Talk:Paths of Glory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

I just saw the re-run on TCM; in the final scene, the young German refugee (played by Kubrick's wife) sings to a group of boisterous soldiers; they are quieted, and sing / hum along; Col. Dax (Kirk Douglas) asks a messenger not to order the soldiers back to the front, for a few moments.

My question is: are these French soldiers from Alsace-Lorraine? How else would they have known a song in German? Ancheta Wis 07:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the soldiers in the scene necessarily know German(or are from Alsace-Lorraine). I've seen the movie many times, and am always moved by this scene. It appears to me that, as it begins, the rough, battle-weary soldiers are hooting and making fun of the young German girl who is clearly no performer and quite nervous as she starts her simple song. Gradually, as she continues despite their heckling, the charm of the song, the beauty of her voice and her waif-like appearance begin to win the soldiers over. The contrast with the hellish combat they have experienced(and will soon experience again), and the memories of their own loved ones that the girl's song evokes, affects some of the soldiers to the point of tears as they begin to hum along with her or try to mouth the words themselves.

Paths of Glory has many great scenes, but this(for me)is the greatest.

Anyhow, that's the way I see(and hear)it!

65.54.98.143dubeaux65.54.98.14312-05-05

In border areas like Alsace Lorraine and such people are at least familiar with their neighboughers language (Switzerland!). Besides it isnt hard to teach folks to sing a short song in another language. This scene by the way is a perfect ending to the movie. A cold General staff, unfair military laws, a horrible war and these miserable French troops show some respect to the German bar-maid... Priceless.

Anti-war?[edit]

Why is this film declared an anti-war film in the first sentance? I wouldn't say that it's a pro war film, but it just seemed more like a war film. I think the declaration is very subjective and probably doesn't have a place in this article, perhaps an interpretations or common opinions section should be added. Tinman8443 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is declared ant-war film because it shows how bad the justice in the army is and how the generals are willing to send their men out to die without hesitation when looking at a promotion.

The "anti-war" designation should be presented as critical opinion, as should the existence of differing views. The above reply makes a good case that Paths of Glory is an anti-injustice film; it undoubtedly is. That does not necessarily make it anti-war. HalleysFifth (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice in the French army does not make the film anti-war. As with Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick was showing life and war as it appeared to him, and not making a statement. The film cannot be described as anti-war. To do so is POV, and should be deleted.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reactively calling any film that shows something bad that happens in a war to be an "anti-war film" is POV. However, it does seem that there is now a ref (the TCM one) that asserts that it was indeed Kubrick's intent for this film. So, I think the label is justifiable for this film. Although, in my own personal assessment (which isn't includable), the film was more focused on the particular abominable situation rather than on a larger anti-war message in general. 108.7.229.24 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking, but shouldn't the "See Also" entry for "Full Metal Jacket" be removed? There is no real connection between the two movies, and each stands on it's own. The loose implication that it's also an "anti-war" movie is flimsy at best. War exists to serve itself, it is what it is, and just because someone refuses to "pretty it up" doesn't make a film anti-war, it only makes it more realistic and true to life. Ask any veteran, there is nothing "glorious" in war. Saying this is not anti-war, it is just a statement of fact. Regardless, I just don't see the connection to "Full Metal Jacket" here, and it should be removed from the "See Also" section. 70.195.222.57 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that whilst the description for the Criterion release of this film[1] describes it as "antiwar", the included commentary track has this to say around the 27:50 mark:

This film is often described as an anti-war film, I agree with Alexander Walker who co-authored the excellent "Stanley Kubrick, Director" that it is no such thing. The novel is relentlessly anti-war, in the tradition of Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front", but this film is about power, class, manipulation, and the absurdity of war as a continuation of those civilian instincts. Most of the few genuinely anti-war American films concerned world war one and were made before 1935 including "The Big Parade", "Four Sons", and Lewis Milestone's film of "All Quiet on the Western Front" but films made about the first world war after world war two, like "Lafayette Escadrill" or "Lawrence of Arabia", were more likely to take a more cautious approach, focusing on derring-do, personal tribulations, and the fundamental absurdity of war without demonstrating the total outrage of Humphrey Cobb's novel.

— Gary Giddins

Lachlankidson (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Mission ?[edit]

This is nit-picking I suppose, but the line "Mireau, seeking a promotion, orders a regiment on a suicidal mission to take a hill, a common occurrence during World War I..." bothers me. A "suicide mission" is commonly understood - today - to be rather like a Kamikaze mission where the individual goes out intending to die. Is that the case in this movie? Or did Mireau just recklessly send his troops forward, intending them to win (and get his promotion) at all costs? Subtle difference.... Engr105th 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attack?[edit]

Everything I've read about Kubrick indacates that he was an unsentimental realist with a harsh if not cynical estimation of human nature. He particularly emphasizes that power corrupts and that the struggle for power and status embodies much desperation and pathology together with (and here's the irony) much intelligence. This theme in Kubrick's work is an up-to-date version one found in Shakespeare cf. villains like McBeth and Edgar (in King Lear). That the attack would result in massive casualties was known by the commanding officers from the start, as was the fact that it's chance of success was doubtful. Commanders have ordered such attacks from before recorded history even when their own safety was jeopardized much more when they were not personally liable to be killed or maimed. What sort of men rise to military command, or any sort of command for that matter? Experience in life on-the-job in the military and equally in civillian work tell me: not the man, or woman, over burrdened with scrupples or without a stain of ruthlessness. The men embarked on the attack don't have a death wish, quite the contrary. Consider if you will Hume's paradox: How is it that a few, a very few, can lord-it-over the many despoticly and terrorize the many? There's the rub.

The talk page is about discussing changes to the article not about the moral and philosophical implications of sending men on a suicide attack. However if would like to use sources and references to support your assertions, then please add them to the article. LordHarris 10:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Banned[edit]

" The French authorities banned the film."
The film has actually never been banned nor censored, because it was not released in France. The producers were afraid of the reaction of the french authorities, and decided not to release it. The film was banned in Belgium and Switzerland, under pressure of the French, but never officially in France.
Nowadays, the film is aired on tv, no problem.


"Impact on popular culture" not "important"[edit]

"The film has had an important, albeit small impact on popular culture." -- "Important impact on popular culture" is almost an oxymoron to begin with, but beyond that, the cultural references listed fail to establish the "importance" of this impact. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sequence[edit]

If I remember correctly (saw this long ago), there is an opening sequence composed of shots of the Royal Artillery Memorial at Hyde Park Corner. Hope I'm not mentally attaching this from a different film. It was very striking, and probably merits a mention if my recollection is correct. - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I agree that the article should be split into film and book. It is confusing to search for the book and when reading the first line seeing the film mentioned instead. --NeF (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPLIT: I agree there should be separate articles. As the film and the book, are different in story and tone.

SPLIT: I agree as well. Split! 02:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Consistency would have the article split. It will be less confusing and far more appropriate to have a seperate article for the novel and the film. Skyronic Blancmange (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPLIT: Hop to it.

Split, but keeps film article where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.44.158 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPLIT: I also agree that there should be seperate articals as well. Its a great book and great movie. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Carey[edit]

In the supplements for the Criterion release, the producer is interviewed and goes into the story of Timothy Carey being fired from the film. During production, Carey was discovered by the police tied up along a road. He claimed to have been abducted but the police had doubts about his story. Carey was told to resolve the matter quickly with the police to avoid causing production delays and when he could not (or would not), he was fired.

He was replaced with a double in the remaining scenes after his departure. 70.234.255.222 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16:9[edit]

The film was originally cropped to 1.66:1 for theatrical release? I'm used to seeing it full frame. A lot of the shots actually look better that way to me, same with his later movies. The reason I ask is the new Criterion release is cropped to 16:9 which I guess is the same as 1.66.

I was thinking the film was made in the 40s and would undoubtedly be in Acamedy Ratio, but it's 1957. 99.104.188.76 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder as a satire of Paths of Glory?[edit]

Under the heading of Legacy, it is claimed that the "1989 BBC comedy series Blackadder Goes Forth episode 'Corporal Punishment' satirizes some of the trial sequences of this film." This claim is not referenced and is unlikely to be true. Blackadder Goes Forth is, if anything, a satire on the behaviour of the commanders of the British army during WWI. The author may mean to say that Blackadder is a pastiche or parody of Paths of Glory, or that the TV show references the movie in some way, but this also seems unlikely. The two works share a subject matter - a court martial during WWI - but that is the extent of the similarity. I therefore suggest that this claim is removed. 217.44.96.7 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or source it, as I did. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Understanding Of The Plot's Final Denouement[edit]

Whoever wrote the description of the plot clearly doesn't understand the final denouement of the film, the whole point being that The General Staff wanted to get rid of General Mireau because they viewed him as a terrible general, division commander and overall leader; I tried explaining this but my copy was removed, not that it was all that well written; I was hoping that someone would see my point and smooth out my prose; deleting it was obviously, in my opinion, not the way out, in fact, I view this as someone who was angry and jealous with me for not having figured this out for themselves and that's not my problem though they chose to make it one in their own inability to figure this out for themselves.

Gen. Mireau was a lousy general and leader but he could not be dismissed outrightly by The General Staff because he had allies in the press and with politicians; he clearly could only be disposed of in another way.

It was General Broulard who used what were obviously the most cynical Machiavellian machinations that ultimately got rid of the over-weening Gen. Mireau even though it meant decimating a division and executing three totally innocent men to do this but ultimately it was the only way the general staff had of getting rid of Mireau.

Broulard then deftly tries to fob the whole thing on what is actually the reality of the non-existent ambitions of Col. Dax, all to keep his own skirts, and those of The General Staff, all nice, clean and starchy; that whoever wrote the plot description not only couldn't figure this out but also took down my attempt to explain it: this is totally asinine.

Satchmo Sings (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's an interesting view. my own thought was the dax's point at the end was that broulaud had failed to see letting immorality of letting the phony trial go forward. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.48.50 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced info[edit]

There are dozens of WP:RSs that point out the anti-war nature of this film. The current three can be supplemented but is there any need to continually add new ones. BTW Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. MarnetteD|Talk 19:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, just very few that aren't opinions. Luckily, there is one (the TCM one) that does assert that it was Kubrick's intent (i.e. that he was attracted to the "anti-war theme"). That's a good one and all that is necessary to support "anti-war" description for the film. The other two can now be removed as superfluous. 108.7.229.24 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have been removed per your comments. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 22:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material[edit]

Kubrick's next film, Paths of Glory, set during World War I, is based on Humphrey Cobb's 1935 anti-war novel, which Kubrick had read while waiting in his father's office. Schary of MGM was familiar with the novel but stated that the company would not finance another war picture after having just done another anti-war film, The Red Badge of Courage (1951). They agreed to work on Stefan Zweig's The Burning Secret, and Kubrick and novelist Calder Willingham began working on a script. Kubrick refused to forget the idea of making Paths of Glory, and secretly began drafting a script at night with Jim Thomson.[2] After Schary was fired by MGM in a major shake-up, Kubrick and Harris managed to interest Kirk Douglas in playing Colonel Dax. Douglas informed United Artists that he would not do The Vikings (1958) unless they agreed to make Paths of Glory and pay $850,000 to make it. Kubrick and Harris signed a five-film deal with Douglas's Bryna Productions and accepted a fee of $20,000 and a percentage of the profits in comparison to Douglas's salary of $350,000.[3] Production for the film moved to Munich, Germany in January 1957. It follows a French army unit ordered on an impossible mission, and follows with a war trial of Colonel Dax and his men for misconduct. For the battle scene, Kubrick meticulously lined up six cameras after one another along the boundary of no man's land, with each camera capturing a specific field and numbered, and gave each of the hundreds of extras a number for the zone in which they would die.[4] Kubrick himself operated an Arriflex camera for the battle, zooming in on Douglas. Actor Adolphe Menjou found Kubrick to be extremely demanding during the filming, and grew angry after he was asked repeatedly to do the same scene 17 times.[5] Nonetheless, upon release, the film was his first significant commercial success, and established Kubrick as an up-and-coming young filmmaker. Critics praised the film's unsentimental, spare, and unvarnished combat scenes and its raw, black-and-white cinematography. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote: "The close, hard eye of Mr Kubrick's sullen camera bores directly into the minds of scheming men and into the hearts of patient, frightened soldiers who have to accept orders to die", while Gavin Lambert of Sight and Sound believed that the film profoundly illustrated "the gulf between leaders and led fatally widened by the fact of war" and the "extended struggle for power, internal and external."[6] Biographer Vincent LoBrutto felt that the film displayed Kubrick's technical virtuosity and "bleak, cold vision", commenting that the "high-key, wide-angle shots of the chateau interior are contrasted against the bleak, gray, constantly tracking shots of the men".[7] Despite the praise, the Christmas release date was criticized,[8] and the subject was a controversial one in Europe. It was banned in France until 1974 for its "unflattering" depiction of the French military, and was censored by the Swiss Army until 1970.[6]

References

  1. ^ https://www.criterion.com/films/27522-paths-of-glory
  2. ^ Duncan 2003, p. 46.
  3. ^ Duncan 2003, p. 47.
  4. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 98.
  5. ^ Duncan 2003, p. 52.
  6. ^ a b Duncan 2003, p. 50.
  7. ^ LoBrutto 1999, p. 143.
  8. ^ Baxter 1997, p. 104.

slapping scene[edit]

it seems that the scene when mireau on his stroll through the trenches encounters a shell-shocked soldier and slaps him ought to be compared with the same scene in patton. the parallels both in the act and the language used by mireau very strongly suggest that there's is some intertextuality going on. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.48.50 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early in the film, General Mireau, tells a shell-shocked soldier that he is a coward and a baby, he strikes him and has him removed. The General is told that it was a wise move because cowardice could spread if it isn’t checked - foreshadowing the future events of the film. But is it cowardice to be unwilling to virtually commit suicide on the battlefield, in a losing battle, to appease a corrupt general? Probably not. Dax certainly argues for that case. However, Kubrick doesn’t use this extreme case to tell a story about one incident. Rather it is a broader statement about the nature of patriotism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laijab007 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary University Project[edit]

We're currently editing this page for a university project. If you have any questions please contact User:J.o.thomp 5, User:00 gwynne, User:ALi182, User:Laijab007, User:Emills1507.

None of your "Users" are registered or contactible. Only edit using reliable and secondary sources. David J Johnson (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any source for the music being only percussion, the current reference can't be followed. This has been changed to percussion and military drums being a prominent feature with this source Hischak, Thomas S. (2015), The Encyclopedia of Film Composers. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield User: 00_gwynne
Changed the url for reference 15 to one that leads to the actual web page : https://www.nytimes.com/1957/12/26/archives/screen-shameful-incident-of-war-paths-of-glory-has-premiere-at.html?rref=collection%2Fcollection%2Fmovie-guide&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest-stories&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection User: 00 gwynne —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some information on the writing is included under 'Reception and Influence', this should probably be moved to under writing and incorporated with information I have found surrounding the similar subject. J.o.thomp 5 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source useful for controversy section for User: Emills1507 https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/15/archives/french-delay-showing-films-on-touchy-topics.html (User:00 gwynne)

TCM source for references 1 and 2 cannot be accessed. Source cannot be found for a budget of $900,000 so will change to >$1,000,000. Also for information regarding the title will change source to https://www.filmsite.org/path.html User: 00 gwynne Furthermore, as a result can't find a source regarding the competition for the title of the book so, this information will have to be removed. Is it relevant anyway? User: 00 gwynne —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TCM source citing budget has been kept, the second has been changed and the detail about the competition has been omitted. User: 00 gwynne

Added source about the tales from the crypt, original has been kept as it is accessible from some countries and the info is quoted in the reference section, a book source has been added to support this User: 00 gwynne

Source on Australian desertion has been changed to an accessible one, as has one on French reception USer: 00 gwynne —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development and Writing Contradicting Research[edit]

The article states under the development section that Stanley Kubrick had to interest Kirk Douglas into getting involved with the script; however a lot of research suggests that Douglas was already aware and interested in involvement in the film before any contact with Kubrick. This was first found in the Cinephilia and Beyond website [1] and has further been supported by multiple books such as on page 47 of Norman Kagan's Cinema of Stanley Kubrick [2] and page 37 of Depth of Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History[3]., while the only source found backing up the information already on the article is the New York Times reference that is cited. Should this be amended? Also, the Cinephilia and Beyond website states that Kubrick had agreed to change the ending of the film and then changed the decision in accordance with Douglas' outrage at the change. This is again in contradiction to the New York Times source and I have not found any other information yet to back it up. I am unsure on the reliability of the Cinephilia website as it appears to be a sort of blog but a lot of the other information found on it is accurate. User:J.o.thomp 5 

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/paths-glory-stanley-kubricks-first-step-towards-cinema-immortality/
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MqtrbmtjBQoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E1PrIkji88EC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=paths+of+glory+writers+guild&source=bl&ots=c0VPvVUxHh&sig=ACfU3U1SaLTGaDGx4iwVPN724NC3sq8RPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFteuSu5rgAhULSxUIHSNoBeMQ6AEwD3oECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=paths%20of%20glory%20writers%20guild&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.o.thomp 5 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Have since found a reliable source to backup the information on Cinephilia that there was going to be changes to the end of the film but were not carried through due to Douglas' refusal. This was found at [1] J.o.thomp 5 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)J.o.thomp_5[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01439689300260221#aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGFuZGZvbmxpbmUuY29tL2RvaS9wZGYvMTAuMTA4MC8wMTQzOTY4OTMwMDI2MDIyMT9uZWVkQWNjZXNzPXRydWVAQEAw
Please complete your "research" before contributing to Wikipedia. This constant change of text is unnecessary and does not contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paths_of_Glory&oldid=1209657604"