All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) **1/2

Closely based on former WWI German soldier Erich Remarque’s novel of the same name, this 1930 anti-war film won the Academy Award for Best Picture and also a Best Director Oscar for Lewis Milestone. The story examines the horrific and senselessness of a German soldier’s experience in the literal trenches of WWI.

The film opens by introducing viewers to the militaristic nature of Germany in 1914, with German soldiers marching to martial music and professors urging students to enlist for the glory of the fatherland. This is where we meet Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres) and his friends Kropp, Leer, and Kemmerick. We watch as they enthusiastically arrive at boot camp only to see them soon broken down by a brutal commander. After finishing their training, the young soldiers are sent to a war-torn French town on the outskirts of the front. Here they meet cynical and grizzled front veterans, who enlighten them about the shortage of supplies, specifically food. Luckily they have the very industrious Kaczynski, who finds a pig and is willing to trade pork for other comforts, namely cigarettes and booze. Kaczynski serves as the voice of truth about what war entails and is about.

Soon the soldiers are sent to the front to string barbed wire and are introduced to shell fire. One of the boys is blinded by shell fire and then is killed as he runs toward enemy lines. From here we watch the soldiers hunker down in bunkers for endless days of exploding bombs and sporadic machinegun fire. We see soldiers have nervous breakdowns, deal with a rat invasion, and endure hunger and sleeplessness. Once the bombing dies down, the soldiers find themselves in a battle in no-man’s land. Using mobile crane shots, Milestone captures some of the most realistic battle scenes in film history. Intercutting charging soldiers with machinegun fire, Milestone creates images that stress the chaotic and dizzying nature of warfare. One scene shows a French soldier completely obliterated by a grenade—only his hands are left, which we see gripping barbed wire. Another scene shows rows of soldiers fall down like dominoes against machinegun fire. At the end of this battle, the French reach the German trench and force the Germans to retreat to a further back trench. The camera then scans the battlefield to show thousands of bodies. Then, in an excellent indictment on the futility of war, the film looks as though it was being run in reverse, as the Germans mount a counter-attack and push the French back to their former position. This was not a sanitized war film.

When they return from the trench the soldiers are fed and told they will return to the trenches the next day. This launches the German soldiers to philosophize about why war is conducted: to give generals something to do and to make manufacturers rich. While in town, Paul and other soldiers visit a dying Kemmerick in a makeshift hospital. Amplifying the horrors of war, we watch as Kemmerick realizes his leg has been amputated. One soldier callously asks Kemmerick for his boots since he obviously no longer needs them. After watching Kemmerick die, Paul takes the boots back to camp. These were evidently bad luck boots, because what follows is a montage scene of the boots being passed to a new owner every time the former owner dies.

Later in the film, Paul finds himself in battle in a graveyard where he is struck in the head. As he takes cover, a shell explodes and Paul has a decimated coffin land on him—a foreshadowing of things to come. While hiding in a shell hole Paul find himself face-to-face with a French soldier, who he stabs in the throat with his bayonet. Unfortunately the French soldier doesn’t die easily, and Paul has to listen as the Frenchmen groans in agony. We watch as Paul waffles back and forth, praying for the soldier to die and then later hoping for his survival. When the soldier dies, Paul has a desperate conversation with the dead man for forgiveness. Soon after escaping the shell hole, Paul is severally wounded and take to the hospital where he watches yet another one of his friends scream in agony about having his leg cut off.

When he recovers from his injury Paul is given leave and he returns home, where he finds himself unable to deal with peace and quiet. He visits his sick mother and lies about how the war really is. He then finds his father and his friends out of touch with the realities of war, who tells him that he must risk his life for the honor of Germany. After leaving this group he is accosted by a former professor to address his students of the honor of being a German soldier. Shocking his professor, Paul gives a pacifistic speech about the truth of war. In a sadly ironic turn, the class boos Paul and calls him a coward. Because of this incident Paul decides he can’t take the unrealistic world away from the front and decides to return four days early.

When he returns to the front he finds most of his company dead. In a bitterly tragic scene, an aerial bomb wounds Kaczynski. Paul good-naturedly tells him the war is over for him and begins to carry him on his shoulder to a medic. Just then another aerial bomb explodes behind them and a bomb splinter kills Kaczynski, unbeknownst to Paul who continues talking to him. When he tries to give water to his friend he is shocked and dazed to find him dead. If this scene wasn’t heartbreaking enough, the closing scene is haunting. On the eve of the armistice, Paul is daydreaming in a trench about the coming peace when he sees a butterfly (he collected them before the war) through his gun-hole land just outside the trench. We watch as he starts to reach outside the trench and at the same time a sniper takes aim through a rifle scope. The next thing we hear is the shot that sends Paul to his death. The film closes with the image of countless white crosses and the ghosts of Paul and his friends marching into a void, who look accusingly back into the camera.

This is one of the greatest war films ever made. When you watch it today it does not seem dated at all. The grim images captured are mesmerizing and realistic. The message of the complete uselessness of war is not heavy-handed here. Instead, the true reality of what war looks like is bitterly emphasized. The overall performance of Lew Ayers is exceptional. He goes from enthusiastic recruit to grizzled, disillusioned veteran seamlessly.

If you are a WWI history buff or you enjoy truly great war films, you must see this film.

Freedom for Us (À nous la liberté) 1930 **

Ah, if only the assembly lines of America had not dwindled (or moved to Mexico & China), perhaps there would be less "freedom" for us…or at least 11% of us.

This 1931 French comedy, directed by Rene Clair, is a clever little picture that serves as a witty indictment of modern society’s drive toward mechanization. If you’ve seen both this and Chaplin’s Modern Times, then you no doubt noticed their similarities. This might be why the French studio that produced this film sued Chaplin for plagiarism—Chaplin evidently believed in collectivism as early as 1936.

At the beginning of the film we find Louis (Raymond Cody) and Emile (the great Henri Marchand) working on a prison assembly line, singing "Freedom Is for the Happy" and misappropriating a tool to use to saw off their cell window. When they make their break for the prison wall only Louis escapes. If you’re familiar with the Tour de France, you will find it comical that Louis makes it to freedom by incidentally knocking a rider from his bicycle and then later riding it across a finishing line where he wins first prize. Louis soon finds himself conning a store owner into believing that a thief robbed the store while the owner was in the back looking for something. In reality it was Louis and this leads us into watching Louis’ rise from lowly clerk to successful factory owner.

While Louis is becoming a success, Emile is released from prison and somehow ends up sleeping behind the factory and listening to flowers singing quaint songs—no these flowers weren’t poppies. Anyway, he ends up getting arrested and finds himself looking out his cell window at more singing flowers. Actually it’s a beautiful Frenchwoman, Jeanne, doing the singing. I’m not quite sure why, maybe he thought he was losing it with the singing flowers, but Emile tries to hang himself. This causes the gate to come lose and allows Emile to escape and come face to face with Jeanne and her shin-kicking uncle. From here Emile lands in the training department of the factory and leads us into the funniest part of the film. He listens to singing instructions on how to become a factory worker and then starts working as an assembler of phonographs. He becomes distracted when he sees Jeanne and the assembly line starts to comically fall behind. Eventually guards chase Emile to the Louis’ office door where the two old friends meet. At first Louis doesn’t recognize Louis, then he thinks he’s there to blackmail him. They have an entertaining scuffle, but eventually Louis realizes Emile isn’t out to get him and they joyously reunite by singing "Freedom Is for the Happy".

Soon Louis is introducing Emile to his cheating wife and her lover, as well as guests at a dinner party. They have a splendid time drinking wine and singing their favorite song as they make fun of Louis’ guests and lifestyle. This causes Louis’ wife to leave, which makes Louis even happier. Later, when Emile tells Louis he’s taken with Jeanne, Louis invites her and her uncle to a meeting where he makes a proposal (with money) to Jeanne. Jeanne obviously doesn’t like this idea—she already has a boyfriend. Eventually Emile figures this out and is heartbroken. While licking his wounds outside her window, Emile finds himself being pursued by the police and then guards into the factory.

Back at Louis’ house, Louis comes home to find a roomful of ex-cons who want to blackmail him. He refuses to pay. He takes the group on a tour of the factory and locks them in a secret room. Just as Louis is cleaning out his safe, Emile scurries into his office. He hides Emile and then tries to get rid of the guards. While he’s doing this another ex-convict comes in and takes the suitcase full of money. Both Louis and Emile then go on a wild chase, where Emile accidentally releases the ex-cons from the secret room. What follows is a side-splitting chase scene, with Louis in pursuit of the money, and the ex-cons and Emile chasing after Louis. Eventually all of them end up on the roof, where the police arrest all the ex-cons, not believing their story about Louis being a wanted man. Strangely enough, the suitcase is left on the roof.

The next day Louis opens his new factory to great fanfare. Unfortunately the police do some checking up and learn that Louis is an escaped convict. When they show up Louis realizes the jig is up and gives a speech where he gives the factory to the workers. Soon after this a strong wind starts to blow and the money from the suitcase (still on the roof!!) begins to trickle down on the festivities. At first no one wants to pick any up, but when Louis realizes where the money is coming from he starts going after it, which causes all hell to break lose.

The ending of the film is both message-driven and ironic. The factory is completely automated and the workers enjoy themselves with leisure activities. I’m not sure if Rene Clair was trying to say that automation was good because it did all the work, or that because they owned the factory the workers reaped all the benefits and could lead a care-free life The ironic part is that while all this is going on Emile and Louis are roadside tramps, singing "Freedom Is for the Happy" for coins. In the closing shot Louis sees a rich car go by and he reminisces about his lost wealth. Emile kicks him in the butt, breaking his idyll, and they continue down the road singing their song.

There isn’t much dialogue in this picture, instead Clair relies on music and singing to move the story along. Since this was a transitional film in France, from silent to talkie, I think this was an adroit decision by Clair. While the storyline is far from believable, it is quick-witted and enjoyable to watch—sort of like a Moliere play. That said, the best thing about this film is Henri Marchand. His facial expressions and comic timing, especially in the assembly line scenes, are something to be marveled. I don’t know that the film would be as good as it is without him.

If you like Jacques Tati’s films featuring Mr. Hulot, then I think you will like this. If you don’t like Tati’s films (there are some I hate, too), don’t be scared off—this picture just has common thematic elements with his. In addition, if you’re a fan of Modern Times you might want to compare it to this and see if Chaplin really did rip off the French. I wouldn’t classify this as a must see, but it is a good film.

Little Caesar (1930) **

Pizza-Pizza! Everybody wants a piece of the pie, right? Well, the title character of this 1930 classic, Caesar "Rico" Bandello (Edward G. Robinson), is just like everybody else—except, I hope, the psychopathic tendencies. Mervyn LeRoy directs this "grandfather" of the gangster film genre. The story follows the rise and fall of underworld kingpin Rico Bandello.

In the beginning of the film we see small-time crooks Rico and Joe Massara (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) rob and kill a gas station attendant in some western town. The stop off at a diner, turn the clock back 20 minutes, and proceed to eat the prototypical Italian meal: spaghetti. While here they read about the funeral of a big-time mobster. Rico decides he wants to go big-time, too—if Peter Gabriel has just popped in your head, I’m sorry. Anyway, this leads Rico and Joe to Chicago, and Rico convinces kingpin Sam Vettori (Stanley Fields) to bring him into his gang and to nickname him "Little Caesar." Meanwhile, Joe takes a job as a dancer at a gambling club and is partnered with Olga (Glenda Farrell), who he quickly falls in love with and promises that he’ll try to stay away from crime.

Time goes by and Rico works his way into Vettori’s confidence, but because of his bad attitude he is often left out by the kingpin. When word comes down from "Big Boy" (so many food references to be had!!!), AKA the mayor, that mobsters need to curb the violence because of a police crackdown, Vettori is ordered to rein in Rico. Vettori then begins planning a robbery at the club where Joe works and Rico suggests they bring Joe in on the job. This causes a power struggle between Vettori and Rico. It also places an unwilling Joe in a difficult position, as Rico demands his friend’s cooperation. What follows is a montage sequence of gangsters robbing the club on New Year’s Eve. LeRoy chose to shoot the gangsters from the waist down, perhaps in an effort to stress the facelessness of crime. While the crime is taking place Rico shoots and kills the police commissioner. This leads to Rico dethroning Vettori as kingpin of the gang.

Now at the top of food chain, Rico begins to develop classic paranoid tendencies. When his getaway driver Tony starts to visit the local priest to repent his sins, Rico believes Tony has turned yellow. Predating The Godfather by more than 40 years, LeRoy deftly shoots one of the most memorable whack jobs in gangster film history, as he captures Rico driving up and shooting Tony as he is climbing the snowy steps of the church. Tony rolls down the steps and becomes an instant snow angel.

Later, Rico is honored with a party where he is given diamond, platinum watch and where he also makes the mistake of having his picture taken for the newspapers. Meanwhile, Joe overhears his gangster boss at the nightclub put hit on Rico and Joe tries to warn his old friend. Unfortunately, Rico doesn’t get the message and is assailed by machine gun fire from a milk truck. He is only grazed and is pleased to learn that Joe had tried to warn him. Then he takes out Joe’s boss, ostensibly making him Joe’s new boss. Impressed by Rico, Big Boy calls a meeting and informs Rico that he is now the boss of Diamond Pete Montana’s gang, too. This allows Rico the opportunity to offer his loyal friend Joe a partnership. When Joe declines the offer he shouldn’t have refused, Rico blames Olga for turning Joe into a "sissy". He tells Joe that if he doesn’t take the partnership and goes back to Olga that it will mean suicide for both of them. When Joe tries to get Olga to flee town she tells Joe she won’t leave and that they should tell the police what they know about the police commissioner’s death. Just as this is happening Rico and one of his thugs bust through the door. A face off occurs between Joe and Rico, and when Rico can’t pull the trigger on his friend Rico’s thug tried to shoot Joe, but Rico shifts the gun and Joe is only grazed by the bullet. When police sirens are heard the men flee from the scene, leaving Joe and Olga to "rat" on Rico. Rico goes into hiding and has a dramatic fall from grace, as he ends up in a 15 cent a night flophouse. Months later, the police lure Rico out of hiding by placing insulting comments about him in the newspaper. In an unforgettable final scene, the police surround Rico behind a billboard advertising Joe and Olga’s dance show. When Rico refuses to surrender the police riddle the billboard and Rico with machinegun fire. Lying on the ground dying, Rico asks: "Mother of Mercy! Is this the end of Rico?" It is.

What makes this film so good is Edward G. Robinson. He adeptly shows the many layers of Rico’s character, from menacingly evil to sympathetically disillusioned. It is a shame that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. He makes you both root for and against Rico. Douglas Fairbanks also does a nice job as conflicted Joe.

The story itself is hard-hitting and trim. There isn’t any fat that needs to be cut. All of the scenes are tightly constructed and lead directly to the dramatic finale. The film is gripping and gritty. This was not a film with a large budget, but that fit perfectly with the dark, sleazy underworld that Le Roy created.

Sadly, Little Caesar couldn’t be shown in American theatres between 1934 and 1953 due to the Hays Code. Today it is considered the movie that launched the gangster film genre. It is a true classic that any fan of Coppola or Scorsese should see.

Earth (Zemlya) 1930 *1/2

If only the hero of this film, Vasilly, were alive today I could have bought him every man’s Christmas dream gift at the Cracker Barrel—a John Deere hat and t-shirt.

This 1930 silent film, directed by Alexander Dovzhenko, is about a Ukrainian village’s quest for a tractor. Need I say more? Made during one of Stalin’s 5-Year Plans, this is a celebration of modern farming methods and an indictment on private ownership. The landowners (kulaks) in this village become upset when the peasants, using their collective tractor manned by Vasilly, bring in a strong harvest. The kulaks take their revenge by shooting Vasilly as he is walking home one night. Rejecting religion, as all true Soviets do, Vasilly’s family says no to a Christian burial and instead carries his body through the fields. When the murderer celebrates his accomplishment by dancing across graves, rain begins to fall on the crops (Dovzhenko’s heavy-handed way of showing tears). Later, the clouds fade and the sun remerges to shine on the earth again.

Besides tractors, what else is this film about? The cycle of life, I suppose. People die and babies are born. Crops grow and then are harvested so that the people can live and the next cycle of crops can be planted. Are you yawning, too?

This film is considered one of the greatest Soviet-era silent films ever made. I can’t agree, seeing as I found both The Battleship Potemkin and October 100 times more watchable than this. The Nazis destroyed the negative of this film during WWII, but an original release print was saved—yet another crime against humanity we can blame on them.

The Age of Gold (L'âge d'or) 1930 :(((

To say that watching this 1930 film is a surreal experience is an understatement. To say that I hated all 60 minutes of it is an accurate statement. Rich Vicomtes should not give crazy, young Spaniards money and complete freedom to make art that is "exquisite and delicious." There’s a reason the Catholic Church threatened to excommunicate the de Noailles if they distributed this Luis Bunuel film: it’s just too absurdly raw.

Bunuel opens the film as a documentary, using footage from a 1912 film about the habits of scorpions. If only that were what this film was actually about! Bunuel moves from scorpions to chanting archbishops on a beach. Max Ernst plays a starving soldier who witnesses this act and then hurries to tell other starving soldiers that the Mallorcans (a Spanish island) have arrived. Evidently these Mallorcans are enemies, but because the soldiers are suffering from starvation they are too weak to fight. This isn’t good for the archbishops— we later see the Mallorcans laying a monument to celebrate the archbishops’ skeletal remains. Just as this celebration is taking place we hear amorous screams (yes, it is 1930). The couple is arrested, but the man is released after he shows documents revealing he’s a government official—and a real SOB who kicks dogs. The woman is the daughter of a marquis, who throws a crazy party where all kinds of strange (but evidently not noteworthy to the guests) things happen. A gamekeeper shoots his son over nothing but people continue to mingle. Later, the government official arrives and he and the woman get it on, with Wagner’s "Tristan and Isolde" playing in the background, in the garden. Somehow a concert conductor ends up in the arms of this woman and the official gets a phone call telling him that thousands have died because of his actions. He then goes to his apartment and throws an archbishop out a window. The film ends with the announcement that the Duc de Blangis (and Jesus) is to reemerge from a castle after 120 days of debauchery—Pier Paolo Pasolini references should be inserted here, but I didn’t like his film, either.

The film is most remembered for its shocking images, most notably the cow in the bed (see picture), a woman sucking the toe of a statue (image not included because so much could be inferred), and, of course, Jesus as a spent libertine on the castle drawbridge. These are all images I wish were easily forgotten—they are not.

So, what is this film about? Eroticism? Anti-authoritarianism? Anti-Catholicism? Bunuel said it was "a romantic film performed in full Surrealist frenzy." Okay, whatever you say Luis.

The Blue Angel (Der blaue Engel) 1930 **

Foreseeing the intellectual laziness of the American population decades before martial art films dubbed theirs, Josef von Sternberg simultaneously shot this film in both English and German (the German is slightly different). Since my understanding of the German language consists of "Juden Verboten" and "Kann ich noch ein Bier", I watched the German version with subtitles. No doubt I have offended the average American filmgoer who would rather watch Tobey "Spiderman" Maguire in the English remake of Brothers than watch the excellent Danish original starring Connie Nielsen. The best way I can think to explain this to these sub-title haters is this: Remember New Coke.

Emil Jannings plays Professor Immanuel Rath, a reserved German schoolteacher who becomes concerned over his students’ fascination with the goings on at the local cabaret, the Blue Angel. When Rath goes to the cabaret to investigate he finds Lola (Marlene Dietrich), an alluring songstress who doesn’t mind changing her clothes in front of men she just met—nor does she mind dropping her panties on them. Somehow Rath ends up taking Lola’s panties home with him, thus the reason he must return the next day to see Lola—no doubt a complex case for Freud.

With his students hiding in a cellar, Rath is treated to a strange seduction at the hands of Lola. Who combs someone’s hair? When Lola is ordered to drink with a drunken sailor who treats her rudely, Rath becomes enraged and chases the sailor out of the cabaret. When the sailor returns with the police, the cabaret’s magician hides Rath in the cellar containing his students. He chases them out of the club and then is given drinks to calm his nerves. While he’s getting loaded, Lola begins to sing the song synonymous with Dietrich: "Falling in Love Again".

The next morning Rath wakes up in Lola’s bed and is treated to breakfast for two. This makes him late for class. When he arrives at class he finds a student-drawn picture of him as Cupid. After he tries to punish the class they become unmanageable, which causes the headmaster to intervene. This leads to the headmaster asking for Rath’s resignation. After packing up his belongings, Rath goes to the Blue Angel to find Lola’s travelling troupe preparing to leave. He asks Lola to marry him. She laughs at him, but somehow they end up married nonetheless. The next time we see Rath, he’s selling girlie postcards at Lola’s shows. He is no longer superior to anyone in the group. As a matter of fact, he’s viewed as the lowest member in the troupe and Lola treats him like a big loser.

Four years pass and Rath has literally become the troupe’s clown. When they return to Rath’s hometown the show is sold out due to him—who wouldn’t want to see a former professor as a clown? Meanwhile, a strongman has become enamored with Lola. When Rath doesn’t want to go on stage Lola has to force him to. While being treated to eggs being broken on his head, Rath watches Lola flirt with the strongman backstage. He begins to crow like a rooster and chases Lola and tries to kill her. The strongman and others prevent this and tie Rath up in straightjacket. Once he calms down Rath is let out. In one of the bitterest endings I can think of, Rath leaves the Blue Angel hearing Lola sing "Falling in Love Again" to another man and returns to his old school. The final shot of the film sees the former professor, in spotlight, grasping his desk as bells are ringing. Depressing enough?

This film is a good example of German expressionism. It is very dark, full of symbolism, and unsentimental. The character of Professor Rath is the epitome of the German male who before the war was a hard-working respectable type, who finds himself completely destroyed in the post WWI era—there’s a reason Hitler came to power. The overall setting of the film looks grimy and depressing, as though everything needs a good cleaning. Perhaps this is why Sternberg opened the film with a woman cleaning a window.

Both Jannings and Dietrich are compelling as this oddball couple. Jannings, who was known for his histrionic performances, does a good job at being both pompous and pathetic. This was just another one of his great performances, like The Last Laugh and The Last Command. For Dietrich, however, this was the role that launched her American film career. She showed that she could be convincing as a femme fatale. Thus, she and Sternberg would go on to make a number of films capitalizing on how well she played the vamp, most notably Morocco, Dishonored, and Shanghai Express. Of course this film isn’t their greatest collaboration, but it is good nonetheless.