They are able to follow Paul and his comrades, and have a better idea of who all the men are. They are able to have a better insight into Paul’s thoughts, and scenarios in which Paul and his fellow comrades find themselves in. Though the movie was able to get the story and message out there, the book did a much better job. Book was able to go into more depth and was able to share a lot more than the movie was able to show. The novel also allows a reader to take the information given to them and interpret it how they please, rather than a movie doing it for them. A book will always have a better portrayal of a story than a movie can, solely because a writers can have more information in a book, rather than trying to fit everything into an hour and half …show more content…
We were able to see all the men after a battle where they had lost several men. The men who were able to stay alive were able to go eat. When they got to food area the cook was unhappy he cooked for so many people and was uninformed of the ones who died. The men who were alive were simply happy. They were able to have doubled rations this time. The cook just could not understand how the men could eat rations for hundred and fifty men, when there were only eighty left. He could not understand how they could be hungry, and showed no sympathy for the men who were out on the frontlines risking their lives for their country. We also get to see Paul going back to his home on leave. This is where it seems his depression really comes out, and he regrets ever going home in the first place. He even shares a little of his experience, and almost realizes that he has no idea why his fighting for his country, and why so many are dying for their country. People back home do not understand the magnitude of the war and the amount of people who dying. People back in his home were still glamourizing the war, and trying to still the lives of new fresh