Path of glory

Path of Glory

Film study questions

Part A

summary of the main plot :

This film has been made after the war by an American realisator/director, Kubrick Stanley. It is about France during the world war 1, taking place in 1916, two years after the Outbreak of WWI, in a zone that France and Germany are fighting for. The focus of the film is about France fighting against Germany, especially about what’s going on internally between the soldiers and the commanders and other different actors, playing a role in the French army structure. The film starts in 1916 when a member of the French general staff is meeting his subordinate, a general, to inform him that he will lead an offensive planned to capture the “Anthill”. He first refuses but then the member convinces his subordinate to fight although he thinks that his soldiers won’t be enough to take this place. This offensive is a complete disaster, many soldiers won’t even leave their trenches. Noticing the failure of this attack, the general is going to furiously order to the battery commander to shoot on his own men, something that the battery commander is refusing. After this chaotic offensive, the member is going to determine that one soldier from each regiment is going to be tried for cowardice. Their colonel is going to protest in front of the judge against the death penalty but the judge is still going to impose this penalty. After this, the colonel is going to tell the member that the general orders to attack his own soldiers. Believing that he want to graduate, the member will ask him to be the new general, he refuses because that is not what he is looking for, he just wants fairness and justice. The film ends with a German girl singing in a bar where all the French are listening to her amazing voice. On one hand, there is the main character who is the colonel, named colonel Dax. He is taking part of the offensive, acting as a lawyer, always wanting fairness and justice. On the other hand, there is the general, general Mireau, who is a bad person who is immoral, he has no pity. He is lying to the member, attempting to attack his own soldiers and he hates colonel Mireau, who hates him as well. The opposition between these two characters is occurring until the end of the film.

the message of this film :

This film is clearly anti-war because it shows negative aspect of the army. First, early in the film, it mentions that thousand of people died just to advance some meters which is ridiculous. Then, many times in this film, people can see how immoral and without pity are some generals or officer who don’t care about their soldiers’ life. This film is drawing a negative portrait of the army. The fact that France has banned/ not diffused this film in France until the 1970’s confirms this bad portrait of the war that Kubrick is giving to the viewers.

The vision that the realisator decided to show us is clearly a critic of the war and the army especially. It’s supposed to inform people on how terrible is the war in term of soldiers’ conditions and how bad the army is managed. The author also chose to use the brutality of the battle sequences to affirm this idea. The message that all of this things supports is the fact there is a lack of humanity for most of the generals,colonels and important persons on and outside the battlefield. The author is acting that way to prevent war from occurring in the future.

Literary elements or devices that are evident in the movie:

Opposition

Opposition plays an important role in this movie. The main one is the opposition of ideas between the colonel Dax and the general Mireau . As we can see through the movie, they both have divergents ideas about how to use their soldiers during the war. On one hand, the general Mireau uses them like pawns. On the other hand, the colonel Dax treat them as human and cares about their life. Moreover, their oppositions is going further during the court trial where the general agrees with the order that there will be an execution of 3 soldiers to show the example to the army and the colonel tries to protect them by acting as a lawyer during the trial. To conclude, the opposition of ideas on soldier treatment between these two characters is an important element of the film. This make the public realise how people can lose their humanity during the war and forget that soldier are humans who are risking their life for their country, not just pawns like in a chess game.

the last scene, as a symbol

The

...