"Why do I have to die?"
"Do not question the will of God."—Pvt. Ferol and Father Dupree.
"Colonel Dax, your men died very well."—General Mireau.
"The case made against these men is a mockery of all human justice. Gentlemen of the court, to find these men guilty will be a crime to haunt each of you until the day you die. I can't believe that the noblest impulse of man, compassion for another, is completely dead here. I humbly beg you to show mercy to these men."—Colonel Dax.
Watch the execution scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt37sGBqtEg
Watch also the scene between Dax, Mireau, and General Broulard.
And finally watch the famous ending of the film.
1. Your reaction to the entire film? What moment in today's viewing has stayed with you and why?
Finally: in a sentence, what to you is the point of the movie? In other words, someone asks you what the movie is about; what would you say?
Choose one of the two below to answer. Don't merely repeat what someone else has said. You can add to their comment, but don't simply echo it.
2. This a movie of quick, unsettling cuts from one scene to the next. Several of you mentioned in the first half of the movie the jarring cut from the dead French soldier, killed by Lt. Roget's grenade, to the next brightly lit scene, punctuated by a cymbal crash. In today's viewing, there is another jarring cut, from the end of the trial to Sergeant Boulanger giving directions to the firing squad. In other movies we would probably get a scene of the court rendering its verdict. Not here. Why do you think that is left out?
2. Andrew wrote on the first blog: "Even writing this two days later I can see every gilded surface, velvet couch, and shimmering medal where Dax and Mireau discuss what is to become of the regiment." Mireau certainly has a fancy place to live. The extravagance Andrew highlights is further reinforced in the execution scene as we see the huge palatial building and beautiful grounds as the backdrop to the brutal execution of the three soldiers. What is the effect of the extravagance highlighted throughout the movie? Why show so much of this splendor?
Choose one of the two below to answer. Don't merely repeat what someone else has said. You can add to their comment, but don't simply echo it.
3. As Gracelyn pointed out in the first blog, there are no women in the film—until, of course, the end. Why no women? And why the young woman at the end? (If you wrote about this in number one, don't answer this)
3. Is Dax a hero? Is he better than the Mireau's and Broulard's of the world? Think about this before you answer. And say why you think what you think.
So that's three questions in all. 300 words for all three. And here's the preview, the trailer, for our next film, Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_RsHRmIRBY
See you tomorrow!
1. Paths of Glory is rather bleak and grim, which is why I think Stanley Kubrick chose Black and White Film over color, to really capture the depressing nature of war and how it affects soldiers. For the second half of the movie, it really gives you a sense of what death really is. What I mean by that death isn’t glorious at all but rather frightening. Death is glorified in the first half because the deaths of the soldiers are so quick that the audience doesn’t even get a chance to really process it what is happening in front of them. However, when we see the execution, we see the fear in the soldier’s face as they are about to be killed. This leaves you with knowledge of the reality of death.
ReplyDelete2. What is the effect of the extravagance highlighted throughout the movie? Why show so much of this splendor? - It contrasts the soldiers lives from the superior authorities and highlights the fact that high ranked generals don’t understand the life of a soldier. They live their lives lavishly away in their “castle”. It makes it easier for them to make decisions of sending their soldiers on a suicide mission because they aren’t on the battlefield. As seen in the film, superior ranked officers enjoy dancing in the ballrooms, drinking champagne, and making occasional jokes about the war. It doesn’t make any sense for them to making decisions on the battlefield if they aren’t really there.
3. Is Dax a hero? Is he better than the Mireau's and Broulard's of the world? - Dax is not a hero. He is just simply a decent human being trying to protect the wrongfully accused. In Dax’s eyes, the soldiers shouldn’t have been the ones on trial. The idea of taking the ant hill was a crime by itself because there wasn’t a possible chance of success, and the soldiers were just being sent to their deaths. Also, Dax doesn’t believe he is a hero because he failed accused soldiers by losing the court case. He denied of everything he believed to be of importance to the case and there wasn’t anything he could do about it. He watched helplessly as his soldiers were getting drilled and humiliated by the prosecution. He believes that he let his soldiers down.
Paths of Glory is made up of many quick cuts to different scenes both on and off the battlefield. Somewhat surprisingly, we do not get a scene in which the court renders its verdict. I think this shows both the rapidity of war and the absence of empathy, which often accompanies human behavior. The court did not care whether or not the men were guilty of an offense, if they were married or had kids, or if they had received accolades in the past. The decision was made before the trial, where we saw Broulard, Mireau, and Dax discussing whom to execute, so showing the court “making such a very well thought out and difficult decision” was not necessary. The audience could only assume what was to come.
ReplyDeleteWhat has stayed with me since watching the film is when the soldiers tie Pvt. Arnaud, with a fractured skull on a gurney, to the post in front of the firing squad without forgetting to give him a good slap so he remained conscious during the execution. I flinched and wanted to laugh and cry from the absurdity, it was so awful. My opinion might change days from now, but I think the point of this film is to show the flaws of human nature, the (literal) execution of beliefs and custom, and the lack of compassion we have for each other (Dax ironically states, “I can't believe that the noblest impulse of man, compassion for another,...”) which is made extremely evident in one of the strictest human environments, the army. The only sense of guilt shown during the film was when Lt. Roget apologized to the man whom he had sent to his death right before giving the order to shoot. Broulard was more concerned with firing Mireau rather than the death of three innocent soldiers, while Colonel Dax was at least decent enough to show remorse and regret, yet not so much guilt.
This leads to the possibility that Colonel Dax is a hero; however, I disagree. As Dax says something along the lines of, “I am ashamed to be a part of the human race,” he is merely one of the few officers in the army whose moral compass and sense of remorse has not been completely hardened by the bloodshed around him. Dax is not better than Mireau and Broulard. He just takes the better one of the two-ish mindsets regarding a soldier: a human being with a gun or a sacrifice with a gun.
I enjoyed this film much more than I expected to. I thought it was going to be just another war movie with too much fighting or too much dry dialogue, but the story captured my attention throughout the entire movie. One scene in the second half of the film that still stays with me is the trial. I could almost feel the anger emulating through Colonel Dax as he listened to the prosecution's unreasonable questioning tactics. I can still hear the clicking of his shoes as he walked up and down the court room demanding the attention of the jury to give his men a chance to explain themselves. Lastly, if someone were to ask me what this movie was about, I would tell them it was a story showing the corruption and overpowering forces of the hierarchy in the french army during WWI.
ReplyDeleteI believe the verdict was left out of the movie because the jury's decision was most likely not a very difficult one. I got the idea that the men guilty were pronounced guilty without a disagreement from a single jury member, and therefore, there was no need to include the scene. It was obvious by the judge's attitude towards the defendants as well as prosecutor's refusal to let them speak that the verdict had most likely been decided before the trial had begun. Also, I liked how we stayed with the point of view of the defendants during their imprisonment because it made the ending more suspenseful and kept me guessing.
I would not go as far as to say Dax is a hero, but he is definitely one of the good guys. Although he did not succeed in saving his men from the death sentence, he was not afraid to go against his power hungry superiors to do what was right. He turned in Mireau for a request to attack his own soldiers, and he stood his ground when asked if he had trying to steal Mireau's job. Dax seemed to be the only person who understood the impossible task of attacking Ant Hill and did not leave his soldiers' side when they were in desperate need of defense.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I think I preferred the first half of the movie to the second but there were definitely scenes that I saw today that I really liked. For instance, the scene at the very end with the singing German was probably my favorite scene of the entire movie because it was a hopeful ending to what was otherwise a very bleak film. I would say that Paths of Glory is about how easy it is for the powerful to exploit the weak.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of extravagant splendor that we see the generals in is to juxtapose the situations of the leaders against those of the soldiers. We see filthy servicemen cowering in disgusting trenches and we can't help but wonder why the generals get to live this cushy privileged life while others are risking there lives, supposed for the country's freedom.
I don't think that Dax is a hero but I do think Broulard was right in calling him an idealist because he values the life of his men more than his career and he doesn't see the war as a game and those
who fight it as mere pawns serving only to serve the schemes of those in charge. I think he was brave and strong willed and more of a patriot than either Mierau or Broulard as he actually believed in the defense of France but I don't think he was a hero.
1. I enjoyed the second half of “The Paths of Glory”. This being said, it also made me fairly sad. The final scene with the German girl and the soldiers really stuck with me. The end of that scene, along with previous moments when the soldiers either refused to charge the anthill aimlessly, or when we saw the emotions of the three soldiers awaiting execution, make all of the soldiers seem more human. Contrary to the notion that all of the men are blood thirsty, sexual monsters, the final scene shows that they may be more complicated than is outright presented. Perhaps this suggests that the constant war and fighting had forced/encouraged the men to act irrationally, and in this case, the beautiful singing and overall presence of the girl prompts the men to remember who they actually are, and what they're missing. The singing makes them drop the “tough guy” facade and makes them long for home, their friends and families, and a life away from the struggle of war. However, I also think that this scene presents some other problems with the lack of female characters.
ReplyDelete3. I believe that the absence of females ties into the notion of toxic masculinity. Throughout the film the soldiers attempt to hide their emotions. During the trial one of the men doesn't outright say that he ran away, but tries to explain his retreat by using others decisions to justifying his own. Later in the film, when the soldiers come to escort the 3 prisoners to the firing squad, the corporal falls on the ground and begins to cry. The sergeant tells him to get up and stop crying. He says “is this the last thing you want to be remembered for?”. Eventually, when the first female character is introduced, the men all begin to cry, in the same room, without so much as telling the others to stop. Thus, the film commentates on the warped reality that men can only show emotion in the presence of women, but not around other men.
2. I think that the court verdict scene was left out because the outcome of the trial was very much decided beforehand. For starters, as Colonel Dax pointed out, the prosecutor gave no witnesses. Furthermore, all of the prosecutors arguments ignored the reasoning behind the accused's decisions. When Colonel Dax attempted to explain the men's situations, his points were eventually or outright dismissed by the judge. Also, keep in mind that the accuser, Mireau, was a powerful General, set on punishing the three accused for the failure of the attack, who would have probably had some sway in rigging the court's decision. Thus, because of the sham nature of the trial, and the obvious fates of the men even before the judges verdict, the verdict scene would have solely repeated information that the audience probably already knew.
1.Overall I did not enjoy the movie as much as I could have. This movie was more of a commentary on the corruptions within a system of power during wartime and the pointless murder of men due to pride and the need to obtain power rather than what a wartime movie is generally thought of; a movie filled with bravery, heart, and a happy ending. Paths of Glory is filled from the beginning to end with a feeling of imminent doom, and that is not something that sat well with me. The scene where the three men are being led to death in three different states was one of the most jarring to me. One man faced death with grace, one with begging and pleading, and one, perhaps the most merciful, completely unaware. Having to watch people walk to their death with no way of getting out was a little bit too much panic for me to enjoy.
ReplyDelete2.There was no scene of the jury giving the verdict because the outcome was decided beforehand, and showing the jury deliberated would be a gross mockery of justice. These men were set up to be killed by their country with no way out, and giving us a scene where the jury deliberates and tells us a verdict gives a false sense of fairness to the trial. Colonel Dax calles out the blatantly unfairness and the bias within the trial, and the fact that we don’t see the jury have any sort of discussion just corroborates Dax’s point.
3. I choose to believe that Dax is better than the Mireaus and the Broulards of the world. In the end everything in the movie boiled down to power. Mireau and Broulard did what they did because they were power hungry, either wanting more or just maintaining what they had. Dax didn’t want that; he truly cared about his men and whether they lived or died. Whereas Mireau and Broulard just saw those men as a means to obtain more power.
I really enjoyed the film and thought the acting, filming, and especially the soundtrack almost made it feel a bit more like an experience than a movie. One scene in particular that stood out to me was the frustrating court martial scene where the three soldiers accused of cowardice had their hearing. In reality, nothing the defense said was likely even considered. This scene was excellent because it immediately shows the stark contrast between the trenches and the polished, almost reflective marble floors that ensured each of the soldiers’ steps were in sync and echoing off the floors in rhythm. This trapped and inescapably orderly quality of the room helped the judges/officials appear so distant and detached they didn’t seem to be human. Another scene that struck me was the scene in which Major General Broulard made the move to send General Mireau to a public trial for ordering the arsenal to fire at his own troops. After which he proceeded to offer Colonel Dax Mireau's job, what Broulard had believed Dax was geared towards all along, and what Broulard shout to be Dax's only reasoning to defend the three men so wholeheartedly. This leads me to the one sentence that I believe encompasses the meaning of the film. I believe that through the eyes of soldiers on the front lines, Paths of Glory aims to shed light upon the conniving hierarchy within the ranks of the military operations.
ReplyDeleteThe cut from the end of the trial directly to Sergeant Boulanger giving the directions to the firing squad almost has the effect of the audience receiving the news in much the same fashion as the accused, therefore allowing the audience to truly side with the soldiers. I also believe this transition was meant to shock the audience as much as the unjust verdict. This is meant to horrify audiences to highlight the reality of the glorified war efforts and corrupt leadership.
Dax is not your average hero. He may be the positive role in this movie and he may have courage and far more noble qualities than those of Mireau or Broulard, but despite his intentions, I would argue he did not achieve the goals he strived to accomplish. The innocent men were executed and despite the fact that General Mireau going to trial for his actions, there’s no guarantee of the consequences or prevention of such actions in the future. And after all of this, the movie ends with Colonel Dax and his troops sent back to the front lines as if nothing had happened. There was no heroic victory or winning, just on to fight another day.
1. All in all, I have to say that I enjoyed the movie as a whole. One of the moments that particularly stayed with me was when Corporal Paris meets with the leader of the firing squad. On the morning he is supposed to be killed, Paris asks the leader for a last drink; shortly after, Paris collapses and begins to sob loudly. What made this scene so heartbreaking was that Paris had remained a strong authority figure throughout the movie, even when his fellow soldier was killed accidentally. To see such a resilient figure lose all hope against a rigid and unfair court ruling truly made me feel upset. As for the main purpose of the movie, I believe that it was created in order to educate audiences about the unfair emphasis that people place o
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the purpose of including the juxtaposition between elegance and brutality was meant to mirror the moral struggles of the average human. To clarify, I believe that the elegant settings symbolized the decency that people have the potential to exhibit in their everyday lives. And, in this example, the brutality (which in this case is the execution of the three soldiers) is meant to show how ruthless and cold humans can be. In summary, both the elegance and the brutality are supposed to show how people can come in two forms: they can be civilized and fair (like Colonel Dax) or unsympathetic to their fellow man (like Mireau and the French jurors).
3. Even though Dax did not achieve his desired goal (which was to save the three soldiers), I still believe that he is a hero. When I think of what a hero is, I imagine a person that takes a risk to themselves in order to positively benefit others. Throughout most of the film, his intentions were solely to save the three accused men from an unjust system that ignores and punishes fear in hopeless situations. And within that conflict, Dax went against his superiors and his code as a French soldier in order to do what is right. Mireau and Broulard seemed more concerned about their victory over the Germans instead of the well-being of their own men. In fact, later in the movie, Dax had to reveal to Broulard that General Mireau attempted to have French guns fire on their own soldiers. While their intentions were to save France, it does not change the fact that Mireau and Broulard had no sympathy for the men that risked their lives and sanity to fight the same fight in the trenches that the generals fought in their desks.
The end of the first paragraph is supposed to say “people place on honor and glory.”
Delete1. I really and truly enjoyed this movie. Especially towards the end of the film I loved how Kubrick pivoted from showcasing the horrors of physical war and bloody conflict, to the real monster of the film, malice and egoism throughout the French general staff. The moment that stayed with me most today after watching the film was the gut wrenching scene leading up to the execution. There was something innately inhumane that really struck a chord with me in watching those three men march towards the poles set up for them as their comrades in arms watch. In my opinion Kubrick executed this scene perfectly in having the camera often shoot from the angle the prisoners would be seeing the poles from, their impeding doom inching ever closer. I also love how he even included an element of nuance to the officer who had accidentally killed the man with a grenade on the night watch by showing him appear to be remorseful and apologize to the man he has condemned before he dies.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the intention Kubrick had in including as much splendor as he did with the palace is to further reinforce and highlight the distinctions between the worlds of the commanding officers and the common soldier. I believe that it was intended to show that Mireau lives in a completely different world from the men he commands and pads his twisted dehumanization of his subordinates in a way that he could not had he shared experiences with them.
3. I think there is nuance to each of these characters except for Mireau. I think that unequivocally Mireau is a sleazy character who takes no responsibility for his own actions and holds no regard for the sanctity of his men's lives. When actually watching the film, yes, I considered Dax to be an unquestionably heroic figure who had the moral high ground in his decision making, however, something Broulard highlighted towards the end of the film stuck with me. Broulard calls Dax an idealist, something that made me think a bit more about his actions and how he might have behaved had he been in Broulards position. While it certainly may seem nasty at an individual level, if Broulard's tactic of making an example out of Dax's regiment truly increased the fighting capabilities of other areas of the French armed forces, then maybe his intentions can be percieved as noble, if not at least excusable.
I thought this movie was very interesting in that it wasn't your typical war movie. Sure, there was gore and bloodshed, but there weren't defined 'good guys' and bad guys'. Of course the French are the side we are rooting for, but I found it very interesting that Kubrik decided to base the film around the corruption within an army, and whether soldiers are men or pawns. The scene that really stuck with me was when the three men were locked in the cell, trying to make their cases and pleading for their lives, knowing that they will surely be executed for a crime they didn't commit. To me, this movie is about the separation of soldiers and generals in war, and what that could mean for an expendable soldier.
ReplyDeleteI think the extravagance of Mireau's mansion really highlighted the gap between soldier and general; we see this in the numerous scenes in the trenches, with men living in terrible conditions and suffering from both mental and physical illness caused by war. Mireau, on the other hand, sees these men as pawns and is perfectly happy living in his beautiful mansion while his men suffer in the trenches. This further shows why Mireau was so comfortable executing three innocent men- they weren't really men to him, just pawns in his war game.
I think Dax was a hero of sorts, even though it may not have been so clear. He thought of his men as human beings and put them first, unlike Mireau. Even though he couldn't save the three men who were executed, I still see Dax as the hero of the movie because honestly, he was the best that was given to us in the film. Even though there were possibilities of repercussions for Mireau, it's likely that he'll get off with a slap on the wrist, even though Kubrik never shows us. All we see at the end is Dax and his men returning to the fight, and, like Ellie said, without any victory or gain. Instead, more men will lose their lives fighting for an army that executed their brothers.
1. I thought this movie was brutally real. By “real”, I mean that it portrayed the rapid, hectic side of war. It highlighted how pointless and unfair war really is. Thousands of men are forced into a useless attack, and then three of them are shot dead after the fact for no reason beyond being unlucky. What stuck with me in particular was the execution. Jumped from moment to moment and suddenly the men are being tied to the stakes and gunned down. There is no mercy in it for any of them, except for the hardly-conscious Arnaud, and thé movie gets it over with as swiftly as possible. As much as it was a huge, hard-hitting part of the film, it was over in an instant. I think that this film about the cruelty of war, as portrayed by one brief blip on World War I’s radar of tragedy.
ReplyDelete2. The depictions of glorious rooms, spender backdrops and extravagant halls of the Generals serves as a stark contrast to the bland, wood-&-dirt rooms, bleak plains of no-man’s-land, and repugnant trenches to which the ordinary men face daily. The disregard for the lives of average soldiers as individuals is a major plot in the film.
3. I think Dax tries to be a hero, but the truth of the matter is that there are very few heroes in war. He is an incredibly brave, loyal, and honorable Colonel. He treats his men like real humans instead of pawns used solely to achieve a victory. Dax does what he can to help keep a sense of humanity alive amidst a landscape void of hope and compassion. Nevertheless, his efforts are in vain. He doesn’t have the position necessary to mend the broken, yet rigid system of war, especially when everyone above him lacks a proper sense of morality. While he is certainly no villain like Mireau or Broulard (if they can’t be described as villains at all, I believe they are also victims of war’s ill-effects,) Dax is no more than a good man.
1. After seeing the rest of the movie, I think I enjoyed the movie more than I expected to when I found out we were watching a war movie. This film had more meaning behind it, in my opinion, than some war movies that just tell the story of battles. One scene that has really stuck with me was the whole trial scene where the camera was following Dax but was placed behind the soldiers so you could see their bodies and guns pass by as the camera moved with Dax. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think seeing the silhouettes of the soldiers added some realistic quality to the scene, like the audience was really a part of the movie. Also, in the trial scene you could really sense the frustration the soldiers and Dax had. Based off of their tone of voice, facial expression, and posture it was clear they did not think they were being fairly trailed. Overall I think the main point of this movie is to demonstrate how corrupt the war was, and how unfairly treated the soldiers were based off of the group actions.
ReplyDelete2. I think they left out a scene delivering the verdict because it was just unnecessary to add it in. Based on the trial, it was very obvious to the audience how the jury was going to vote. Leaving out the scene also makes the cut to the conversation of the firing squad more dramatic. It almost left me with a split second of hope that maybe they decided not to execute the men, but then it was made clear that they still were going through with it.
3. Although Colonel Dax was definitely one of the morally better characters in this movie, I don't think I would consider him a hero. He was merely a person in the system who was more ethically and morally inclined than the others, such as Mireya and Broulard. I believe Dax held more respect for the soldiers and saw them more as men rather than pawns, but this does not make him a hero. He may have been more of a hero to the men fighting aside him because he stood up to the higher corrupt authority. I do think he is far better than men like Mireau and Broulard. Dax is the only one who concerned himself with the soldiers lives. One moment that stood out to me was the very last scene when he was watching and listening to the men sing in the pub. Another soldier came up to him, delivering the message that they were ordered to return to the front, but Dax wanted the men to have as long as possible to sing and enjoy the small moments of happiness they could find in such a dark corrupt world. I think this really spoke to his character because it shows that he does care about his men and does not want them to die if they don't have to.
1. I loved this film. There were several moments from today's viewing that really stuck out to me, such as the final singing scene, the long shot with all the people dancing in the foreground, the conflict between the boss general and Dax (with the job rejection), and how each soldier dealt with death in different ways. One moment that really intrigued me was the execution scene. I especially loved the tension building drumbeat throughout the entire 5 minute sequence. The in-camera-music added a different sense of drama that would not have been there if there were some melodramatic violin score playing over the visuals. If I had to use one sentence to summarize this film it would be: Paths of Glory is a film about the consequences of war. I find it interesting that we never see a single character killed by the enemy. Sure we see soldiers being bombed and shot (or rather just falling over randomly), but every single character (with actual dialogue) is killed by their own country. That one guy is killed by a grenade thrown by his officer and the three soldiers are executed. Suffice to say, this movie is an extreme anti war film.
ReplyDelete2 (option 2): I believe the extravagance of the house highlights the disconnect the generals have from the war. So much importance is put on what position you have in the military, and this luscious lifestyle explains that; getting a promotion means one step closer to being away from conflict. The people living in that environment merely see the soldiers as numbers, as shown when Mireau lays out the numbers so eloquently in the first half, or his comments about how "well" Dax's soldiers died.
3 (option 2): Yes Dax is a hero. He has morality, unlike his fellow officers and commanders. Even if the result is the same, he felt a duty to his soldiers and cared about them as humans. He rejected the opportunity to get away from combat as he truly doesn't care about the job. He genuinely wants to help. He does what he can, but it is not enough. This situation leads to an interesting question: does a hero have to be successful? Could Dax have done more? It depends on your definition of a hero. So maybe Dax isn't a hero, as who did he save? But does that make him any less worthy of the title? I am still a little conflicted about this...
I actually enjoyed the film a lot. I think that the ending was different than I expected as I thought the three soldiers were going to be saved by Colonel Dax, and I think the ending of the film really suited well the feeling of soldiers when they lose their friends in war. I think that one of the scenes that stuck with me a lot at the end of the movie was the humming of the song with all the soldiers. Yani and I were even humming it outside of the classroom after class. I think it stuck with me because of the catchy tune and also the meaning that it held with the soldiers. I think that the point of Paths of Glory is to show how people who are in power can do anything they want to people who have less power than they do.
ReplyDeleteI think that the extravagance shown throughout the movie is used to show contrast between the trenches and the massive buildings that seem like a sort of headquarters for part of the French army. More specifically, I think this shows the difference of life between soldiers who are on the battlefield and the generals and officers who stay behind the front lines and don't get their hands dirty.
In a way, I think that Colonel Dax is a hero because he fights at the front lines and doesn't stay back during the attack on the Anthill. However, I don't think that Colonel Dax is the hero of this story. Even though he is not as bad as Mireau and Broulard who stay back and watch the chaos and madness happen, I do think that Dax was still an officer who was not completely innocent of letting his men run ahead of him to save himself from some danger.
This film in its entirety was unlike any movie I have seen before. For a war movie, there was not some large complicated war scene or complex plot involving many characters. Instead, the whole film for basically based around this one incident; the execution of 3 soldier for cowardice. The scenes where the soldiers were pleading for their lives were very heartbreaking, especially when they shared their stories of why they were being convicted. The scene that stuck with me the most is when the men were walking towards their execution. The drum sounds, marching of the soldiers, and the soldier’s pleading for their lives made for a very powerful It was obvious that the film was making a clear statement about death and specifically death in the context of war. General Mireau in this case was a perfect example how in war, soldiers lives are extremely undervalued. These men put their lives on the line to fight for their countries. But instead, they were killed for completely ridiculous reasons, that were out of their control.
ReplyDeleteI think this film is all about contrast. We see the contrast between the brutality in the trenches and the generals lavishly enjoying their lives. We also see this privilege during the trial when these soldier are pleading for their innocence, these generals are demanding that they are guilty for stepping back from impossible war tasks. I think the amount of splendor and extravagance outside of the war makes the the soldiers and the generals seem like they are from different worlds, and highlights the inequality.
I don’t believe that Dax is necessarily a hero. He did stand up for his men in court, but i believe that was not an “above and beyond” heroic act, but instead something that was expected. He tried but I wouldn't say that he necessarily fought hard for his men to be proven as innocent. But in the end, this situation added to the theme of the film. It didn’t matter if these men were actually innocent or if Dax gave example after example of their bravery, these general had their minds set on what they wanted. I’m not sure there was anything that Dax could have done, because in the hierarchy of war, those with power, have all of the power.
1. For me, the film gave me a mixed impression: it shows that life can suck in the face of unjust punishment, but also that justice can be served (for General Mireau). What stood out to me the most was the portrayal of death: The generalship glorifies it, not knowing the pain these soldiers had to deal with in modern warfare (Like Poison gas), perhaps what they had not experienced in the past. Also, I think "Paths of Glory" is about helplessness. In this situation, the soldiers accused have no recourse: they are simply sent to die for stupid reasons. Colonel Dax is helpless to work with his command. The Army of France is helpless to deal with the German invaders. And the girl at the end is helpless as a prisoner. Sometimes the world is a cruel place, and you can’t do anything about it.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the scene of the verdict is left out because not only is it unnecessary: the audience already knows what it’s going to be. Even Colonel Dax spells it out for us at the trial. (No indictment, kangaroo court, ect.) Personally, I think seeing how each soldier tries to deal with facing death is much more interesting. I have never had to face something so imminent, and so final. At first, they are defiant, perhaps Dax will save them! But they slowly come to accept it via two extremes (the soldier that turns to drink, and the soldier that turns to God) and I think that Kubrick captured that emotion of pure dread very well.
3b. I think this is a loaded question. I think you can’t just choose one or the other: sure, Dax is a hero for his bravery, he personally knows the men that put their life on the line, and will do anything to defend them. He also shows courage in battle; I don’t think any of us would like to be the first to jump into an open space with machine guns firing at you. However, there are Germans to kill! People like the generals need to make the smartest decisions so as not to lose any ground to the Germans, and things like morale and troop discipline are a big part of that. Sending the troops on another charge would have been the death sentence anyways, and even though they are real human people (to us, and to Dax), to the generals they are just pawns, and if they need to die in order to inspire courage in others, so be it. I might seem cynical in typing this, but Otto von Bismarck didn’t unite Germany by holding on to his personal values, and Abraham Lincoln didn’t win the presidency by saying he was going to abolish slavery. Bismarck had to scheme and deal to keep Germany stable, and Lincoln only put forth the Emancipation Proclamation after a successful battle, well into his term. The truth is that we need both Colonel Daxes, for everyday life, and General Mireaus, for things that are beyond the reach of everyday people like us.
Throughout this movie I was on the edge of my seat filled with sadness, suspense and anger and I very much enjoyed it. A part of the movie that really stuck with me was the whole execution scene. The suspense was palpable as Kubrick painfully drew out the lead up to the death with long shots of the procession of soldiers waiting for them and the sound of their feet hitting the gravel. Contrasting to this long and suspenseful lead up the execution itself was quick and harsh and the filming and timing really emphasized this. If I had to describe this movie in a sentence, I would say it is a Film that shows the harsh, unfair nature of war and the true nature of men.
ReplyDeleteAs other people have mentioned I think Kubrick choosing to show this splendor to show just how wide a gap their is between the lives of these soldiers and those such as Mireau. It not only gives the viewer more empathy for the soldiers and emphasizes the inequities of their fate, but it also shows the brutal truth of war and the viewer is faced with the harshness of their circumstance. An image that connects to this for me is of the shots of the extravagant ballroom with dancing wealthy people juxtaposed to the cellar, almost dungeon like conditions the executed soldiers were held in.
I think Kubrick’s choice to not include any women until the ending scene was because he was making a statement of the true nature of men in general and in accordance to the war. While I agree with the decision I think Kubrick
included the scene with the german girl in the bar in attempts to show the true natures of the men. At first they are misogynistically and rudely judging and teasing her and we, the audience, judge the men for this, as does Dax who sees them from outside the bar. However when she starts singing, the men start crying, making a statement on the true empathy they hold in their hearts.
I can appreciate Stanley Kubrick’s anti-war message in “Paths of Glory,” however, I found myself to be somewhat disquieted and even slightly nauseated when the movie ended. There was no moment that gave the story a conclusion, as the film ends just before the soldiers must to go back to the trenches. The film was over, but the story was not. Overall, similarly to what I said in Blog 1, I thought the movie was engrossing, but after watching the second half the feeling was more melancholy which was precisely Kubrick's intent. The point of the film is to villainize warfare as something that is corrupt and to make the audience reflect on the humanity of mankind.
ReplyDeleteKubrick includes multiple shots inside magnificent rooms and hallways, as well as grand courtyards. As a few people have said, the extravagance of the higher status officers in these scenes contrasts with the poor conditions of the soldiers. Like in the execution scene, in which three soldiers are tied to wooden poles in the center of a beautiful lawn. Compared to the backdrop, these men stick out like a sore thumb, which adds to the irony of the whole affair. It comments on the hypocrisy of how the the men who are actually fighting for the war effort hardly get any respect or reward compared to the higher status men who can remain safe inside.
In the film, no women are present until the very end when the tavern keeper forces a young German female out on stage and prompts her to sing for the soldiers as “a little diversion.” At first they are rude, and they laugh, hoot, and whistle at her, but once she begins to sing each of the men grow quiet and even start to cry. Pre-war memories and feelings of the soldiers’ loved ones and homes are kindled by a mixture of the singing and perhaps even the presence of a woman. Her innocence pacifies the soldiers and illuminates their sensitivity in an environment that values grit and violence.
I enjoyed this movie a lot more than what I had expected. I liked the beginning because it set up the story and it explained the motives of certain actions. The middle was full of action and war, this was one of my favorite parts because it seemed so realistic to me and again with the small budget just makes me give my respects to the film makers. The ending today felt somewhat rushed to me for some reason, I felt they could have focused a little bit less in the beginning with the dialogue and more on the deaths of the three men. A scene that really stuck with me was when the young woman was put on stage and all the men yelling and whistling at her and as soon as she sang a song they all knew they became quite. This scene stuck with me because this song broke past all the cat calling and sexualization that the men were showing. I would summarize this movie as an example of the struggle of being the little guy. I see this because the generals make the orders and the soldiers have to follow and even if the generals were wrong the little guy gets blamed. This goes perfectly with the decision of the court. Their was never a chance that the three men would have walked away free because someone needed to be blamed. It was obvious from the start of the trail that the court sided with the prosecutor. Which makes since why there was no scene shown of the court debating about the both sides, their minds were made before the trial started. I want to think that Dax is the hero figure of the story and in some ways he is. He put his life on the line when half of his men decided not to, he defended the three as much as he could. But he allowed for the majority of his men to die in a battle that would have never been won. He had somewhat of a choice when he was asked to take anthill. But he refused to take the small insults that were said at him by his general. He made the same mistake as general Mireau, he tried to accomplish a almost impossible task to either get a promotion or maintain self respect. And this cost the lives of many men who went out running following orders, and three men who were lucky enough to survive the battle only to be killed by there own nation.
ReplyDeletePaths of Glory definitely gets more upbeat and exciting as the movie goes on. The part that really stuck with me was when Colonel Dax tells one of the Generals that it is very harsh for three blameless men to be made an example of instead of punishing the real culprits who realized that the raid on the anthill was hopeless. The worst part was the General's response of saying "that’s what the French army does". I think the point of this movie is to exploit the imbalance and exploitation of power in the army and to show that there really are good people in the army who will look out for your best interest (Colonel Dax).
ReplyDeleteI think that a scene displaying the court's verdict was not needed and would not have changed any of the audience's emotions. By the end of the court scene, I already knew that there was no possible way for the execution to not happen. I think Stanley Kubrick made a good decision. Instead of making the already dreary movie longer, he decided to pull at the heart string of the audience by showing the three different states of mind of the three convicted cowards: sorrow, dignity, and unconsciousness.
I believe that Colonel Dax is a hero. The man seems to be the only fully sane person that possesses any power in the corrupt French army. Even after being threatened by General Mireau, the Colonel decides to go with his gut and defend the three poor souls who were unfairly picked to be made a mockery of. In the first half of the movie, General Broulard seems to be more on the side of righteous justice, but by the end, the audience is shown how he too is part of the system that has sentenced these three men to death.
I was very impressed with this movie’s ability to capture and maintain my attention. Usually, the scenes in war movies blur together into a mess of loud gunshots and violence. This movie was less focused on the war itself and more focused on fleshing out the conflicts created by the war which created a more intriguing story for me. The final scene was immensely powerful to me, notably one of two scenes with a female present it carried a lot of weight. Men at war are away from their wives and daughters, and in this world, surrounded by other men, many of the soldiers are very disrespectful to the young german woman. As the woman begins to sing the camera pans between each soldier’s face as he melts and turns back into a “person”. It's no secret that war hardens these men and it really struck me how the woman’s voice had such an impact on the men, many of them begin crying. This final scene helped to tie together that men at war are not necessarily men, but rather soldiers programmed to fight. I think that “Paths of Glory” was created with the intention of exposing the corruption and political issues that exist within an army that has a shared enemy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew that the extragence is striking. This splendor in contrast with the sheer opposite in the trenches really makes the viewer think about war at the time and the hierarchy in the army. Away from the frontlines, the war is fought completely differently. The execution scene makes this evident as it's made to be so formal and such a huge evident, completely opposite of how death on the battlefield would be. I believe that the extragence helps establish movie as anti-war by making so painfully obvious the corruption behind the scenes, “Paths of Glory” also manages to do this in a comical way that's entertaining to watch.
I think that Kubrick designs the film with Dax as the “hero” but I wouldn't personally consider him the hero because he doesn't save his men. I'm still unsure of whether Dax was being extraordinarily noble and courageous by standing up for his men, or simply fulfilling his duty as their Colonel. I believe that he better than the Mireau’s and Broulard’s of the world, because he was upset when Broulard assumes that Dax was only motivation was fueled by the desire for for Mireau’s position. This shows that Dax was motivated by his morals rather than the selfish desire to climb the ladder. I believe that Dax is a good man among many tainted men, but is that enough to make someone a hero? I don't know.
1. I found Paths of Glory to be very interesting. One scene that particularly stuck with me today was where the accused soldiers began fighting inside of their cell. They were imprisoned and put to death simply because someone who was a higher rank said so, and rather than realizing the hypocrisy of their "superiors", they began to fight which caused Paris, one of the accused soldiers, to crack another accused solider's skull. I believe the point to this film is that not everyone is in charge of their own destiny, and in many cases, not in charge of their own lives and decisions which is not fair or just at all, but nobody who is in a position of power really cares what is just or fair.
ReplyDelete2. I believe the director chose to display the wealth of the generals and military officers in order to better demonstrate another one of the key themes of this film: class. It is used to show the contrast between the lowly soldiers and the esteemed generals. The physical display of tangible wealth is also used to demonstrate the hypocrisy of General Mireaus as well. General Mireaus boasts the entire film that he is a "fighting general" and that he spends as much time fighting on the front lines as any soldier, but at the same time he is shown surrounded by a lavish palace while soldiers spend days starving to death in the disgusting rat infested trenches of World War One. It is almost as if the film is trying to portray one of the most powerful figures as a weak child, boasting about his power while ordering everyone around.
3. I agree with Kieran's comment in that Colonel Dax is and is not a hero. Although he pleaded with the generals within the court, it was no use, due to the prosecutors abuse of the court system by way of simplification. The prosecutor was simplifying the case and not allowing any sort of context or emotional aspect to the prisoners' crime. Although Dax stood up for his men and gave each general his word, the outcome of the case was the same, and this ending echoes the main theme of the film again. It didn't matter if Colonel Dax was a hero or if he was on the general's side or not, his lowly soldiers would perish no matter what due to the corrupt and power hungry generals. So you could say that Dax was a hero for trying his best, but you could also say that Dax failed his men, and through that he is not a hero and does not deserve merit.
I enjoyed Paths of Glory as a film. It was very entertaining, and it left me thinking about it well after it ended. In today’s viewing, the scene that really stuck with me was when the men were singing along with the German girl and they all started crying. It stuck with me because all the men were being horrible to this girl, but they ended up connecting with her even though she was “the enemy”. Another scene that really stuck with me was the execution scene. The entire time I was waiting for some character to stop it, but it never happened and they were shot. To sum up this movie in one sentence: Paths of Glory is about the politics of war and what the soldiers have to go through in order to fight for their country.
ReplyDeleteI think that the extravagance highlighted throughout the movie showed the juxtaposition between what the soldiers had to live with and what the government officials have to live with. The general and his peer’s live with lots of fancy things around them even though they probably have never actually seen the battlefield. The soldiers, on the other hand, live in dirt and not so great living conditions even though it could be argued that they are the real heroes in the war.
I think that Dax is definitely better than Mireau and Broulard. He tries to stand up for his men the best he can even though he is being blocked by the people above him. He also stood up to both Mireau and Broulard multiple times. He also has seen battle himself unlike some of his peers. He understands what his men go through and knows that they aren't cowards. I think he did the best he could with what he was given. I don’t think that there was anything else he could have done.
I’m going to start of by saying that honestly the second half of this film was not at all what I was expecting after the first half. I was really confused and kind of shocked through most of the second half of the movie. The suddenness of the execution of the soldiers really caught me off guard because after the apology I almost expected the execution to be called off. Im not exactly sure if I could really sum up the whole movie in one sentence. It’s a movie about the tragedy of war, but I guess also the corruption in a government and how that corruption effects everyone not just those in higher powers.
ReplyDeleteI think the cuts are made to be so unsettling for many reasons. I think one of the reasons they do this is because it fits with the tone of the movie. The whole movie is a little unsettling and a little bleak, with the choice to make the movie black and white, I think they really captured the uneasiness and dreariness that comes with the whole movie. I believe they cut the scene of the verdict because thought these scenes you’re rooting for the three soldiers and you don’t figure out the sentence until the they do. Although you basically already knew it was going to happen, you get to see there reaction at the same time that you are getting the news, so you are experiencing this confusing moment together and seeing how they all react differently.
This was a bit confusing for me, but war, especially in the past, has been seen as a mans job, so it makes sense that we wouldn’t encounter a woman in the trenches and certainly not in a position of power. The German girl was being mocked by the French soldiers at first and the first thing I thought of when I saw her was vulnerability. When she first came in, crying, all I could think of was how confused and scared she must be, but when she starts to sing she brings out the vulnerability in a room full of men and they are all crying. It seemed a bit like she had power over them because all the soldiers were upset by the war, but they could only show it around her.
I’m assuming most people chose the ending scene as the one that stood out most, so I would say the other scene that stood out most to me was between Dax and General Broulard, after Mireau was exposed for ordering his soldiers to kill “traitorous” squads. The scene, though saturated in common tropes, uses them in a perfect way. Broulard is a secret true evil, manipulating from the shadows with neither a moral compass nor consideration of others. Dax realizes what he is, and I really liked how Broulard believed Dax to be a cunning, lying, ambitious officer such as himself.
ReplyDeleteI believe the director wanted to make his themes clear and obvious, without using dialogue or exposition to explain them in the story. The extravagant palaces shown in the film are so luxurious in order to make the contrast between the lives of a soldier and their generals more apparent to the audience. Additionally, the splendor makes the movie visually appealing, even without color. A national headquarters could have been the setting, but the background of the scene would not capture the attention of the audience as much. The detail in each setting was a lot of what kept me rooted into the story.
The director made a movie depicting the 1914-18 through a 1957 perspective. While he could have added more women into the movie, he might’ve focused on men due to the overwhelmingly higher amount of men in the military than women. Additionally, the last scene stood out so much due to the fact that the first woman in the film appeared. The men showed the worst parts of humanity when she first came onto stage, to the disgust of Dax. By the end though, the scene conveyed a remarkable sense of hope, with Dax reassured that everyone does have some level of humanity in them(by the way the director married this actress, so this might be of some significance).
1. I really enjoyed the film. I liked the fact that it was a dark film where innocent people actually die. That sounds terrible but I think it was really accurate and portrayed the woes and sorrows of war in an accurate way. I do like that it ended on a heartfelt moment though. The singing at the end was touching and something I really enjoyed ending on. The moment that stayed most with me was the song at the end. It really humanized everyone. This also came directly after three innocent men were killed and a bunch of men were being very rude to the captured women on stage. That moment was exactly what we needed as viewers in that moment.
ReplyDelete2. I think Kubrick made this decision because we already knew what was going to happen. The hostility of the entire court, even the judges, was quite apparent. Even a rousing speech by Dax was not enough to sway them. Also, by not showing us the decision, it makes it a lot more impersonal and cold. I think that is what Kubrick wants to get across: this process is inhumane and indifferent.
3. I wouldn't say Dax is a hero. He is an honorable man, but even he ended up being rather ineffective when he faced the hierarchy of the french army. He had principles, and stook to them. He did have his faults though. He eventually caved in to Mireaus threat, which is not a quality I would associate with a hero. He was also rather punitive in his punishment of Lt. Roget. Even though I was happy with the way he treated him, I wouldn't call it heroic. Even though his intentions were pure and he was noble in his rejection of the possibility of becoming a general, his investigation into Gen. Mireau was fueled partly by personal disdain for the man and ultimately, he was not able to save the three men. He is an admirable man with great honor and courage, but he is not a hero.
(This is Yani by the way)
Delete(stuck, not stook)
DeletePlease proofread your comments, Yani. I was extremely confused by your use of the word "Stook"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete^ yes I concur. We expect a higher proficiency of writing in this class.
DeleteI really liked this film. What really stuck with me was the execution scene. The three prisoners being marched side by side, while hundreds of soldiers flanked them in their death walk. One of the soldiers is unconscious and extremely injured, having to be carried to the poles. Another soldier is letting his emotions flow: Crying, praying, and insisting on being blindfolded. The third soldier carries himself with dignity, refuses the blindfold, and stares death in the face. These three are the different manifestations of a soldier in war. The injured soldier, the cowardly soldier, the honorable soldier. In the end though, they are all dead soldiers, and many of the others who line their walk will be dead, and the Generals will continue their lives of luxury. That is what I believe the film asks us to reflect on.
ReplyDeleteThe extravagance shown in the film is definitely to juxtapose the incredible lifestyles of the generals with the grungy lifestyle of the soldiers. One thing I found really interesting was how the generals really felt like they were just much better soldiers. Mireau goes around the trenches to boost the mens moral and in the end even says “The man you stabbed in the back is a soldier.” The comparison of his lifestyle to that of real soldiers shows the ridiculousness of this statement and the hypocrisy constantly shown by the generals.
Dax is a hero. “The definition of a hero is: a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.” I admire dax for his courage in battle to run out of the trenches when non of his soldiers would, and the way he stood up to authority to support the downtrodden men. His achievements as a criminal defense attorney before the war, and his achievement to achieve some justice against General Mireau were outstanding, and the way he lives by and fights for justice and integrity are noble. Dax is truly a hero.
(I think you take the definition of the word "hero" to literally...)
DeleteI think you don't take the definition of "to" literally enough.
Delete(*too)
DeleteWhile I enjoyed the first half of this movie, I enjoyed the second part even more. What stayed with me the most was the scene that pictured the three soldiers walking or being carried to their execution posts. The two very different reactions portrayed in that scene really stood out to me. One soldier is in tears and using the priest for support up until the time he is shot, and another keeps a brave face after breaking down earlier in another scene. That scene displays a part of war people don’t often think of; the killing of men by their own country. I couldn’t let go of the hope that somehow Colonel Dax was going to get them off the hook, and then after their death, the idea that General Mireau would be killed for orders against his own men in the trenches.
ReplyDeleteI think a court deliberation scene is left out because the director wants the audience to know that there was never going to be much deliberation. The court had already made up their minds about their fate before the trial had even started. Colonel Dax lists many reasons why the “trial” was not carried out in the way it should and was really just a standard procedure. I think that list goes to show that the court did not take the trial seriously and that nothing in rightfully carried out court procedure would have let the court free these soldiers.
I think by Dax’s standards, he is not a hero. In order for Dax to consider himself a hero, he would’ve had to be successful in freeing the three executed soldiers. In the eyes of the audience Dax can be argued a hero for standing up to the higher ranking French officials at all. Dax does expose General Mireau for his orders against his own men, and he clearly will face consequences, so in my eyes Colonel Dax was successful in righting some of the wrong done by Mireau and the other higher ranking French officials. I think in the eyes of the imprisoned soldiers, Dax was their hero for fighting for their lives and fixing them a chance, however he was unsuccessful. I think the question of whether or not Colonel Dax is a hero gravely depends on the perspective one chooses to look from, but can definitely be argued the most heroic protagonist of the movie.
When I watched the first half of the film I wasn’t a big fan at the beginning but as the movie progressed my reaction changed. I still didn’t enjoy the film but I would recommend it to someone who is looking for a film in the genre, war and drama.
ReplyDeleteThe film has an ample amount of scenes showing what life is like being a soldier and life at war. A scene that stayed with me was a popular scene that would most likely stick with most people after watching this film. The scene of the three soldiers in their prison cell praying hysterically to not be killed and then eventually being shot.
This is a very disturbing and sad scene to watch during and leading up to it. One thing that made the scene more dramatic was the drums in the background as the tree soldiers walked the “path of shame.” I think the producers included this scene to make the film more surreal and give the viewer lots of insight on what life was like at war during the 50s. Most producers wouldn’t include a scene like this in movies today just because of the society we live in and the backlash the would occur when the movie comes out. I believe the verdict was left out of this movie solely because war is a very serious matter and you are fighting for your country so one wrong move most people know the outcome.
Colonel dax is a hero but not portrayed as one in such a serious scenario like this. Dax truly cared about each and every one of his peers. In the end he tries his hardest to help save the three being killed and did everything in his power but didn’t succeed. He even stood up for the men in court by sharing their bravery but still couldn’t prove they were innocent.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. Like I said in the last blogpost, I usually don’t watch war movies or even black and white movies in general because they all tend to have the same plotline. Never have I seen a war movie that challenges the idea of patriotism and war like that. I think that’s the reason why many governments banned this movie, because it criticizes those ideas. Governments didn’t want their citizens to view this film probably in fear of there being no participation in other possible wars.
One of the moments that stayed with me is the woman at the very end. When I first saw the men cheering as they brought out the German lady, I got a feeling that this scene wasn’t going to end well. However, this scene ended much differently than I thought it was going to. I was so surprised when the lady started singing and everyone started crying and humming along. I’m not exactly sure why they all started tearing up, but I think it’s because that song is known universally. Maybe it’s a sad war song or a nursery rhyme? Besides that, I think that scene stuck with me because of its unexpected ending.
If I were to sum this movie up in a sentence, I would say that Paths of Glory is a black and white war film made in the 50’s that portrays the true environment of World War I and challenges the ideas of war and patriotism.
I’m not exactly sure why the director made the decision to have such an extravagant background, but I think maybe it’s so that the splendor distracts from what is truly going on, which is the war. War, as we all know, is brutal. Having such beautiful buildings and gardens during wartime might be highlighting a contradiction to the true environment of war. War is seen, by some, as something that’s beautiful. Personally, I don’t believe that’s true, but I think the generals as well as the other people in charge of the war believed that it was, which is what explains the richness of the backgrounds
Most of the soldiers, especially General Mireau, believe that the definition of a true soldier is someone who “doesn’t show cowardice in the face of the enemy” in the context of willing to sacrifice your life for a victory that might not even happen. Personally, I think that Dax is a true hero because he didn’t show cowardice in the face of the enemy when he stood up for what he believed in. When he attempted to show what true patriotism and true humanity is, in the court and in his conversation with General Broulard, I developed a connection with the character.
Blog post 2
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I noticed when we started watching the second half of this movie is that it was in black and white. I know thats such an obvious thing to see, but i started thinking “why did they choose black and white? They had the option of color.” The more I thought about it the more I realized how different it would be in color. Especially the war scenes, we would see so much blood and I feel like it would probably be harder to watch in color because we associate blood with red, and it would make it much more realistic. I also believe that black and white sets a sad mood. I think this fits the story because it is war, and war isn't all happy and colorful, but it also made me wonder. We're seeing it through the eyes of the camera (black and white), but these soldiers saw everything in color. They knew what the sky looked like and if the grass was green or dead and what color the uniforms were. It was just interesting how much color contributes to the film industry. Going to the film itself I think it was hard to see the three men killed. It didn't seem right to me. They were serving their country and were then executed for being cowards. That was very hard for me to watch. At the end, the girl sang and all the men cried. I personally think that the music was a way for the men to escape reality for a small period of time and to allow themselves to feel vulnerable. It's also possible that these men were missing their wives and children. It was powerful to see that they were called to the front line and the general said they would give them a minute. It really shows how valuable life is and how every moment really does count.