Genre Grandeur – Paths of Glory (1957)

For our next entry in this months Genre Grandeur – War, I present you with another review by Niall of Raging Fluff.

I know that it’s August and it’s the middle of the summer, but I’m still accepting reviews for this month’s genre, so get crackin!

It’s easy to join in, just shoot me an email to and I’ll post your review.

Let’s see what Niall has to say about Kubrick’s Paths of Glory (1957)



download (25)

Summary: During the First World War, the French military orders a court-martial accusing soldiers of cowardice after an attack on an enemy position fails.


It is a truism in the Army that shit rolls downhill, and Stanley Kubrick doesn’t argue with it; he just presents it for the non3366_2sense it is and the sort of stupidity it can produce. One general tells another to attack and hold a strategic position. The general knows it’s a mistake but proceeds when a promotion is dangled in front of him; he orders a colonel to carry out the attack. The colonel knows it’s a mistake but proceeds when he’s threatened to be relieved of his command. The colonel orders a lieutenant to lead a reconnaissance. The lieutenant kills one of his own men by mistake and flees the scene; when a corporal threatens to bring charges, the major asks: “Have you ever tried to bring charges against an officer. It’s your word against mine. Whose word do you think they’ll believe? Let me put it another way: whose word do you think they’ll accept?”

Paths of Glory is shot in crisp black and white. It has long tracking shots across No Man’s Land and winding along through trenches, and a clever, startling moment utilising deep focus photography. We are look10321ing across a muddy field at a crashed bi-plane when a flare lights up overhead, illuminating the foreground to reveal that the shadowy lumps aren’t rocks or muddy knolls but corpses. The flare dies out and the corpses are once again put in darkness. There is a very realistic, dirty, brutal battle scene. The film is gritty about the brutality of war and the bloody-mindedness of the military mentality. A general refuses to believe that a solder is shell-shocked (as he refuses to believe there is such a thing). Another officer regards ordinary soldiers as scum” acting as if they have a herd mentality. In some ways it is harrowing to watch because you know what’s going to happen and few seem interested in stopping it.

For a film generally remembered as a harsh examination of the pity of war, it has scenes that are highly stylised, with theatrical blocking and some of the images (9)dodgiest acting this side of an am-dram production. The actors aren’t really playing people, but stock-types: coward, brigand, rebel, tyrant, and so on, and many of the scenes (particularly in the first act) are simplistic moral or philosophical arguments disguised as drama. And right in the middle is Kirk Douglas jutting his jaw and sucking in his gut (I always imagined he insisted on a scene where he is bare-chested) and getting righteous and angry. It’s a very typical Douglas performance, which is not to say it’s bad, and he’s virtually the only human in the film, which is to say he’s the only character who hasn’t been turned into a cog in the military machine.

Once the court-martial begins, the absurdity of the situation and the way in which Douglas is prevented from presenting a proper defence will have you wondering if the military really can be this stupid. Three men are selected to be tried for cowardice. One (Ralph Meeker) is the corporal who threatened Paths of Glory_Christian Susanne Harlan sings The Faithful Hussarto expose his lieutenant’s cowardice; one has his name picked at random (Joseph Turkel); one is considered ‘socially undesirable’ (Timothy Carey): the film doesn’t expand on that, so you can imagine anything you want (it might simply be because he looks like a peace-loving beatnik).

As with much of Kubrick’s work, there is an awful lot of formal composition in the frame, and to further belittle his characters he places them in the cavernous rooms of a chateau. This is a very loud picture: you can’t ignore the sound of footsteps on marble floors, nor can you ignore the obvious contrast between generals calmly discussing brutal acts while sitting on beautiful furniture surrounded by Renaissance art. And I don’t think it’s an accident that the execution of three soldiers is framed in a way that will make you think of Calvary. What redemptive power is there in this crucixion?




tumblr_mx1d2gZSwl1rovfcgo1_500The film has a curious coda, which seems to belong to a different film. A group of drunken soldiers listen to a young German girl sing a song that reduces them to tears. It’s a moment of strange and sad beauty, a brief reprieve from the war, and a rebuke to the blind patriotism. The song is ‘Der treue Husar’ (The Faithful Hussar), which might make you think it’s a flag-waver, but it is in fact far more personal. It’s a folk song about a soldier who leaves the Front to be by his dying sweetheart. The pretty blond girl singing it is German actress and painter Susanne Christian, the future Mrs Kubrick.





Thanks again to Niall for this great review!

6 thoughts on “Genre Grandeur – Paths of Glory (1957)

  1. Pingback: The Pity of War: ‘Paths of Glory’ | silence cunning exile ... maple syrup

  2. Can’t tell whether you liked the film or not. Ralph Meeker’s Paris is more than a stereotype but a complex human being with all the conflicting impulses inherent in being human. The rest, including the super virtuous Dax played by Douglas, really only represent ideas and attitudes, as you say. But the film was never meant to be a character study, a form that Kubrick never seemed to have much interest in. Almost everyone calls it an anti-war film which does it a disservice. It certainly depicts war as an abomination. Buts at its core is a harrowing depiction of power and authority abused – a crime not limited to the military. Whether the ending belongs in the movie or not is up to the individual viewer. That’s the beauty of art, including films when they reach that level. The final phase of the artistic process is when we, the audience, perceive and react to it. The ending is both a lyrical lifeline of redemption in what has been a nightmare of lunatic horrors and an unsettling illustration of how easily a crowd can be swayed. The same disposition that engenders the men’s empathy might produce a very different result if a figure such as Hitler was before them. Whether we see the men’s tears as an expression of self-pity or grief for the humanity that has been robbed from them, says more about us and our own capacity for empathy.
    For me, Paths of Glory is one of the great but marginalized masterpieces of cinema. It’s a rare hybrid of classical Hollywood style and the grittier, more spontaneous future of film making. Many of its techniques were groundbreaking in 1957 (crash cuts and the sparse use of scored music, for examples) and are still being emulated today. For sheer technical audacity, narrative economy and universal significance, there is not another American film that surpasses it. By the end we have passed through a gallery of mirrors that reflect the paradox of our nature, at once lofty and ignoble, as we struggle to live in a world where both Dax and Adophe Menjou’s General Broulard, can be right.


  3. Pingback: Genre Grandeur August Finale – Where Eagles Dare (1968) |

Let me Know what you think!!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.