Review of Paths of Glory (1957) by Jacob M — 21 Jul 2014

I've realized that after watching one Stanley Kubrick film, you never know what you are getting into. After heavily despising 2001: Space Boredom That Absolutely Makes No Sense Even With Common Knowledge of Space Travel, I needed to watch a Kubrick film that was actually worth the hype. Paths of Glory ended up being my second experience from this acclaimed but controversial filmmaker. Released originally in 1957, this anti-war drama was Kubrick's first major film that gained him national attention, particularly his unique cinematic approach to the story. First thing I have to say regarding Paths of Glory... it's loads, loads better than 2001.

Based on a novel by Humphrey Cobb (apparently Kubrick liked to adapt little-known books, wonder if the 2001 novel made actual sense) and set during WWI in 1916 throughout the French trenches, Col. Dax (Kirk Douglas) is sent to lead his troops to victory, but when the mission is a major failure, the ambitious but cruel General Mireau (George Macready) arrests three of the privates, have them court-martialed for cowardice, and sentenced for execution. Dax does everything in his path to prevent such cruelty.

Kubrick's known for his controversial material, and Paths of Glory is no exception. Upon original release, the film was criticized by many army professionals, particularly those living in Europe, for the depiction of the cruel military officials. Whether the story was true or not, oddly enough, I think Kubrick actually mastered what he was trying to tell. This is an anti-war film, for crying out loud! Though I'm not against the military (especially the many that risk their lives each day to protect freedom), the events depicted in this film is just downright cruel. Seriously, if you hate Patton for the things he did, then this will certainly change some perspectives. At least Patton didn't go as far as execute his men for cowardice after a failed mission. While I'm not a huge fan of the war genre, especially those on the anti-side cause they always feel sympathetic in their message (though I was able to like All Quiet on the Western Front), the brooding, haunting, b&w look Kubrick sets feels totally different from your typical war picture. Feels more like a history lesson than it did anti-war, but that's just my two cents.

From the opening scenes, Paths of Glory sets the standard for an unforgettable, powerful experience that was severely lacking in 2001. The cinematic shots of people walking in the trenches were groundbreaking for its time (and still impresses greatly to this day), the failed mission scene was about as complex as much of the war scenes in All Quiet on the Western Front, the buildup to the execution sends utter shivers in what's going on, and the finale, featuring a captured female German forced to sing to rowdy French troops, leaves the biggest impression long after finishing the film. Also impressive is Kirk Douglas' powerhouse performance as Col. Dax. Many critics have referred to this role as the role that defined his career, and while my experience with the actor is extremely limited (other than this, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and The Bad and the Beautiful), I think the critics may be right.

So for now, my experience with Stanley Kubrick has been mixed. 2001 was an utter waste of time, but thankfully, my experience with Paths of Glory makes up for it big time. The story is profound and powerful, the message is haunting and frightening, the pacing is done in a very brisk manner to where I'm sold, and Kirk Douglas nails his challenging role. After watching Paths of Glory, I now realize the greatness of Kubrick as a filmmaker, and hopefully, I'll have the same success with his other films.

"I apologize... for not being entirely honest with you. I apologize for not revealing my true feelings. I apologize, sir, for not telling you sooner that you're a degenerate, sadistic old man. And you can go to hell before I apologize to you now or ever again!".