1957 – Paths of Glory

It’s an American anti-war film, directed by Stanley Kubrick when he was just 28 years old (wow). The screenplay he co-wrote with Calder Willingham and Jim Thompson is adapted from the 1935 novel of the same name, which in turn is based on the true Souain corporals affair that happened during WWI. The film mainly stars Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax, the commanding officer of soldiers who refuse to continue to act out a suicide attack. I watched it on YouTube (free in Germany) here.

Is it even possible to make an anti-war film? That was the question media commentator Broey Deschanel asked herself in this video essay in a reaction to Alex Garland’s Warfare from last year. It’s supposed to be gritty, raw and show war exactly how it is, and in doing so critique its pointlessness. The essay goes on to cite many more examples, e.g. All Quiet on the Western Front or Platoon, but argues that war from the soldier’s point of view always comes with a caveat, with a point of view, there may be deceit on how these soldiers came to war, but never 100% innocence. Only movies like Grave of the Fireflies can truly be anti-war, since they depict the consequences of war on children.

Fair point, but this movie is pretty damning in its critique, especially for an almost 70-year-old movie. When I started watching it, with the typical trench warfare scenes we are accustomed to and which are marvelously depicted in 1917, for example, I thought it was going to be the typical “war is hell” type of story. I wondered why the prologue with the two generals was there in the beginning, it didn’t seem anti-war at all.

But then around a third of the movie in, it dawns on you that it’s not about the horrible trench fighting at all, but an indictment of the rulers at the top. They treat battles like pieces on a board, casualties are rattled off as percentages to be moved around – all before they go back to their civilized parties and gatherings. If some inconvenience is discovered it gets buried under legalese or the offended party gets bought off with a promotion. All the while the simple soldier is just fodder, where your fate is decided by the (un)luck of the draw quite literally.

I liked this movie so much. So quiet in its portrayal of injustice, yet so adept at simply showing it. Add to that an amazing battle scene, where a part of a company is seen storming onto the barbed wire battlefield, most soldiers knowing it is a suicide mission, a mistake, with the chances of success slim at best. The desperation of the three soldiers, who are chosen for all the wrong reasons to take the fall for the blunder of the general is also shocking to see. That Kubrick guy has a bright future ahead of him, but even this, his first so-called masterpiece is really that!

Add to that the nagging discomfort that it is based on true events – a French general really did order his artillery to fire on his own trenches after demoralized soldiers refused to leave them and he ordered the execution of seemingly random soldiers of the company resulting in the death by firing squad of four of them (in the movie it’s three). Only 2 hours later would their sentences have been commuted and 19 years later they were fully exonerated. The whole ordeal changed the way military courts were held in France. And this movie was banned in Switzerland and France until the 70s. It shows you how even 40 years later, the establishment would rather get rid of uncomfortable situations than address the mistakes made by the senior commanders and upper class rulers.

So is it a truly 100% anti-war film as the thesis above proclaimed there aren’t any? No, it valorizes the soldier too much to be truly that, but it’s quite effective otherwise and in that I commend it!