The most humiliating scene in the history of world cinema took place on the night of December 5, 1930.
In the Mozart Auditorium in Berlin, Germany, the premiere of a Hollywood movie is being held.
Before the film was released, it was described by the media as "the bloodiest movie in the 30s in the United States", and the auditorium was full.
The film was only shown for a few minutes, and an accident happened-
Thugs sprang up in the audience, smashed stench bombs on the big screen, and then released the prepared rats from the bags.
The theater was chaotic, and the guests and audiences attending the premiere were also frightened to dodge around.
This scene was forever nailed to the pillar of shame in world film history.
And the source of this farce is the movie "No War on the Western Front".
This is an anti-war movie, and the protagonist is still a German soldier.
At that time, Germany had just come out of the quagmire of World War I, and the country was plunged into it from top to bottom, and in the fanatical worship of war, this anti-war film "unfortunately" hit the gun.
Goebbels, the backbone of the Nazis, who was then the propaganda minister of the Nazi Party, single-handedly orchestrated the farce.
After the farce, the German media flocked to the theater, in which they did not mention the atrocities in the theater, but blindly denounced the film as "deviant".
Hollywood on the other side of the ocean, fearing German deterrence, collectively chose to be silent.
The film's investment boss even came forward to apologize, and said in a low voice that the film must be revised until the Germans are satisfied.
"No War on the Western Front" is completely unnecessary to revise, because it won two Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director that year, becoming the most classic anti-war film, or even one of them.
It was banned in Germany until the 60s and quickly sparked a movie-watching frenzy.
After 30 years of injustice, this classic can be regarded as justifying itself.
It has made a name for itself in Germany, but in the world film circle, its path seems to be "getting narrower and narrower".
Especially now, it is a bit "out of place".
From the story point of view, its plot is simple enough to be summarized in one sentence.
During World War I, the German soldier Paul was called up into the army, experienced the cruelty of war, and finally fell on the Western Front, and then the German-French armistice came into effect, and the German newspaper on the same day proudly wrote: "There is no war on the Western Front." ”
Judging from the performance, the film also seems to reveal a sense of "weirdness".
Because the first sound film was born in 1928, this old film from 1930 followed the performance style of silent films in terms of performance: exaggerated expressions, rich body language, similar to drama.
Today's audiences find it difficult to accept such a startled style.
As for the picture of the movie, let alone it.
This film was extremely shocking at the time as a war film, don't forget, this is a 1930 movie.
But modern audiences who are accustomed to watching 3D movies today can no longer bear the roughness in the picture, such as many soldiers falling down in advance before the explosion.
However, despite the factors of the times, Pigo still feels that it is the greatest war film in film history.
First of all, it is adapted from the novel of the same name, the author of which participated in World War I;
Secondly, it was released in 1930, at the crossroads of World War I and World War II, and it witnessed two world wars.
Finally, it reflected on the war extremely deeply, but it still could not prevent the outbreak of World War II.
This also verifies Hegel's statement:
"The only lesson humanity has learned from history is that humanity will not learn anything from history."
If films such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Dunkirk" are just "watching the fire from the other side", then "No War on the Western Front" is "immersive".
This is a classic that has been tempered by war, and that brilliance will never be erased by the years.
How to make a classic work can travel through the times and be accepted by modern audiences?
The easiest way to do this: a remake.
In fact, "No War on the Western Front" has been remade by the United States once in 1979, and the reputation is good, and many domestic fans have watched the film on the movie channel that year.
This remake is also 43 years old.
This year, streaming giant Netflix spent a lot of money to remake this classic again.
There are two pieces of pearls in front, and many viewers take it for granted that Netflix is picking up people's teeth.
But after the film premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, it immediately received rave reviews, and Douban scored as high as 9.0 points.
This score even exceeds the 1930 edition.
Novels and movies have been around for almost a century, what else can this remake be new?
I watched this film with curiosity.
Many netizens are praising how wonderful this war film is, describing it as "the best of the year", and Pigo wants to look at it from a different angle.
The two versions of "No War on the Western Front" seem to tell the same story, but they are actually two completely different movies.
If we compare this 2022 version with the original, what are the different gains?
01、
The first difference: a drastic change to the protagonist, the adaptation of "bed play" is the most subtle
The first innovation of the new version is a series of changes in the protagonist.
Although the original version is classic, there is a big drawback that the protagonist's sense of existence is too weak, and many people have watched half of it and can't tell who is the protagonist.
This malaise was keenly grasped by the director of the new work, and he made drastic changes.
We can see the clue from the appearance.
The original protagonist, Paul, is a burly handsome guy, which was a very popular style in Hollywood at the time.
Handsome is handsome, but it is not prominent in the pile of people, so many viewers are stupid and can't tell who is who.
And the protagonist of the new version has come to a subversion.
In the traditional impression, the protagonists of war movies are the kind of muscular men who exude male hormones.
But Paul in this film looks a little "Wenxiu", and even a little like a widowed sister with short hair between his eyebrows.
This is obviously deliberate by the director, Paul suddenly became an "alien" on the battlefield, behind his "Wenxiu", there is a kind of gentleness and forbearance, and on the faces of others, there is only numbness and coldness.
I am sure that after watching this film, you will miss this version of Paul, his melancholy blue eyes are full of sadness.
From the perspective of plot design, the two are also very different, and the 1930 version of Paul is essentially the absolute halo of Hollywood.
He has a very clear growth line: a good student at school, a recruit on the battlefield, a protagonist halo who escaped death, a loss in his hometown, a tragic and generous man, and a proper male protagonist script.
For example, he faced, the once evil instructor, combed his big back, personable, who is good and who is evil is clear at a glance;
For example, after he returned to his hometown, he showed disdain in the face of his former teacher, which is also in line with the spirit of resistance in Hollywood.
The most obvious example is Paul's bed play.
You read that right, Paul had a bed play in the original.
Paul followed his comrades and three busty girls to the appointment, and spent a romantic night, and after the bed fun, he also left the girl a "scumbag quote": "After tonight, we will never see each other again." ”
In my opinion, this is actually an illustration that the protagonist is also an ordinary person and has his own seven emotions and six desires, and the "stain" on Paul's body makes the character more real.
And the new version of Paul is completely reduced to the shell of human nature.
At the beginning, he still had a smile on his face as he listened to the pre-war mobilization speech.
After taking off his clothes and changing into a military uniform, he also muttered: "Girl, girl, I love you." ”
But after entering the battlefield, he hardly smiled again.
He was abused by his superiors;
was almost crushed to death by a plank;
witnessed the death of his comrades;
In the end, it was reduced to a walking dead.
The director's changes to the original bed scene are the most outstanding.
In the new version, the three girls are just passing by from afar.
Paul could only smile stupidly there.
Paul couldn't wait for the next supper.
The comrades-in-arms asked for a handkerchief from the girl, and everyone solved their desires by smelling the femininity on the handkerchief.
Paul later "inherited" the handkerchief and held it as a treasure until his sacrifice.
When he died, he saw a poster of a beautiful woman fluttering in the wind.
He had never tasted femininity in his life, and this was his last fantasy of love.
This kind of adaptation is wonderful and endlessly memorable, but it is really cruel.
In terms of acting, the new version of Paul is also far better than the original.
Let's just take one scene as an example to see the gap.
In the novel, Paul has a "hand-to-hand fight" with his enemies.
He kills the enemy and tries to save him, and finally he finds pictures of his wife and children from them, but the enemy is dead, and Paul is plunged into endless self-blame.
The original version is slightly stylized when it shows this paragraph, and we can also see one or two from the stills.
The new version took nearly 5 minutes to show this plot, and 5 minutes was Paul's one-man show.
His desire to survive, repentance, struggle, self-blame, and numbness can be connected in our minds through a few screenshots.
So, in general, the most refreshing thing about the new version is the deep portrayal of the protagonist.
02、
The second difference: in terms of plot, the director is the opposite, both risky and subversive
The original is black and white, but the story is in color; The new version is in color, giving you the impression, but only black and white are seen.
The reason for this difference lies in the plot trade-off.
The original film basically restores the context of the novel: before the war, after the war, returning home to visit relatives, returning to the battlefield, and sacrifice.
The film gives the audience space to breathe everywhere, combine work and rest, and not get tired of watching.
For example, in the opening scene, Germany fell into a frenzy for war, which was magical;
For example, after Paul joined the army, several young men banded together to beat up the bad instructor, which was very funny;
For example, between wars, everyone is busy passing beer to refresh themselves, which is very romantic;
For example, the death of a comrade was originally sad, but Mueller got the boots left by his comrades.
He walked around in his boots and walked out of the feeling of "My Skateboard Shoes", which was very healing;
For example, Paul came home before the sacrifice and kissed his mother affectionately goodbye, which was very warm;
In other words, the story is brutal, but the director is very tolerant, and he leaves the audience with a breather in various paragraphs of the film, and we can watch the film in one breath.
But the new version of the director is the opposite.
He realized that if he copied the original "big and complete", it would be just a repetition of someone else's creation.
So he did subtraction.
In the plot, he pinched his head and tail, the pre-war mobilization was compressed, Paul's family visit was deleted, and those funny and warm passages were missing, leaving only the endless smell of cruel blood on the battlefield.
To add to this desperation, a leadership line has been added to the new edition.
That is, German soldiers shed blood and died at the front, but officials baked stoves in their offices, ate delicacies, and said things against their will;
The marshals did not hesitate to sacrifice the lives of soldiers for his own political self-interest, and these beautiful pictures were in sharp contrast to the cruel battlefield.
In the end, the soldier, coaxed by the marshal, went to the front for the last time, and the director even learned from Eisenstein and played "associative montage".
Use hanging fat, bloody scalpels, and tattered religious portraits to prophesy the tragic end of the soldiers.
For the lighthearted moments in the original, the director also "darkened".
For example, the cook Kate in the original version is a funny fat man.
He stole a big fat pig for his comrades, and when eating, he made a gesture of brawning.
He confronts the rats in the camp and affectionately calls them "Oscar."
Kate in the new version has become an unsmiling middle-aged man, and his son died of smallpox.
The funny scene of stealing fat pigs in the original became goose stealing, and this move later brought Kate to death.
The second time he went to steal geese, he was shot and killed by the master's son.
The father who lost his son was killed by someone else's son, and a funny person became a sad father.
For example, as mentioned above, in the original version, the soldiers went to see their comrades at the time of death, everyone shushed and asked for warmth, and Mueller also got a pair of boots, and the wounded died with warmth.
But in the new version, I also went to visit my amputated comrades.
Taking advantage of Paul's inattention, his comrades picked up a rice fork and poked themselves in the neck frantically, and finally the blood whimpered, which is enough to make you physically uncomfortable.
You may ask, there is no rhythm in the new version, and everything is lost to the end?
Not really, the director likes to intersperse beautiful empty shots in one tense plot after another to adjust the atmosphere.
But isn't it an even greater tragedy that the soldiers are in the midst of the beautiful scenery and have no time to enjoy it?
The director's simple adaptation is risky enough and subversive enough.
Every once in a while watching a movie, I need to stop and take a slow, all thanks to this intensive emotional output.
03、
The third difference: the ending is rewritten, and the new version has more stamina
The ending in the original is classic.
Paul tries to catch a butterfly on the battlefield and is shot and killed by the enemy.
Then the director used the overlapping pictures and Paul's affectionate look back to praise these dead soldiers.
This scene has become a classic in film history, as a remake, if it is also filmed, it will only be laughed at.
After we suffered for more than 2 hours, the new version of the director finally gave a different ending.
Paul was summoned by the marshal to step into battle for the last time, by which time he was already the walking dead.
In a fierce street battle, Paul and the enemy engaged in a life-and-death hand-to-hand fight, and the two sides scuffled into the underground warehouse.
He was stabbed to death by the enemy, watched the enemy leave, and the light closed the door to himself.
And at 11 o'clock on November 11, 1938, it was the moment of the armistice.
As soon as Paul fell, the clock in the marshal's office was fixed at 11 o'clock - the war was over.
On that day, the newspaper wrote that "there was no war on the Western Front", and no one knew about Paul's death.
On the battlefield of Paul's death, he saw tassels flying in the sky and saw the Miaoling woman on the poster, but all this could only wait for the next life.
Objectively speaking, the two versions of the ending, the original version is more light and freehand, and the new version is slightly cumbersome.
But the courage to abandon the classic ending and boldly write a new ending is admirable, and I think many viewers are deeply shocked like me.
This kind of staying power also makes the film's reputation high, and firmly ranks first on the Douban popular list.
Finally, Pigo wants to say that the two versions of "No War on the Western Front" are the same story on the surface, but in fact they are two completely different movies.
The plot of the old version is more popular, with ups and downs, one by one, the audience's emotions will also follow the ups and downs of the plot, and the overall viewing process is more relaxed;
The plot of the new version is more compact, and the film abandons all the details and works the path of pathos.
We can experience that suffocating feeling when watching the movie, but the stamina after watching the movie is longer.
As an audience, which version do you prefer?
Text/Pippi Film Editorial Department: A Chicken
© Original丨Article copyright: Pippi Movie (ppdianying)
Please do not reprint in any form without authorization