Jeannot
Joined Mar 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see ratings breakdowns and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews31
Jeannot's rating
An E for effort. An over-the-top melodrama that was fun if you aren't in too critical a mood.
I agree pretty much with NonSequitur's more detailed comment. The problem I found was too much corny Hollywood stuff--and this is an Australian film. There were hair-raising rescues, escapes, and all manner of derring-do. Good guys vs the bad guy is the old melodramatic tradition.
But if you want something to pass the time in an acceptable fashion, this is the movie for you. A lot of effort went into it. This is an epic that goes back to the old days of the classic Hollywood Western.
I agree pretty much with NonSequitur's more detailed comment. The problem I found was too much corny Hollywood stuff--and this is an Australian film. There were hair-raising rescues, escapes, and all manner of derring-do. Good guys vs the bad guy is the old melodramatic tradition.
But if you want something to pass the time in an acceptable fashion, this is the movie for you. A lot of effort went into it. This is an epic that goes back to the old days of the classic Hollywood Western.
A run-of-the-mill melodrama, redeemed by Bette Davis' stunning five-minute "bedroom" scene. Her accident, plus Keenan Wynn's love, makes her a very wise woman. Her disquisition on lovefor Gary Merrill's benefitis worth the price of admission, and then some. Her characteristic forcefully enunciated speech pattern has never been put to better use.
Her situation is somewhat parallel to that of Merrill's wife, and her statement on what true love is, is the catalyst that prods Merrill to call his wife and tell her he's coming home. And maybe her statement that only a few very strong men could do what Wynn had done for her.
Her situation is somewhat parallel to that of Merrill's wife, and her statement on what true love is, is the catalyst that prods Merrill to call his wife and tell her he's coming home. And maybe her statement that only a few very strong men could do what Wynn had done for her.
The film effectively depicts, in miniature, a historical realityGeneral Nivelle's spring offensive to regain the Chemin des Dames position in April, 1917. The real offensive involved 19 divisions, and not just one regiment, as in the movie. Forty thousand men were lost on the first day, with almost nothing to show for it.
Such a vast undertaking can be dealt with only in non-fiction works such as Barbara Tuchman's GUNS OF AUGUST, which marvelously depicts on a vast canvas, involving the movements of whole armies, the opening of the war in 1914, the events which led up to "the Miracle of the Marne." The irony here is that by stopping the Germans at the Marne, the French doomed themselves to four years of slaughter, eventually losing 1,400,000 young men killed.
Art cannot deal with such scope, but must miniaturize; thus the offensive in PATHS OF GLORY is confined to one regiment, and then focuses on just five men in that regimentits colonel (Douglas), a cowardly company commander (Wayne Morse), and three privates who are randomly selected as scapegoats. Of course, the selection is not really random; the Ralph Meeker character, for example, is selected by Morse because he had witnessed the latter's cowardice, which cost the life of one of his men on a scouting expedition.
In addition, two generalsperfectly played by a self-righteous George Macready ("If those sweethearts won't face German bullets, they'll face French ones") and a cynical Adolphe Menjou (who is surprised to learn that Dax is an idealist)are also individualized as the "bad guys." The point is often made that the bad guys are too bad. Of course they are. In a movie, more so than in a novel, you have to paint in broad strokes. The essence of film is melodrama.
The Macready character is loosely based on the real Nivelle, who was appointed commander-in-chief after the ten-month-long battle of Verdun, in which the French lost half a million men. Nivelle, more mistaken than evil, felt that what was needed was a major gung-ho offensive by artillery and infantry. But the Germans, forewarned, had taken the high ground (called the "Ant Hill" in the movie), along the Chemin des Dames, and had prepared impregnable positions. In WWI, unlike WWII, the defense almost always won.
The movie, based on Humphrey Cobb's novel, perfectly illustrates art's practice of miniaturization, individuation, and humanization of large historical events. As viewers, we need to see specific persons we can relate to. The Vietnam movie PLATOON, carries this idea still further, in that a platoon is only part of a company, which is part of a regiment. A WWII movie which does the same thing is A WALK IN THE SUN.
For me, PATHS OF GLORY remains a classic, and is not just an antiwar filmthough it is that too.
Such a vast undertaking can be dealt with only in non-fiction works such as Barbara Tuchman's GUNS OF AUGUST, which marvelously depicts on a vast canvas, involving the movements of whole armies, the opening of the war in 1914, the events which led up to "the Miracle of the Marne." The irony here is that by stopping the Germans at the Marne, the French doomed themselves to four years of slaughter, eventually losing 1,400,000 young men killed.
Art cannot deal with such scope, but must miniaturize; thus the offensive in PATHS OF GLORY is confined to one regiment, and then focuses on just five men in that regimentits colonel (Douglas), a cowardly company commander (Wayne Morse), and three privates who are randomly selected as scapegoats. Of course, the selection is not really random; the Ralph Meeker character, for example, is selected by Morse because he had witnessed the latter's cowardice, which cost the life of one of his men on a scouting expedition.
In addition, two generalsperfectly played by a self-righteous George Macready ("If those sweethearts won't face German bullets, they'll face French ones") and a cynical Adolphe Menjou (who is surprised to learn that Dax is an idealist)are also individualized as the "bad guys." The point is often made that the bad guys are too bad. Of course they are. In a movie, more so than in a novel, you have to paint in broad strokes. The essence of film is melodrama.
The Macready character is loosely based on the real Nivelle, who was appointed commander-in-chief after the ten-month-long battle of Verdun, in which the French lost half a million men. Nivelle, more mistaken than evil, felt that what was needed was a major gung-ho offensive by artillery and infantry. But the Germans, forewarned, had taken the high ground (called the "Ant Hill" in the movie), along the Chemin des Dames, and had prepared impregnable positions. In WWI, unlike WWII, the defense almost always won.
The movie, based on Humphrey Cobb's novel, perfectly illustrates art's practice of miniaturization, individuation, and humanization of large historical events. As viewers, we need to see specific persons we can relate to. The Vietnam movie PLATOON, carries this idea still further, in that a platoon is only part of a company, which is part of a regiment. A WWII movie which does the same thing is A WALK IN THE SUN.
For me, PATHS OF GLORY remains a classic, and is not just an antiwar filmthough it is that too.