@@11B30Inf I don't know if he does or not... but The Great War was a meat grinder for the soldiers ... on all sides. It's a fictional movie, but pretty close to it as well.
"My division was cut to pieces. They are in condition to take the Anthill." "It would mean another star" "The life of just one of those men means more to me than all the honors and decorations in France". "So you think an attack would be beyond your ability at this time" "OK, we can do it"
I have always appreciated how this scene fakes the audience out by initially painting Mireau as the officer who is a “father to his men” until his possible promotion is brought up. I feel like this really makes him much easier to dislike as the story unfolds.
And I love Macready's cold, aristocratic portrayal. And one of the best voices in film. You'd never believe he was American and a graduate of Brown University, Providence R.I. And Menjou plays him like a fish, teasing with the "promotion" bait, hooks him, then reels M. in, who is oblivious to how he was entrapped by his own ego and ambition.
Adolphe Menjou wasn't just an actor playing an army officer in a WW1 movie. He was an army officer in that war in real life. He served as an American Army Captain of the Ambulance Corps at the front lines in France.
PATHS OF GLORY is a brilliant movie. This scene is very illuminating for exposing the French Military Command during the First World War. The year is 1916, when the horrific bloodbath battles of Verdun and the Somme were fought. The following year several French divisions actually mutinied and went on strike after the disastrous Aisne offensive resulting in enormous French casualties. The opening scene has General Broula, played by Adolphe Menjou, visiting General Mireau, played by George McCready, and inquiring if Mireau’s under strength division, reduced by heavy casualties, could attack the impregnable German position known as the Ant Hill in the next 36-48 hours. He “sweetens” the proposition hinting at a promotion for General Mireau. When asked about artillery support and replacements for the assault, Broula could only reply “well, we’ll see.” As if those weren’t vital, necessary preparations for undertaking such an attack. They don’t have an answer for those considerations but are set to attack “no later than the day after tomorrow.” Small wonder the French military and government wouldn’t permit Stanley Kubrick to shoot his movie in France.
Don't know about any other viewer, but I've always felt that the actors' physical movements around the room closely mirrored General Mireau's ethical/moral dance with General Brulard, his superior. Hard to say if that was deliberate choice by Kubrik and his actors but I strongly suspect it was. General Brulard wants General Mireau to agree to ordering an attack on a seemingly impregnable German strongpoint. General Mireau knows such an attack cannot succeed and will only result in needless loss of lives. In fact, he starts off the "dance" by openly stating so. The various physical movements are like a ballroom dance around the room that mirrors the mental dance that General Mireau undertakes as he (1) rejects the idea of the attack as impossible, (2) then is tempted with a promise of promotion accompanied by the unstated threat that if he refuses to support the attack the offered promotion will be taken from him, (3) begins to convince himself that he can pull off the attack successfully even as he knows deep in his mind that it's an impossible task, (4) makes a feeble effort to secure some additional resources to soothe his conscience as he realizes that he will agree to support the attack that will likely fail and cost thousands of his men their lives to no good purpose, and (5) surrenders to Brulard's blandishments and agrees to the order the attack despite his justifiable misgivings. I would add that he expends a lot of emotional and mental energy trying to keep up pretenses of his motives not for the benefit of General Brulard but for himself. He knows what he is doing is wrong but he's willing to do it anyway and needs a fig leaf to justify his decision. Just my two cents.
Wayne Parker I noticed that too. In fact, Mireau actually GRABS Broulard’s arm and pulls him closer to himself after giving an obligatory pretense of moral objection to such an attack. The body language in this scene is unmistakable.
Lawrence Bittke That was in fact the action that made me connect the actors’ physical movements around the room and the course of Mireau’s mental dance. Very smart way to engage the viewer on different levels and communicate what is going on here.
Kubrick was a great director. I am sure he paid deep attention to the story and used scores of very subtle gestures in a given scene (perfect example is this scene in question) to convey what he wanted to convey. It is fun as well as a great learning experience to watch the movies he directed. True master of his craft.
The older I get, the more I question conventional warfare. Military people aren’t paid to think outside the box. ‘How many lives can you spare?’ … seems like the deepest question that they ask.
I'd heard how great this film was, pooh-poohed it, finally saw it, and I'm now convinced. An all-time great. This scene... so delicately written and perfectly acted.
@@propriusly I take it that you never fought in a war. I served in Vietnam for 2½ years and was wounded twice. Young men were cannon fodder while senior officers remained safe in their bunker headquarters.
@@Gwaithmir Gulf War my friend. Young officers are up front, generals ae directing, integrating, adjusting the fight. As you recall, it is a team fight. Everyone has their role to fill.
I wouldn't blame the generals for doing their job. I would blame the politicians and industrialists who started those senseless wars in the first place.
This movie is often billed as an "anti-war" film but I think it is much more an anti-political corruption film. Everyone involved knows that the objective, the German held "ant hill" position is absurdly beyond the power of the forces tasked with taking it and that the attack is an absolute suicide mission. Of course the real purpose of the attack is not to take the "ant hill" but to shift blame for the disastrous course of World War I for France from a monumentally corrupt French General Staff to the men who will soon be tried under penalty of death for cowardice. This is really a movie about the mentality of ambitious evil, evil people like the two fictitious Generals depicted here who are willing to ruthlessly pursue personal ambition at any cost in lives and misery. These Generals beneath a thin veneer of culture and intelligence are monsters pure and simple. To avoid directly attacking any contemporary monsters the film is set during World War I in 1916 but monsters such as these are found everywhere in politics worldwide.
Of course, in real life, the affair on which the film is based, was much more nuanced, although still an injustice, it wasn't as cut and dry and all the men who ended up executed were Corporals, i.e. the lowest Non-Commissioned Officer, so it was as much a warning to the NCO's to get their men in line as it was a warning to the men itself. Another sad part was that they were in the process of having their sentences commuted.
Its a long take, the kind of long take many directors don't have the stomach for. Another director would cut it up with 50/50 shots and an extreme close ups. Kubrick forces his actors to do the whole scene in one shot. The work is far more organic, and NOT staged. Note the courage to show the ceiling and the floor in the same shot.
I noticed Mireau's cognac bottle is empty-yet he still offers Brulard some that refuses anyway. Knowing this is Kubrick-I'm sure there's some type of meaning to it. Perhaps Mireau does have some conscience about the losses his division has taken and he's trying to smooth over his feeling of loss. Brulard on the other hand casually states he doesn't drink before dinner-he has no care whatever about the men about to get needlessly slaughtered. The 'anthill' reflects the German doctrine of allowing subordinate officers some degree of autonomy-they were allowed to make tactical withdrawals in order to gain more favorable ground-high ground or natural cover if they saw fit without any approval needed from the high command. France's soldiers came very close to mutiny and collapse by 1917-the act of America entering (with really nothing to be gained from it) gave them renewed hope.
@@bobbylee2853 No, he poured from the transparent bottle with the shape of a conifer cone, and you can CLEARLY see it has liquid inside, and you can see it is pouring in his glass, and you see there is stuff in his glass.......we only don't see him drinking it, while he is holding it near his chest, still it has the drink, but after the cut when Goerge sits down, you can see the glass is empty (still, 4 seconds passed between shots and he could have drank it off camera)
I can talk about myself. I have watched this movie many times lately and I deeply appreciate it. Great storyline, perfect screenplay, immaculate direction, professional acting, excellent camera work. This movie is one of my top favorites. Totally deserves it.
Mireau: "The life of one of those soldiers means more to me than all the stars and decorations and honours in France." Also Mireau: Demands that three of them are shot.
The senior general hands his hat to the aide without looking at him or thanking him. This is a man who used to having people serve and obey him. It's a taste of what's to come between the two generals.
What is going on with the movement in this scene? It's almost like a dance. It's almost like they're waltzing each other around this room. Is it some sort of subtext? Is it symbolic, do you think?
This is a fantastic anti war movie....one of the best.....Macready is brilliant in this role as the sadistic and ambitious French Officer. The sad thing is, until the French Army mutinies during WWI, some generals in the French Army I believe were very much like that portrayed in this movie...ambitious, incompetent and willing to sacrifice thousands of men lives for reputation. There were a lot of good ones too......
An Epic masterpiece wich Shows the corruption and the greed of people's which are after medals promotions ect This hypocrite first we can not do it but lured with the next star suddenly WE CAN DO IT And then the inevitable end and the sadistic old blighter to such Dax then makes his point clear
The interiors of this room remind me of that room in the last chapter of "2001". It's culturally sophisticated and refers to the age of enlightenment, but there's something deeply wrong, it's superficial, hollow, corrupted. The limitations of the human mind that have to be overcome.
Some further fun facts about this movie: Kirk Douglas played not only the lead role, but served also as producer of the movie thru his own production company, Bryna-Productions. The movie was completely shot on a pretty tight budget at the Bavaria Studios, Munich-Geiselgasteig and some nearby surroundings in Germany. The trenches were built and the battle scenes filmed on a field near Munich-Pullach. The "New Castle Schleißheim" in Oberschleißheim is the location, where the execution scene was filmed in front of, and also the trial scenes were filmed inside that same castle. The specialist providing the (then still solely ) practical pyrotech effects was the famed German FX-man, Karl "Charlie Boom Boom" Baumgartner, who'd provide the pyrotech effects for some thirty years for many international movies, among them "The Longest Day" (USA 1962), "Dunkirk 1940" ( France 1964), "The Bridge at Remagen" (USA 1968), "Waterloo" ( Italy/USSR 1970), "A Bridge too Far" (GB 1977), "Steiner - The Iron Cross" ( Germany 1977) and "Das Boot" (Germany 1979/80/81) The accomplished director of photography of the movie, Georg Krause, was from Germany too. Shortly before this movie he had also photographed two parts of the classic trilogy of the "o8 / 15" - movies, which were among the first movies made in Germany about WW2 in 1954/55. To save the production same money ironically all the ( non-speaking ! ) extras playing French soldiers were actually German policemen recruited from the state police of Bavaria, because they got payed by the Bavarian federal state and were by law not allowed to earn some extra money, because, as said, they were state officials. There really lies some irony in the fact, that all the extras playing French soldiers were actually Germans, doesn't it !? ;) This was a rather cheap method for the Bavarian goverment to promote the movie production facilities in Munich to foreign producers and attract them to produce their movies there. The policemen would be sent to the movie set during their official work hours and got paid by the state. Another advantage of hiring policemen as extras was, that they were naturally used to handle arms, so the production had not to spend considerable time in give unexperienced extras some training lessons in it. ( Five years later another classic American war movie would be produced here as well : "The Great Escape" with an all star cast. And in 1979/80 another classic, "Das Boot", this time as a complete German production.) But it is pretty likely, that most of these men had also actually fought as soldiers, the older ones in WW1 ( and maybe they were even forced to fight again in the "Volksturm" during the last months of WW2 ) and the younger men probably in WW2. So most of the non-speaking extras certainly knew the song and could fully understand the lyrics. So it was probably no big acting deal for them to tear up, when Christiane Kubrick had sung it in front of them so movingly and in such plain fashion like a German mother from a hundred years ago would have sung it to her little child. There lies so much "innocence" in the unpretentious way she sings this simple tune, that you can't help but being deeply touched by it. Kind regards from a classic movie buff from Germany !
Great mix of psychology at work and two men lying their heads of to each other but not calling each other on it. Two other scenes this scene reminds me of - Yes Minister when the BBC man, having just bowed to governemtn pressure states, "The BBC can never bow to government presseure" and Sir Humphrey, who has been the one applying the pressure, responds smiling , "Of course not", Also the scene where Tony Soprano tells Ralph Cifaretto that whatever decision Ralph makes about Jackie Junior will be OK with him no matter what anyone else says.
I never figured out General Broulard's motivation here. Presumably he wants glory and promotion, but he only gets it if the attack succeeds. General Mireau's candid assessment is that an attack by his worn-out division will fail. Instead of accepting the judgment of the man on the spot and choosing another division, Broulard works against his own self interest by coaxing Mireau into a doomed attack. I can only guess that Broulard needed a convincing diversion for a more important operation, but I saw no evidence of that in the film. Color me puzzled.
It's the military. In the same way General Mireau has to convince Dax to take the Ant Hill even though he knows it will fail, General Broulard does the same. I think the point is to show that this is a relatively small scale incident in the scheme of the war, and these top down commands go all the way to the top with each senior officer incapable of refusing the assault.
His voice is terrific. He is in the same league with Herbert Marshall, Cedric Hardwick, and Roald Coleman, and Walter Pigeon, George Sanders, and Donald Crisp. A very select group.
"No way in hell ! I'll not throw my men to certain death !" "Well.. Anyway they couldn't have done it.." "Oh yeah ?! I'll show you if they can't do it !"
Many generals occassionally lived in splendor behind the lines but many generals also died at the front under fire with their units. Many generals lived in stables or old cottages right out of artillery range but near their men. These men worked long, hard, difficult hours trying to solve military problems for which no answers existed.
I see this same type of bullshit in business every day. Unreal expectations, irrational deadlines, politics. Certainly it doesn't carry the gravity of peoples lives in the balance, but when a project fails everyone runs for cover.
In France, Brigadier and Brigadier General are two different things, a Brigadier is a corporal of cavalry or gendarmerie (military police), and also, Mireau, is already a General of Brigade (Brigadier General), but he holds a divisional command, and at the end of the film, Dax is offered a promotion to Brigadier General, along with a divisional command, but he refuses.
I used to drink cognac 🥃 ...every once in awhile ... my favorite alcohol beverage, way back in the past ...don't drink cheap cognac ...expensive, is worth the extra expense 💰 😉
This is the most chilling scene in the entire movie. Mireau get into a rousing speach about how his soldier mean more to him than any decoration and promotion... but since the moment Boulard mentionned Mireau's promotion to général de division, you know Mireau is full of shit. He's all about portraying and believing himself as this noble general, who get in the trench with his men and will be there for them. But deep down, that's not who he is. He's exactly the kind of man whom will drop his men when shit hit the fan. He will be the first to stab them in the back, putting all the blame of failure on them and never adressing the real problem. And that's exactly what he did in the movie. And you know what is the most frightening part of this scene? People like that are everywhere, even still today, in the military. Self serving officer, trying to rise their men moral with empty speech about esprit de corps and the "we're all in this together". They don't offer any solution and basically leaving the NCO dealing with more thing to do with far less. Three days later, while the men are deep in the mud of the trench, you'll find theses officers in their pristine HQ, complaining about everything and preparing punishement, making sure all the blame fall unto the lower ranks.
Anyone else find the movement in this scene distracting? Lots of strange pacing and walking around. The dialogue is captivating but the choreography detracts from it.
Well it's cruel...if really we take a good look at it both men need the attack but each one for his own personal reasons no really deep consideration or extra worry about the men here at the end as we see the extra count of promotion beats everything .
Patton was an example of this type of attitude. He was a privileged coward who scored low on academic subjects at West Point. His redeeming qualities according to his superiors were that he was neat as a pin and always looked good in uniform. But he was a dumbbell otherwise. During WW2 he slapped wounded soldiers across the face. At one military field hospital, sources say he scrolled a log book of wounded soldiers with his finger and came to a name which he studied momentarily with his index finger on it. Turns out, the name was a Jewish one. He found the soldiers bed and slapped him across face. It is rumored that this type of behavior is what got him fired by Truman. Patton himself was NEVER in a dangerous situation despite having served in multiple wars.
That punch to his own left hand at the end is just so overly dramatic and would be so typical of this kind of idiot general who is so enamores with appearance.
As good as the movie is, I have 2 critizisms: 1. At the beginning it looks a bit overdone if a Brigadier-General is welcoming his superior in such a big emperrorlike palace. A propriate context would had been a manour house for instance. 2. The crying when the convicted is led to execution. I think in such situations utmost of the convicted remained silent just to beware their last rest of pride and dignity.
Well, Mireau is a fighting general and there are occasions when employees on tough duty are given extra facilities just to keep the motivation up. Please also notice that Broulard also mentions the palatial office and says he wish he had Mireau's taste in carpets. These points indicate that it was an exception that a junior general's office is too decorated (I can assume that it is better than the office Broulard has). Then, one of the three prisoners was the way you said the crying one should have been (Corporal Paris who is reminded by his superior to act like a brave man so that he is remembered like that). So, the storyteller chose to make all three prisoners behave different from one another. I think it is fair. (I respect your criticism and your opinions. I just presented a different view. Personally, I would go with what the novel shows about Dax being just a comparatively positive soldier. I am not very comfortable with the hero Dax is depicted in the movie. But then moviegoers like to see heroes in the lead role. Just my opinion).
