Friends Of Paul And The Reader example essay topic

The story of All Quiet on the Western Front is an appealing story to many people of all ages. It was a pleasure to view and learn about the events that took place in Paul Baume r's life. Paul was a brave man who fought along side his friends and fellow Germans in World War 1. It was such a shame that he had to lose his life over pretty much a lost cause. The book was indeed much better than the movie, but then again so are most books.

Books can explain every small detail, and it lets the reader use his imagination, while a movie is stuck to a two-hour time limit. The actual first person narration in a book is somewhat hard to do in a movie, unless the person wants a speaker speaking to the viewer during then entire movie, as well. The movie of All Quiet on the Western Front was very short, and left the viewer sitting there wanting more, or wanting it to be longer. It's a two-hour or so timepiece, that's it.

A book can last you a week, a month, many months, depending on how fast one reads it. Therefore, even though there were some modifications made in the movie that differs from what content is in the book, the book was better; It was written the earliest, and it has the entire storyline and plot. In the movie there is no latrine scene which indirectly is a big issue. The latrine scene illustrated the reader how challenging boot camp and Cpl. Himmelstross were to deal with. Paul and his friends were forced to do many things, which did not happen to show up in the film whatsoever. The book in this case, explains many more details to the reader, whereas the film had to cut it short in order to make it an appropriate film, time wise.

Because of this, the movie makers could not fit this indirectly important scene into the movie. It's a shame, really, that such vital details are left out in most movies. Surely, most people must feel the same way. This makes the conflict with Himmelstross not as significant, cruel, or yet, even evil.

This missing scene hurts the film as the story develops more and more. Corporal Himmelstross is cruel towards Paul in the movie during the duration at boot camp, rather than having a conflict with Tjaden. With the book, the story could explain multiple conflicts, and character changes throughout the book. However in the film, since they only have two or so hours to tell a story, they want the main character, hence Paul, to be in it as much as he can. They feel obligated to keep Paul in almost every scene, or the story would be lost with out him. Paul was the only character in the film, which the viewer got to know, and care about.

I couldn t even tell the others apart because of the lack of character development. They didn t have any unique events that they did or accomplished. The faces all looked the same, in the movie, the only one I could surely tell was Paul and Kat. Kat was an older man, and easily recognizable. But Tjaden, M ller, Kropp, Kemmerich, and the rest were very hard to recognize. In the book, each character had his own characteristics that the story deeply explained to the reader.

The reader then could relate to each character in a way or two, and remember who was who. Therefore, a book does a much better job at explaining character situations, and developing the characters much better than a movie could even attempt. The ways characters lost their lives in the movie were so typical. Paul returns from home to just find out M ller dies. Kemmerich is supposedly shot in the leg. He is fine, his leg is amputated, and then he all of a sudden becomes deathly ill.

In the book, it would explain each character's death like it was an important event that happened in the story. The author wanted to reader to feel for these people; they were Paul's friends, so they were the readers friends. In the movie, most people actually predicted that the excessive characters would die off like some cheesy, nineties horror film, say Scream for example. How horrible. They were just extras, and it didn t matter if they died off.

Paul was the main character, as long as he lives (the longest), it's okay in the movie world. In the book though, the reader wants more. They want multiple character conflicts and development. Therefore, in the book, the supporting characters actually meant something to the reader.

They cheered for them to make it through, so they could go back to their families on the farm. They had hope. They had sympathy. They had agony. The characters were not just some excessive characters to kill off; they were friends of Paul, and the reader.

The basic person should understand now. All Quiet on the Western Front was much better portrayed as a book with its descriptive details and character conflicts, rather than a movie where it was real shallow and not in depth for the plot, theme, or characters whatsoever. The book can had the latrine scene, which indirectly feeds the reader important and yet interesting details that later pay off. The character developments were much, much better in the book, as the book could explain characters and their unique characteristics for as long as they would like. Also in the book, supporting characters mean plenty more than just some nobody who can get killed off, like in the movie. As many people saw this movie wondering how they could pull of such an event, most figured out that it couldn t be done, and there is nothing better than a story in a person's mind and imagination rather than a flat two-dimensional television screen.