Safe in their picturesque chateau behind the front lines, the French general staff passes down a direct order to Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas): take the Ant Hill at any cost. A blatant suicide mission, the attack is doomed to failure. Covering up their fatal blunder, the generals order the arrest of three innocent soldiers, charging them with cowardice and mutiny. Dax, a lawyer in civilian life, rises to the men’s defense but soon realizes that, unless he can prove that the generals were to blame,nothing less than a miracle will save his clients from the firing squad. A compelling masterpiece from world-class director/writer Stanley Kubrick and screenwriters Calder Willingham and JimThompson, Paths of Glory is a blistering indictment of military politics and “an unforgettable movie experience” (Newsweek).Stanley Kubrick had already made his talent known with the outstanding racetrack heist thriller The Killing, but it was the 1957 antiwar masterpiece Paths of Glory that catapulted Kubrick to international acclaim. Based on the novel by Humphrey Cobb, the film was initiated by Kirk Douglas, who chose the young Kubrick to direct what would become one of the most powerful films about the wasteful insanity of warfare. In one of his finest roles, Douglas plays Colonel Dax, commander of a battle-worn regiment of the French army along the western front during World War I. Held in their trenches under the threat of German artillery, the regiment is ordered on a suicidal mission to capture an enemy stronghold. When the mission inevitably fails, French generals order the selection of three soldiers to be tried and executed on the charge of cowardice. Dax is appointed as defense attorney for the chosen scapegoats, and what follows is a travesty of justice that has remained relevant and powerful for decades. In the wake of some of the most authentic and devastating battle sequences ever filmed, Kubrick brilliantly explores the political machinations and selfish personal ambitions that result in battlefield slaughter and senseless executions. The film is unflinching in its condemnation of war and the self-indulgence of military leaders who orchestrate the deaths of thousands from the comfort of their luxurious headquarters. For many years, Paths of Glory was banned in France as a slanderous attack on French honor, but it’s clear that Kubrick’s intense drama is aimed at all nations and all men. Though it touches on themes of courage and loyalty in the context of warfare, the film is specifically about the historical realities of World War I, but its impact and artistic achievement remain timeless and universal. –Jeff Shannon
Buy “Paths of Glory” For Only $2.88
May 11, 2008
#1
this is a stanley kubrik film.most people only know the ones from 2001 a space odyssey on.theres some parts which are a bit long.these 3 maybe 4 guys get put to death for showing cowardice in the face of the enemy.its not for kids.its not the best military movie .full metal jacket is better.haha.the execution scene is particuraly stirring.i liked spartacus better out of the 2 kubrik/douglas films.
May 11, 2008
#2
Just now got to watching this oldie Pro-War movie of the 50s. It wasn’t as good as I had heard, but the pro-war stance makes me want to go back to serve. Kirk’s colonel Dax makes all officers proud of wartime service. Enlisted soldiers all could do much worse than Dax. You can tell he cares so much for this men, that it almost physically hurts him to follow through with absurd orders from up top. While this movie showcases the sometime ridiculous choices higher ups make in the name of wartime offense, it also more than makes up for it by making Dax the hero that populates the armoed forces.
This Pro-War movie of the 50s is labled as antiw-war, but there is no hiding the values and honorable service of the soldiers and officers portrayed in the movie. While it does give little screen time to the generals in the back, the real story highlightes the selfless, duty-bound service of the troops in the trenches. The 3 unlucky soldiers who get randomly picked to make up for the failed attack, are the usual sympathetic duty-bound conscripts of the time. They all don’t like being there, but they are because of their patriotism and love for their country. Even if this is France, that country can be pround it had people like Dax and the 3 who are eventually punished. The pro-war aspect of this movie makes it all the more gung-hoie. Duty, honor, and comraderie are the top themes highlighted in this feature. I especially liked Dax’s committment to his men and to the chain of command. He does an excellent job of following the rules and still coming out on top and alive. Overall, one of the greats of the PRO-WAR movie of the 50s. Worth a look, at least once, to showcase patriotism and duty to country.
May 11, 2008
#3
best black and white movie; best anti-war movie…ever!
May 11, 2008
#4
Yes, this is beautifully shot and well-directed. Unfortunately, the script is also extremely talky and very strident in its anti-war message. Not that strident anti-war messages are necessarily a bad thing, it’s just not exactly something you have to pound in with a sledge, which is what Kubrick does here, and I have to admit, his trademark coldness doesn’t help much for me.
Don’t be fooled; this isn’t a war film, it’s a courtroom drama about how war is very, very bad, children. The problem is there’s no real suspense, humor, anything; it feels like one long lecture. I can’t help but feel “The Grand Illusion” overshadows this film very strongly. That film got its message across rather subtly while demonstrating considerably more warmth, not to mention being more thrilling.
Still, as overshadowings go, “The Grand Illusion” is a great shadow to be in. “Paths of Glory” is a very well-acted, well-directed film, and you can’t beat the price, especially if you’re a film nut. However, this is most certainly a lesser work of Kubrick’s.
May 11, 2008
#5
Kubrick is one of the really great film auteurs of the 20th century, and Path of Glory is admired by many as a work of early maturity. Indeed, there is much to admire. The clinically sharp black and white photography; the use of long tracking shots; fine performances, particularly George Macready as an ambitious general and Adolphe Menjou in perhaps his finest work in a career filled with portrayals of reptilian manipulators; crisp editing; effective use of sound. Indeed, it bears many of the hallmarks of Kubrick’s more mature (from Dr. Strangelove and Lolita onwards) style. One particularly uncanny stylistic element: the tracking shots and interiors in some ways prefigure Resnais’s great Last Year at Marienbad–which in turn seems to be the source of much of Kubrick’s style from 2001: A Space Odyssey onward.
And yet this film feels flat. It’s arguably the emotionally chilliest of all of Kubrick’s films. Its unending succession of military stupidity and venality (even for the French army) is oppressive. It is a classic war-is-hell-and-the-commanders-are-the-ninth-circle polemic–and all its technical polish cannot disguise its formulaic hollowness. It lacks the most distinctive thing characteristic of all of Kulbrick’s mature films–sardonic humor. Even the most touching moment in the film–the café scene–is somewhat forced.
Kubrick was obviously fascinated with war, from his very first film, Fear and Desire (which is even flatter and more formulaic then Paths of Glory)to Spartacus to Dr. Strangelove to Full Metal Jacket, with growing maturity and mastery. Of Kubrick’s early films, The Killers stands out; but it is not until we reach Dr. Strangelove and Lolita that his full genius is apparent.
The DVD transfer is fine. The film–well, to this reviewer there are three films in Kubrick’s body of work that just don’t fly. First, Fear and Desire–looks good, completely formulaic in a kind of Twilight Zone manner. Second, The Shining–an example of a great director making a great looking film with fine performances that eliminates the vulgarity of the source material–and completely drains the life out of it. The third is Paths of Glory. Its technical prowess and fine performances can’t hide the hollowness inside. One suspects that many who praise it are knee-jerk responsive to its sentiments, and ignore its chill bloodlessness.
For the Kubrick fan, see this film to understand the arc of his career. I can’t really recommend it to others.