Ultra-humanization vs. De-humanization
There are many examples of de-humanization throughout the film. Well there should be considering both the novel and film have anti-war messages. For that very reason, I find it unlikely that the author or director intentionally included examples of ultra-humanization. I believe that when they are viewed upon in short-term, they may appear to be ultra-humanizing but they are actually longer extensions of de-humanization. For example and clarification, Paul serves in the army for many years and has feelings and experiences in the war that he never would have experienced back at home. But if you long at the long-term effects, Paul has been destroyed by the war, and eventually killed. So even if he returned home, he'd never have been able to live peacefully and endure the psychological traumas of war. The critic must remember that Paul is one of the many young men who were teenagers still in their adolescence, who had to join the war and were changed greatly. I'll argue with Mr.Bennett and say that anything resembling ultra-humanization in this movie is actually the illusion of pro-war. Recalling the intentions of both the author and director, I find it unlikely that ultra-humanization exists, and if there is, then it wasn't intended for that reason. Props to Mr. Bennett for trying to invent his own little concept though.
And about American actors playing German soldiers in World War II. I personally think that would be genius on the part of the director or whoever makes the decision. If the idea is that German soldiers were not all Nazis and were in fact normal soldiers like any other. What better way to convey this message to an American audience then to use American actors? Americans would be able to sympathize and relate much better to other Americans than to Germans, considering most of us think they're all Nazis. Plus, the movie would probably generate a much greater revenue if in English rather than German. Americans don't want to go read subtitles and listen to the strong German language.
Personally i would love to see this movie in German with English subtitles if it was made that way. But the ultra-humanization is by no means pro-war. It could maybe be used in that sense in propaganda or a commercial for people to enlist but i believe it would be ineffective in that sense. Ultra-humanization is the natural appreciation of things we take for granted. A great example of this is when Paul reaches for the butterfly (a sentiment of his past life) and it seems as if the war melts away from his mind, he is no longer on the battlefield and is astounded (even if it is for just a minute) by such a beautiful thing amidst the ugliness. So I do agree somewhat, but disagree that ultra humanization can be described as a longer extension of dehumanization. These two phenomena in fact walk hand in hand. So when you say he was destroyed by the war, you are right but he is also made to vastly enjoy the simple joys of life that without the breakdown of all that he took for granted he wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed to that extent.
ReplyDeleteYour definition of ultrahumanization differs from Mr. Bennett's and mine. And I'm not setting out a definition but instead replacing terms.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how Ilya has defined it differently. My point is that anti-war films ultimately fail because they describe the experience of war as being somehow transcendent. Thus, the comradery between the men is heightened, friendships are more intimate, basic human pleasures are enhanced, whether food, sex, sleep. Paul describes his emotions after Muller's death where he says he never felt more alive. Paul tells Kantorek and Kat that he knows the truth whereas those at home are filled with lies. Another example of being uplifted by the experience.
ReplyDeleteYour point, namely that these things are mere shadows of the reality that is the horror of war, is, I think, too myopic. These experiences are vital and powerful. One might say that they are worth dying for.
It's not myopic for this movie though.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the point of us analyzing film to understand the director's messages and motives in the film? If he didn't intend for a scene to be ultra-humanizing and we gather that interpretation, haven't we failed to analyze the film appropriately?
ReplyDeleteNo. The work exists independent of its creator. An artist may not even be aware himself of the metaphors that exist within his work. Our task is not to divine the artist's intent, but rather to develop theses (plural of thesis) based upon evidence with the text.
ReplyDeleteSo, here's the task: State a thesis, show examples, connections, or resonances within the text, and come to conclusions. If your evidence is there, who can argue?
My wife wrote a novel filled with metaphorical allusions etc. She, herself, saw, after a re-reading years later, connections within her own book that she was unaware of at the time she wrote the book.
Allow me to add as a caveat, however, that more often than not, it IS the artist's intent to create whatever connections we observe. So, this is certainly the place to start.
ReplyDelete