What do ya think? Did Paul Baumer have to die to establish closure to the story?
shareSure he has to die. Recall his schooldays when he just drew birds and did not pay attention in class? That scene sets the background of the story when Paul was encouraged to join the army. In the end he forgets about wars and the tense situation and goes back to his nature - love for drawing.
The movie will just completely lose its messages and appeal without Paul dying, although I'm very fond of this character.
Well, he died at the end of the book, so they couldn't really change it. I haven't seen this movie, but I think that it was almost a good thing that he died at the end of the book. He was so messed up, it was better that he just died. In the book, it said that when they found him that he had a peaceful expression, "as if he was glad that the end had come at last." He'd been through so much horror that by the end of the war he was just a shell. He didn't have any love of life. It said "let the years come, they can take nothing more from. I have no hope, so I can face them without fear."
Um, duh.
They didn't make this up for the movie. It was a very successful book.
[deleted]
[deleted]
did katz have to die? i actually thought he would make it through the movie. then close to end he dies too. i guess all of them had to die before the movie was over. i was expecting it to happen to paul at the end. as you said, a closure to the story, that's exactly how i saw it. powerful movie. i haven't seen the 1930 version.
can't you leave anything alone,
your machine just goes on,
is nothing sacred,
have you no regret,
cheapen things down,
to fill your money sucking machine time,
can't you leave anything alone,
is there any unturned stone,
nothing to left be,
do you have to milk it dry out couse it's there to see,
you just go on, and go on,
proving it's nothing you leave alone,
is there any undiscovered location to wich you did in peace leave,
your money making machine shows no stopping, and you can't seem to leave anything be.
I always thought there was a poetic beauty at his end. He's surrounded by death, all his friends and companions are dead, inside he's as good as dead. Looking out at death and the ugliness of everything around him, he suddenly sees beauty and is killed because he forgets everything he's ever learned in striving to capture it, if even for a moment. I'm not sure what the symbol stood for in Remarque's mind, but to me it symbolized everything that is good and beautiful about life that's truly worth dying for.
**********
Is that a rumor or did you just make that up? -Mom
paul had to die in the book because remarque had already shown that he couldn't go back to his old life. indeed, in the book, paul was shown to be merely horrified by his present life in the trenches, but he was truly repulsed by his visit to his former life, to the extent of wanted to cut his leave short, to go back to the front: horrific as the front was, it was at least real, and therefore was better than than the lies of his former (and possibly future) life.
that's why remarque had him meet death with an almost peaceful look, instead of a contorted 'death mask'.
and this is the theme that remarque expanded upon so very well in his sequel, 'the road home'.
indy go blue44
yes. very yes. exacxtly.
42