree with your praise. From the opening shots of the illuminated forest and a sleeping fox family, to the dead soldiers floating in the air...the gunshots and explosions that shatter the peace, director Edward Berger made me want to listen. It was up to the experts. This guy takes his time with his story, creating great images together. I was surprised by the maturity of foreign cinema. The film's skill lies in Berger's combination of narrative and intimacy, as he excelled at capturing both. The film was symphonic. It has plenty of tools to add up and down over time, which eventually results in a broken silence.
Reflection is global. Let's get into the details, shall we? Which of its elements (writing, directing, acting, etc.) do you think was the weakest? Please help me understand why it is not working for you….
It might have been easier for Claudio to say what he did earlier. I absolutely love the cast and the production quality is off the charts. The make-up and set design were particularly inspired, and I would be delighted if any of these achievements earned me an Oscar nomination.
Besides , all the silence on the Western front was meaningless to me. Since you mentioned the pyramid, let me start with that. While people find beauty in carnage, the visual styles presented often fall into a nonsensical aesthetic without rhyme or reason. The cinematography was praised to the highest heavens, but I didn't realize how deep it reached, in ways that it often sought reality elsewhere. At first I tried to be generous, the intense orange-purple gradient seemed to echo early film techniques, be it paint, stencil, or two-tone Technicolor. But it ignores the most modern features of digital clarity and visual immediacy. As we move from the 1917 light play to an officer's dinner, dark blue shadows splash bright orange on the actor's head, I'm ready to leave.
Trust me, I know the movie isn't available online for the usual reasons, but my gripes don't end there. However, reading your words, I think you reacted more positively to Berger and DP James Friend's color choices and considered it one of the highlights of the film.
Eric : Well, let's talk about "pure beauty", that's a great phrase, but what exactly do you mean? It's a director's job to be "nice " to some degree, so what makes Berger think that his vision doesn't make sense? I think the collaboration between Berger and cinematographer James Friend is very different, where they combine visual and lyrical style at the same time. You get the feeling of being a full soldier, but at the same time there's a quiet, eerie beauty to the world around you.
I think their design is a deliberate and focused balance of personal and objective sense. We follow Paul's real experience, but with Berger's objective camera. Berger doesn't give us the sense of a fashion drama we saw in 1917 , or a filmmaking style that looks for commentary and emotion like Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan (I'm badmouthing the film). For me, Berger's idea is this: I show this human experience as "realistically" as possible, without affectation, and you feel what you feel. It's very difficult to present drama like this (as you know, because you are very smart). But the magic of the film (for me personally) is that its "past" take is very evocative. The film has a clinical air that distracts from the disturbing story. None of the chapters and plots of the film are structured in the way of conventional plays. Looks like the truth is coming out.
As for the "look" of the film, it's the direction that gives you the problem. The orange-brown gradation is reminiscent of the early films and is a tribute to the original film, but the Dude is brave enough to use today's technology and digital quality, giving us previously unseen image details. . At the beginning, when they are in this tent made of orange light, we see every pore on the faces of the soldiers, every splash of rain, tears of fear in their eyes. This combination of "old" and "new" is the beauty of cinema. Of course, the officers' dinner has a different color scheme, as it is outside the mainstream world. All of the scenes in "Bureaucracy" feature richer, more textured backgrounds, while maintaining the overall visual scheme of being shot in a more naturalistic "naturalistic" style. Also, another thing I liked about the cinematography was that it was incredibly evocative, namely how cold it was, how quiet the shots outside the battle were, how thick and dry the mud was. That was it.
What do you think about including "outside" scenes with Daniel Brühl, where we see the most important decisions made by politicians?
Claudio: "I will show you this human experience as 'real' as possible, without affection, and you will feel what you feel." - This is what Berger aims for and why I think his aesthetics make no sense. If so, in the digital age, images are actively promoted in the styling process. I never felt like they were particularly hand-wringing with the filmmakers trying to force emotion into the story while deceiving their dramatic intentions. The depiction of modern warfare is trivial, with bloody roars, but never questioned or explored, presented with only external interest and things explained a little more clearly than usual.
Moreover, the ambiguous content of his style is not Paul's. The modern color binary is not a realistic view or representation of the main character's mental state. So if you can't get the material right, why can't you reduce the pain and undermine the goals above?
I apologize for the vitriol. I really like reading your description and I want to see a movie like yours. It's no fun hating something other people love and not being able to connect with that wonderful thing.
And yet, many complaints and criticisms come here. Since you asked, I confess that I hate every second you spend outside of the troops. In the West, removing all silence from their minds on the battlefield betrays the novel's fundamental truth, its radical premise. Remarque's reading connects us to the power of those who feel the direct impact of war, the heroes who lead it and whose bloodshed will live forever in the history books. His reluctance to accept the experience of the powerful is still striking, and the real events that formed the basis of Paul's tragedy are immediately felt a century later. Expanding the scope of the story into the halls of power is another failure in my mind, a compromise that doesn't work, and I wonder why Berger wanted to adapt this particular text in the first place.
Another way to present my idea is to approach another literary adaptation of 2022. Polly decided we should see the boys. Relations with the police began when the Molotsjan controversy began. It's a boring conflict that adds nothing and overshadows what was good.
How do you like these scenes? I imagine that, like me, you are not against them.
Eric : Wow, we really couldn't agree more at Burger Direct. I think the film lacks stylization and is incredibly neutral from a camera perspective. And I think Berger's 'flat' approach is deliberately simple 'drama', not superficial. This is reflected in the direction of Felix Kammer, who instructs Berger to keep his face shocked and confused for most of the film. Cinema is the perfect face that allows us to put our feelings on it.
We spend ninety percent of the movie with the soldiers, so feverishly that I don't think any power is at stake or any underlying truth is lost. The second I watched the film more closely, I was struck by Berger's comments that War is based on time and choice. It's the first step, where we see the first soldier comically moving forward, dodging each bomb to reach another soldier, shot but alive. It prepares us for this random world without harm... How can one live second to second and die another?
The introduction of bureaucracy makes us aware of this question of time. More people die every second while decision makers lazily and recklessly reach agreements. Berger presented it as a tragic comedy with no "warm" quality to the scene or the lives of these people. One of Akotov 's great poems is that our hero is the last person to die before the end of the war. If the timing had been a few minutes different, he could have survived, and knowing that, given the external forces that stopped him, gave me great strength.
The film has one of the most dramatic sequences of any film this year, as Paul is trapped in a well with a Frenchman who thinks he's killed him, but hasn't. The series has some of the darkest comedy, as Paul can't help but watch a man die in front of his eyes, but with an overwhelming sadness as he tries to keep him alive. Berger maintains this order with remarkable purity. Yes, I mentioned amazing and hair growth in the same amazing paragraph. This movie did all kinds of things to my body.
Claudio, I really enjoy talking to you about this. Any other thoughts before we wrap up and leave it to our readers?
Claudio _ I have some instructions and a question. First, my complaint about deviating from the book proves that honesty is the key to success in my eyes. The play, which is significantly different from Lewis Milestone's novel All Quiet on the Western Front , changes the ending, among other things. However, the 1930 image forms a textual reading that enhances the perspective without contradicting the structural and thematic thrusts of Remarque's work. Berger's version couldn't do with the script and overall direction, structure and sound. A film looks like a private reading, অন্তা অন্যু ম্বুবুভুজি.
However, it is interesting how both works sometimes fall into the same choice that makes Paul more famous than his novels. good sequence, a defining moment of both films, and both films mark their place on a final note that obscures their unforgiving literary origins. Paul may have had good intentions when taking these pictures, but he quickly forgets them, this compulsive death-communication lost in a sea of other horrors. He is great in more ways than one. On screen, the two Pauls defy indifference, clinging to each other as the last memory of humanity. Of course, Berger's version still dies carrying this memory of someone else's lost life. the camera lingers there, emphasizing its totemic significance. neutral? I don't think so.
I must say that I enjoyed reading your thoughts as we finished our conversation. Although I can't share the same devotion, I can see why you feel so strongly about this film. At least I will still have the old classic. தியை காட்டை காட்டு க்கு க்கிக்கு कैरी. With so much calm at the end of the Western Front, how do you think the new move compares to the old one?
To me, they live in two different dimensions within a century. It feels like a rewrite of the text, and again, I think Berger uses every bit of modern technology (including asynchronous resonator-like points) to create something that vibrates with modern energy. I don't see Paul as "प्रिय". As mentioned, he was a very tabloid person for me, so his neutrality made it strong, it's not easy to turn off the camera.
It seems cinematically fair to me that the two filmmakers chose to give Paul a memorial for a dead soldier, because it doesn't make Paul more likable, it's more of a scene than a book. Reading saved memories and viewing them are two different things, of course, and there's a nice note of poetic grace there. बिऺम्द्र: We want to show how unkind to each other we are. I think we disagree with the comment.
Thanks for this lively and spirited debate. I know we both love a good fight and you make a fun partner. I am in the comments for what others think about the film.
others
If I nominate him for at least 1 Oscar, it will be Albrecht Shuch. The rest of the movie is derivative… I can't even keep the pre-selected score (drums and noise). Not as bad as Private Ryan.
"सम्प्रून निरवता..." अमार अक्षा गुजी अधिश्वादा There are a lot of average war movies out there right now, but I don't think this one says or does anything new. I agree with Claudio that the scene with Daniel Brühl, although a good actor, was distracting and took away from the film. Albrecht is great though. I can see that the film is a traditional Oscar film that would go to old school voters if it was in a foreign language.
UGH I wrote a really long comment and accidentally deleted it.
very short version I am of two very different opinions, but I like this discussion.
I would like to advocate for expanding the film to include the "corporate" side of the war. Some films ask us to think about war beyond the sectored. And/or "message"... and I think the decision maker needs to be explored further. Thriller Schindler goes through the war. It's an unusual view, but it shouldn't be, because war is as common as a spectacle or a message system, and if we continue to make war films, let's see tragedies on every side.
.png "Admin")
Post a Comment
Post a Comment