Review of Paths of Glory (1957) by Lucas Q — 05 Jul 2012

War films are a Hollywood staple starting somewhere back when All Quiet on the Western Front gained prominence for being a great adaptation of the famed novel by Erich Maria Remarque. This 1957 film continued that great tradition with another look at the insanity aroused by war. In this instance, it explores the irrationality that can be provoked within an armies own ranks and the blind obsessions and principles of some individuals. Kubrick is never one for pulling punches in his films and with a classic star at his disposal in Kirk Douglas; he goes for the jugular of the issue. The humanity of the issue and corruptness, but the great aspect of the film is that it never loses sight of the fact that everyone can make mistakes and that humanity of everyone in the army is necessary.

The backdrop of this film is based on fact. A certain General George Broulard, played with his usual air by Adolphe Menjou, comes to another commanding officer whom he manipulates into ordering a suicide run on the enemies' position. General Paul Mireau, played with a particularly hateful attitude by George Macready, then carries down the orders to his brilliant Colonel Dax, Kirk Douglas. Mireau in turns forces Dax to ready his men for the insane attack run. This is the setting, what follows of course is the utter failure of the attack and the anger of the superiors especially Mireau. Mireau wants to kill some hundred troops as an example of the men's cowardice, because during the attack he sees about roughly half of Dax's troops refusing to advance out of the trenches.

The film's strength is not in the message so much as the human face Kubrick gives the soldiers. He zeroes in on a moment of true cowardice committed by Lieutenant Roget. The Lieutenant is ordered to go on a reconnaissance mission the night before the attack by Dax, and, whether out of fear of going into No Man's Land or just a bad drinking problem, he gets drunk before going out with two of his men. As the trio goes out, he makes rash decisions, splitting up the party and fleeing at the first signs of trouble in the process letting fly a grenade that kills one of his men. The other man on the mission stays behind to see this and makes it back alive. This seemingly smaller story inside the big story is key though I think because it shows the humanity of the issue. What gives the commanding General up in his safe booth the authority to call his men cowards? He cannot possibly have a feel for the issues of the moment as Colonel Dax does in seeing his men bottled up in the trenches because they will be slaughtered upon going over the top.

The last third of the film is devoted to the court-martial of three of Dax's men over the issue of cowardice because Dax has managed through his form weight of being a premier lawyer to get the Generals to agree to settle for just three men's life at steak instead of the hundred originally discussed to show an example. The three men in question are either chosen by the commanding officers by random of because they are generally in disfavor as is Corporal Philippe Paris, the man who witnessed Roget's cowardice. Each falls apart as the date of their never in question execution approaches.

I will not reveal much more about the plot and the ending, but I will say that this film stands as a stellar war film dealing with great issues of warfare and the horrors it creates. The performances are gripping and the story gives a fair tone to the whole issue although as is usual of a Kubrick film the protagonist is generally in opposition to the authority throughout the film a effort that Kirk Douglas does with his usual ferocity, nobody can quite getting as seemingly hot tempered as Douglas. He is a yeller of extraordinary talent. Despite being roughly 51 years old this film still holds up quite well with great cinematography work and art direction.