On “Paths of Glory”

Yesterday I saw the 1957 Stanley Kubrick movie Paths of Glory. This film is a compelling drama centered around the court-martial of three French soldiers during WWI. I found the film fascinating and gripping, and I would like to discuss some of its themes here today.

I would first like to summarize the plot of the movie. The first half-hour was a bit slow, as it focused on introducing the characters. These include an egotistical General Mireau, a pragmatic Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) and several other military persons. After this, the drama begins to start. Pressured by the French army commanders, Mireau orders Colonel Dax to lead an obviously suicidal assault on a German position. The attack is a disaster, as the French are greatly outnumbered. Mireau, however, blames the attack on the cowardice of the French troops. Near the end of the attack, Mireau tries to order his artillery to fire on his own men in order to get them to move forward despite facing a fortified German trench. The artillery commander refuses, and the troops refuse to advance, causing the attack to fail. In order to “teach the men a lesson,” as well as clear himself of any blame, he orders a military court-martial, asking his lieutenants to select three men to be tried for cowardice. Three men are selected, but not for any legitimate reasons: one is picked by his lieutenant because the two argued the day before, another is chosen because he is a “social undesirable,” and the third is picked by lottery. The trial that follows is a farce, albeit a dramatic one. Despite the fact that Colonel Dax (who has been made defense lawyer) is able to prove all three men innocent, the court disagrees and decides to execute them. Dax, who is the only character not trying to save his reputation, tries to convince Mireau to call of the executions, but he is unsuccessful; the three soldiers are killed by firing squad in a dramatic climax. Dax then reveals that Mireau tried to fire on his own men during the attack; the French military commanders publicly shame Mireau and discharge him, and then offer Dax a promotion for his shrewdness. Dax refuses and gives an ending monologue of lament at the cruel nature of the world.

Now, I would like to discuss some of the social issues hinted at in the movie. Like all Stanley Kubrick films, Paths of Glory contains a multitude of social criticisms. Paths of Glory has been interpreted as an anti-war film, but Kubrick stated that this is not how he intended it. Clearly, the film speaks out against authoritarianism and militarism, as is evident in its portrayals of true “military men.” Mireau, for example, is portrayed as sadistic, greedy, and naïve—he believes he is a “true soldier,” who cares about his men and thinks his ideals are noble. However, he is also shown as cruel, inhuman, and violent—he famously declares, “If those little sweethearts won't face German bullets, they'll face French ones!” Similarly, another general states “one way to maintain discipline is to shoot a man now and then.”

The film also criticizes over-patriotism—Mireau and some of the other officers claim to be acting “for France” and committing atrocities with patriotism as the justification. Likewise, none of the “good” characters are patriotic, especially Colonel Dax—he makes several negative comments about patriotism at several points in the film.

The movie also criticizes human nature as a whole through Colonel Dax’s horrified reactions to the war. From start to finish, he is sickened by both the greed and cruelty of the officers and by the brutality of the war in general. Additionally, the movie shows how industrialized warfare is just as brutal as what preceded it—as one of the characters pointed out, the machine gun, the new weapon of the time, can “cut you up better than a bayonet” and kill even more people than primitive weapons.

Surprisingly, Kirk Douglas received a lot of negative publicity for this film since it criticized the French. Later on, though, people have come to recognize this as one of his best films. For Kubrick, this was the film that propelled him to stardom—it marked the end of his “B” movies, as even though it was unpopular it was regarded as a piece of fine filmmaking. After this, he went on to create masterpieces such as 2001 and A Clockwork Orange.

If I had to give Paths of Glory a grade, it would almost certainly be an A+. It was a highly effective drama that contained a powerful social message that rings true all throughout human history. The acting and the filmmaking is top-notch, and as a whole the film is very compelling. I strongly encourage you to watch it if you haven’t already.