I've been thinking quite a lot about the claim I made in an earlier post that world war one is 'overshadowed' by world war two. Since writing that post, I've watched two films which I think illustrate that claim in an interesting way: The Bridge on the River Kwai, David Lean's famous movie about WW2 prisoners forced to build a bridge for the Japanese, and Paths of Glory, Stanley Kubrick's not so famous movie about French soldiers in WW1.
Both are war movies made in the year
1957, yet the differences are far more outstanding than the
similarities: The Bridge on the River Kwai is a lavish multi
million dollar technicolour production which goes on to win numerous
academy awards. Paths of Glory is a low budget black and white
affair which won critical acclaim, but made a relatively modest
impact at the box office. The Bridge on the River Kwai was
directed by 49 year old David Lean, an established director with a
string of big movies behind him. Paths of Glory was directed
by 29 year old Stanley Kubrick – no doubt a very talented young
man, but still yet to establish himself as a top director. Although
both movies are often described as “anti war” movies, Paths of
Glory is a much more gritty, hard hitting and realistic depiction
of modern war.
The depiction of class structure, and
the relationships between generals, officers and ordinary soldiers is
remarkably different in these two movies. Bridge on the River Kwai
presents a basically harmonious image: the brave and intelligent
leader Colonel Nicholson (played by Alec Guiness) is admired and
respected by the ordinary soldiers. The tune of “Colonel Bogey”,
better known as the song “Hitler has only got one ball”, is
whistled by the men throughout the movie, and serves as a kind of
symbol of the common values shared by the officers and the ordinary
soldiers: honour, duty, steadfastness, courage, integrity. Having
said that, it is interesting to note that the decision to have the
tune whistled rather than sung was a conscious move: the lyrics were
deemed to be too rude for a mainstream popular movie. Middle class
politeness trumps working class humour in 1957.
At the beginning of the movie Colonel
Nicholson and the other officers are locked up in oven-like cages by
the spiteful Japanese Colonel Saito, who is in charge of the prison
camp and the construction of the yet to built bridge over the river
Kwai. They refuse to perform manual labour, and quote a provision in
the Geneva Convention which specifically states that POW officers
should not be required to perform manual labour. Later in the movie,
Saito will regret his decision. His inadequate Japanese brain, mired
in its old fashioned and irrational Orientalism, just isn't up to the
sophisticated engineering feat required to build the bridge. His
engineers are similarly afflicted: they put the main supports in
sandy soil, which are easily swept away by the water. Luckily for
them, they have some British technological experts perfectly suited
for the job. Released from their confinement, Nicholson and the
officers do what they do best: intellectual labour. They draw up
plans, relocate the bridge, and build it with Proper British
Expertise. Even though this is a form of collaboration with the
enemy, they get to display a set of values which seem to be almost
bursting out of the celluloid: diligence, duty, honour, integrity.
Left on their own without the officers, the ordinary soldiers are
undertaking petty acts of sabotage and vandalism. The slackness and
purposelessness of this situation is revolting to Nicholson, who
takes charge of the enterprise and eventually succeeds in building
the bridge.
Meanwhile, the daredevil American hero
of the movie Commander Shears (William Holden) has successfully
escaped from the prison camp makes it out safely to British
territory. His beachside flirtations are rudely interrupted by the
British Major Warden, who wants him to join a commando unit to go
back and blow up the bridge. Shears pleads to be excused, and
confesses to the Major that he is not a real officer at all: he
simply stole another man's uniform, and found it useful to continue
the charade. He is just an ordinary soldier, surely they need a
proper officer to do such a dangerous and demanding task? Major
Warden tells him that they already knew his secret, but that they
still want him for the job: the fact that he survived the escape and
the perilous journey through the jungle to safety proves his
worthiness. Social rank is not that important: it is his courage,
skill and knowledge of the terrain which are the important
considerations.
These episodes both indicate a sort of
meritocratic conception of class. Social status reflects ability and
virtue. Intellectual abilities, particularly technical – scientific
skills like those required to build bridges, are the natural
possession of the officers. Virtues such as courage, which allow
Shears to escape and survive, are also significant. Displaying these
successfully is enough for the walls of social status to fall away as
easily as the badly constructed Japanese version of the bridge. If
you can prove yourself through manly or intellectual feats, the gates
of status will open up for you. Inherited status, aristocratic
notions of rank and traditional cultures (such as the backward
Japanese) are all a part of the world of the past.
There is a famous scene at the end of
the movie, where Colonel Nicholson attempts to defend his bridge
against the commando unit of Shears, and ends up realising the error
of his decision to aid the Japanese (“What have I done!”). He
looks at the dying figure of Shears in the water and gasps out “You!
It was you!”, and then faints, falling on the trigger of the
explosives which then blow up the bridge. Although this is can be
read as a (clumsy and somewhat cheesy) symbol of the tragic futility
of war, it can also be read as code for American triumph. The year
1957 is also the year just after Eisenhower has been re elected for a
second term as president. The cold war is in full force, and America
(rather than England or Europe) is the big superpower. Shears is the
brash, reckless and hedonistic face of a new system of power.
Nicholson has the intelligence and ability, but not the cutting edge
attitude and cultural demeanour of the American hero.
Paths of Glory
focuses on the manipulative nature of the power relations in the
chain of command structure of the army. General Georges Broulard
tries to convince General Mireau to launch an attack on the
notoriously difficult and dangerous “Anthill”. Knowing it is
nothing other than a suicide mission, Mireau refuses. Broulard slyly
hints at the possibility of promotion should he comply, and Mireau
quickly changes his mind. One level further down the chain of
command, Mireau puts the pressure on Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) to
lead the suicide mission. Dax has no choice but to obey, and leads
his men out of the trenches into the relentless machine gun fire of
the German army. Part way through the battle the French soldiers
realise that they are simply being slaughtered, and that there is no
chance of success, so they turn back and refuse to leave the
trenches. Mireau is furious, and demands that they all be punished
for cowardice. After negotiating with the chief General Broulard, a
softer, yet in many ways more morally hideous plan is agreed upon:
each of the three battalions will select one soldier to be the 'fall
guy' who will be executed for cowardice on behalf of the others. Dax
is appalled and disgusted, but gives the order to the battalion
leaders to select their scapegoats. Three men are chosen, and
eventually executed at the end of the movie, in one of the most
chilling scenes of any war movie I have seen. Dax does his best to
defend them in court, but his ethical principles are no match for the
corrupt and morally bankrupt nature of the military justice system.
The three men are convicted of cowardice and executed, their deaths
are designed to be taken as an example by the other men.
At
every level of the hierarchy, power compromises and co-opts, lies and
manipulates. There is a huge gulf between the luxurious chateau
where General Broulard plans his attacks and issues orders, and the
cramped and muddy trenches where Dax and his men fire their guns. Yet
this gulf is bridged, layer by layer, by an intricate system of
'middle management'. This onion like structure, pervaded by co-option
and blackmail, was an inspiration for the creator of 'The Wire' TV
series, David Simon. Although Paths of Glory
superficially looks like an old black and white movie about an old
war, Simon insists that its basic structure is highly relevant today:
The film template in my head -- the
dramatic template were the Greek plays -- is what I regard as the
most important political film of the 20th century, which is "Paths
of Glory." If anyone wants to look at "Paths of Glory"
and think it doesn't speak to the essential triumph of institutions
over individuals and doesn't speak to the fundamental inhumanity of
the 20th century and beyond, then they weren't watching the same film
as the rest of us. That film is essential, and as meaningful today as
the day it was made.
[David
Simon, from an interview 11/03/2008
http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2008/03/the_wire_david_simon_q_a.html
]
The
story behind the making of Paths of Glory itself
contains a series of deceptions and manipulations. The original
scriptwriter, Jim Thompsoni,
was sidelined by Kubrick in favour of another writer:
But with depressing predictability
Paths of Glory soon ran into its own writing
credit fiasco between Kubrick, Thompson, and famed screenwriter
Calder Willingham (One-Eyed Jacks, The
Graduate). Willingham later asserted that he wrote 99% of
the screenplay, Kubrick wrote 2 lines, and Thompson none. This
outlandish claim has been challenged by Robert Polito who looked over
the different drafts of the screenplay and concluded that Thompson
wrote roughly half the dialogue. In the credits, Thompson’s name
would eventually be listed third.
Kirk Douglas played a significant role
too: unhappy with the script as it was presented to him, with a happy
ending, he handed it back. The ending was changed, but given back for
approval along with the whole script from beginning to end. Kubrick
was hoping that the producers would not actually bother re reading
the whole thing, and he was right. The laziness of the producers and
the deceptive gambit of the young Kubrick resulted in perhaps the
darkest, most sombre ending of any Hollywood movie.
The penultimate scene is the execution
itself. This is better watched than commented on.
The final scene is a crowded bar room
full of Colonel Dax's men, drinking beer and listening to the song of
a young German woman. Colonel Dax pokes his head in the door and
observes the calling out and leering at the captive girl, who
reluctantly sings a beautiful song which silences the rowdy soldiers.
He then wanders back outside, reluctant himself to announce to the
men that they will have to go back to the living hell inside the
trenches very soon. Dax makes a valiant and heroic stand against the
system, but it is far too huge and powerful for him to make a dent.
It rolls on relentlessly, taking more and more lives as it goes.
iJim
Thompson is the author of 'The Grifters' and 'The Killer Inside Me',
and several other excellent crime novels. I'm a big Jim Thompson
fan, so this is quite an interesting fact for me to find out. Paths
of Glory does not really match
the tone or nature of Thompson's crime novels, but the duplicity and
double dealing of the main protagonists is resonant of a typical
crime novel plot.
No comments:
Post a Comment