Paths of Glory

A war film that gives us one of the strongest anti war sentiments ever. If war is Hell, then we see true evil at work in the corruption of those in power and in a system that treats the human person as a mere object, as means to the greater end of victory. It is a film that is truly shocking it its depiction of moral bankruptcy and the persecution of the powerless. Grandly crafted, its technique serves to create a bold vision and captivating story, and then fills the frame with incredible performances from all the actors. A film that has no women until the last scene possibly speaks the loudest about the power of the feminine genius and its necessity in bringing man back to humanity. The spellbinding and rather strange finale offers an exploited woman as a figure of hope and a reminder of the higher nature that mankind is called to, and all too often forgets.

IN THIS POST

*A Reflection on Evil in ‘Paths of Glory’ by Pablo Vila

*A Catholic Imagining of ‘Paths of Glory’ by Fr. Peter Kwak

*The Casualty of War by Benard Chedid

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Warning: The reflections below are full of spoilers. The aim is to share these insights with all who are inspired to watch these films and help to draw out even more from the experience. So watch the films first and read the reflections afterwards…

A Reflection on Evil in ‘Paths of Glory’ by Pablo Vila

Stanley Kubrick’s Paths of Glory is a powerful film which highlights the evil of war and the evil inside all of us. While the physical brutality of war (especially the squalid trench warfare of World War I) exhausts, traumatizes and dehumanizes soldiers who are fighting, this is not the main theme of the movie. The message lies in the evil and destruction that is caused by the French military hierarchy who are so blinded by their own desire for power and reputation that they are willing to sacrifice soldiers’ lives with no remorse, even when the situation is futile.

The absurdity of the actions of the top brass is contrasted with Kirk Douglas’ scrupulous character (Colonel Dax) who must defend his own men against the charge of cowardice in an unsympathetic military court. This court needs to find a scapegoat for the failures of the French army. He rightly condemns the action of the court but his efforts to uncover this corruption falls on deaf ears and results in the cowardly execution of the accused French officers.

While “evil wins” as the French generals are never held to account in the movie, I was struck by the goodness shown by some of the characters. The principled Colonel who stands up for his soldiers and who strenuously rejects the temptation to “join the club” when he is offered a promotion. The willingness of some of the officers on death row to confess to a priest and face the firing squad at peace. The realization that humanity, truth and beauty can still strike a chord in soldiers who are hardened by a futile war as shown by the touching final scene with the woman from the enemy’s side singing for the war-weary men.

We are left with a sense that corruption and evil surround us, tempt us and leave us dismayed (like the world of today), but amongst it all, there are those who are also fighting for truth (like the Colonel), assisting and supporting others in their darkest hour (like the priest) and that evil can try to destroy all, but truth and beauty can never be crushed, that the presence of God in our lives is permanent even at the worst of times.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

A Catholic Imagining of ‘Paths of Glory’ by Fr. Peter Kwak

During our discussion about the movie I was annoyed at myself for being unable to identify the characters by their correct names or titles. It occurred to me later that I could have referred to the main characters by the following aliases: the benevolent looking general who first proposed the idea of the senseless attack as the “old man”, the general who agreed with it and ended up calling for the execution of his own men in order to cover himself as “Scarface” and Kirk Douglas as “Kirk Douglas”.
Then I started to wonder, ‘Why the SCAR on the face of Scarface?’
Since the movie was for me a powerful commentary on evil – how the most pernicious evil does not always look like what we expect it to look like, often being hidden under the guise of civility and prestige – I wondered if each character could be seen as a kind of symbol.
So, here is my Catholic imagination coming into play:
The old man was a figure of Satan, the Tempter. He successfully tempted Scarface. As the Evil One always does, he tempted Scarface, led him to sin and then, once fallen, back-stabbed him. He was at it once again with Kirk Douglas, but, when he failed to tempt good old Kirk, he moved happily on, presumably toward his next target.
Scarface was a figure of Adam. He was living in the land of plenty, having already achieved great success in his military career and being not far from the perfect retirement. But he wanted more. He gave in to the old man’s seductive tempting and committed the movie’s “original sin” which, single-handedly set in motion the events and darkness of the whole movie and negatively affected every other character in it. Instead of owning up to his first fall, he ran away, hiding and blaming others to the point of murdering them. The scar symbolised the wound of original sin.
Kirk Douglas was…Kirk Douglas. Hence he first appeared onscreen “shirtless” (It was his thing in movies). Perhaps he was a bare-chested prophet like John the Baptist. Certainly, he spoke like a true prophet in front of the judges, decrying grave injustice and preaching “fire and brimstone”. Good old Kirk.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Casualty of War by Benard Chedid

Paths of Glory is a movie that shows the horror of war, not with violence or battle scenes but something even more chilling, war room discussions. A three man reconnaissance and a failed offensive are the only two scenes of war in the whole film and yet they very effectively show the result of war: carnage and death. However, we can understand death through combat, it makes sense and it is something we can process, men in battle dying and killing.

Yet what is truly inexplicable are the ongoing discussions between the top brass. The generals are nearly psychopathic in their callous disregard for the lives of their men. There is no sense of responsibility over their men, no sense of loyalty and no sense of comradeship and I think that may be because they are so divorced from the action and daily interactions with their soldiers. The opposite is true for Colonel Dax. Whether he sympathises with his men because he lives among them, or if it is by living among them that he learns to sympathise, is anyone’s guess. The top brass have obviously forgotten or perhaps never known that men are what make up armies, not tanks or guns. To feel that a 55% casualty rate is acceptable for a futile mission seems to magnify how out of touch the generals are with the lives and concerns of their men. I just can’t help feel that the generals in this movie would have readily agreed with Stalin when he said, “one death is a tragedy, a million deaths only a statistic”.