BACK-STORY: “Paths of Glory” was Stanley Kubrick’s first
great film. The fact that he also
directed several other movies on the 100 Greatest list (“Spartacus”, “Dr.
Strangelove”, “Full Metal Jacket”) makes a case for his being the greatest war
movie director. The movie was based on
the novel by Howard Cobb which was published in 1935. The teenage Kubrick had read the book in his
father’s study. Kubrick had trouble
getting funding because of the depressing nature of the plot. This problem was solved when Kirk Douglas was
brought on board. His production company
took on the task and Douglas was paid 1/3 of the approximately $1 million
budget. He was not in it for the money
as Douglas was committed to the project in principle. The movie was a critical smash, but only a
modest success at the box office and predictably did not do well in
Europe. In fact, it was banned in France
for two decades. Incredibly, the movie
received zero Academy Award nominations and is not on AFI’s 100 Greatest Movies
list!
OPENING: The movie is set on the Western Front in France
in 1916. A narrator summarizes the
futility of the war up to that point. It
is a stalemate. French Army Chief of
Staff Gen. Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) visits Gen. Mireau (George MacReady) at
his chateau. Broulard orders an attack
on an impregnable German position called the “Ant Hill”. Mireau is at first against the insane,
suicidal assault, but Broulard uses flattery and promotion bribery to bring him
around. He does not have to remind
MacReady that he will be safely witnessing the attack from a bunker.
SUMMARY: Mireau visits the trenches to get some face-time
with his beloved cannon fodder. In an
amazingly long tracking shot with no cuts, he buddies up to his men by
repetitively asking them “Hello, soldier, ready to kill more Germans?” When he encounters an obviously shell-shocked
soldier, MacReady huffs that there is “no such thing as shell-shocked” and he
slaps him ala Patton. Mireau meets the
regimental commander Col. Dax (Douglas) in his bunker. (Douglas gets his obligatory shirtless
scene.) He informs the skeptical Dax of
the attack. Mireau is optimistic that
the casualties will only be around 60%!
That figure is arrived at by adding 5% from their own barrage + 10% in
no man’s land + 20% through the German wire + 25% taking the position. The men will “absorb bullets and shrapnel and
by doing so make it possible for others to get through”. Dax explodes and quotes Samuel Johnson: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel.” When Mireau suggests that
Dax take a furlough, Dax backs down and promises to take the “Ant Hill”.
A night patrol is ordered to reconnoiter
the position. Lt. Roget (Wayne Morris)
takes two men with him and then proceeds to panic and kill one in a friendly
fire incident. The steaming dead body of
Lejuene is the only graphic shot in the movie.
Afterwards, Cpl. Paris (Ralph Meeker) confronts the drunken Roget, but
is apprised of the fact that officers hold all the cards. Roget:
“ Who’s word do you think they are going to believe- or accept?”
The attack the next day is one
of the great combat scenes in war movie history. It begins with another long tracking shot as
Dax moves through the trench like Mireau did, but without the faux
bravado. The assault is a tour de force
in battle cinematography as a camera on a dolly tracks Dax and the cannon
fodder through a hellish landscape. It
is obvious to everyone, except the spectating Mireau, that the attack has no
chance of success. Dax leads the men
across no man’s land. (It took 60 men,
eight cranes, and three weeks to turn a German farm into the scarred landscape
of trench warfare.) That 60% figure is
looking optimistic as men go down left and right. It is futile like many an attack in the war. Roget’s unit does not even leave the
trench. Mireau orders the French
artillery to open fire on them, but the battery commander refuses without a
written order. The incensed general vows
revenge for the failed assault. “If
those little sweethearts won’t face German bullets, they’ll face French ones!”
Follow this whistle, dogs |
At the chateau, Broulard, Mireau,
and Dax negotiate how many men need to be court-martialed for cowardice pour encourager les autres. Broulard:
“There are few things more stimulating than seeing someone else
die.” Mireau is talked into being
reasonable and accepting only three sacrificial lambs - one from each
company. Broulard is in a jocular mood
throughout and Dax is aghast. The scene
foreshadows “Catch-22” and “MASH”.
Roget tabs Paris to get rid of
the eyewitness to his cowardice. Arnaud
(Joe Turkel) is chosen by lottery. Ferol
(Timothy Carey) is chosen because he is a social misfit. Dax volunteers to be their defense
attorney. The trial is held in the
chateau. A no-nonsense general serves as
judge and it is apparent he is set on the end result with as little court room
theatrics as possible. Each patsy gets
his time on the stand, not that it will make any difference. Ironically, none
was a coward and even Paris (whose unit did not leave the trench) had wanted to
attack, but was knocked unconscious by a corpse falling on him. Dax gives an impassioned closing argument
which includes the line “miscarriage of justice”. Guess what the verdict is.
The trio now have doom hanging
over them like a muddy trench coat.
Paris ruminates about how a cockroach has a better future than him,
resulting in Ferol smashing it and deadpanning:
“Now you have the edge on him.”
When a priest comes to visit, Arnaud attacks him. Paris intervenes and
punches him, resulting in a skull fracture.
A doctor repairs Arnaud enough for him to be executed. After Dax is informed about Mireau’s attempt
to bombard his own men, he confronts Gen. Bourland to attempt blackmail. It is unclear whether this ploy will
work. Surely they won’t execute these
innocent men.
Sorry, happy ending
insisters, for the good of the war effort and to avoid future mutinies (mission
not accomplished!), these dudes must die.
The men are led to the posts.
Actually, the unconscious Arnaud is carried on a stretcher. If you ever have to stage an execution by
firing squad, this movie acts as a good tutorial.
In the afterglow of the
spectacle, Broulard and Mireau eat heartily in the chateau. Bourlard:
“This one had a certain splendor to it.”
Dax arrives. On cue, Broulard
brings up the bombardment order. There
will have to be an inquiry. Mireau
realizes he’s not heading for promotion after all. He insists that he is “the only completely
innocent man in this affair.” OMG someone please slap that man! When Mireau stomps off, Broulard offers the
promotion to Dax. Dax fumes and calls
him a “degenerate.” Broulard’s riposte
is that Dax is an “idealist”. Oh, snap!
CLOSING: Dax gets word that the battered unit is heading
up to the front again. He passes by a
cantina where a German girl (the future Mrs. Kubrick) sings “The Faithful
Hussar” to a crowd of soldiers. The
hoots and catcalls are transformed to tears as the men hum along. There is still some humanity in this inhumane
war.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Yes. It is
not your typical war movie. There is
only the one graphic corpse and there is no blood. The acting is stellar and Kirk Douglas takes
off his shirt. There is only one female
character, but she is significant and closes out the film. If your significant other enjoys bravura
movie-making, she will enjoy the visual treats the movie.
HISTORICAL ACCURACY: Howard Cobb was inspired by a newspaper story
about an incident in the war where four French poilu were executed for unit
cowardice. After the war, their families
sued and two families were rewarded one franc each and the other two got
nothing. It was not uncommon in the
French army and others (not including the A.E.F.) to execute men to strengthen
the will of others. The scenario in the movie is only indirectly related to the famous mutinies by French soldiers in the war. The refusal to follow orders to continue wasteful attacks occurred wholesale in the army in 1917 after Nivelle's Chemins des Dames offensive to win the war came far short of the optimistic palaver fed to the troops. There were some executions initiated by Petain as part of his otherwise empathetic diffusing of the situation. It is safe to assume that among the 10% of men who were court-martialed and executed, there were undoubtedly some who did not deserve death. The French government would have agreed with Mireau that the tonic might be harsh for a few, but effective for the masses.
the three men held reponsible for not taking the untakeable |
CRITIQUE: This was only Kubrick’s fourth film, but you can
clearly see the style that made him one of the great directors. The cinematography by Georg Krause is
magnificent. “Bridge on the River Kwai”
took that Oscar, but you could argue that “Paths to Glory” is superior and
certainly deserved a nomination.
Speaking of which, although it could be argued that “Bridge” is the
overall better film, no one in their right mind would say today that the
nominees “Peyton Place”, “Sayanora”, “Witness for the Prosecution”, and “Twelve
Angry Men” were more deserving than “Paths”.
Especially those first two! The
movie is famous among film buffs for the long tracking shots (especially the
battle scene) and Kubrick’s abrupt cuts.
He is not big on fades in this movie.
The interior scenes with their baroque mise en scenes and the deep
focusing are a clinic. We also get a lot
of off centered shots. Disconcertingly
to modern war movie lovers, the film lacks the frenetic cutting used to add to
the fog of war. In “Paths of Glory”, you
know what is going on during a battle.
You are not lost or confused.
The
musical score is sparse, but Gerald Fried (who went on to score “Gilligan’s
Island”!) encouraged the use of snare drums in war movies. The closing song was of Napoleonic vintage
and ends with the lines: “Oh please
Mother, bring a light / My sweetheart is
going to die”. Coincidentally, Louis
Armstrong had a hit with a version of it one year before the movie was
released.
The acting is outstanding. Douglas is his usual charismatic self, even
more so because he was passionate about the project. His Dax is one of the great anti-authority figures
in war movie history and ahead of his time in the genre. He runs the gamut of that stereotype. Sarcasm, slow-burns, seething, and finally
snapping. The supporting cast is not
intimidated. MacReady and Menjou are
all-time slimy. Morris (who was a highly
decorated ace in WWII) creates one of the great cowards in war movie
history. Ralph Meeker does his best work
in an underrated career. The most
fascinating character is Ferol. The
eccentric Carey plays him to the hilt and his scene stealing aggravated the
rest of the cast. For instance, when he
is being led by the Father to the execution and he bites into his arm - that
was unscripted and almost got him punched in the face by the bemused Emile
Meyer. Carey was fired towards the end
of the 64 day shoot and a double had to be used for the confession scene.
Steal one more scene and maybe those won't be blanks |
The movie is not subtle in its themes. It has been described as an anti-war movie,
but it is more appropriately labeled as an anti-command movie. The battle scene is certainly horrific, but
it is only seven minutes and no major character is killed. The real focus of the plot is the machinations
of the generals. Broulard and Mireau are
loathsome, but fairly representative of high command in the war. Obviously, French high command in particular
(Broulard resembles Joffre), but all of the belligerents in general. It is no secret that the tactics used in the
war were pigheaded, but the script enlightens about the use of court-martials
to “motivate” the common soldiers. A
related theme is the dominance of the officer class over the enlisted. Not only are most officers motivated by
promotion (as opposed to the grunts just trying to survive), they use their
position to wriggle out of culpability.
The only caveat I have with the themes is the ending cantina scene tends
to dilute them. The movie would have
been better served ending with the executions.
However, considering the rumors that Douglas had to prevent Kubrick from
giving the men a reprieve, it could have been much worse. Having a tearful singalong by the cannon
fodder signals that war goes on. By the
way, contrast the females at the end of “Paths of Glory” and “Full Metal
Jacket”. ‘Nuff said. The songs have a similar vibe, though.
Kubrick: Okay, if I can't have a happy ending, at least I want to end with a scene featuring this chick I want to go to bed with. |
How realistic is it in military matters? The trenches are a little too wide, but that
was to facilitate those awesome tracking shots so all is forgiven on that
score. The night patrol seems typical,
although fratricide by a cowardly leader was uncommon. The main battle sequence is so well done that
I show it in my American History class to prepare my students for their letter
from a soldier at the front assignment.
(The other clips are from “All Quiet”, “Sergeant York”, and “The Lost
Battalion”.) Special kudos to the German police officers who were the extras
and did some of the better dying in a war movie. The sound effects bear
mentioning. The whining of the artillery
shells and the resulting explosions add to the impression of Hell on Earth.
CONCLUSION: “Paths of Glory” is one of the great war movies
and definitely belongs in the top twenty.
I think #2 is a bit high, but I do not have a major problem with
it. It sets out to make an impression
and it succeeds perfectly. Kubrick plus
Douglas is a winning combination, as seen in “Spartacus”. It is more court room and behind the scenes
oriented than most war movies, but it does have one of the great combat scenes
to balance that. Considering some of the
laughable inclusions on the list, “Paths” is comfortably placed. I can see where it would be a movie that the
eclectic panel of military experts and cinema experts could agree on.
RATINGS:
Acting - A+
Action - 6/10
Accuracy - B
Realism - B
Plot – A
GRADE = A
the trailer
the battle scene
Perhaps you might have time to commemorate in some way the career and war movie filmography of Richard Attenborough who died on Sunday at the age of 90. I believe at least one of his war films (The Great Escape) is among your personal favourites.
ReplyDeleteGood suggestion. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent review/critique of an great movie. One of my top 5 films of all time. It made an impression on me, as a teen in the 1960s, when I first saw it on TV. Such an effect it had on me that when attending a film class at university, I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting the direction and cinematography of Paths of Glory and Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front.
ReplyDeleteOne technique of Kubrick's in Paths of Glory was that the trench was built in the round, but gave the impression that it was longer. I had a book critiquing the films of Kubrick that I wish I still had. It was published in the early 1970s.
Being the centenary of the Great War, I hope that you'll do some more critiques of other films made about or set during that war.
Thank you!
Ivor
I think you will be intrigued by my review of the #1 film. Please let me know what you think and feel free to share some of your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI like this movie, though I feel Breaker Morant did a similar story with less rigged drama. Still, this one's got great acting and one of the best battle scenes ever filmed.
ReplyDeleteThat's a tough call. You are right that BM is it's closest equivalent. I lean toward BM because it is a true story and you invest more in the accused.
DeleteI discovered your blog a few days ago, and have read through a great many posts. It seems like we have a similar taste in movies, and appreciate authenticity and accuracy. Given that the basis for your blog is the MHM top 100, the Angloamerican bias is rather evident. As I understand it, it can be hard finding foreign war movies in the US which haven’t been mauled by editing and dubbing. Here are a couple of movies you might be interested in. They are both Finnish, and have some great battles, quite good pyrotechnics, and offers a look at a oft-neglected part of the Eastern Front. Subtitled in English and uploaded to YouTube, try to watch them before they get taken down. “The Winter War” (“Talvisota”, 1989) is a small-unit movie where the Finns try to stem the Soviet onslaught in the 1939-40 war. Considering that it predates SPR, some of the deaths are pretty gruesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVE5XBYESuQ
ReplyDeleteThen there’s “The Unknown Soldier” (“Tuntematon Sotilas”, 1985), another small-unit movie, based on Väinö Linna’s novel of the same name. Set during the Continuation War 1941-44, one of the themes is the tension between the upper-class officers and the enlisted men, brought about by the bloody civil war some 20 years earlier. Another feature is the Finnish “sisu”, their version of stoicism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUZYp0QrD2c As the movie is a remake of the 1955 classic, I provide a link to the old movie (unfortunately only Swedish subtitles), but it can be interesting to compare scenes from the two movies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9MtqTKlS0 Both movies clock in at 3+ hours, and are “European” in style (less Hollywood glitz, more grit). Enjoy!
Thanks for the recommendations. I actually have seen "Talvisota" and reviewed it for a watchalong on the "All About War Movies" website ( a website you should check out). I will try to watch your suggestions. I guess you noticed that my posts labeled "Should I read it?" are reviews of foreign films. There are some amazing foreign war movies (and some bad ones). I have to admit that America does make the best war movies ( and movies in general), but that does not mean that we have a monopoly on quality.
DeleteI agree the list is Amerocentric, but there are foreign filsmon the list (like "The Tin Drum", "Colonel Redl", "Stalingrad", "Rome, Open City", "Battle of Algiers", "Battleship Potemkin", "Kagemusha", "Ballad of a Soldier", "Napoleon", "Soldier of Orange"). That's 10 percent. This does not include British movies.