I watched this movie after seeing all of Stanley Kubrick’s later films. I knew that the director himself positioned it as an anti-war statement, whereas in Steel Shell, he wanted to focus more on the very phenomenon of war, its study. I was sure I would like the movie. . .
Scenario
A well-written story about an officer who tries to remain a humanist and a man in war. The film is quite short, but the authors managed to create a full story with a lot of additional collisions.
The dialogue in the film is very short. Not surprisingly, the film is about war and war. But there are only as many of them as you need to get all the information.
Director
The director is still looking for himself in this film. As always, the visual beauty of the frame is striking, but a set of favorite techniques has not yet been chosen.
I think it was difficult for the young director to work with the star Kirk Douglas. But both of them clearly accomplished their task. The image of the main character is created, but he does not attract all the attention of the viewer.
It is striking that Stanley Kubrick has not lost faith in people during the filming of The Path of Glory. This is perfectly illustrated by the final scene where soldiers sing and cry. A later Kubrick would hardly allow such a scene. And then I want to say to him what the Marshal says to the Colonel: "You are an idealist." But it's not bad. On the contrary, this finale creates diversity in the director's universe. After all, Kubrick was only 29 when, if not at that age, he was an idealist.
Operational work
All of Stanley Kubrick's films are very visual. And this is logical, because the director began his career as a photographer.
Cinematographer Georg Krause created a great visual atmosphere in the film. Composition of frames, angles stylize the picture under the photos of the First World War. Magnificent flights of the camera through the trenches allow us to see the world through the eyes of the protagonist.
It catches the eye as chaos in battle scenes is replaced by a clear alignment of lines in scenes of trial and execution. And how bright shots of the ball and dinner of the general contrast with the dark and gloomy shots in the dugouts of the soldiers and the colonel.
Acting game
Kirk Douglas is the main star of the film. And, of course, you follow him the most. And it creates a very vivid image. The concentration and clarity of his movements indicate the military discipline of the hero. On the other hand, any sudden movement against the background of this stiffness looks three times more impulsive. These movements create accents, show the hero a caring person.
Also striking is how the actor expresses the inner state of the hero through work with objects. Here he nervously squeezes his gloves, here he takes off his cap in confusion, here he masks his anger with a sharp movement pulling his boot.
Artistic solutions
Sound solution - that's what I want to highlight separately. Drum shot, choral singing, piercing silence, nervous monotonous knocking. All of this was definitely new. And although today we are very familiar with these techniques, they still work to create the necessary atmosphere in the auditorium.
Conclusion
You can’t say that this film is as fascinating and fascinating as “The Shining” or “Space Odyssey”. But this film certainly leaves its aftertaste, makes you think about whether it is possible to remain a man in war and how much a simple life costs there.
If you try to briefly describe the picture, you will get something like – This is a film about the war, but not about the war, but about people at war and not only at war.
For me, as a lover of documentaries, this tape was a real discovery. How many artistic frankly tortured slag on military themes I looked ("Cranes Fly", "The Bridge on the River Kwai", "Ivan's Childhood") that lost all faith in fictional stories. Thank you Kubrick Rubric for restoring his reputation!
In front of the viewer unfolds more than ever the actual story about how another star general wanted and sent troops into a meat storm. As a result, the assault failed and began “...the court, the most humane court in the world!”
Unlike most war films, Paths of Glory deconstructs a military image. We were trained to truth-cutters in satin uniforms with shining swords and bayonets at the top. Here the army is a place of stories of servicemen (about conditional painting of grass and hazing), not “Wonderland” with perfect training and a friendly team.
The film very clearly says that a private is stupid meek meat in the hands of staff generals who do not understand anything not only in military affairs, but also do not realize the value of human life.
For such a bold look and for the lack of romanticization of the image of the warrior, I am ready to forgive the tape at times too hyperbolized behavior of the characters. I didn’t serve (which I advise you to), but it shouldn’t be so stupid. Although if it should be, then my additional respect Kubrick!
Let me just say a few words about acting. Kirk Douglas dad! Adol Menju Batya! How much the roles are played that sometimes you want to climb through the screen and throw a glove in Menjou's face, supporting Douglas.
And directing is on top, as you never cease to empathize with the main characters for a second!
9 out of 10
And the proof of this is the huge number of military dramas that were filmed throughout the history of cinema. Some of them talked about the psychology of the soldier in war, others about its most terrible essence.
The Paths of Glory explores war as a way to make a career, earn fame and recognition, and gain high rank and social standing. Of course, there is a price to pay for this. The Paths of Glory tells how vanity can destroy not even one life, but the lives of hundreds of people. About how cabinet generals, putting soldiers in nothing, are ready to sacrifice the lives of ordinary people, hiding behind such loud words as "patriotism" and other demagogy.
Paths of Glory can rightly be called one of the best paintings about the First World War (which is generally not talked about so often, because all the attention is overshadowed by its even darker sister - World War II). It demonstrates not only the horror of the trench grinder, but also how soldiers are oppressed by their own officers – people who must protect and take responsibility for their soldiers. It is not for nothing that during the PMV there were cases of soldier riots against officers. Kubrick chose, as he always does, a non-standard content of his military history, adding only one small variable - a military court. In the shell of the war drama, he managed to put a small court thriller, which further exposes the careless military system.
Paths of Glory is about how an entire nation can lose its humanity in the crucible of war, and how hard it is to find something beautiful in war. And beauty in war is the only thing that can overshadow hatred.
This is where Stanley Kubrick started.
Kubrick’s next film, Paths of Glory, is a vivid example of an inspired anti-militarist and pacifist conceptual message, which manifested not only the director’s formal genius, but also his predisposition to criticize misanthropic ideas. In order to save the film from censorship, especially during the McCarthyist years, the director takes on the adaptation of the novel about the First World War, and the French army is subjected to deafening criticism here. However, in a similar arrangement of accents you can see a camouflaged portrait of the US army, in those years fighting in Korea. “The Paths of Glory” is about the crime of the highest ranks before the lower ones, about the hypocrisy of such concepts as “valor” and “glory” on the frontline, devaluing them in the context of absurd orders that cover up the leapfrog of ambitions.
In this sense, Paths of Glory are very reminiscent of the recent novel by Georgy Vladimov “The General and His Army” about the battles within the Soviet generals during the Second World War for ranks, awards and orders, which did not spare ordinary soldiers for this purpose. As Hemingway once wrote in the foreword to the novel Farewell to Arms: “The closer to the front line, the more honest people are, and the further they go, the more vile they are.” Kubrick in his outstanding film seems to illustrate the words of the great American writer, showing us both generals and colonels and ordinary soldiers, and how the former punish the latter for what they themselves are guilty of. The absurdity of war screams directly from the screen when watching “The Path of Glory”: starting with the insane order to take an impregnable height and all the accompanying scenes of the death of soldiers up to the trial of privates.
The only thing that looks foreign in Kubrick’s portrait of military insanity is the lone figure of Kirk Douglas (whom the producers persuaded in one of the opening scenes to shoot with a bare torso), an idealist and truth-seeker challenging the military bureaucracy. It would be a good thing if this hero were a simple soldier, but he is a colonel who goes (which is generally implausible!) with his troops to attack, undertakes to defend the accused and defies the tribunal and the generals themselves (another nonsense is that he does not pay for it in any way). Despite these illogical moments, Paths of Glory still succeeded, because it is a purely technically brilliantly executed indictment of any war and all who start them. This tape is also interesting to watch and review, as well as “Murder”, after years even knowing all the intricacies of the plot.
For a Christian viewer, however, there is one unpleasant point in the film: in the harshly and masterfully filmed scene of the conflict between the priest and the one and the condemned (as if a scalculate episode from Camus's "The Outsider"), faith appears as weakness and lack of courage: in particular, one soldier prays and cries incessantly, while the other ("manly," according to Kubrick) challenges the church and the Creator. Such atheistic clichés are a frequent guest in secular art, they should be tolerated, especially in the deafening and all-destroying humanism of such a work of art as The Paths of Glory, which protects human dignity from militaristic misanthropy. It is worth noting the brilliant acting works of Menjou (this fun-loving general who loves balls and solemn dinners and tries not to get dirty in the blood of soldiers) and MacRedi (a brutal general, at a certain point saving only his own skin, sacrificing other people’s lives).
The performance of these actors, as well as those who played the convicts, leaves far behind the spectacular, flaunted psychological skill of Kirk Douglas, playing like the templates of “Actor Studio”. The work of almost all performers except Douglas is richly nuanced and at the same time does not protrude, does not expose the techniques used, it is quiet and expressive. Douglas strives to fill the whole frame as a real star (he did this in Spartacus, Kubrick’s first major purely commercial project, which we will not disassemble due to its artistic secondaryness and complete lack of significance for Kubrikov’s filmography). In short, as much as Kirk Douglas spoils the film with his starry presence, Paths of Glory is too significant for the history of anti-war cinema to be erased from it because of the commercial compromises with producers that are forced on any Hollywood director.
During the First World War on the French-German front there are battles for a piece of land, nicknamed Ant Hill. The value of the territory lies in a very advantageous tactical position, allowing you to gain a good foothold and defend. General Paul Murot (George McRedi) is given a difficult task: in two days his men must take a strategic point. The duty to carry out the order falls on the detachment of Colonel Dax (the legendary Kirk Douglas). Despite the calculations of the command, the offensive is drowning. Enraged by the failure, the general demands the execution of three randomly chosen soldiers for cowardice, and the colonel begins to develop a plan to save the lives of his subordinates.
Five years after the failed (according to the director himself) "Fear and Desire" Kubrick returns to his favorite theme: military themes. In general, war as a state of extreme universal tension, often bordering on insanity, is used by Kubrick as a method to reveal internal contradictions in a person, society and even the state. Death, blood, and constant stress show us that hidden conflict, both on the scale of consciousness and the whole country. Kubrick’s first war film told a deeply personal story about man overcoming his own borders (the character of Frank Silver, who sacrificed himself to destroy the enemy general, is a kind of Raskolnikov, looking for the limit of his abilities), and in the end we saw that the heroes fight against themselves (the enemy squad is played by the same actors).
In Paths of Glory, the director expanded the scope of the conflict. If in “Fear and Desire” the heroes during the attack on the outpost found that they were fighting against themselves (the enemy squad is played by the same actors), then here after the absurd order of the general to execute three soldiers for failing to fulfill a deliberately unattainable goal, Colonel Dax realizes that it is not the Germans who are fighting against his detachment, but their own state, ready to sacrifice thousands of lives for any minor success at the front (Douglas’s character begins to understand this already in a scene where the command coldly voices the expected losses during the attack – only 70% of the personnel (a small price for another medal, isn’t it?).
Not without the stories of individual people, showing how constant stress and fear can change a person forever. Here you and the concussed soldier, shouting like a small child that he will never see his wife, and the officer who killed a subordinate to save his own life and, finally, the tragedy of those very unfortunate, court-martialed. In the face of death, each hero is fully revealed: someone expects an imminent death in constant prayers, someone tries to find salvation in wine, and someone finds within himself an unprecedented resilience and courage.
And of course, it is worth noting one of the most powerful scenes of the picture: the night before the attack, two unknown soldiers argue with each other about what weapons they dream of dying from. If death is inevitable, then all that should concern a person is the question “How will I die?”
Paths of Glory is not a film about war (for the whole picture we will not even see a single enemy soldier), but about how under the influence of the strongest shocks a person’s view of the world around him, and most importantly on himself, changes.
9 out of 10
In Russia, the real cult is World War II - for obvious reasons, but the First one is much less interesting. This applies to both amateur historians and reenactors. And moviegoers, of course, not least. However, a good film can be made about any event, if you have enough talent - and people will appreciate it.
Paths of Glory is a classic story about an honest man who is grinded by a military machine. And in this case, we are not talking about the horrors of hostilities and atrocities of the enemy, but about their own command, which in the pursuit of ranks is not ready to admit their own mistakes, but very not against sacrificing someone else.
The film is perfectly shot - scenes in the trench mud are interspersed with exquisite balls, and dynamic offensives - oppressive anticipation of execution. Sound accompaniment also does not leave - against the background of condescending conversation of the general with a simple soldier, one hears the groan of the wounded, then shots, then the roar of artillery. Something is constantly happening in the frame, and only a few scenes are reduced to a simple dialogue between two characters.
In general, Paths of Glory deserves the status of a masterpiece, like almost all films by Stanley Kubrick.
The war is terrible by all means. Be it in the fields, in the form of bayonets and bullets, be it in headquarters, in the form of orders and dispatches, be it in the heads, in the form of self-interest, treachery and cynical patriotism.
The first films of the cubicle are quite strikingly different from what we are used to seeing in showdowns, textbooks and essays. They are absent, the same, calibrated to millimeter plans (the Shining, Bari Lyndon), there are no mysterious mysteries (Cosmic Odyssey, Eyes Widely Closed), here, still a novice author, offers us his fervor, his code, his view of right and wrong things (Spartacus, Paths of Glory).
Now I'm going to encourage Kubrick's haters.
It is at the beginning that the author is more interested in people, bad and good, rather than plans, large and distant. It is in the first works that you need to look for the author’s impulse, the will to say, broad strokes.
Now I'm going to settle the haters of the cube.
Even in the first works of Kubrick there are aesthetic sprouts - BB. And loud shouts about the truth turned into thoughtful and insidious reflections about the purpose.
Now for the movie.
It's a good movie.
1. There are no complaints about camera work, too. Apart from the long offensive scene and a couple of mise-en-scene scenes in the offices, there is nothing to highlight. The death scenes could have been more realistic. We will make a discount on the year of production.
Behind the black-and-white picture I did not see any great depth and play on contrasts, such as Bergman. In my opinion, the BC here is needed for a greater immersion of the viewer in that era of turmoil, when people were divided into bad and good, black and white.
2. I would call it the right movie. Cinema giving guidelines and exposing the vices of society. Yes, we've seen it a thousand times, and yes, a thousand for the first time, it's not going to get old. There are dishonest generals and a right-wing officer, defenseless soldiers and metal-bending power. It's like life.
3. And yet, in Kubrick’s early works, one feels some kind of naive but sincere pathos. I liked the way the general denounced the colonel as idealistic. And of course, I really liked that the author does not hide his relationship with the main character.
4. Soldiers. But what made me a little confused was how the cube decided to finish the piece.
First, we are given a deep picture of the characters of the soldier’s nature, there are heroes, simpletons, and honest people. Then, we are forced to question their infallibility (a scene with a girl), this is not such a rare technique, many works are based on the contrast of the good and bad sides of the human character, it makes us alive. For a few minutes, the scene shakes the idealism of the colonel, giving rise to doubts about the infallibility of the soldiers, but here, the song plays, and the wordless chorus, still fixes the frightening thoughts of the officer, he remains under his code of honor and goes into the sunset (to the front).
The tears on the faces of soldiers, in my opinion, do not look very natural. We seemed to want to plunge into the cold water of reality, but they did it very gently, and after that they gave us a candy.
5. Actors play level. Naturally, everything rests on Kirk Douglas and his dimple in his chin. He's very much an epic man. Piercing speeches, face brick, and lead in voice. The only thing that looks a little rough is the villainous generals, in ' Chekhovski' pretended. This is on the one hand plus, their play of words omissions and desire for medals, the author has shown well. But on the other hand, it looks very naive again.
Over. 4/5
The film is cool, for lovers of historical and military films.
After his successful noir Murder, Kubrick makes his first outstanding film about the First World War. The theme of war, in the future, will pass through many of his films. It can go straight, like in All Metal Shell, or casually like Barry Lyndon. The most interesting thing is that the theme of war, and everything related to it, is presented here not as usual in anti-war, humanistic films. Usually, military battles are depicted, almost as in “Red Laugh”, and with all their appearance they shout that “war is bad!” Kubrick, on the other hand, shows a rational but cold-blooded war, that is, he speaks not of harm but of the meaning of military action. You can describe his position in one sentence: “War is stupid and meaningless.”
The Paths of Glory concerns the fighting itself indirectly, the main action is the conflict in the rear, namely, non-compliance with the orders of the authorities. The obvious anti-militarist content begins from the first minutes of the film: using one’s position in personal interests, ambition and maintaining one’s reputation at the expense of someone’s life, indoctrinated patriotism as an excuse for the need to die. And that's just the beginning. The plot conflict of the picture is that part of the division disobeyed its general and did not go on the attack. On the part of the main character, and accordingly the director, the viewer is clearly shown that it is irrational to get out of the trench, and will not lead to anything but death. On the part of the authorities in the person of the general, this is disobedience to him, the senior in rank, damage to reputation, and in general a disgrace for the whole country. Then, according to the plot, a military tribunal is organized, at which randomly selected people from each detachment must be punished. That is, a person is given a choice between fulfilling the order of a mad boss, the price of which will be death, and, accordingly, non-compliance, and later the accusation of cowardice, and then shooting the allies. Human life on the battlefield loses its value, it is normal for war, but the most important thing is who has the right to dispose of it in this way. Kubrick showcases these ambitious, corrosive, medal-hungry creatures under politicians and the press. According to Dostoevsky, these generals have absolutely no conscience and these are people who have the right, and according to Kubrick they are bloodthirsty animals driven by the need for domination. One of them could not even imagine that the main character, the colonel, was driven not by careerism, but by a sense of justice.
Also here it is impossible not to highlight the atmosphere of absurdity of what is happening, reaching to satire. The mere presence of a random selection of three people out of a few thousand in order to kill them and teach a lesson to others “to know” is already ridiculous. “It is necessary to punish everyone, or me alone, as the leader of the attack,” the colonel says, but this only causes laughs, saying that you say this so absurd. Starting with the interrogation of soldiers in the courtroom, the director juicily demonstrates the absurdity in a satirical form. The interrogators are literally forced to confess their guilt, closing their ears and eyes to their reasons for the retreat, which are the main arguments justifying their survival. The shooting scene was no less comical: one of the soldiers was walking with a huge wound on his forehead because a dead major had fallen on him and he lost consciousness, which is no excuse for cowardice. The other is carried to the execution on a stretcher, and before that he was asked to open his eyes so that the general could see that he was being shot alive, and the third threw a tantrum, walked with the holy father and rattled him by the sleeve. The scene is funny and the situation is scary. After all, in war, there may be an opportunity to carry out insane orders, or become a victim of circumstances, and in general be killed at the whim of your own commander. As far as I know, the film is based on a book written on real events, which suggests that any Kubrikov hyperbole in relation to the military can be justified, since the result of the film and reality are the same.
Separately, we can recall the main character, the idealist colonel, who wanted to restore justice, going against the circumstances. Kubrick puts in him his attitude towards the event and the idea that in war the idealist is doomed to failure, because the weight of such a person can not be a counterweight to the chaos and absurdity of what is happening. In the finale, the viewer is shown the scene of violence against a man for the last time - a German captured girl is forced to sing in a bar for drunk soldiers. Why should she, hardly guilty of anything, be made a mockery of her country's actions as if they were her own. The Colonel sees everything through the window, but this time he does not fight the chaos of war and leaves. Perhaps, looking out the window, inside the Colonel burned the last lights of hope for a chance to change something in this world.
All laudatory reviews of the authors of this film are based on two initial: the theme of meanness and betrayal and the magnificently shot ' combat '. And if with combat episodes everything is bright, large-scale and majestic emotionally, then with a trench life, as the eve of the choice of a soldier, to rise to the attack or sit still in the trench - more and more dimly, too wide and hasty strokes are given to the significant episode - the viewer is simply informed that there are some difficulties, everyday, psychological, interactions of lower ranks and officers, without their convincing performance, and simply without sufficient attention to these nuances of the timing of the film.
Personalities in the situation - in the war, both in the lower echelon of troops and in the generals are also static and framed. That's the explanation for the lieutenant's action with his grenade throw? Or the general's entire motivation is expressed in a brief conversation about promotion, no longer supported by any disclosure of the character on whom the offer so favorably fell. I recommend in contrast to the domestic film ' Front' from 1943, where the motivation is revealed and the fight confirms it and is present ' Revelations' so beloved by fans ' Fines' and ' Wars in the Western direction' and this is directly during the actions taking place, and not much later! So there is an impression that in order to be known as a deep personality in the United States, it was required to say white - white or ' to feed' to the viewer, a rectilinear sentence in a wrapper of beautiful combat and trench shootings - well, than paternal instruction to unreasonable children! The latter conclusion is supported by the repeated rubbing of cinematic stereotypes about the "Heroic" & #39; Americans saving (hereinafter the list of subjects and objects).
5 out of 10
A complex military drama that puts a person’s choice and duty to the homeland on different scales. The director showed not only ways of perceiving war, but also ridiculing people, good editing techniques and appealed to reasoning about the state of things. From the conversation of the colonel with the general, where the exposition opens before us the Western Front and the First World War to the offensive actions and shortsightedness of the top command.
Again I refer to Remarque’s quotation, as a pertinent problem for all time, “There is no change on the Western Front”: “Someone’s order turned these silent figures into our enemies; another order could turn them into our friends.” Some people, whom none of us knows, sat down somewhere at the table and signed the document, and now for several years we see our supreme goal in the fact that the human race is usually branded with contempt and for which it punishes with the heaviest punishment. In the picture there is only one combat action and consequences, but the basis revolves around the order and the instinct of self-preservation.
Installation gluing with an influx of frames: one has not yet finished, as at this time the second is formed, ghostly coloring the first until its complete disappearance. In one shot recorded in the episode, the camera passes through long trenches, allowing you to appreciate the individuality of the director. Many specific features of the legend, why you notice all the strokes, completely immersed in the picture.
War is a terrible thing. And when incredible orders are received, the Paths of Glory present a huge range of emotions. Kubrick perfectly demonstrates the difference not only in experience, but also in the age of the characters. A battle-hardened officer and a handful of recruits. Discourse about the methods of death demonstrates the fear of soldiers who try to overshadow it with laughter. There is room for both the abominable qualities of man and humanism, but the battle between duty and life plays a game that may demand higher pay. We are shown the impossibility of acting under the threat of death and a hail of bullets, where your impulse can calm down the machine gun line. It's complicated and scary. The consequences are predictable, but the viewer still hopes for common sense.
There is only one way to fight deserters, and it is very cruel. There is a dual, grotesque image of a general sitting in the headquarters, giving insane orders, and a battery commander who understands the absurdity of the order. It's a great prioritization, you understand both characters, why each person's arguments sound good. The film gives an excellent disclosure of the characters, puts them in conditions of nervous prejudices and shows a magnificent plot.
Kirk Douglas impressed – his steadfast spirit breathed life not only into the big picture, but also caused deep respect, both soldiers and spectators. Michael Douglas is very similar to his father, as they have common features, both look flawless on the screen. The picture is iconic, displaying the choice of a person and his actions under the sign of death, and the conditions of power dictate their strict rules, which gives rise to a balance: to live or not to live.
Old-fashioned 28-year-old Kubrick presents you a picture of the First World War, which France, Germany and Belgium almost immediately removed from their rental. Apparently, this movie shows the unsightly side of brave Europeans, which not everyone will want to look at, although, of course, the choice of war in the Paths of Glory is not so fundamental as the pacifist message of the picture.
So, 1916. The hierarchy of the French army is still strict and branched, and the eternal German enemy, as usual, is not far from it, because the plot develops right at the front. The high command in the person of the chief of the corps, General Broular (played by the wonderful Adolf Menjou) ordered to take a certain "ant hill". The order was lowered by Division General Paul Miro into the trenches of Colonel Dax (not quite old Kirk Douglas) and his infantry regiment. The beautiful halls of the command mansion are quickly replaced by dugouts and trenches, and the action, according to many critics of the 50s, becomes like a documentary. 10-minute passage of the camera on the French positions, frozen in unnatural pain positions soldiers meeting the senior in rank, and binoculars looking at the invisible viewer enemy. It is no coincidence that not a single German has ever appeared on the screen. Transparent enemy and senseless war. If you look closely, the meaning of the film manifests itself almost immediately, even before after the unsuccessful capture of the hill, the command decided to use the method of decimation. The plot of the film easily fits into the immortal “beat your own, so that strangers are afraid”, but the methodical and cruelty of a senseless military machine is unlikely to fit in your head. Yes, they chose three soldiers, yes, one of them lost consciousness from injury at the very beginning of the operation, the other drew lots, and the third irritated the officer, but they are all cowards, right?
Especially good is the scene of the “military tribunal”, in which all participants in the process understand that convicts cannot avoid being shot. The symmetry of the frame and the impeccability of its composition give what is happening accuracy and, as if even a feeling that it should be so – the pressure of meaningless ceremonial. It’s a bit like the hero of a Kafkaesque novel being held by the hands of the police and dragged to finish off (Kubrick has a film with exactly the same scene, but in Paths of Glory, the hands are not holding the victim, but the throat of the viewer waiting for the happy ending).
We are very used to watching movies with a happy ending, so artificial and lifeless, once a little ploy by President Roosevelt in his struggle with the Great Depression. But in the war there were worse cases, and similar shootings of their own soldiers were not only in the French army.
In the film, the moment of the execution is very revealing. Two soldiers stand in front of a dozen of the same soldiers with weapons, the third in an upright position is supported by a stretcher. One soldier asked to blindfold him, another could not open them, and the third continues to look. The same is true of all those present – and their Colonel Dax, who promised salvation (this character, positioned as the main positive hero, became a villain for me, because only he gave the soldiers hope, but the generals are also bad, of course, yes), and a bunch of old people, and ordinary soldiers. This is such a small choking show.
Eating everything in its path is a war machine, a rigid hierarchy and the wretched absurdity of what is happening. When watching The Path of Fame, you won’t have a moment of overshadowing when the action seems a little crazy. No, the whole film, from beginning to end, in which the French soldiers will sing along to the captured German, will create a vile picture, like a slice of soil from geography textbooks – here is the light and life on top, in the middle of black soil and worms, and inside rotting.
8 out of 10
Film four. Nearly a million dollars in budget. Inscribed in the U.S. National Register. The scores are even higher. It's a war thing again. And how?
Kubrick’s previous films were objectively good, but they did not cause any emotions at all. Well, the classic, what the hell with it. They didn’t bother me what to do. But the movie "Paths of glory" still hooked me. He even managed to create emotions. How is the film different from the previous works of master Stanley?
Plot. It's there, and it's interesting. And that, by and large, is where we end. Kubrick’s previous films had rather scant stories, they only cling to denouements, but this is not serious – in a film that has a cult status, it should not only catch the finale. At the same time, the story attracts almost from the very beginning, as befits the film, which was shot by a man whom many consider a genius. It seems simple, but at the same time has a couple of surprises, from which your jaw is unlikely to fall on the floor, but will lead the viewer to the main idea of the film - that the expression "in war all means are good" is somewhat incorrect, you can not go the path of cruelty, even if it leads to fame.
Who is not looking for fame is a character named Dax, who does everything possible to ensure that justice will prevail, but you always need scapegoats on whom all the sins will be blamed, so that people do not understand that they are commanded by other goats who, due to high conceit, think that soldiers will do everything for them, and if they do not succeed, you can just punish a couple of innocent people, and that’s all, go on – Hurrah, (the name of any country)!
The characters, as well as in the previous works of the director, are spelled out so themselves. We can only judge them by dialogue and acting, and you know, that's enough, that's empathy for the characters. And the acting here is good, especially liked Kirk Douglas, who played a respectable Dax, Adolph Menjou, who played a seemingly good man, but he is not without sin, and George McRedi for the role of the crazy Murot, who creates some heresy and gives appropriate orders, and if they do not follow, he begins to fire, shout, order, threaten and so on.
Given the relatively small budget, the authors managed to show the war decently. And this despite the fact that in any of the shots I did not see a single German, as it turned out later - they are there, like, and not at all. And this is also a rather interesting step, showing that it does not matter who you are fighting – Nazis, fascists, communists, capitalists – all the same: death and injustice. Well, that's how I got it.
The meaning of the final scene is also quite difficult to understand unless you look at the explanations on the Internet. To me, it shows that people don’t really want to kill anyone. With tears, they sing along to a German girl, even though a minute ago they were not even to tears. War forces people to take the lives of people you never wanted to hurt, to kill people you didn't know, who lived as quietly as you did, but they were also raised to their feet and sent to the front to fight under the command of people who almost immediately blame everything on their subordinates.
I know literally two or three war movies, which I personally single out from a whole series of war movies. This film is now also among them, as the morality in it is not reduced to "war-horror", although there is this. Now I understand why the film is on the U.S. registry, why it’s been called “the best anti-war film ever,” why it was banned in France, which didn’t really need it. I have nothing against France, if something similar, I am sure, was in other countries. How can you not love the country where cinema was born?
In the description of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago, it is said that a person can remain a person under any circumstances. And that's the truth. Disobedient children can be punished, but the main thing is not to bend. You don’t have to be cruel to win a brutal war. You can be fair and honest with each other. It is not necessary to shoot at their own, so that they go into an a priori senseless battle, from which you expect nothing but death. There is a saying in the film, “If they were brave (rather stupid to jump on inevitable bullets), they would be dead.” That is, you are either a brave reckless soldier who climbs alone into a crowd of enemies, and this despite the fact that soldiers are not actually growing up in the beds to carelessly dispose of them, or a coward and a traitor. Both will die one way or another. Your destiny has already been determined for you. And that's gross. It's such a delicious piece of shit you'll never see in a horror movie.
Is it a masterpiece? - Well, yes rather than no. Is it worth watching? - Of course.
Best Kubrick film at the time of 1957.
It is possible to follow another path. Is this our way?
Each time going on the roads of military cinema, the viewer takes a little risk, because insidious ways can lead to a dead end of agitation, which is located in the grove of propaganda, and the ghostly lights of clichéd characters and beckon to the swamp of stamps and lack of ideas, in the end, the road can become bumpy and lead to the death fields right on the edge of the forest of the black woman.
However, this time the Paths of Glory will take you the right route, it is not for nothing that this path was trodden by Kubrick, who is not new to pave new paths, and the roads of military cinema he will go even later. I would not say that the film will take you to the most popular scenes, because the fields of the Great War have long been obscured by the Second World War and the wars of later times, but this conflict can best serve as an illustration for the unfolding story. And the story can even surprise the inexperienced viewer, because at the very beginning of the movie seems a typical military film that will show one of the military operations, with one or another outcome and leave the viewer to judge everything that happened.
However, here the Paths make a sharp turn and the war drama turns into a judicial drama, and in this drama there will be no honest judge and brave lawyer, gathering evidence and hearing witnesses. And then the viewer clearly understands that the court drama for which the application was made turns out to be only a screen, and the process itself turns into a farce, because all decisions have already been made, and the fate of people is clear immediately, because the sentence is as inevitable as an artillery shell or a bullet. And when the understanding comes and the fists are squeezed by the injustice that unfolds on the screen, it remains only to repeat: "You were brave in the face of the enemy - so be brave in the face of your own." So in the end, you can only sing the motif of the song and try to find at least a drop of hope for the characters.
In addition, the guides leading you along these paths play their moments and scenes in the best, albeit a little theatrical way. And even Kirk Douglas in this film, the drawing of the role, character and manners does not at all resemble the future Spartacus: yes, he is cool, which is cooler only than mountains and eggs, but still remains an intellectual only by the force of circumstances caught on the battlefield.
Landscapes and unfolding views for the film going along the way will be very familiar and traditional, because the current viewer does not live in the 50s and cinematography, editing techniques Kubrick could already see even in cheap series. And the effects and scenery, despite the plausibility of the trenches and shells plowed no man's land are no longer able to impress anyone, unlike the interiors and views of the palaces, where the main farce of the trial takes place.
In the end, one can only recommend the Paths of Fame as one of the best tourist routes of military cinema, for all lovers of such roads, children of middle and high school age and all those who cherish the art of cinema and the theme of a lost generation.
I consider Paths of Glory to be Kubrick’s first masterpiece (only the final scene was really liked in Murder).
If you take "Spartacus" for brackets (and it is better to take), it turns out that "Trails" is the only film Kubrick, where there is a pronounced positive hero.
In Colonel Dax, I have long felt a certain allusion to Sherlock Holmes (although a lawyer is, of course, far from a detective, but still the feeling is very stable each time). I remember the story of Sherlock Holmes (at least in a historical and eventual context) ended just at the beginning of the First World War ("cold) and “bitter” “east wind”, it seems, has become a cult symbol in British culture.
In general, I think it is not a great exaggeration to say that Holmes and Dax represent extremely similar, if not identical, concepts: sanity, rationality, objectivity, and at the same time the dominance of humanism over pragmatism.
And here on all this farm jumped from the run of the twentieth century, either with barbed wire in his hands (Solzhenitsyn), or with a boot trampling a human face (Orwell).
In this regard, the final scene with Kubrick’s wife looks particularly sad: Holmes watches the nineteenth century sing about the faithful hussars, the soldiers weep because there are no more faithful hussars and never will be, and the twentieth century approaches Holmes and reports: "It's been a long time, sir, not at war." Please do not forget that I am not the nineteenth century.
Holmes obeys himself, but asks for 5 minutes of respite for the soldiers: the song is not over (the memory of the XIX century has not yet completely dispelled). The twentieth century, of course, agrees: it is 5 minutes! Ahead of Auschwitz (Auschwitz) and Hiroshima, “Apocalypse Now” and “Schindler’s List” – will not disappear from the submarine.
Everyone mentions that there are no Germans in the film... and I’ll mention it too, because it’s brilliant, tree sticks!
My favorite episode is with a cockroach. “Now you have the advantage!”
9 out of 10
War is the greatest tragedy, interweaving millions of storylines and main characters. These people are so different from each other, but in some ways they are similar: the fate of each of them is somehow distorted. It is natural that war is also one of the most significant and powerful themes in world art. Undoubtedly, the most tragic moment in the history of mankind was the Second World War and somehow it happened that for many people the horrors of the first world confrontation in the history of mankind, or rather their image in world art, became shaded.
' Paths of Glory' is not the type of military drama that takes on the scale of military operations, when a soldier appears on the screen in his natural form of cattle, and the battlefield in the form of a slaughterhouse, when the viewer is struck by the very degree of cruelty and the number of deaths. 39 Paths of Glory is a subtly demonstrated quintessence of any war - total injustice. A soldier is a thing, an instrument as valuable as a weapon in his hands, and sometimes even inferior to him in this respect. It's just you and the general's will, and justice, compassion and real honor don't live here. These concepts and institutions are perverted. Justice in such a situation is a court, which, according to the colonel, ' stains the honor of France, unlike the defendants', honor and compassion are inferior to pride and fear of the press and politicians, honor is the effectiveness and reliability of a fighting humanoid instrument. The film clearly demonstrates the simple truth - generals eat selective meat when three young men have lead breakfast, the sumptuous offices of the generals contrast with trench warfare - simply but convincingly. In general, it is precisely on the example of the personalities of generals that the multilayered falsehood inherent in many military men is revealed. The first of them is a lover of fame, all sorts of bravados in his address, confidently declares that he cares about soldiers and this task should be given under his supervision. But we do. Another of them is less obvious: at first glance, he is a more adequate, fair and respectable person, but in fact he is the same cynical scoundrel, only already dependent on social and political pressure.
On the side of Colonel Dax is truth, sound morality and true honor, which inevitably fail.
The acting is great, Kirk Douglas played really brilliantly, it is also worth highlighting the incomparably embodied image of the scoundrel George McRedi.
Kubrick clearly, simply and concisely depicted the military realities, psychology and actions of the command, pale virtues, contrasted the image of a truly good man with the ideas of the people behind the verdicts of the court, about who is an innocent and honest soldier. I also liked the short dialogue about what soldiers are afraid of on the battlefield and the raised topic of cowardice and bravery.
8.5 out of 10
In our cinema there are almost no films about the First World War. In classical Hollywood, this topic was very popular. Such masterpieces as “On the Western Front Without Change”, “The African Queen” and “Lawrence of Arabia” immediately come to mind. But for me personally, the most memorable film about the First World War is 1971’s Johnny Got a Gun (it’s just a shock). In this list, the painting “Paths of Glory” takes a worthy place. The film takes place in 1916 on the Western Front. The French army is trying by all means, by all truths and untruths, to reverse the course of the war against Germany. To do this, it is necessary to continuously attack, to sacrifice a huge number of soldiers who become cannon fodder, a bargaining chip in the game of generals. After the failure of another offensive operation, the command decides “for educational purposes” to shoot three people from the retreating group. The main character of the film Colonel Dax tries to protect his soldiers, but one, as you know, in the field is not a warrior.
Paths of Glory is a very important film. Director Stanley Kubrick tried to show the shame of the First World War - the most cruel and ruthless in the history of the time. The Paths of Glory is war through the eyes of commanders-in-chief, it is war through the eyes of officers, it is war through the eyes of ordinary soldiers. Do you think they see the same thing? Of course not. Kubrick's film shows that all world armies have the same problems, the same ulcers. Remember our wars: the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, the same World War I. Did we not have such leadership, did we not send a huge mass of soldiers to certain death? In the Paths of Glory there are heroes and bastards, there are brave and cowardly, but war and its laws do not matter: it sweeps away everything and everyone. In this film, the phrase “Patriotism is the last refuge of villains” once again received relevance.
In 1957, Kubrick was 29 years old. He has yet to direct Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Space Odyssey and Clockwork Orange. But in doing so, he creates a masterpiece. Kubrick’s directorial style fits the main theme of the film: cold, calculating, realistic. Scenes of hostilities, scenes in the trenches are filmed with documentary accuracy. It was in Paths of Glory that Kubrick first applied one of the tricks he would use later: the seemingly endless motion of the camera, revealing more and more details. Sometimes the camera “walks” for several minutes through drenched trenches, which for the free movement of the film crew had to be made a third wider than in reality.
In this film, there are two quality signs: Stanley Kubrick and Kirk Douglas, who played the main role. I consider Paths of Fame to be the best film with Douglas (he is ranked 17th in the rating of the American Film Institute). In my opinion, this is one of the most diverse actors of classical Hollywood. In the films “Trumpster”, “Evil and beautiful”, “Spartacus”, “thirst for life” and others, he is able to play completely different roles. Watching Douglas in The Paths of Glory is a real pleasure! He has always celebrated this work himself. It is difficult to play a true hero of his time, a man who, for the sake of honor, principles and ideals, is ready to sacrifice a brilliant career, a military man, defending his soldiers to the last. By the way, we don't even know the name of Colonel Dax - he's an unnamed hero. However, all the actors are like Douglas, there is no one to blame.
Paths of Fame was not a contender for an Oscar in any nomination, which is personally surprising to me. Nominations were certainly worthy of Stanley Kubrick, Kirk Douglas, and George McRedi, who played the role of General Miro. However, there are several explanations for this misunderstanding. The film had a bad reputation in Europe, which damaged the rental. France denied the actions of the French commanders, which were shown in the film. Germany also banned the rental of the “Trail of Glory” in its country. In the United States, of course, there were no such problems with the rental, but in the same year another war film was released – “Bridge over the River Kwai” by David Lean. Apparently, the academics thought that two war films is too much for one ceremony and preferred the film Lin (she has eight nominations and as many as seven Oscars). But I would like to stress once again the injustice of academicians in relation to the Paths of Glory. However, the film received another recognition. For example, Winston Churchill highly appreciated the style, plausibility and accuracy of Kubrick’s painting. The Paths of Glory gained new relevance with the outbreak of the Vietnam War. In 1992, the film was listed on the National Register of Most Important Films in U.S. History.
- Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
After several short films and two good, but cheap in the production of action films, the future master of world cinema – Stanley Kubrick, finally got under his control an expensive, high-budget film with Hollywood stars. It was a film adaptation of Humphrey Hobb’s forgotten novel, Paths of Glory, which the young director read as a teenager, accidentally stumbling upon it in his father’s library. The book was written in the mid-30s, and told about the times of the First World War, touching on the complex topic of moral and ethical relationships in the army between officers, high command and ordinary soldiers. In the center of the plot was told the story of the failed offensive of the French garrison, whose soldiers, despite the wishes of staff generals far from the realities of the front, never fulfilled the order of the command. Many soldiers were maimed and killed, and the survivors were declared cowards. Wanting to stage a demonstration execution, the commander of the operation, the general orders a military trial. As a result, randomly selected from the mass of surviving soldiers fall under the tribunal. Some of them had a glorious reputation and military awards for military valor. Wanting to save his soldiers, the main character - Colonel Dax - in the past, a good lawyer, decides to represent unjustly accused soldiers in court. But the cruel and ambitious General Paul Miro is going to do anything to ensure that this process ends with the shooting.
By that time, the theme of the First World War was beginning to fade, as writers and filmmakers had an equally inspiring (if possible, of course, so to speak) – the recently concluded Second World War. Stanley Kubrick, turning to a seemingly worn-out topic, had to find a new approach to it. After all, Remarque and Hemingway have already written about the horrors of that war, and their outstanding works have already been repeatedly filmed. And large-scale historical militants were filmed in the era of the so-called “peplums”. Therefore, the director used the book as material not for a military action movie with elements of drama, avoiding the tooth of imposed military romance. He put the picture close in genre to the court drama, which was so loved to shoot in the later 90s in the United States. However, Kubrick's film is not exactly 12 Angry Men (Lumet's popular court drama - which appeared around the same time), since the trial of the soldiers caught up in the distribution is only a small part of the plot. Unlike the subsequent films of the master - this lasts about 1.5 hours, and does not seem to be long. Quick presentation of heroes, action - fragments, as it were, from the prologue, in which the features of the characters and their characters are set, the conflict between the heroes, the military tribunal and the tragic, devoid of anti-war pathos finale.
For the first time in the cast of a film by a young director, a major Hollywood star. Having made friends on the set with Kirk Douglas, Stanley Kubrick will later remove this male actor in the title role in his Spartacus. But, as is usually the case in Kubrick's films - selected even for secondary roles, little-known artists play at the highest level. Very convincing were in the roles of unfortunate privates Timothy Carrie (Maurice) and young Joseph Turkle (Pierre Arnault). Memorable images were created by George MacRedi (General Miro), Wayne Morris (Lieutenant Roger), Ralph Meeker (corporal Paris) and Emile Meyer (Holy Father Dupre). Among the unmentioned performers are almost all colorful, convincing actors. For example, remember the episode with a concussed soldier. In which General Miro bypassing trench trenches with duty-- Are you ready to hit the Germans, son? comes across a frightened, nervous soldier who says he will never see his wife again. The general punches him in the face and orders him to be transferred from his corps. The character played by George Macready, at first seems not so unambiguous personality, because he himself walks in the trenches, has battle scars on his face and communicates with fighters not strictly according to the rules. For example, he talks heart-to-heart with Colonel Dax, even offers him a vacation, thereby releasing him from participating in the upcoming operation to capture Ant Mountain, a well-fortified area of the enemy. But, during the battle, infuriated that not all soldiers can go on the offensive – clamped in the trenches by the heavy fire of the enemy, General Miro orders artillerymen to shoot at their own positions in order to spur “sitting cowards” to attack. Later, this fact is silenced, and even denied - Macready's character looks cruel and incompetent commander. But, no less disgusting is the staff General Georges Brúlar, who started this strategically hopeless military operation, and later threw the blame for the failure of the offensive on the ambitious Miro, and did not resist the unjust tribunal, which fell randomly selected from the platoon soldiers. Some of whom were unconscious during the battle or were unable to attack.
Among other things, the dialogues of the characters mention that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. This quote is given by Colonel Dax to General Miro shortly before the attack. The general says that he is just tired and it is time to rest. It always is. Wars are started by those who have never personally participated in them, at best – move flags on maps weighing on the walls of their offices and sitting on military councils. They fight in cold, mud and hunger, at every minute risk of being killed or severely maimed – simple, often completely ignorant of politics. Many of them, as has been correctly observed, are not destined to live to win. Therefore, living in such a turbulent time as now, I personally am not ready to give my life in a war that may well be provoked by the short-sighted policies of the current rulers. Therefore, I will not consider myself a coward or a traitor to the motherland if I have an agenda for such a war in the name of the state interests, and I safely prefer to avoid mobilization. However, the characters of the book and film “On the Western Front Without Change” spoke very picturesquely on this topic. Stanley Kubrick made a movie about something else, including that. Katina "The Paths of Glory" - about human, soldierly relationships. The fact that high rank allows you to create arbitrariness and avoid responsibility, and “little people” are just pawns on the chessboard, which the “big” often dispose of on their own. And also about the fact that the scoundrel will always be a scoundrel, no matter what skirts and epaulettes he put on his uniform. A good guy can be both an officer and a simple private.
Anglo-American film director Stanley Kubrick has always been an avid pacifist and rebel. He was never afraid to go against the existing system, designing his film scripts in the way he felt most right, without paying attention to public opinion. Because of this, his films were often not immediately appreciated by contemporaries, getting their rays of fame only after a while. The Paths of Glory raises not very popular for that time quite sensitive themes of unjustified victims of any abstract war. The film tells about specific events of the First World War, but the situation described in the film could happen and most likely happened more than once in any other war. With this film, Kubrick begins a large-scale exploration of human characters and instincts that continues throughout his career.
The almost impossible task of taking the fortified German frontiers, which are in a position far more advantageous from the point of view of the terrain than that of the French, is described on behalf of all military officers. Each person sees overcoming this milestone from his point of view. While ordinary soldiers worry about themselves and their families, General Miro talks with undisguised calm about the alleged losses of his troops. In this regard, the film resembles the work of the classic writers of the “lost generation” – Remarque and Hemingway. Their novels also completely persuaded people to the side of prudence and humanity, forcing them to feel the horrors that can lead to banal rash actions.
There are no large-scale epic battle scenes in the Paths of Glory. The emphasis is not on the confrontation of two fronts (German and French), but on the internal conflict within one of them (French). The long front entry is made in order to play on the contrast of the highest military ranks and trench soldiers. Ordinary privates, living, eating and dying in the mud like pigs, whose only goal is to survive, are contrasted with their superiors - staff officers and generals, sleeping on velvet sheets and having dinner parties during times of general famine.
Characters of heroes can be called deliberately simplified. Kubrick seemed to want to create the sharpest possible contrast between humanized good and evil. Subjective situations in which there are no right-wing and guilty, in this film there is practically no. Black and white are surrounded by three bold lines. The main character played by Kirk Douglas becomes a kind of mirror of conscience. He is willing to sacrifice everything he has, his career and his life, if necessary. Ordinary soldiers for him are not just numbers in the report of victims. He is not willing to deliberately sacrifice half the lives of his corps just to hang another order on his chest. Colonel Dax's excessive conscientiousness may seem too intrusive at some point. In fact, as well as the unprecedented uncompromising nature of the characters opposed to him - colonels who sent soldiers to certain death for the sake of their own ranks and orders. This, of course, provides a proper contrast, but excessive hyperbolization of characters clearly does not go to the benefit of this film. Kubrick seems to deliberately create a caricature, some very caustic and very subtle parody of absolutely any military conflict, seasoning his creation with a furious appeal to pacifism.
9 out of 10
The horror of war occurs not on the battlefield, but beyond its limits.
I must say, when I decided to see the Paths of Glory, I did not expect something serious and large-scale. I was sure that the film would be a mediocre, dismal passer from Kubrick’s early works. But after watching, I dramatically changed my mind, to say that I liked the film is not to say anything.
Paths of Glory is an excellent, superb anti-war film that shows the horror of war, not in the form of wounds, murders and invalids, but in the form that happens to ordinary soldiers who pay for the ambitions and mistakes of their superiors, a topic that is still relevant today.
From the beginning of the film, I even liked this General Miro, who gave the impression of a confident, caring for soldiers, a true commander. By the end of the film, I already hated him, because in the course of the film he revealed his essence, an equally tough lunatic. It can also be understood theoretically. Imagine you are a commander and your soldiers refuse to fight and attack, what do you do? You’ll probably be angry and order someone to be executed. In the USSR, by the way, a similar method was created by the “invincible” Red Army.
The court scene is good, too. Excellent dialogue, staging, reflection, the Colonel’s attempts to save his soldiers, all well done and beautiful.
The scene of the execution came as a complete surprise to me. How cruel she was and how strong she was. At that moment I felt the hopelessness and hopelessness of the situation. After all, what is it to soldiers that they did not die on the battlefield, but killed them with the stigma of “cowards”. What will be their relatives, who now have to live in a cruel society with the stigma that their family members were executed for “cowardice”. In general, a very strong scene, very sorry for the soldiers, I did not even expect that I would be so touched by the execution scene, but Kubrick shot it so much that he succeeded.
Bottom Line: Paths of Glory is one of my favorite films, and one of Kubrick’s favorites. The film is brutal and shows that violence occurs not only on the battlefield, but also behind it. This movie is also close to us. Similar stories occurred in the USSR at the beginning of the Second World War, when the Red Army also retreated and commanders in order to prevent the shooting for cowardice, so that others would not be ashamed to retreat next time.
10 out of 10
The brilliant director Stanley Kubrick always hated war, it is right because war leaves behind two things: corpses and ruined no more and no less. War is a senseless event that takes the lives of many of someone’s sons, brothers, fathers, friends. Films about the First World War are extremely few, and even then these films touch on this topic fragmentary, but there is a film showing the First World War.
Paths of glory is a masterpiece, one of the early works of Kubrick. The film differs from the filmography of the director, but if you look closely, there are features of the future style of the director. The film has a small budget of only $935,000, and then in a very distant for us in 1957, a young and then little-known director-newcomer Stanley Kubrick decided to speak out about the war, it turned out brilliant. He took the job very seriously. The film is cold, rebuilt and about war is said so where little is said elsewhere, even in another picture of Kubrick All-metal shell war is shown differently. In the Path of glory all ambiguously there is no white or black, there is no such thing that it is clear who is the villain and who is good.
The film is based on the novel by Humphrey Cobb, I have not read the book, and in Russia it probably never appeared, whether the film is based on the book or just taken the idea I can not know. But in my opinion, the film well reveals the theme of the senselessness of war. There is no military epic here, as in many other war films, there is more emphasis on trench warfare, but the film perfectly conveys the grayness and brutality of war.
Kirk Douglas - played well, fit well into the image of the Colonel.
The film turned out to be a great, great anti-war film, which surprisingly did not receive many awards. But the film demonstrated the skill of the director and excellent acting.
The work of Stanley Kubrick is often compared with writers-rebels, because his most prominent projects, in one way or another, contrast the heroes of the existing system. Of course, the unforgettable creator is known primarily as a director, and his script participation is usually less important. So in the Paths of Glory, unpopular sensitive themes of unjustified victims of any war are raised, sometimes inhuman conditions of detention of soldiers and cases when a person brought to the line acts according to his own mind, instead of blindly following the letter of someone else’s will. The hero Douglas cites a rather caustic quote about patriotism, as if pushing the viewer to form his opinion about what is happening.
It is not worth waiting for a military epic of the 1950s - the emphasis is not on the trench struggle of the Great War (the name of the First World War until the 1940s), a half-hour entrance from the front is rather an aperitif. Considered by many impossible task to take enemy lines, described by ordinary soldiers and officers as people, not consumables for achieving strategic victories. What is worth is a seemingly simple and unencumbering scene where General Miro, with undisguised calm and almost indifference, voices the alleged losses of battalion personnel. In general, the film reminds me of the immortal work of Remarque, in particular the anti-war novels “Time to live and time to die” and “On the Western front without change”. And the choice in the direction of black and white palette causes associations with the famous adaptation of the second of them.
Kubrick focuses on the very process of understanding war as a phenomenon. The main character performed by Kirk Douglas acts as a kind of mirror of conscience, being a respected officer. For him, subordinates are not just numbers in the victims’ report, but living people with their own problems and destinies are idealists. You can find fault with the conscientiousness of French Colonel Dax, and to a certain extent you will be right. It's more of a collective image, but it provides a proper contrast between what we see directly in the scenes and what's left behind. The script features military, social and judicial drama. None of the components is immersive, but the overall impression of the film leaves a positive one. Moreover, “Paths of glory” do not depress your mood, which, after watching, allows you to soberly assess what you see.
7.5 out of 10
I wonder why this painting doesn't have the number of awards. Because it certainly deserves it.
Kubrick is a surname known to almost everyone. And almost everyone, in one way or another, is familiar with his work. To confess, I heard about this film relatively recently, and therefore, did not slow down with watching this tape.
This picture will tell us a story that is based on the novel of the same name by Humphrey Cobb. This film will show the viewer the conflict that is revealed in the ranks of the French army during the Second World War. Not surprisingly, this painting was banned in France for a long time.
The plot, which is transmitted to the viewer through a wonderful play of actors and no less remarkable camera work, is interesting and, to put it mildly, harsh. Kubrick, as always, “cuts on the living” filling the soul of the viewer with a storm of emotions, in which hatred and compassion, calls for justice and moaning about humanity are mixed.
Yes, this is a very, very heavy picture that is not filled with any visual horrors. Horror and cold, transmitted by the facial expressions of the actors, dry phrases and twists of the storyline. In the middle of the film, you just want to scream and call to humanity, which we often forget. And, it is such tapes that should always be at hand to remind us that, first of all, we are human.
Paths of Glory is Stanley Kubrick's first war drama. The action takes place during the First World War, but in the center of the story is not a chronicle of hostilities, but the trial of soldiers who did not want to go on a suicide attack. The main character, Colonel Dax (played by the inimitable Kirk Douglas) tries to find a way to save soldiers from execution, not believing that they committed the act is a crime.
It's amazing, but even today, this movie looks in one breath. It has something that many modern films are no longer able to give the viewer a feeling of constant tension. Dax is looking for ways to save his fighters from an unjust tribunal, remembers their merits, proves to the judges that the fault is not the cowardice of the soldiers, but too great ambitions of superiors, for whom human life has ceased to have any value. The whole film is saturated with the expectation of a happy ending, which, however, will not be - they will be judged according to all the laws of wartime.
I would like to mention the song that the girl sings at the end of the film. It is in the context of everything that happened that her words in an unfamiliar language sound so that not only the soldiers in the bar cry, but also the audience on the other side of the screen.
Paths of Glory is one of the best military dramas in history. Even Kubrick himself, returning to the theme of war in the film “All Metal Shell”, could not surpass his own masterpiece of 1957.
9 out of 10
How Kubrick manages to make such masterpieces as “The Paths of Glory” I probably will never understand, but if I were a director, I would make such a film. Paths of Glory reveals the truth and essence of war. Kubrick not in vain emphasized the rank of the military. We see war through the eyes of ordinary soldiers, as well as through the eyes of commanders. If for the former it is a way to protect and defend the honor of their country, for the latter it is an outright circus and farce.
Paths of Glory is hard to attribute to any genre, on the one hand it is military, on the other dramatic, and it can also be considered as a court film. I think the genre is a war drama with elements of a court film. I think with this mix of genres, Kubrick put a lot of emphasis on the general discussion of the important issues that are discussed in the film. Paths of Glory turned out to be a very conversational film, which is not really typical for Kubrick’s work.
The director was able to clearly explain that the war, sometimes, is not only between two warring parties, but also within one side. This very important point he conveys to the viewer, forcing him to analyze as such the term "war". Kubrick didn’t make Paths of Glory a typical war movie, he gave us his idea of it. Paths of Glory is a rather short picture, but all the most important and important Kubrick managed to squeeze into such a short timekeeping.
“The Paths of Glory” shows what are “rotten” and terrible people who do not care about human life, to give the order to shoot for them is no difficulty. There's an amazing quote in the film that perfectly describes the psychology and logic of these people - "The best way to maintain discipline is to put someone on the wall from time to time." Kubrick tries to say with his film that sometimes bosses, generals or loved ones of high rank do not care about the fate of ordinary people, the director tries to show the absurdity of the decisions of the bosses, he ridicules their stupidity. Paths of Glory tries to convey that it is necessary to fight the system, not to be afraid of lies, but to prove one’s rightness, especially when people’s lives are at stake. The hero of Kirk Douglas is the standard of a real military man. This man is willing to sacrifice his career and life for his soldiers. He defends their lives and dignity and fights against lies.
To sum up, Paths of Glory is the film that defined Kubrick’s entire future career, it is his first serious film that touches on sick and pressing themes. Paths of Glory is a powerful film that primarily serves to open people’s eyes to reality.
There is nothing sacred for some people, even in war. How they walk on the heads of others to achieve their goal.
For several years now there has been a war between Germany and France. Neither side is backing down, nor is it moving forward. The general is ordered to seize the strategically important object before the day after tomorrow. Realizing that this is impossible, he tries to object, rightly arguing that it is impossible. But just a hint of promotion is enough for him to reconsider.
His division has no choice, orders are orders. Led by a brave colonel, they make a bold attempt. Around everything is torn, with each step of the corpses more and more. No wonder the operation failed, the soldiers are running back.
This is not to the liking of the general, because it does not contribute to his advancement. He decides to sentence three people to be shot, so to speak, “punish for cowardice.”
The colonel, who was once a successful lawyer, tries to save them. Only he takes this situation seriously. For the rest of us, it's just a boring duty. They have soldiers in front of them.
That's the movie. It’s about how hard it is to be a human being in such situations, how to act so that you don’t feel ashamed of being a human being. That for some, murder is a justified means to save their reputation. Idiot bosses whose stupid orders must be followed. It's about how hard it is to stand up to them, even when the truth is on your side. Because everything is offended by one phrase: "That's what the general wants." Everything else is disobedience.
This is how people move forward, hiding behind their homeland and patriotism. No wonder the main character says a wonderful phrase: "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." He's honest, they don't understand him. A stupid, limited brain will never understand how humanity and empathy can take precedence over profit. “You disappoint me. The insight of your mind gave way to sentimentality. You wanted to save people and you didn't want to put Miro in his place? You are an idealist.
The film is good and worth watching.
9 out of 10
P.S.
Apologize or you will be arrested!
Forgive me for not being completely honest with you, for not expressing my true feelings. I'm sorry I didn't call you a moron and an old sadist before. Go to hell!
The film is shot in a typical for early Kubrick rather concise manner of narration, although in style and directorial techniques already makes it clear about future greatness and undoubted skill.
It begins as a typical war movie, tells about honor, duty and betrayal, then makes an unexpected turn, develops further in the mainstream of the judicial drama, and finally ends on a piercing pacifist note, which, by the way, is rather strange, but at the same time very organically looks against the background of the general pathos and moralization in the American (!) war film. As you know, the anti-war theme will be manifested in subsequent, more masterfully made, films Kubrick, although here it is transmitted with such force, which can only envy many modern directors.
The story in the film is quite simple, and it is shown in an equally simple but brilliant manner. The film tells us about a heavy soldier’s share and about generals who throw their soldiers into a losing battle, and then shoot them for cowardice, which they did not show. The main character is a typical fringe, an officer in rank, but a soldier in spirit, too smart to be a simple colonel, but too honest to become a general. He leads his soldiers with courage and tenacity into a losing battle, and then steadfastly and just as bravely defends their honor in a losing trial. All this is accompanied by intrigues of both superiors and lower officers.
In the atmosphere of war, we are immersed in very high-quality combat scenes made for that time, the whistle of bullets instead of tragic music, and, of course, Kubrikov’s favorite technique of the “infinite camera”, when the camera continuously loops through the trenches, during the rounds of the authorities, creating the appearance of a vicious circle. A very interesting technique – the absence of an opponent in the frame – which essentially shows the absolute meaninglessness of this action. Just as interesting is the contrast of scenes in the trenches and scenes in the palace, while the soldiers are fighting, mourning losses or languishing on the bunks in anticipation of the tribunal, the authorities are feasting, throwing parties, and generally having all sorts of fun. Also a plus is the perfectionist demand of the director for actors (imagine how 29-year-old Kubrick drives through many takes uncles twice older and more experienced than him), all the actors played perfectly, especially I liked Kirk Douglas and George McRedi.
Of the minuses, I can (heartily) highlight the pathos of some dialogue scenes and excessive moralizing of the main character.
Conclusion: a great film, which in many ways reveals the future greatness of Stanley Kubrick.
9 out of 10
The trails of fame dramatically changed the direction of cinema. If earlier "Sinema" served as a tool of the powerful - bosses of various corporations, satisfying the needs of the public in entertainment or directly politicians, ordering a particular patriotic film to raise the spirit of citizens, then after the release of the Trail of Glory on the screen, there is no doubt that cinema is now a tool of freedom in the fight against lies and deception. And the first person to enter into an unequal battle with a dangerous, insidious, cruel and very cunning enemy was Stanley Kubrick.
The Paths of Glory proclaimed a completely new method of storytelling, bringing realism to the most extreme (sometimes reaching to cruelty) degree. The viewer at one point turned from a passive eater of the proposed information into an active participant in events, one way or another, integrated into what is happening on the screen. Films in general have also undergone a transformation from exclamation points to question marks. Instantly the old ideals, fantasies, dreams, rules, dogmas and laws disappeared. It's a new time! An era of skepticism, criticism, doubt, uncertainty... but also of struggle, of active search for truth and truth. And the film “Trails of Glory” marks its beginning.
In fact, the film does not belong to any known genre as a whole. It does not affirm anything, does not sing anything, and in general (in my opinion) does not even criticize anything or anyone, but simply reflects the paradox and contradiction of life - terrible and deadly for anyone who accidentally finds himself in it. The chaos and hell of the bloodbath of the First World War pale before the cowardice, hypocrisy and cruelty of those in power. People who returned from the battlefields, where they shed blood for patronymic, will have to see the true face of the representatives, leaders and fathers of this very fatherland. And die in shame and disgrace, as cowards and traitors.
Best of all, in my opinion, Kubrick managed to show the most terrible thing that can be – the absence of a rational grain and any kind of justice in what is happening. Perhaps this, and not the naked figure of unscrupulous and immoral leadership made such a strong impression.
After all, everything in the film is terrible, irrational and absolutely meaningless: heroism, honor and courage are empty and fruitless sounds, helplessly drowning in the absurd orders of the authorities; the homeland is not a holy mother, but a merciless stepmother who renounces her children and pronounces them a death sentence. The very principle of cruelty and absurdity has penetrated so deeply into all the surrounding space and into the emptiness of human hearts that even the only positive character of the film performed by Kirk Douglas passes before him. In the past, he would have famously and bravo dealt with enemies with the support of his fearless soldiers, and then would have eaten the sweet fruits of victory. But now he is powerless, crushed, defeated - not so much by the chaos of general slaughter as by the fall of his own ideals of justice and prudence.
The impenetrable darkness that flooded everything, the thick blackness of the abyss, at the bottom of which only monsters hide. Is there any possibility of salvation and deliverance in the godless world of greedy, vain, hypocritical and insane monsters? Through the veil of the black clouds of Kubrick's sky still penetrates a weak, fluttering, thin ray of light. And so the song captured German, sounding at the end of the film, fascinates all walking and cheering soldiers. And in the complete silence that has come in the room, each of them realizes that he, like this unfortunate woman, is just another victim of emptiness.
In time of war, all the moral principles which usually give humanity to men are lost. For rank-and-file soldiers, usually on the front lines, every day is considered the last. The highest ranks have their own orders, and given their titles, they rarely visit the battlefield itself. In order to achieve the task, for example, to conquer an enemy point on a hill, the military authorities are ready to sacrifice ten thousand of their subordinates, who are ready to pay the highest price in the name of debt to the homeland. But some decisions are not always implemented. And in order not to shame their good names, generals and lieutenants try to find the guilty in this, which of course become ordinary employees. It is easier to accuse them of cowardice than to admit the irrationality of your plan of attack and take all the consequences on yourself.
It is about vanity and real cowardice in the highest military circles that this wonderful film of the cult Stanley Kubrick narrates. There is no inherent vulgarity or provocation in all his subsequent works. But in "The Paths of Glory" very openly shows the baseness of some people who are ready to do anything to not spoil their image. For the then relatively unknown director, it could be safely considered a revelation that had never been brought to the surface before. Kubrick managed to make a rather simple, but intriguing and fascinating film in which strong drama goes side by side with large-scale military scenes. The episode with the siege of the enemy position could be easily envied, for example, Mikhalkov, who tried to shoot something similar in the final part of “Weary of the Sun”. But the difference between the paintings is more than fifty years!
Greatly managed to show not only the inability of the higher ranks to accept the consequences of their own mistakes, but also the internal relationships in the company between ordinary soldiers. They decide nothing and their words will not be considered. Therefore, they have no choice but to discuss between themselves in what way to die faster on the battlefields: from a stray bullet to the forehead or still from an enemy bayonet. From these conversations and evokes the longing and hopelessness that haunts ordinary soldiers at every appearance in the frame. Particularly touching was the moment of checking the readiness of the soldiers before the assault. The main character (in combination with their colonel) goes through the trench through the slender ranks of his soldiers. Prepared to perish, in the eyes of each of them there is not a fraction of what generals usually call inconsolable courage and courage. Their blood in their veins freezes as well as any other people in their situation. Be them even those same mass-producers who suddenly wanted to recapture such an important strategic point from the enemy.
Even the judicial charges against the chosen scapegoats are not so much anger at those involved as a full awareness of the inevitability. The only one who really deserved respect among all the people with the highest rank was Colonel Dax, under whose sensitive leadership the assault took place. Kirk Douglas was unwaveringly honest and fair. In any other film, this image would have been considered a weak link in the company of charismatic neighbors honed by brilliant heroism against the backdrop of hostilities. But compared to fearful and deceitful military leaders, his hero is distinguished by these two qualities, making him one of the few worthy of respect. Dax was not afraid to go against the system, even betting such an important career for others.
No matter how bloody and cruel a war may be, it is always worth remembering that the blame for every lost human life on it belongs to someone. And it is a shame that often these culprits are your allies, following whose orders you receive an enemy bullet. This is exactly what Kubrick in his Paths of Glory tries to convey to the viewer. Yes, there are not many epic battles here, but there are powerful dialogues and extremely sharp topics, which are sometimes found not only in the army. A strong film that does not hurry anywhere and holds the bar throughout its duration. All fans of good and high-quality cinema, “Paths of glory” should definitely watch.
8 out of 10
Every officer in this film is a patriot. But a patriot in his own sense. The general says that the main thing for him is the life of soldiers and the honor of the homeland. And at the same time sends the battalion to the meat grinder. The lieutenant escapes from the battlefield, blaming the privates. This is always the case: one sees war from a trench, another from a remote headquarters, and a third speculates on it theoretically. And the farther away from the front storyteller, the more he talks about patriotism.
This is an episode of the First World War. French soldiers are sent on a suicide attack on an impregnable German hill. A large percentage is known in advance. Colonel Dax, whose role is brilliantly played by Kirk Douglas, leads the soldiers into battle, but the operation turns into a collapse. Angry generals demand that three randomly selected soldiers be shot to edify the others. At the tribunal, the colonel acts as a lawyer. But a lie will never believe the truth, for it has not met it.
Kubrick created a truly epic, full of tragedy and lost hope canvas. Only in the first week of filming pyrotechnics spent more than a ton of explosives!
Kirk Douglas was delighted with the work done. The style, verisimilitude and accuracy of the film was appreciated by Winston Churchill. And the catch phrase uttered by Samuel Johnson, and repeated in the film by Colonel Dax "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels", again became popular.
10 out of 10
