Paths of Glory

Uma perspectiva da guerra pouco explorada. Enquanto muitos tem uma visão voltada a conceitos como gloria, bem maior, patriotismo etc; Kubrick aborda o que há de mais ignorado no tema. Esse talvez seja o filme mais anti-climático no que se diz respeito a atmosfera bem conhecida e utilizada de guerra. Aqui o diretor direciona todo aquele cenário a uma critica a guerra de forma geral, mas focando na falta de humanidade que a politica do exercito tem em pratica. O diretor nos guia apresentando um contraste entre Col. Dax e Gen. Paul Mireau. É claro que Mireau é apenas uma reflexão de todo politica militar baseada na hierarquia criada pelos mesmos. A atmosfera de medo criada aqui, principalmente nos momentos antecedentes ao ataque, é quase palpável de tão presente. Sentimos medo por eles mesmo sem conhecê-los. O ataque é cruel e mostra uma pintura quase real do que de fato é a guerra, longe de todos aquele retratos de heroísmo/patriotismo criados por puro marketing e vaidade própria. Os diálogos são excelentes, fazendo-nos refletir sobre diversas visões cujo não tive contato antes. Aquele relacionado ao medo de morrer ou de ser ferido remete muito a mim, pra ser sincero. O discuso do Col. Dax no julgamento emociona, mas não de uma forma satisfatória, pois o que estamos a ver é um retrato injusto e contraditório por parte de toda instituição do exercito. Toda a cena, de forma geral, é magistralmente bem dirigida. Senti uma raiva descomunal pelo fato de que dialogar naquele período era uma baralha perdida, afinal, não há o que fazer quando se está cercado de alienados - parece que a coisa não mudou muito no seculo seguinte... No aspecto técnico, o filme é igualmente impecável. Os efeitos práticos tornam toda cena demasiadamente realista, junto ao efeitos sonoros. A fotografia trabalha muito bem com a luz, e tem um controle muito grande da cena em planos abertos. A cenografia também está afiadíssima, assim como o figurino. Por fim, a visão de Kubrick sobre a guerra é deprimente, anti-esperançosa, cruel e depressiva. O pior é que ele não aprece ter se esforçado muito pra chegar nesse ponto a final, nós, seres humanos, nos superamos em dar mais e mais conteúdo pra ele.

An early passion project from writer/director Stanley Kubrick, Paths of Glory was a troubled and unlikely film from the beginning. After he paired critical success with box office disappointment in The Killing, MGM was anxious to score a hit with the nascent director. His suggestion, a fictionalized courtroom account of a true WWI incident, wasn’t quite what they had in mind. A moderately successful book some twenty years prior, its first adaptation was such a Broadway flop that every studio in Hollywood turned their noses at the forthcoming screenplay. Kubrick was rebuffed, too, until a behind-the-scenes shakeup and a high-profile benefactor presented him with a fresh opportunity. Bolstered by new bosses at MGM and the support of a big-time star in Kirk Douglas, he managed just enough clout to get the thing made. And the end result? Another critical triumph cut with middling returns. Paths of Glory isn’t the kind of production that sells a lot of tickets. Its curt honesty doesn’t allow for happy outcomes, and its vocal distrust of the state made far more enemies than friends back in the jingoistic days of 1957. In fact, the film’s progressive views on war, military leadership and political justice earned it a spot on the blacklist in many countries, which can’t have helped its profits. Never mind that its agenda was based in fact - a messy 1915 affair in which the French army executed four innocent soldiers as an example - as the Cold War ramped up, diplomatic allegiances carried more weight than morality. Germany withheld the film’s release for two years and Spain nixed it for almost thirty. Switzerland banned it out of sheer sympathy for their French allies. So, did it really merit that much fuss? Maybe. It’s certainly a powerful film, with an effective message that confidently speaks against the establishment. Countless numbers of powerful men, coats lined with medals, meet in lush, comfortable environs to discuss both the fate of their troops and their own overdue promotions. They’re mirrored by rows of aspiring middle-managers in the field; layer upon layer of miserable, self-serving opportunists who specialize in casting blame, not accepting it. Douglas plays the only sensible one in the bunch (or, at least, the only one with a modicum of power), talking down a vindictive general and personally defending the unlucky condemned in kangaroo court before venting a career’s worth of frustrations at the film’s climax. I’m sure there were still many higher-ups in office who recognized themselves in these characters and felt some discomfort. I wouldn’t be surprised if they flexed a little muscle to rid themselves of the embarrassment. Which is a shame, because it robbed the moviegoing public of an extremely well-crafted, intelligent, engrossing film. We’re fortunate that it didn’t also kneecap the career of one of cinema’s finest creators. Kubrick would revisit the subject of war with Dr. Strangelove in 1964, then again in Full Metal Jacket, sixteen years later. This overlooked gem deserves to stand right alongside them.

Very good, very nice. My boyfriend fell asleep after approx. 20 mins. Would recommend.

A powerful and surprisingly human film from kubrick. Acting is superb and convincing. The irony is so thick you can taste it.

All very well done, particularly the writing and performances for the typically vile and inept commanding officers that are presented for WW1 Funny, but respectable, that this era just chose to fully ignore any sort of accent work. We have a full complement of American/British actors portraying the French army.