Paths of Glory

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Written by: Stanley Kubrick and Jim Thompson & Calder Willingham, based on the novel by Humphrey Cobb

Year: 1957

Genre: War drama

My rating: 5 out of 5

After a quick explanation of the current World War I situation in France, we are introduced to the principal antagonists of the film: Major General Broulard (Adolphe Menjou) and General Mireau (George Macready). General Broulard persuades General Mireau to send his division on a suicidal mission to overtake the German trench position known as the "Anthill." General Mireau heads to the trenches as soon as possible, and hands over the detailed planning of the attack to Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) of the 701st Regiment, who is shocked to hear that 60% of his men will likely die, but is forced to follow orders. The next day, the attack begins led by Col. Dax, but the French soldiers are quickly forced to retreat. The first wave makes it to the middle of no-man's land before they are pinned by gunfire, the second wave makes it no further than the French wire, and the third doesn't even leave the trench. Enraged, General Mireau orders the artillery commander to open fire on their own trench to force the soldiers out, but the commander refuses. As a result of the shameful failure, General Mireau attempts to avoid blame by "setting an example." Col. Dax is ordered to have his three lieutenants pick one soldier from their company and arrest them for cowardice in the face of the enemy, the penalty for which is death. The three soldiers are: Pvt. Maurice Ferol (Timothy Carey), chosen for being a "social undesirable;" Pvt. Pierre Arnaud, chosen at random despite being a very courageous soldier; and Cpl. Philippe Paris, chosen because he witnessed Lt. Roget (Wayne Morris) accidentally kill a soldier while drunk on a reconnaissance mission. Appalled at the preposterously unfair decision to execute three innocent men, Col. Dax launches his own small war for justice.

"Paths of Glory" is in no way a war epic, nor does it try to be. It ignores what now seem to be conventional war movie rules, like soldiers and officers always yelling at each other. It does this because it is smarter than other war movies, not only in dialogue but in method. Where many other films would be explosive and full of action, it is tense, with intrusive drum beats keeping us on-edge. It shows us all the in's and out's of war just through the repercussions of one small, relatively insignificant event. We see the fear, the frustration, the injustice and, most importantly, the people. This does not mean that the dialogue is taken right out of a pamphlet. It is in fact some of the most involving and creative dialogue I have heard in any movie. Each and every conversation is both realistic and interesting. For example, there is a scene in which two unnamed and unimportant soldiers discuss the paradox that everyone fears pain more than they fear death but would choose the former over the latter. Furthermore, the acting reflects incredible skill and maturity on Kubrick's part. The characters are precisely as memorable as they need to be. Kirk Douglas's Col. Dax knows right from wrong and defends it wholeheartedly both on the battlefield and in the courtroom. Douglas was initially criticized during production for appearing in such a controversial film, but it is now considered one of his greatest performances. Similarly, "Paths of Glory" is clearly one of Stanley Kubrick's greatest accomplishments.

Structure/Form:

What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?

When the original book was finished, it had no title, so the publisher held a contest. The winning entry came from the Thomas Gray poem "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:"

"The boast of heraldry, the pomp of pow'r,

And all the beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,

Awaits alike th'inevitable hour.

The paths of glory lead but only to the grave."

The film is about how the only way to achieve glory in war is death.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?

To set the scene and tell the audience what stage of the war it is.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?

War- and march-oriented drums can often be heard.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax? How does this scene resolve the central issue of the film?

General Mireau learns that he will be tried for ordering artillery fire on his own men. Col. Dax angrily declines General Broulard's offer to promote him to General, explaining that he wasn't looking for a promotion.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?

Well, the war is still going on, but to continue the story any further would have been very unwise.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?

It shows that everything has gone back to normal, and what we have witnessed will not be remembered but is nonetheless special.

Theme:

How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?

Represented in the title, the film shows how the bravest of men can be declared cowards for making a smart decision to retreat, and those who take foolish risks are remembered as heroes.

Editing:

How much cutting is there and why?

Not much, Kubrick only likes to cut when it's necessary.

Are the shots highly fragmented or relatively lengthy?

Lengthy, whenever possible.

What is the point of cutting in each scene?

To help the audience follow the emotions of each character.

Does the cutting seem manipulative or are we left to interpret the images on our own?

I think Kubrick was trying to create an atmosphere where we feel like we are witnesses to the events taking place.

Is the personality of the filmmaker apparent in the cutting, or is the presentation of shots relatively objective?

I'd say his personality most definitely shows. I suspect he's about as far as you can get from an objective filmmaker.

Mise en Scene:

The firing squad aims and prepares to fire.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?

To the rifles that sort of frame the image.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?

Mostly high key.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?

The camera looks over the shoulders of the firing squad.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?

The camera is straight, but about waist-high, so we feel like we're looking up a little bit.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?

We notice the heads of the firing squad, and the three soldiers tied to the posts.

Density: How much visual information is packed into the image?

We don't get much from faces, and we aren't even 100% sure yet if the soldiers will be executed.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?

The firing squad and their rifles seem to create a frame around the three soldiers in the center.