The Help ***/5: Another jab at the Old United States South

The Help (2011)

The Help is an old fashioned melodrama which is skewed towards female perspectives of race in the United States South which will forever be famous for the Jim crow legislation. It is accurate to see this film as another jab at the decaying values of the United States south which declined following the defeat of the confederacy in the US civil war (1861-1865). The values of the south are influenced by the perception of master and slave; the master being white and the slave being black. It was also known for the Lady Antebellum characters or the southern belles that would pride themselves on snatching a husband. The gentleman callers would act with due decorum to land themselves a wife as they practice archaic modes of chivalry associated with romance which involve placing these women on a pedestal. This film focuses primarily on the southern belles and their attitude towards their maids in 1964. By this time the civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King Jr, was in full swing and it was a time when black people in the US would try and reassert pride in themselves and demand equal treatment within the institutional framework. The maids in this film fall within that category for at first they reflect the timidity of blacks of the time who came into contact with whites but they eventually feel empowered to come forward and reveal the heinous treatment meted out to them by their white employers. In this film the institutional aspect of Jim Crow within the home comes with the new proposal by a southern belle committee to build separate bathrooms for the coloured help. The reasons given for this measure are, predictably, archaic or apocryphal when they say that blacks are disease ridden and nasty etc. Skeeter (Emma Stone) arrives on the scene and is disgusted with the Jim crow laws instituted in the homes especially as she was raised by a black mammy herself. She supposedly represents the so called modern woman who is more interested in her career than landing herself a husband like the other southern belles of the Lady Antebellum era.  Skeeter writes the domestic columns for the local journal when she returns home and  becomes inspired to use the medium of print to expose the decadent values of her friends who treat their maids disparagingly. In order to do this she must record the stories of several maids who are brave enough to expose their masters. The two who are most daring are Aibileen (Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer) who decide to divulge information. They are motivated for various reasons. One (Aibileen) is fed up with the treatment of the daughter of her employer and feels that she is more of a mother to the child. She has raised so many white children that she was unable to spend time with her own son who died tragically. The other is motivated by the issue with the toilet since she is fired for using the bathroom designated for her employers instead of battling the rainy elements to use the bathroom built for her as the maid. She also does something with a pie that upsets her former employer and eventually sees her ostracized by the wider community apart from the white  female  character  considered white trash(or a descendant of white trash) who is likewise ostracized from the wider communities. The film is overly manipulative and its sole intent is to shock the audience. It is not as riveting as Mississippi Burning (1988) and not as philosophical as Gone With the Wind (1939). It merely seeks to expose these decadent values. It never really questions the values of the old south from a historical perspective and why it has declined or why the views of the southern belles seem archaic. The filmmakers assume that the audience know why it has declined and that is because of racism when in fact the real reason is because of the decline of a way of life that is no longer relevant in the modern world. There are still white racists out there and they are not only in the south. The film therefore does not rise to any height that would deem it as anything more than just a jab at the United States south. The lack of a philosophical and historical context undermines the film since it relies on the tears of the females to keep it moving. The men are quite silent in this film since it is clear that the ku Klux clan was still prevalent at this time and the filmmakers wanted to downplay their role. They had to downplay their role because the book that is published, recording the testimony of the maids, would not be that significant in undermining the Jim Crow legislation.

What’s good about this film?

This film does have good elements that deal with the lives of the maids. Everyone knows of Mammy from Gone With the Wind (1939) however there has never been an interpretation of the lives of these black individuals who catered to the domestic whims of their white employers. It is true that Mammy was a slave in Gone with the Wind (1939) however she must have had her own way of living and her own personal thoughts. This film by highlighting the lives of these black maids, which has not been dealt with in any considerable degree before in film, does offer some new insights. It is clear that in previous takes on the Old south the lives of the employers (or masters depending on the context) normally took centrestage and the black employees would be relegated to supporting roles. They still try and stay to type however since Emma Stone still retains the starring role and the black actresses are (still) relegated to supporting roles. It is the white lady who rescues the black females and gives them hope since the blacks are incapable of rising up on their own. The blacks of the civil rights movement took the initiative whereas here that is not the case. It is good that the lives of these black maids are highlighted although they still remain on the fringes by aiding their white masters learn sympathy.

The film also does highlight the influence of the north and how it continues to represent modernity in contrast with the archaic values of the south. In the film the northern perspective is represented by the editor at Harper Row who is clearly career oriented and stresses certain modernist values such as a woman getting her own apartment as opposed to living with her mother waiting to be taken in by a man or sitting at a table with two men at a table; in the south such actions would be frowned upon and gossiping would be rife. It is no wonder that it is a publishing house in the north that helps to publicise the issues of the maids. This is reflective of the civil war where the north defeated the confederate states in the south and tried to introduce modern principles such as the abolition of slavery which would release a fresh pool of wage labour to exploit as opposed to having slaves which would be incorporated into constant capital as opposed to variable capital associated with wage labour. The North also represents industrial development whereas the south still remains more agrarian in culture. This is why the publishing house is located in the north. After the defeat of the south in the civil war the Northerners tried to present the façade that the carpet baggers and the independent blacks, were thriving with their high wages although that was an illusion. This is why a character such as Skeeter who is more focused on her career, as opposed to finding a husband, is frowned upon in the south but embraced in the north.

The film does highlight the structure of power in the decadent south by showing the inferior status accorded to blacks. The blacks were to defer to the whites in every matter and this would mean that they would have to be content with inferior living accommodations and playing second class in every regard such as moving aside if a white individual is in their path. In this film the black maids are to be content with using a bathroom of inferior quality. The film does try to show Skeeter getting acquainted with the Jim Crow legislation with the pamphlet she carries around. The references to blacks as niggers and being disease ridden still persists to this day anytime there is an uprising. There are still many white individuals that persist with the ideal that they are superior since black people are not world leaders in economics. Until black people are seen as more than simple labourers but are capable of innovations that will result in social change then the perception of the whites that they are superior will still persist. Blacks were instrumental to social change with the great Egyptian (or some states in North Africa) and Mesopotamian civilizations that influenced the perception of the world of the time whereas now they are divided as a race and are merely the lackeys of the whites. The Jim Crow legislation merely reinforced this perception of the inferiority of blacks. The black man will forever have the stamp of slavery unless he can compete with the white and Asian civilizations for economic superiority. In this film there is nothing new that people don’t already know although there are blacks who seem to believe that they are white and can put the vestige of slavery behind (the imbeciles). One good feature in the film was the presence of the white female character considered white trash by the southern belle committee since white trash was accorded in some instances the same inferior status in some cases as blacks. This was the case even during the days of slavery in countries throughout the Americas. In this case it is a perception of class as opposed to race. The husband of that same white woman appears enlightened by comparison. Minny is able to leave her husband since she gets some share of the royalties from the sales of the book. It is then a issue of class in this sense as the black woman is oppressed by her own black man.

The film also shows the actresses emitting bucket loads of tears. This flair for the melodrama will influence the perception of some members of the audience, particularly the females, since it will appeal to the sentimental core.  I will not single out any particular actress since there are times in the film when all everyone does is cry. There is so much crying that it is difficult to highlight any particular actress in my mind. The one actress that stood out for me was not Viola Davis as Aibileen  but Octavia Spencer as Minny who is the least sentimental. In the final scene you do feel a bit for Aibileen but did she really want to be caught with her white employers for the rest of her life. It seems she did and I was not moved seeing the black maid trying to hold on to the white family. If she is fired she should try and find another job. The perception that these women see no better for themselves as maids is still relevant since most blacks see themselves that way working for the whites.

 

What’s bad about this film?

The main issue I had with this film was the lack of a philosophical or historical context. The world of the film was too isolated for me by focusing on the domestic issue while not highlighting all the issues of the time during the 1960’s. The film does not elaborate much on the way of life in the south  when seeking to give its own spin on the reasons why its values represent those of a decadent society. It only highlights the racism that prevailed during the time while not highlighting the various facets of the society which would help to explain the institutionalized racism that persisted. The racism is merely common knowledge  however it is not all. The reasons the whites feel they are capable of ruling the blacks is as a result of their economic superiority. This issue is not highlighted to any great extent except in a few scenes where a certain black maid would ask for money to send her sons to college or when they send the same maid to prison for stealing a discarded ring. They, the whites, demonstrate their power by throwing her in prison, an institution which is famous for many black political prisoners throughout America. The perceptions of the south are overshadowed by the sentimental nature of the film and the comedic tone that the film assumes at times. There are few references to the civil rights movement or the Ku Klux clan. The lack of a reference to the Ku Klux clan is significant, for instance, since it is the values instilled in the females by the males which accounts for their racist ideals. In the scene where the black maid asks for money to aid in paying the tuition for her children going to university we see the man get up without saying much of a word thereby leaving it to the female to handle the matter. If the film did feature some civil rights activities it would help to strengthen the resolve of the black maids as opposed to seeing the white woman Skeeter as the only way out. The white woman was not the only way out. The sentimentality of the final scene therefore does not resonate effectively since it is clear that Aibileen seems to be wandering in the wind with no inherent purpose since her defeat/ victory is minor in comparison with the  civil rights movement in deinstitutionalizing racism in the south. Had she found a sense of higher purpose as a result of the confessions made to Skeeter she would have walked away more victorious or she would not have waited on the whites to dismiss her. She would instead take it on her own head to leave a particular job since there is a higher purpose that now influences her destiny; instead she waits on the instructions of the whites. Minny also seems like a retrograde character when she is offered lifetime employment at a certain household. This merely reinforces her servile position and does not in any way elevate her above anything more than another maid. The publication of the book in no way influenced the perception of the whites then. The absence of the civil rights movement therefore still relegates these characters to the same positions we discovered them in at the beginning. There is no real resolution or the sense of a new direction and this could only have taken place with the sense of a higher purpose which would be featured in the civil rights movement. Having Aibileen cry a lot does not alter her condition. It only makes people sympathize but it does not alter the consciousness of the audience or direct them in seeing something new.  Also in the case of the black females it is clear that the men should have been mentioned as one of the factors that contribute to the oppression of these maids. If the men are being lynched and abused when they step outside their homes they will inevitably take it out on the female at home. This is one reason why the black females are cowardly. How good would it have been if they could have a cameo by a Martin Luther King.

It is not highlighted effectively why the woman considered white trash is so chummy with Minny since they were basically in the same boat. If there was one line saying ‘They have always considered white trash almost as low as us niggers.’ I would have been more at ease. Also when a black man is shot and the blacks are told to get off the bus there is no insight into the incident. We only see the blacks scampering home. We know it is racial violence but it would have gone a far way to understand why the blacks are so cowardly when it comes to the whites. It was those members of the Ku Klux clan that went around enforcing their principles of racial superiority. It is a pity this film did not tackle these issues head on. Skeeter must be extremely naive if she is unaware of Jim Crow legislation. She has to read a pamphlet to understand the situation. Her naivete was repulsive to me, as a black man, and cast her in a superficial mode. If they featured the activities of the Ku Klux Clan her naivete would be even more amazing.

The film relies on too much melodrama and you could see the actresses winding up the tears and at times I did not care what they were crying about. There are some extremely manipulative moments such as when the child tells Aibileen that she is the only mother she knows. Do they really expect us to believe that the child was thinking so highly?

I also wished to hear more stories of the maids. We only witness Skeeter recording them but do not hear much of the stories of the maids. The film merely focuses on Skeeter trying to make a difference. If Aibileen had been the lead for instance we would have gotten a better interpretation of the lives of the many maids. We could see their lives in action as opposed to hearing a recording. Look at the approach in Goodfellas  (1990) for instance where we are introduced to a whole range of characters. The perception is skewed when a white woman is the lead since we will not get a sense of the roles of  the other maids.   It is clear that they needed a visible star to project to the audience and that happens to be  Emma Stone.

I am sure there are other criticisms of the film that I can dwell on but this is not the place to do it however a film such a Mississippi Burning was more forthright in tackling the institutionalized racism in the south and thereby highlighting the difficulties in breaking down its barriers which still exist today. A little book about maids does not say much about the system. Gone with the Wind also highlights why the members of the south cannot accept their decline in light of the advance of industry.

Paths of Glory (1957): The evolutionary struggle between the foot soldier and the general.

At right Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) prepares to lead his men out of the trench in the foolish attack on the Ant hill




Paths of Glory (1957)

Introduction

Stanley Kubrick’s first masterpiece Paths of Glory is one of the definitive films of the 20^th century with its take on the subject of war. It still remains one of the best films made about World War 1 along with All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) since it masterfully captures all the elements of the Great War, as it is commonly called, in a short space of time:  one hour and 30 minutes. The elements of the Great war that it captured expertly was the futility of trench warfare, the difficulty in penetrating an enemies defenses since boundaries were now clearly defined with sophisticated elements such as barb wire etc, as opposed to previous wars, and, the demoralization of the soldiers and the anti nationalist sentiments that arose following the massive loss of life.   The initial response to the film when it was first released in 1957 was mixed for it was praised by critics for the gritty realism on display while exposing the blindness of ambition exhibited by the French Generals who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of the foot soldiers to attain glory; yet it did not do so well at the box office, received no academy award nominations and was was not released in France until the 1970’s. All Quiet on the Western Front was also banned in France and Germany since political leaders at the time could not tolerate anti nationalist sentiments especially since war or defense is a staple of politicians. This is why this film was not received well with the public.   The film arrived at a time when nationalist sentiment in the West was high following the victory of the Allies over the Axis powers in World War 2. People were looking for films to show the heroism of soldiers in war and the triumph of good over evil. 1957 was the year of The Bridge on the Kwai which swept the Oscars, winning 7, and British film awards (BAFTA) and is fondly remembered for the epic portrayal of British soldiers as prisoners of war in south East Asia which was under the stranglehold of the Japanese. It had nice uplifting moments and was almost comic, at times, in its portrayal. World War 1 was not a very popular subject as well with audiences since it seemed to be relegated in the memory. This is opposed to All Quiet on the Western Front which was released prior to World War 2 and therefore World War 1 would be fresh in the collective memory. This was not the case for Paths of Glory. Audiences would not have been able to identify with the film’s subject matter. Another reason why the film was not embraced collectively was that the play on which it was based on did not do so well on Broadway for the same reasons: anti war and anti nationalist sentiments.    Even today these elements do not go down well because it strikes at the core of man’s inherent absurdity and his claim that his civilization is superior. Kubrick would develop this theme in his later success Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (see my review) albeit in a more comedic tone and it was based on a more topical issue which was the Cold War. Paths of Glory remains relevant for the same reason that Dr. Strangelove does: it is all too relevant in the present day from a political perspective since politicians attain glory or prestige by sacrificing their foot soldiers who commit the deeds on their behalf. In this film it is clearly the generals who are representative of the political climate since they also act out the will of the politicians.  It is also relevant since it preceded the anti war sentiment of later  films such as Apocalypse Now (1979) which focused on the folly of the US expedition into Vietnam during the 1960’s and early 70’s. The themes developed in this film can also be found in the great film Schindler’s List (1993) which is about a war profiteer named Oskar Schindler who eventually realizes that the  glory he attained during the war was not his or, if it was his, it was only because of the toil of the Jews.  Paths of Glory, therefore, becomes the standard anti war film by highlighting man’s inherent absurdity in times of war where the generals thrust the foot soldiers into futile battle so that they can attain glory. If the foot soldiers are successful in carrying out the orders of the generals, and by extension the political leaders, glory is attained because there is a victory however when there is a devastating loss then glory vanishes from sight and in the darkness ignominy rears its head. The title of this film is ironic since glory is not attained since there is defeat. Tim Dirks is mistaken when he says that war does not lead to glory. Glory or prestige depends on man’s own interpretation of it therefore in this film glory is not attained since there is no victory. The film masterfully balances the various interpretations of glory and what it means to individuals for man inevitably raises himself and others on a pedestal. If soldiers did not believe in glory they would not have joined the army since to join is a patriotic act to satisfy the needs of a nation.  In order to cover up the stain of defeat the generals lay the blame on the foot soldiers and have three executed on a charge of cowardice. All Quiet on the Western Front expertly told the harrowing tale of German soldiers on the line whereas this film is told from the French perspective. It is more forward than All Quiet on the Western Front because it directly indicts the generals or the leaders who are ironically supposed to inspire the men on to victory. The title is ironic and was influenced by a line in a poem entitled ‘Elegy  Written in a Country Churchyard’ where the poet, Thomas Grey, writing in the eighteenth century says in a stanza 

‘The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power

And all that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave,

Awaits alike th’ inevitable hour:

The paths of glory lead but to the grave.’

The basic plot of the film centres on Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) who futilely defends three soldiers before a court martial on a charge of mutiny. The Generals who thrust the soldiers in a futile battle to take a German stronghold, the anthill, try and cover up their mistake in the execution of the battle plan by sacrificing the lives of three soldiers in the corps, chosen at random (it will be seen that at least one was not chosen at random), who are to be executed as an example to the corps that cowardice is not to be tolerated in the ranks. This film is based on actual events where four French soldiers were executed during World War 1 on a charge of mutiny under French General Geraud Reveilhac in the province of Souain. The family sought redress in court and two were awarded a franc each (political benevolence) and the execution was deemed unfair. This ancient practice of executing soldiers within your own ranks was inspired by the Roman practice of decimation and was practiced by other European countries in the war. Some sources claim that the film is based on the fact that the soldiers are chosen at random when in fact the film reflects an absurdity that starts at the top and percolates towards the bottom exposing the concept that man has a right to rule the earth. The film was based off a book of the same name by Humphrey Cobb.

In this review I will examine the paths to glory in this film within the context of World War 1 and the evolutionary struggle between the general and the foot soldier along with the motivations of each as evidenced by the farcical trial or court martial that takes place. I will also discuss the literary influences of the film particularly that of the poem and the final song ‘The Faithful Hussar’ in the masterful final scene.

The Paths of Glory

The question of this film is: What are the paths that lead to glory? Tim Dirks is wrong when he says that the title is ironic since war does not lead to glory. Glory or prestige has its root in competition or the desire to outlast or defeat your opponents in some form of activity. In most cases when you defeat your opponent you win the adoration of your particular social group. When you defeat your rivals you elevate yourself not only in your eyes but in those of the witnesses to your feat. In the organic  world, for instance, the female mammal sets her eyes on the male that emerges victorious from the physical duel with his rivals thereby earning the right to mate with her and sire his offspring. In the organic world the males frequently mark their territory with their scent and when this is violated a physical tussle ensues and one either retreats or retains the right to his boundaries. Within this sphere of influence the male has the right to the females and game that wade into his territory. This is the first requirement of prestige or glory: the victorious element that has surmounted the competition. The person who wins this right is seen as a form of leader to the females and other males in the social group. This male becomes responsible for the members of group when it comes to defending them from his rivals. In the case of human beings the scale becomes so extensive that this leader trusts other people to do his bidding when defending his boundaries from invasion from rival groups. The people, as said before, acknowledge this person as being responsible for their affairs and so in times of crisis they will hope that their leader will pull them out of the crisis. If he succeeds in puling them out of the crisis he attains even more prestige in the eyes of the people and if he fails the people will turn against him and demand a new leader. This is called politics. When the human element becomes so large that it is beyond the capability of one man he must assemble a team: advisors, his generals for battle, his priests (or some inspirational element; in most cases it is of a religious nature), law makers and those responsible for the treasury chest. In times of war the generals are called upon and their glory is tied to their success in battle and this is the case in this film Paths of Glory. There also emerges rivals within the original boundary set by the leader and this is the source of internal division or the possibility of civil strife for when the population scale of human beings becomes great it is unlikely that the original leader will be able to reach everyone and his feats of glory, that saw him earn the spotlight, seem faint to some or acutely remote and his influence recedes. Some immigrants in the developed nations are only concerned with their economic security and are not moved by the feats of glory performed by the leaders unless it affects their economic status.  There are also cases where the leader clings to his most loyal supporters so as to remain relevant since these are the ones he can identify with for these people will be the ones most wary of his former feats that saw him achieve a prestigious status or one of glory. There are those however that will not be impressed by his influence and will seek to supplant him and this is all due to the overwhelming population numbers of man. When the leader becomes aware of this internal division he seeks to supplant these groups that facilitate internal strife through some form of subterfuge that will see him retain his position in a more secure framework. If he is not successful in his efforts to supplant this internal division he will be overthrown and a new leader will emerge eventually. This is the cycle of politics and some pathetic members of the bourgeois class have elevated this basic practice of man into a science simply because the bureaucracy of government has become so bloated and needs to be regulated. It has become so bloated in fact that the same struggles that occur on a national scale or within the physical boundaries of the social group can also occur in the several departments that reside beneath the seat of power. In the case of this film the internal strife occurs among the staff in the army with the general in the lead. The politicians need not be mentioned here since the nation of France is embroiled in War with Germany and its allies of Austria Hungary and Japan. It is called a World War because of the number of nations involved. There were World Wars before but the scale of this war and the high figures of mortality earned it the reputation of the Great War or World War 1. The war was waged by the leading industrial nations who had all reached a point of prosperity which exceeded the previous national social groups in former times. In any case when war is waged on such a massive scale it is the generals who take charge of a country’s affairs. The politicians can only sit back and hope that their faith in these generals will result in a victory thereby guaranteeing more prestige/glory/honour for the country which is the same as glory for them since they are considered the leaders responsible for the affairs of the social group. As I said before if they are victorious they will be praised and if not they will be ousted. In this film the politics occurs within the army since the generals are now responsible for the lives of the nation ( no wonder there are so many coup d’etat s in history). 

The generals like the politicians have men who carry out their bidding since these people have invested their faith in these generals who are supposed to be the ones who will lead them to victory. In this film the followers will lose faith in the generals who lead them as they try to compensate for their shortcomings in securing glory or prestige by passing on the blame to those who were to carry out their orders. The soldiers who are chosen to be executed for failing to attain glory for their superiors. This is where the absurdity lies. One must also remember that glory is relative based on the divisions within particular sectors in a social group; for those nearer to the bottom it is a physical deed of repute or to return home safely to your family relaying stories of valour whereas for those nearer to the top who are placed in commanding roles, it is about leading an outfit to victory based on their intellectual prowess since being in command implies some form of strategic capabilities and that the physical foot soldier must follow their lead. There are several paths to glory and this is why it seems futile for when you achieve one goal you are naturally inspired to achieve a higher goal since there will always be something that you will never achieve as a result of the variety of activities associated with human endeavor. The bourgeois class, for instance, tries to buy respectability in spheres outside of their influence.  Glory can then become an unattainable goal for if you earn a million dollars there is a man who has a billion and so on and the endless competition is a hindrance to the unity that the idealists always clamour for since to attain glory one must engage in competition and must supplant your rivals. With the increasing spheres of human activity glory becomes relativistic in the sense that success in one sphere does not guarantee success in another and so you will always be limited even though you have supplanted your rivals in your particular sphere. This is evident in the wide variety of  sports  or applications in the arts. Even if you are content with what you have achieved the man or woman who supersedes you will get the recognition/spotlight/glory. Your achievements will still be admired but since you have been superseded the spotlight refuses to shine on you and that is why George C. Scott as General Patton in the film of his namesake, Patton (1970), says at the end  ‘All glory is fleeting.’ Here today gone tomorrow. You always have to seize the opportunity to dazzle the audience and remain in the spotlight or else you will run amok trying to recapture your glory having been absent for such a long time and allowing others to take  your place. If you set a high standard the audience will expect you top it unless they gracefully admit that even you could not outdo yourself. Also if no one else supersedes you will retain your prestige but the cost is still the same for you will still always be looking back to that youth who was greater than you in every way although that youth was you. Granted that you are not superseded once you leave the scene others with the same charisma will have to take up the mantle regardless of your great achievements. ‘ All Glory is fleeting.’

The film opens with an accurate synopsis of the Great War up to the battle of the anthill that will take place in 1916: ‘War began between Germany and France on August 3, 1914. Five weeks later, the German army had smashed its way to within 18 miles of Paris. There the battered French miraculously rallied their forces at the Marne River and in a series of unexpected counter attacks, drove the Germans back. The front was stabilized and shortly afterwards developed into a continuous line of heavily fortified trenches zigzagging their way 500 miles from the English channel to the Swiss frontier. By 1916 after two grisly years of trench warfare the battle lines had changed very little. Successful attacks were measured in hundreds of yards and paid for in lives by hundreds of thousands.’ The two generals: Broulard and George, discuss the key position of the Anthill in Broulard’s magnificent chateaux. Broulard will be asked to use the men under his command to take the Anthill since it is a key position in breaking the German trench lines and it happens to be in his sector.  Headquarters would like the anthill t be taken the day after tomorrow and Broulard ‘that comes close to being  ridiculous don’t you think?’ George says it is possible and that is why he put forward the proposition to Broulard because he knows he is capable despite Broulard insisting that it is ‘Absolutely out of the question. My division was cut to pieces. What’s left  is in no position to even hold the Anthill let alone take it. I’m sorry but that’s the truth.’ The conversation takes a decisive turn when General George raises another issue: ‘Well there was something else I wanted to tell you however I’m sure you will misunderstand my motives in mentioning it.’ He makes Broulard know that there is talk that he, Broulard, is being considered for the 12^th corps since a fighting general is required (meaning that George as general is closer to politics than to warfare as we shall see later) and that he would another star to his epaulette should he consider the promotion. George continues,’ You record is good enough to refuse this assignment on the grounds you’ve stated. No one would question your opinion. They’d simply get someone else to do it. So you shouldn’t let this influence your opinion.’   Broulard emphasizes that he is responsible for the lives of 8000 men and ‘What is my ambition against that? What is my reputation in comparison to that? My men come first of all, George. And those men know it too. You see those men know that I will never let them down. The life of one of those soldiers means more to me than all the stars and and decorations and honours in all of  France (really now).’ George, the politician, traps him when he asks, ‘ So you think this attack is absolutely beyond the ability of your men at this time?’ ‘I didn’t say that George. Nothing is beyond those men once their fighting spirit is aroused. ‘ Paul I don’t want to push you into it if you think it’s ill advised.’ ‘Don’t worry George. You couldn’t do that if you tried (the fool easily tricked). Of course artillery would make an enormous difference. What artillery support can you give me.’ ‘We’ll see.’ ‘ What about replacements?’ ‘ I’ll see what we can do but I’m sure that you can get along with what you have.’ The fool, General Broulard, does not see that he is walking into George’s trap. It is the fighting general (Broulard) completely bamboozled by the political general who wants to ruin his career. ‘We just might do it,’ says Broulard. ‘You are the man to take the Anthill,’ says George, ‘As for that star…’ ‘That has nothing to do with my decision! If anything it would sway me the other way.’ ‘ I realize that perfectly Paul.’ Broulard has been deceived in an exquisite fashion by George. If Broulard fails his ascent through the ranks will be stalled and it will be one less competitor for George. In real time obviously the decision would not be made so hastily however it would be made nonetheless since the ambition of general takes centre stage and not duty to his fellow man. It is here the absurdity will unfold mainly because of George’s wrangling. General Broulard however needs this promotion so as to remain relevant and to continue dazzling the audience; he must secure another path to glory.

The Paths of Glory ii: The Anthill

There are three famous shots in this film that capture the essence of trench warfare. The shots are even more magnificent since from a metaphysical point of view these two shots capture the paths to glory in war which is accompanied by bloodshed. There are two shots of the trench in which the soldiers reside and the other where the soldiers traverse no mans land. The two shots in the trench are of a different nature although they are composed in a similar fashion where the camera follows the footsteps taken by General Broulard and Colonel Dax through the same trench in an unbroken sequence while the activity of trench warfare is on display without any words having to be spoken since you as the viewer is able to understand the futility of it all. In trench warfare there is a large tract of desolate land between the opposing factions, which no one dares to tread (hence the name no mans land), and so they both try to bomb each other out or target anyone who should emerge from the trench and shoot him down.. Along the way, during these two unbroken shots, explosions  go off every thirty seconds. This is a masterful stroke by Kubrick. The first unbroken shot of General Broulard walking through the trench, observing the stalemate between his soldiers and the Germans, shows him greeting the soldiers along the way as a way to try and to boost their morale. It is ironic that along the way he encounters the three soldiers that will later be charged with cowardice and brought before a court martial.  It is more of a routine for the General as he asks all the soldiers that he greets with the same question. ‘ Ready to kill more Germans?’ or ‘ Are you married?’ etc. The general strides through supremely confident as  the leader of this band of soldiers; he is however stopped in his stride by a shell shocked soldier. The general says after he is informed by the sergeant that this particular soldier is shell shocked, ‘ I beg your pardon sergeant. There is no such thing as shell shock.’ He continues to ask the soldier if he has a wife and as the soldier starts breaking into  tears the general says after he slaps the man, ‘Sergeant I want you to immediately transfer this baby out of my regiment. I won’t have other brave men contaminated by him.’ The major says as they leave, ‘You know general I’m convinced that these tours of yours have an incalculable effect on these men.’ (lol)This tour by the general emphasizes how far removed he is from the scene of battle and it is the classic case of the ones at the top throwing the foot soldiers forward to attain glory for them since they will receive the credit in the form of a promotion. The fact that the general’s routine stroll through the trench is broken by the cowardly soldier is a reminder of the effects of war however the general can only see the objective and not the flesh and blood behind the battle. He seems unconcerned that men will sacrifice their lives for the sake of his promotion since they are supposed to be merely drones. This cowardly soldier shakes his comfortable reality for soldiers are supposed to be brave and obedient to their superiors etc. It will be seen that Broulard is just as cowardly and that he probably was infected by this particular soldier or he was reminded of his own cowardly nature as a general. He eventually informs Colonel Dax of his plan to take the Anthill and Colonel Dax is taken aback. The screen writers cleverly reveal the general’s ambitious nature in a clever way when he says, ‘Never got the habit of sitting. Like to be on my feet keep on the move (ambition)…I can’t understand these armchair officers (George), fellows trying to fight from behind a desk, waving papers at the enemy. Worrying about whether a mouse is about to run up their pants leg.’ This  is an ironic statement since Broulard himself does not engage in combat he only makes his routine checks and asks customary questions of the soldiers ‘ready to kill more Germans?’. While he resides comfortably in his chateaux the soldiers live in the mud of the trenches. A truly ironic statement for how does he know that they are worried about a mouse; could it be that he has isolated himself to the point where he engages in such fears? Anyways he and colonel Dax discuss the operation of taking the anthill where the men are to first traverse no mans land amidst heavy artillery fire and then climb the hill and then invade by penetrating barb wire lines and defeat the Germans. Yes it is certainly possible as Broulard says. ‘Naturally men are going to be killed. They’ll absorb bullets, shrapnel; making it possible for others to get through.’ ‘What support will we have?’ asks Dax. ‘I have none to give you.’ (the absurdity is thus percolated through from the top) ‘What sort of casualties do you anticipate sir?’ ‘Say five percent killed by our own barrage. That’s a generous allowance. Ten percent more in getting through no man’s land and 20 percent more getting through the wire. That leaves 65 percent with the worst part of the job over. Let’s say another 25 percent in actually taking the Ant hill. We’re still left with a force more than adequate to hold it.’ ‘General you’re saying that more than half my men will be killed.’ ‘Yes it’s a terrible price to pay, Colonel (for my promotion lol).’ He claims that Dax must take the Anthill tomorrow since all of France is depending on him. Dax is amused and the general wonders why especially as he feels that Dax has compared the flag of France to the red cape used to spur on a bull in the arena. ‘Patriotism may be old fashioned, ‘says the general, ‘show me a patriot and I will show you an honest man.’ ‘Samuel Johnson had something else to say about patriotism.’ The General insists that the Colonel tell him what Johnson said. ‘ He said it (patriotism) was the last refuge of a scoundrel sir. I’m sorry. I meant nothing personal.’ The general is upset and threatens to take Dax’s command from him since he must be tired and will need rest. The General needs someone who is completely subservient to him. Dax submits and says, ‘We’ll take the Ant Hill. If any soldiers in the world can take it we’ll take the Ant Hill.’ This statement does not mean that all patriots are scoundrels; it simply means that when a scoundrel’s back is against the wall he will normally claim that it is for the common good or for the good of the nation when in fact it is for his own personal endorsement. After the reconnaissance mission, which will be discussed in the next section, the next famous unbroken shot through the trench now highlights Colonel Dax as he wades through the ranks and we see the despondent looking soldiers who are about to be lead by him into the hands of death. The colonel urges his men on with his whistle but as he and his soldiers charge foolishly through no man’s land they are torn to pieces and in a third unbroken shot of no man’s land we see the soldiers being mowed down by artillery as the Colonel presses on for the glory of France (and the general). It reaches a point where the other men left in the trenches are terrified of going forward especially as the Major who is to lead them on has been shot dead. The General observing the battle is at a loss as to why the men refuse to charge and attributes the reason to cowardice, Miserable cowards they are not advancing.’ In one of the most absurd moments in movie history he orders the captain, the battery commander,  to fire their own artillery on the men to get them moving out of the trenches for they must move forward since his reputation is on the line and his path to glory is being blockaded. The captain rightfully refuses since he needs a written order before he can proceed. The attack ends in disaster and retreat. The paths to glory have been blocked by death.

The General vs. the Foot Soldier: The Absurdity of the Court Martial

Before I assess the absurdity of the court martial it is necessary to briefly see how the generals view the soldiers in this film. In this film it is clear that the generals and the commanding officers immediately below them view the foot soldiers or, privates in the infantry and the NCO’s (non commissioned officers), as sacrificial lambs sent to the slaughter. The foot soldiers are supposed to be mindless drones incapable of strategizing. If they were capable of strategy there would be no need for the generals and their cronies. If the General falters he will always sacrifice those in the lower ranks who become his scapegoat. This applies not only to the generals but the politicians and anyone responsible for a social group or organization; this scapegoat is necessary since the leaders are in the public eye. The same proves true here and this film correctly characterizes the perception of the foot soldiers held by the generals. When General Broulard and his assistant, Major…, approach Colonel Dax about taking the Anthill they firstly discuss the relief or reserves that were to arrive the night before. Colonel Dax informs them of twenty nine lives lost due to artillery fire. The General casts his judgement, ‘Yes I noticed it on the road in. Utterly inexcusable. Stupid. All swarmed together like flies just waiting for someone to swat them.’ The general here is the fool for in the vastness of no man’s land most men want some form of security and that they wont die alone in the wilderness without anyone to take a message to their family. The foolish, effeminate  Major, who is also an office dweller, contributes to the assessment, ‘Well they never learn it seems. They get into a tight spot under heavy fire, gang up every time; herd instinct I suppose. Kind of a lower animal sort of thing.’ Dax intervenes, ‘Kind of a human thing it seems to me.’ What a fool is the major and it is even more painful since I have witnessed members of the ailing bourgeois class  and their lackeys, the political leaders,  speak in a similar manner about the working classes. This is an element of the evolutionary struggle where the generals assume that the foot soldiers being on the lower scale of humanity are, in their minds, either disposable or a corrupting influence since only the bourgeoisie are aware of the essence of civilization. This is the vulgar element of the evolutionary ideal however the bourgeois class must still find means to generate a working population they can exploit to generate surplus value or glory
.

 Another instance in the film highlights this struggle. Prior to the futile attack on the Ant hill a reconnaissance patrol goes out to survey the territory of the enemy. The patrol consists of three people: Private Le jeune, Corporal Paris and the cowardly Lieutenant Roget, who fortifies himself with liquor. The foray of the patrol begins to tell on the nerves of the Lieutenant because of the desolation of no mans land littered with rotting corpses, trenches and barbed wire. The corpses are highlighted by the flares of the sentries in a magnificent, well timed shot by Kubrick. The Lieutenant who wishes for the patrol to be over and done sends forth Private Lejeune to investigate a mysterious presence in no mans land (Corporal Paris questions his decision to ‘split up a night patrol’ but is not surprisingly ignored. The methods of the Lieutenant in the film only serve to highlight the deficiencies in the chain of command.)After lejeune goes forth the Lieutenant waits pensively and eventually concludes that le jeune must be dead. He hears some gunfire throws his grenade wildly and kills lejeune in the process after it is detonated. The Lieutenant who is supposed to lead his men tucks his tail and runs like a beaten dog. When he is confronted by Corporal Paris, while writing a false report of the actions taken by the patrol, about his actions he falls behind the notion that he is an officer and that he has the right to rule over the inferior ranks. It is his word against that of a mere corporal. Here is what he says, ‘Phillip have you ever tried to bring charges against an officer? It’s my word against yours. Whose word do you think they’re going to believe? Or let me put it another way: Whose word do you think they’re going to accept?' it should be noted that the Lieutenant and the Corporal were on speaking terms as civilians prior to the war.  It is this same principle that leads General Broulard to take Colonel Dax aside and threaten him after Colonel Dax says he will defend the men. Earlier in the film the General says to the major, ‘We must not forget that Colonel Dax was once the foremost lawyer in France.’ Later on he threatens Dax, ‘After this (the trial) I will break you.’(not exact quote) His command must be slipping since a fellow officer is defending the soldiers against him.    This suggests that competition amongst man, even within his own social sphere, leads to various contradictions in man and his concept of civilization. Each man becomes a bloodhound trying to supplant the next man fighting for the spoils of private property within a social space supposedly belonging to the entire social group; hence when the scoundrel’s back is against the wall he says it is for the good of the country that a certain initiative or proposal comes through. We have seen it with the bailout of the banks and insurance companies by the subservient Western governments, whose irresponsibility threw significant numbers of the working population into oblivion (death, madness, resignation). The glory of the banks and insurance companies was spared and in no time they are claiming how important they are to economies since they have a whole store of capital ready for investment (wonder where it comes from. People fail to recognize that in a recession the banks surmount everyone since they have so much capital at their disposal. They only lack the avenues to invest it in new industry. Commercial capital rears its ugly head in times of recession and there is a reversion to the medieval era when usury reigned supreme until it was surmounted by the overwhelming productivity of industrial capital. The world now looks to the banks and so they resist raising the interest rates for they know that if they do the reality of a recession is clear.This would explain why the capitalist mode of economic development is only a transient mode of development. Unless industrial capital can pick up the pace and eventually lower the real interest rate without political interference there will be no global economic recovery. The world needs new industrial capital enterprises and with it new labour from the people who were previously sacrificed for the glory of the banks. They will then generate new relative surplus value, on the back of past economic gains or constant capital that will see an increase in the wealth of the global economy and the glory of the bourgeois class that will steal part of the workers subsistence. The people in power do not realize that a higher standard of education needs to be enforced from the primary and secondary level and not until the students enter the tertiary institutions. The higher level of education at the bottom will see new applications and initiatives of the proletariat and an increase in new money or wealth.). The banks  cannot be blamed since the people themselves acknowledge their superiority and this is the case with the foot soldier and the general; the foot soldier believes that by some divine purpose they are meant to be ruled even if they are to be sacrificed for the common good.  We see this in the final remarks of the matriarch in The Grapes of Wrath (1940) for the irony is even when they lick the working class or proletariat they still need them to exploit. When the working classes get too large and overproduction sets in they are displaced and are sacrificed for the common good of the capitalist/bourgeois class however when it becomes necessary for more profits to be generated they reel in a new generation of workers for exploitation. The proletariat is opposed to the bourgeois capitalist class and both are united against each other. The bourgeois class and their unproductive lackeys must live off the profit generated by the surplus labour of the proletariat sector who live off starvation wages. The bourgeois class is shocked when the proletariat rise up but they are not surprised since the proletariat must be animals. In the eyes of the bourgeois civilization occurs only in his world whereas the members of the proletariat are viewed as animals herded in a pen being fattened (with the illusion of high wages) for the slaughter. This evolutionary struggle stems from the belief that those with higher brain functions are the ones destined to survive and this is, supposedly, normally found in the bourgeois class and their lackeys however those who do not utilize their brains will perish or be sacrificed since they relied primarily for their survival on their manual power. So far it seems that since the proletariat allow themselves to be exploited the bourgeois class will still remain in power. ‘The Paths of glory lead but to the grave’ and we know whose grave that is.

This is particularly evident with the court martial which is to determine if the soldiers displayed cowardice by refusing to attack. General Broulard at first proposed that at least ten men from each regiment be put on trial under penalty of death for cowardice since they have ‘skim milk in their veins instead of blood.’ (what about those generals fearful of a small mouse running up their pants?) The number is eventually rounded down to three. Two of the soldiers were not picked at random: Private Ferol and Corporal Paris. Private Ferol is chosen because he is a ‘social undesirable’. He does sound slow mentally and we assume that the perception of the major who chose him was that he could be sacrificed for the good of the regiment and the people of France. Corporal Paris is chosen by the leader of his regiment, Lieutenant Roget, who killed private Lejeune. He chooses the corporal to sit before the court martial since the corporal alone is aware of his folly. The third soldier chosen to sit before the court martial is the philosophic Private Arnaud with the moniker ‘the professor’ and he is chosen at random. Prior to the trial he has a brief discussion with another soldier earlier on in the film about the difference between dying and getting killed. The night before the disastrous anthill campaign he says ‘I’m not afraid of dying tomorrow, only of getting killed.’ The other soldier involved in the discussion says he would rather be killed by a machine gun than a bayonet. The professor responds, ‘They’re both pieces of steel ripping into your guts only the machine gun is quicker, cleaner and less painful isn’t it? That proves that most of us are afraid of getting hurt than getting killed.’ He says he would not be caught without his tin hat since a wound to the head, which is all bone, will hurt more than a wound to the tail, which is just meat. This conversation of his is full of portent since he will be wounded severely to the head prior to his execution.

The court martial is set up and the absurdity continues since there is to be no reading of the indictment,  no stenographers to record the proceedings and the Colonel will not be able call any witnesses to attest to the bravery of these soldiers in previous battles. The effeminate, simpering dog that is the major who accompanied the General on the tour of the trench is also the prosecutor. It is almost certain that these men will be condemned. This only goes to show that the glory of these soldiers have faded since they were in the spotlight before however the here and now says that they are removed from the spotlight since the generals know only of their current situation and in their eyes these soldiers, representative of the regiments, displayed cowardice. The President himself remarks that their past achievements are irrelevant for they are being tried for their present actions.  They care nothing for past deeds since the act of cowardice removed the foot soldiers from the spotlight and placed them in the shadow of ignominy.   When Private Ferol is questioned by the Major it is clear that he advanced in the first wave on the attack to the ant hill however, finding himself alone with private Meyer, he retreated and so displayed cowardice according to the Major. Dax rises and attempts to expose the absurdity of the prosecutors questioning.  He asks Ferol, ‘Why didn’t you attack the ant hill single handed?’ ‘ Just me and Meyer? you’re kidding sir.’ ‘Yes, I’m kidding, private Ferol.’ The Colonel therefore exposes the absurdity of the charge and the prosecutors questioning since the generals must have expected the private to storm the anthill alone. The fools in power. Private Arnaud claims he advanced as far as his captain allowed and returned as ordered. He is blameless here since he was following the orders of his direct superior. Here is what the pathetic Major asks Arnaud, ‘Before you were ordered back did you urge your fellow soldiers forward?’ ‘Most of them were dead or wounded before they got three steps beyond the trenches.’  What a stupid question by the Major. It is the officer’s job to urge on the soldiers since it is a leadership position. Should he have defied his superiors? Corporal Paris never made it out of the trenches since his Major was shot dead and his body fell on top of him thereby knocking him unconscious. As a result of this he is tried for cowardice. The fools in power. After the questioning Colonel Dax tries in vain to rebuke the nature of the trial and to call for the basic sympathy which is supposed to be the tenet of a superior civilization. The aspiration for a higher civilization still eludes us as long as war and the struggle of competition are present.

The soldiers are condemned and the sentimental pleas of Dax fall on deaf ears even though he exposes General Broulard for his absurd attempt to fire on his own troops. The military leaders send roast duck to the condemned soldiers for their final night and this is especially significant for it is sent without cutlery. The reason given for this is that cutlery might provide them with a means for escape (picking locks) however it is clear that it is in keeping with the perception that these foot soldiers are animals or a lower herd and should be treated as beasts while the pathetic, simpering and wretched leaders reside luxuriously in their chateaus. The prisoners are treated to the preaching of a priest, another lackey of the bourgeois class, to give them false hopes of redemption in the netherworld. He is rightfully assaulted by Private Arnaud and should have been evicted for his naïve musings about God’s love for man. I will forever support Marx’s claim that religion is the opiate of the people and this film makes it as clear as day. Arnaud is unfortunately knocked unconscious with a grave head injury as the priest is defended by Corporal Paris.   The absurdity in this is that the generals  ordered that despite being unconscious his eyes must be opened before he is to be shot by the volley. Even though his head wound is fatal he must be kept alive to be aware that he is being shot. Corporal Paris is memorable in this scene since he continuously bemoans the fact that he will never see his wife again. he even looks to the cockroach who will be closer to his wife than he is. Ferol puts an end to this by killing the roach. 

The Down Fall of General Broulard and the political meddling of George 

he machinations of general George is significant point of view since he is the one who orchestrated the downfall of General Broulard. Colonel Dax presents to George the damning evidence against General Broulard who ordered the captain to fire on his own men during the failed foray on the Ant hill. Colonel Dax is trying to blackmail the generals so as to gain a late reprieve for his men who will be shot like dogs the following morning. He does not prevent it for George has his own plans. When George, Colonel dax and general Broulard are discussing the failed attack on the anthill it is clear that George sees in day a worthy ally and successor to Broulard. He claims rather jokingly, but with deathly seriousness beneath, that Broulard was hiding the Colonel all along and keeping him for himself. George sees Dax as a worthy ally especially as he witnesses how he comes to blow with Broulard. He does not prevent the execution because had he presented the evidence he would not have allowed a silent succession of power from Broulard to Dax. Dax would become his right hand man. If he presented the evidence before the execution he would lost momentum on Broulard for the sacrifice of the soldiers would have been seen as a means to further trounce his adversary. It would be evident from the execution that Broulard was trying to cover up his actions by blaming it on the soldiers. George also seems to believe in the virtue of decimation.   He also would like someone as smart as Dax working beneath him since if he secured a promotion for Dax he would always be in George’s debt. After the execution the Colonel is invited to dine with George and Broulard. After a couple snide remarks by Broulard directed at the Colonel (‘Your men died very well colonel’) George says ,’Paul it has been brought to my attention that you ordered your artillery to fire on your own men during the attack on the Ant hill.’ Broulard is stunned that Colonel Dax was the one to expose him, ‘ I always knew you were a disloyal officer but I never knew you would stoop as low as this.’ Broulard thinks the accusations are infamous and George says then there must be no truth to the charge, ‘I’m sure you’ll come through it alright.’ ‘Come through what? ‘‘There’ll have to be an inquiry.’ ‘ An inquiry?’ (The fool easily trapped) ‘Those things the public easily forgets.’ ‘Public?’(Fool) ‘You’ve got to clear your name. You cannot allow these vile insinuations against your character to go undenied.’ ‘So that’s it. You’re making me the goat. The only completely innocent man in this whole affair. (lol) I have only one last thing to say to you George. The man you stabbed in the back is a soldier.’ After all of that the fool is still a soldier sacrificed for the glory of those higher up. George says ironically that it had to be done for ‘France cannot afford to have fools guiding her military destiny.’ He immediately offers Dax General Mireau’s  (Broulard) job since he must have been after it all along especially after he tried to blackmail the generals. Dax informs him that he is not his boy.  Dax reveals his true feelings when he calls George, ‘ a degenerate sadistic olf man.’ He tells George to shove his promotion and seems almost on the brink of tears. This disappoints George, ‘You’ve spoiled the keenness of your mind by wallowing in sentimentality. You really did want to save those men and you were not angling for Mireau’s command. You’re an idealist and I pity you as I would the village idiot. We’re fighting a war Dax. A war we’ve got to win. Those men didn’t fight so they were shot. You bring charges against General Mireau, so I insist he answer them. Wherein have I done wrong?’ ‘Because you don’t know the answer to that question I pity you?’ It seems George does not understand that it is a series of reactions along the chain of command. Broulard sacrificed the soldiers and George sacrifices Broulard all in the name of Glory for the nation of France.

Literary Influences  and the final Masterful Scene

I already mentioned the passage from the poem which influenced the title of the film in the introduction however there are other important stanzas which are pertinent.  Here is one prior to the stanza featured above,

'Let not Ambition mock their useful toil.

Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;

Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile

The short and simple annals of the poor.'

In this film the ambition of the generals mocks the toil of the foot soldiers who normally come from humble backgrounds.

In the final scene a German girl (the German girl later became Kubrick’s wife, Christiane Kubrick. He must have been moved by her performance) is brought on a haphazard stage to sing for the soldiers. She is welcomed by the jeers of the French soldiers who tease her for being a German resident. In war nationalism is at its height but as Samuel Johnson said, this nationalism or patriotism can be the last refuge of a scoundrel. When she starts singing the song ‘The Faithful Hussar’ the men are moved since it infuses them with a sense of melancholy for the lives they have left behind. The song is about a German soldier who once loved a girl for a year but went away to a foreign land, presumably to war or to work. While he is away she dies pining for him and he returns, too late, to sorrow and grief. He must now bear the guilt of her passing. This war was fought because some politicians had a bad hair day and so they threw men forward to die to ensure glory for man and nation. The fact that the French know of this German song shows you how foolish war is when waged along these patriotic lines. Competition is the drive that has always spurred man on to glory. When will it end. Only in the grave it seems.

This film is a masterpiece apart from the American bias in the presentation of some of the leads particularly Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas). He seems more American than French.