Paths of Glory: Not what I expected
by kenny.wong ~ September 29th, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized.Two things I have come to expect before this attending this class:
1. War films will have a lot of “war” in it (even if it is Kubrick, I really did think there was going to be more tribulation, less trial).
2. The French aren’t all that bad.
No I kid, I have nothing against the French, they give me wine and women.
But as far as being extremely surprised at the lack of martial conflict between the belligerents. In fact, the Germans were not shown whatsoever, not a single one. Even the “siege” on the ant hill depicted zero Germans, though possibly some of the corpses in No Man’s Land could have been German. An interesting lack of one side of the war. Kubrick makes it a clear point that this battle isn’t even about the ant hill, but more a question of leading and following, thought that aspect also has complications in the movie.
Col. Dax is absolutely defining as a hero, in both arc and scope, he has the morality, humanity, and leadership traits to be a man that any would follow. I couldn’t agree more. But it’s strange, as rebellious as he is to the dehumanizing and outrageous aspects of the orders given to him, he still carries them out. He obeys the chain of command, he objects, but he still carries it out. One one would expect that somewhere in the movie, he would wholeheartedly decline an order.
Like Captain Rousseau.
That’s the battery commander. Who, if I remember correctly, refused 3 consecutive orders, to fire upon his own men with artillery on the basis of mutiny. A person, who barely has 5 minutes of screen time in the entire film, has more of the aspects of humanity and heroism than the character Kubrick wants us to pay attention to. Not only does he refuse an order, multiple times, he comes forward with that very evidence in order to both support the men being tried for cowardice, as well as discredit the general.
But let’s look at the larger scope of what is trying to be conveyed here, I don’t want to paint the Colonel as a coward or undeserving of any praise. He does indeed go to great extent to try and save his men. The underlying theme that I took from this film is that the soldier, as was depicted in this film but also as a general statement for the era, is minuscule in importance, a number and rank if anything. Most people tend to think that the atomic bomb was the advent of true weaponry of massive destruction, but taken in context, it started in World War I, with the machine gun and mustard gas. Casualties that were once in the thousands, became hundreds of thousands. Instead of killing one, five, ten soldiers with a gun, you could kill hundreds. The very human and basic body function of breathing would kill. Battlefields were so entrenched that they would serve as the theatre of war for years instead of weeks. The literary world, as well as sectors of public opinion, began to realize just how capable humanity was in its ability to annihilate itself. It no longer fell to the individual soldier to create victory, but instead a race for survival until your weapons can kill that man a few hundred yards away. And if it means over half a battalion’s forces will perish in a conflict, so be it, because you’ll die for “cowardice” for doing something human.
Depressing yes? Well, this is the start of mordernism, and all the lovely depression that goes along with it.
It also seems that “Glory” in the title takes on a more sinister sense in the film. The general was trying to follow a path of glory in his quest for promotion, and it backfired. Col. Dax followed a path of glory as well, which ended up being misconstrued as a power play for a promotion, and ended with the men he so desperately wanted to save dying. So if “Glory” becomes a freighted word, what does the title of the film really mean then?
September 30th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Like you Kenny, I am waiting to see a war film that is more “war” than anything else, at the same time I can understand why they are turning out to be anything but that. Your comment about Kubrick making it clear that this film is far less about the Ant Hill but more about leading and following is one of the major points that I noticed while watching today. The other pieces that we have read and seen in class, with the exception of Calusewitz, speak on the war experience, but in the eyes of the soldier. “Paths of Glory” does the complete opposite and comments more on the influence of higher military authority. Even the lives of innocent soldiers are unjustly placed in the hands of authority here. The men that are actually doing the fighting appear in my eyes as simple pawns, placing their lives at no value.
Ironically, the film is entitled, “Paths of Glory” but there has yet to be anything glorious about the paths that any of the characters have taken. There fails to be any true hero here and furthermore, anyone that can be identified as one that has taken the high road–all characters act in attempt to succefully fulfill their own personal agendas. Ofcourse there are those few that you have mentioned but overall, everyone just seems so shady. I think that this film is really speaking on how the path TO glory, fame, stature, and appreciation is anything BUT glorious. I was going to comment and say that hopefully at the end of the film, the three innocent soldiers are let go and not executed but you gave that away in your post. With that said, there is no true glory in war….atleast in this depiction.
October 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The movie really is an incredible social and political commentary about the perceptions of war and glory through the actions of the troops and their commanders, not necessarily their performance in combat, however. It made me think and feel so many frustrating ideas at once that I almost missed the point about the title, which now seems silly. But Jozette and Kenny have both pointed out that Paths of Glory as a title it is so very ironic and contradictory to the films message.
And I just think that it’s ridiculous that people (certain leaders) would think that men would really desire charging for their death, painful suicide for their countries, but as Colonel Dax points out indirectly, even they don’t really believe this, and I personally think, hardly would they do it themselves. It’s kind of a pathetic chain of command then.
October 2nd, 2010 at 9:35 pm
After watching the movie, I agree with Kenny that director Stanley Kubrick makes it clear that his intention is less on the violent side of war and more on the dehumanizing aspects it drives people to. The movie is a dark comedy, asking how far is one willing to follow orders even if they endanger the lives of men.
Here is where I disagree with Kenny on certain points in the film, Kirk Douglas the colonel follows the order because he HAS to. He doesn’t have a choice with his line of command. That’s what Kubrick is getting at. The French lieutenant named “asshole” makes the most absurd decisions, killing his own men, securing an anthill impossible to capture, trialing three men for cowardice. The guy is a complete mess but believes he’s correct, if Douglas doesn’t follow this order he will be killed for mutiny
October 2nd, 2010 at 9:45 pm
As far as the battery commander, he wasn’t necessarily refusing an order from “asshole” but he needed a sheet of authority to do so. This story conveys kubricks view on the absurdity of war. In the end I agree with Kenny, people become a statistic, number of casualities and if you live your somehow glorious. That’s “assholes” view, your death walks hand in hand with your glory. I thought the movie was great, that it gave a criticism on war instead of the bloodshed/historical significance of it.
January 1st, 2011 at 7:56 am
I’m seeking some help creating a short guide on the topic, would it be OK for me to use a post from your blog?