The Ending
Was Paul the last guy to get shot in the war?
shareNo. According the to book, he died just a few weeks before the end of the war. If he hadn't reached for that butterfly, he propably would have survived and gone onto a fairly normal life. It makes a chilling climax to the book
===============================================================================
It's a tough universe...If you're going to survive, you've really got to know where your towel is.
"Chilling climax to the book"? To the movie, maybe. It doesn't actually say that's how he died in the book. I thought it seemed out of character that someone as smart as Paul would stand up like that and risk his life just to get a better view of what he was trying to draw. I mean, I understand that he probably wasn't thinking clearly at that point because of how depressed and alone he was feeling without his friends, but I still didn't think it fit. I still felt like crying though, even as part of me wanted to shout, "You idiot! Why didn't you get down?!"
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." -Anton Szandor LaVey
I think it fit just fine. Do you realize at the end, Paul was smoking? He doesn't smoke throughout the whole movie, but after seeing all of his friends die, I think he feels like he will die anyway. Also, drawing the bird is kind of a symbol of feeling free and at home. Truly happy, you know? He was lonely and definitely tired of being in the stupid war. I believe Paul died happy.
shareIn the book, Paul does smoke. Cigarettes and tobacco were scarce, and very important to all the soldiers and recruits and it is a big thing in the book. Back then, it wasn't common knowlegde that smoking kills, they only knew it was good for the nerves, because the nicotine calmed them down. Being able to keep calm was very important, so everyone smoked.
shareYou are right, of course. The book doesn't say how he died. What I really ment is that Paul's death makes a chilling climax to the book, especially when you realize how close it was to the end of the war.
********************************************************************************
It's a tough universe...If you're going to survive, you've really got to know where your towel is.
********************************************************************************
Yes, after 3-4 years in the trenches Paul should have known better, but I think it's a nice touch that they show how a fraction of a second of lowering your guard can be the difference between life and death in the Hell that was the Western Front.
---
I may be a tiny chimney-sweep but I've got an enormous brush.
I think it shows that for even as much Paul has been through, as much as he's aged, he's still just a little boy (? young man?) inside. As I recall, Kantorek mentioned that Paul was always drawing funny little sketches and that he wouldn't get anywhere with them. Foreshadowing, maybe?
I also believe that it was better for Paul not to see it through to the end of the war because when he sees the sorry state of Germany after it all, he'd wish he were back on the front where at least he was useful.
But the way they presented it in the movie, it gave the impression that he died happy. In the book, they left it open, and you sort of felt like there really was no closure.
I also noticed that when he walked down the trench patting the new recruits and straightening them up, it was as if he was acting like Katcinsky did to him when he was new... any thoughts?
Yes, definitely. To me, Paul patting the younger soldiers on the back denotes the birth of a 'new generation' (so to speak)- replacing the old "class of 1916" whom Paul described were either dead, injured or in a madhouse.
Nevertheless, I found the ending extremely effective in the way that you sort of predicted Paul's death just a flicker of a moment after he stands up to look more closely at the bird- which is, of course, when he was shot. It stirred up both surprise/shock and a "ahh, I knew that was going to happen" feeling in me.
the 'standing up to look at something' was cute and all, and i even thought it was good movie making.
i like more the book's ending, in that he was just found dead with no explanation. just another senseless casualty. talk about hammering home the main point. WOW.
42
It seemed like he was no longer afraid of death. He stood up in the open, obviously knowing the danger. I think in the end maybe he was better to have died than return to a society he no longer felt he belonged to.
When we are moving at the speed of life, we are bound to collide with each other
I feel like the original portrayed Paul's death in a more sad, mournful way. Hopeless, grabbing for a butterfly (obviously symbolic). Died with a purpose though...
shareI admit its been a while since I read the book but I always thought he died from gas. I`m sure he mentioned something about taking a few breaths of gas a few days before?
sharewell, i saw the movie recently, and i think i can be pretty sure when i say he didn't die of gas (if the movie has the same ending.) he stood up, a shot is being heard, then you see him falling to the mud.
if i should ever lose my mind,
would you be so kind,
as to help me find,
what i need to survive,
if my brain should ever lose touch,
would you teach me much,
if i should go blank, and lose all i memorized,
would you show me where to go, what to do, and how,
would you lead me right,
teach me 4 + 1 = 5,
if i should ever lose my mind.
You are right about the ending. It is a bit more faithful to the book than the 1930 version.
In my opinion, if you read the final chapters, you will see Baumer as a broken man with no hope.
The final words before it is explained that he is killed is, "I stand up", then a paragraph of hopelessness.
The final sentence in the book, "Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come."
So, you really hit on the point here, I believe he just gave up. Book wise that is, movie wise, it seemed that he forgot where he was for the moment.