Paths of Glory

What is the sign of an effective anti-war film? What's the mark of a successful entry? ANGER. Frustration. A struggle to believe what you're watching could have actually happened. One of the first American anti-war films is also one of the best, and in general, one of the best movies ever made. If you haven't seen it already, shame on you. Go watch it. Here's 1957's Paths of Glory.

It's 1916 and World War I has been waging for two-plus years. The fighting has bogged down to a standstill, the two sides blasting away from their trenches at each other across no man's land. A French offensive is in the works with one battalion, commanded by Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas), assigned a key point in the German line. Under extreme machine gun fire, the attack is a failure, Dax's men returning to their own trenches. Someone must answer for the failure though, especially when the division commander (George Macready) demands retribution for the colossal failure. He wants men shot and court-martialed with the high command settling on three men. Three of Dax's men will be charged with cowardice in battle and sit before a court martial tribunal. A well-known criminal lawyer, Dax will defend them...but even the experienced lawyer can't know what awaits.

What a freaking movie. From director Stanley Kubrick (maybe you've heard of him), 'Glory' deserves its place as one of the great war films of all-time but also as one of the best films of all-time in general. Just in terms of story, it is ahead of its time. The cynical, disbelieving tone of its story seems far more in-tune with the late 1960's or the entire decade of the 70's, not the late 1950's. Technically speaking, it is damn perfect from beginning to end. If there's an obvious, glaring weakness, I'm missing it! A phenomenal movie.

The anti-war message is uncomfortable to the point the film is difficult to watch at times. While 'Glory' isn't based on any single incident, stories like this no doubt happened in World War I and countless other wars. Douglas' Dax finds himself defending three innocent soldiers -- Ralph Meeker, Timothy Carey, Joe Turkel -- who will be tried (and potentially worse) for cowardice in battle. He is met at every turn with resistance, countered by men uninterested in a real defense, battling selfish, egotistical maniacs who think solely of themselves, of glory and honor, of promotions and personal gain. If those gains are built on battlefields of men who didn't have to die...well, so be it. Kubrick's film does not pull a single punch. This is war. This is death. This is so much worse than you could have imagined it.

A star before and a star after, Douglas is at his all-time best here with a performance that definitely belongs at the top of his career. His Colonel Dax is a capable officer, a more than capable lawyer, but most of all, he's simply a good man. He's honest, an idealist and genuinely looks out for the well-being of his men. Dax is sick of war but knows the quicker it's over, the quicker he and his men can go him. Douglas does a lot with an understated part -- calm, cool and collected -- as he bides his time. It is in the final act that Douglas gets to stretch his legs with a fiery, pissed-off, beyond frustrated, beyond anger performance that resonates long after the movie's over. Dax's fire and passion shows through best in an outburst as he condemns the actions of one of the selfish, clueless commanding officer who remains oblivious to anything and everything around him. But kudos to Douglas though with a performance that allows him the chance to show off the full scope of his ability.

This is Douglas' film, no doubt, but there's strong performances all over. Adolphe Menjou and Macready are terrifying as the upper-crust commanding officers who look at war with a sort of fog covering their eyes. No one could be this selfishly inept, could they? Their scenes show the depths of their ignorance, of an old-fashioned way of looking at war. Equally despicable are Richard Anderson and Wayne Morris as two officers, both ignorant in their own ways; Anderson with his haughty arrogance, Morris his drunken cowardice. In Meeker, Turkel and Carey, we get the gamut of reactions, seeing how different individuals respond to a situation so hopeless and stupid that it baffles the mind. When nothing at all makes sense, how do you rationalize such a profoundly stupid decision made by countless people seemingly smart enough and powerful enough to know that decision simply shouldn't be made?

Released 11 years later, 2001: A Space Odyssey is usually remembered as Kubrick's best, usually followed by A Clockwork Orange. I think 'Paths' belongs with 1960's Spartacus as the director's best. Just 29 years old at the time, Kubrick already shows what an immense talent he is behind the camera. Clearly influenced by the French New Wave movement, Kubrick's camera becomes an additional character, especially in beautiful unedited, long takes navigating the claustrophobic frontline trenches. We're there with the troops in the bloody, muddy, rat-infested trenches. Going over the top into the death zone known as 'no man's land' is far worse though where men are chewed up and spit out by the hundreds and thousands. Then, we're off to gargantuan French mansions, the picture of decadence and elegance, where the high command makes all their brilliant decisions. The musical score is minimalist to say the least, all the focus on the performances.

Just too many memorable moments to mention. Basically any scene in the trench is memorable, a perfect example of how to film an uninterrupted tracking shot. The attack scenes are harrowing, and the courtroom scenes -- in those French mansions -- make you feel physically ill as you watch the court martial develop. Emile Meyer is memorable as a priest desperately trying to click with the potentially-condemned men, and Turkel is a scene-stealer in a dialogue-heavy scene talking about how soldiers want to die. Through it all, Meeker is at his career-best as the soldier who finds himself on trial for all the wrong reasons. It all leads to one of the more memorable moments I can think of in a war film, anti-war or not. Filmed at an expansive German villa, an extended military procession is an incredible sequence to watch, both aesthetically and emotionally.

An all-timer. One of the greats and a film every movie fan should see at least once.

Paths of Glory (1957): ****/****

Spartacus

I've been in Spartacus mode for about six months now. This spring I watched the entire run of Starz's Spartacus, I caught up with Howard Fast's novel Spartacus, found a couple non-fiction books about the famous slave turned gladiator at the library and then bought the TV miniseries that aired about 10 years ago. So what is there left? Naturally I tried to save the best for last, catching up recently with one of Hollywood's great historical epics, 1960's Spartacus.

It's the 70s B.C. in Rome when a Thracian slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is bought from a Libyan mine and sold to a gladiator school in Capua, Italy, several days ride from the city of Rome.  The popularity of gladiators is growing ever stronger, Spartacus thrust into training to become hopefully one of the best. He shows promise but also resents the life, the hatred beginning to grow at Rome's brutal, cruel insistence on slaves and slavery itself. Months into his training, Spartacus incites a brutal takeover, his fellow gladiators joining him in a bloody attack that gives them power and allows them to escape. At first content to be a roving band of marauding bandits, Spartacus organizes his fellow escaped gladiators into an army. They can be more than bandits. They can be an army. An army that with growth and training could challenge Rome itself. His name grows, his army increases with each passing day. In Rome, a powerful Senator and businessman, Marcus Crassus (Laurence Olivier), watches the effect the gladiator slave general has and braces for a reply...if it's not too late.

Wowza, what a good movie, the definition of a historical epic that dominated Hollywood through the 1950s and into the early 1960s. A somewhat checkered production had some issues, a 30-year old Stanley Kubrick replacing Anthony Mann just a week or so into filming. Oddly enough, it is a movie that Kubrick doesn't consider one of his own, not including it in the canon of his films. It is an epic, a smart, well-written, beautifully shot movie with an impressive cast. Composer Alex North turns in a perfect score, large in scale but also very emotional in the quieter moments. I was always a fan of the score, but it really resonated with me on the most recent viewing. There isn't a weakness here, author Howard Fast's novel come to life in truly epic form.

One of the biggest stars working in Hollywood at the time, Kirk Douglas was firmly behind this movie, helping ramrod it right into production and is listed as executive producer. I've always thought this is one of his strongest, if underappreciated, performances. As slave turned gladiator turned general, Douglas is Spartacus. He has several effective so-called "bigger scenes" but the more effective moments are the quiet ones. When he touches the hand of the woman he loves, the rage in his eyes as he's addressed by his superiors, the pride when his army stands up for him, this is an actor doing his absolute best. He brings a real-life character to life, and it's easy to see why so many followed him against Rome. Douglas is charismatic and welcoming from beginning to end. He's furious and full of hate at the Roman system that enlists hundreds of thousands of slaves. Ultimately, he's pushed too far, and his response is something that shakes the world. Just a great performance from a Hollywood legend.

What this flick is able to do so well is to blend so many different moving pieces together. It is an epic with a true ensemble cast, all of the assembled talent given a chance to shine. In one of the best love stories I can think of, Douglas has a great chemistry with Jean Simmons, playing Varinia, a slave from Brittania who becomes Spartacus' wife, friend and confidant. They just work. They're perfect together. There's one of the great actors of all-time, Laurence Olivier, relishing the part of Crassus, a criminally smooth, brilliant manipulator who yearns for power in all forms. There's Tony Curtis in one of his best roles, here as Antoninus, an educated slave who escapes from Olivier's Crassus and joins Spartacus' army. Opposites in most ways, the uneducated leader and the younger, educated fighter become very close, a father-son, brotherly relationship. There's Charles Laughton as Gracchus, the Roman senator with a long, distinguished career behind him, now opposing Crassus, and John Gavin as Caesar, the young and upcoming senator, both giving Rome's perspective as Spartacus' revolt grows and grows. Oh, and there's a scene-stealing Peter Ustinov as Batiatus, the owner of the gladiatoral school that Spartacus escapes from, an Oscar-winning part for Ustinov.

Oh, but there's more. Herbert Lom plays Tigranes, an oily pirate negotiating with Spartacus to get his army out of Italy. As for the gladiators turned army command, look for an underused John Ireland as Crixus with Harold J. Stone and Nick Dennis also standing out from the crowd with smaller supporting parts. One of three performances in 1960 that helped make him more than a physical presence, Woody Strode plays Draba, an experienced gladiator worn down by the constant killing in the arena. A small part but a key one to propel the story forward. And last but not least, gravelly-voiced Charles McGraw as Marcellus, the brutal gladiator instructor, a man tasked with turning slaves into killing machines intended for the gladiator ring. Strength from top to bottom, not a weak link in one of the great casts ever put together.

This is a thinking man's epic, not a true sword and sandal epic. The script from blacklisted author/writer Dalton Trumbo is a gem, giving a window into the politics of the time. The story moves amongst the ensemble from the gladiator school in Capua, to the streets and halls of the Roman Senate, to Spartacus' base at Mount Vesuvius to his camps moving across Italy. Trumbo's script is an idea-script, one about freedom and corruption, living life to its fullest even if the means seem impossible. We see the inner-workings of the Roman senate, of Spartacus' inner circle. You get a feeling of what the times were like in ancient Rome. Just a beautifully written script, Douglas saying "Screw it" to the blacklist that prevented Trumbo from writing for years.

'Spartacus' has moments both big and small here, both working seamlessly. The arena fight between Spartacus and Draba is a gem. Not drawn out but incredibly intense, including a great twist near its conclusion. The revolt in the school is quick and hard-hitting, the tension finally boiling to an unbearable point. As the rebellion grows -- the real-life history was called the Third Servile War -- Spartacus realizes the fight can be as big as his army wants it to be. The entire movie is a treat to watch, but I've always found the second half the film's strongest, especially when the tide turns against the slave army. Maybe the most iconic scene, "I'm Spartacus!," has become a punchline in pop culture, but in context, it is one of the most beautifully constructed, emotionally perfect scenes ever, the camera lingering on Douglas as an ideal conclusion. Watch it HERE with obvious spoilers. The same for a late scene between Spartacus and Antoninus discussing the impact of what they've done, Spartacus willing to Crassus "He'll come back and he'll be millions." Too many great moments to mention.

This isn't an action-heavy movie so beware going in if you're expecting 3 hours of battle scenes. Supposedly more battle scenes were filmed but never used, all in hopes of making the one major battle late in the film far more effective. It is, but this is not a movie interested in the scope and scale of battle. This is a story about the people. We see scenes with literally thousands of extras, but the camera zooms in on the faces, people we see popping up throughout the second half of the movie. Old and young, mothers and fathers, teenagers, kids, thin and fat. The moment where Spartacus walks through his camp on the eve of battle is perfect, the former slave truly realizing the scope of what his army has accomplished. The post-battle scene is that much more gut-wrenching as is the finale itself.

Just a classic. Enjoy it.

Spartacus (1960): ****/****

2001: A Space Odyssey

From director Stanley Kubrick, 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey is generally regarded as one of the all-time great movies to ever come out of Hollywood. I point this out with my introductory sentence because I have no freaking idea what to write about. I watched Kubrick's film for the first time recently, and I don't even know what to say. I don't know what it was trying to achieve or show, and I came away vastly disappointed.

It is a film that to me seems to defy all description or plot synopsis. I apologize now before we get into the guts of the review because I've got a feeling this might get a little on the rambling side. There is no real plot to follow, just four extended divisions of a loosely linked narrative. Throughout time, we as viewers are shown immense black monoliths in different places and locations around the universe. Somehow and some way, it is all connected. What do these monoliths represent in the bigger scheme of things? Are they responsible for human evolution, both good and bad? Do they mean anything at all? Are we even supposed to find an answer?

I think that's what I found most disappointing about Kubrick's classic film. I resent so many reviews that state 'One has to be highly intelligent to comprehend and appreciate this movie.' Condescending and pretentious much? It is a film that requires the viewer to engage and watch everything, come up with your own conclusions. That's fine. I don't need a movie to spell out every little thing for me, but even a hint here and there would be nice. I'm not sure what Kubrick wants to say here. Is it something as simple as the circle of life, a progression of mankind over millenniums from an ape to a space-exploring human? Okay, that's fair and definitely interesting. The story though is anything but.

Kubrick's film is broken into four loosely tied together segments. The first follows a group of almost human-like gorillas living in a quasi-desert environment. One ape discovers an animal bone and realizes he can use it as a weapon. It's a profoundly cool moment, symbolically sending mankind down a path that cannot be reversed. The second segment follows a doctor (William Sylvester) as he prepares to visit a space station on the Moon where a black monolith has been discovered deep beneath the Moon's surface. Next up, fast forward 18 months later as astronauts Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) are in deep space heading to Jupiter with the help of the HAL-9000, a brilliant, possibly free-thinking computer. The last segment takes Dr. Dave into some sort of deep space portal on the far side of Jupiter.

Of the four, the opening ape/gorilla segment is especially effective. The follow-up, the doctor's trip to the Moon lets the momentum get tripped up, ending on a mysterious note that leads into Dave, Frank and HAL's segment. This is the most iconic, memorable segment of the movie. HAL begins to think for himself, making decisions that the human doctors don't agree with. HAL's iconic, eternally memorable "I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave' manages to send a chill right up my back. Then, the finale is the trippiest and most visual of all the segments.....and the most mysterious. There are moments that work on an epic scale; the transition from ape to space, a monolith screeching, the realization that HAL is reading lips and thinking for himself, but there aren't enough.

I just don't know what to say here. As a visual medium alone, this is an incredible movie. As an interesting story, not so much. The musical score, including the Blue Danube (listen HERE), is probably the best thing going here. But overall, the movie is so schizophrenic I have trouble deciphering it. The story is too slim with nothing more than the thinnest of connections. The visual is amazing to watch, but it gets lost in a sea of monotonous, tedious shots of space ships floating through space. The same for the people. Seeing Frank run around the ship? Not interesting to watch. I can't put my finger on why exactly this universally accepted classic didn't resonate with me in the least. At the same time, it's hard to pick one fault and really explain it. What I do know is simple. I didn't like it....at all.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968): ** 1/2 /****

The Killing

So after watching two Sterling Hayden movies last week on his TCM day and a third thanks to Netflix, The Killling, I've decided I need to go in a different direction with my movies for a little while. To be fair, the two on TCM were B-movies, Ten Days to Tulara and Battle Taxi, but they weren't even good B-movies. I figured The Killing sounded pretty good, but something just didn't click for me in actually watching it.

The story is gritty and realistic especially when considering it was released in 1956. With director Stanley Kubrick at the helm, the movie takes on an almost documentary like feel to it. Fresh out of prison after serving a five-year sentence, Johnny Clay (Hayden) is putting his master plan into effect. With a small crew, Clay intends to knock off a racetrack cash room (not unlike The Split would do 10 years later) on a day when hundreds and thousands of bets will go to the tickettakers. Clay figures the take will be just over $2 million dollars.

Clay has developed a complicated plan that requires split-second timing with help from a handful of people, some who know what they're doing and others who will remain in the dark, as Clay himself will actually pull off the actual robbery in the chaos they cause. But when you bring so many different people together, personality conflicts come up that you can't plan for in advance. Even the most detailed, well thought out plan can go awry with something that comes out of left field. The aftermath of the robbery and the ending provides a nice, little twist with that thought in mind.

I can't throw Hayden under the bus here for his performance because he's an ideal choice for the quiet, hardened ex-con looking to get his life back on track with his wife (Coleen Gray). The whole cast is good in roles that don't require any background or backstory. This is who they are, and Kubrick presents them as that without any unnecessary clutter. Clay's team includes Jay C. Flippen as the bankroller, Ted de Corsia as a cop who'll play an important role in the getaway, Elisha Cook Jr as an attendant with some problems at home with his wife (Marie Windsor), and Joe Sawyer as a bartender at the racetrack.

Watching The Killing some 50 years after its release, my first thought was 'I've seen this before' because it's style and story have been reused and taken into the lexicon of heist and robbery movies. It's not fair to hold that against The Killing because they couldn't account for the impact it would have on the sub-genre, but it is hard not to notice it. Kubrick tells the story in non-linear fashion, showing one character's involvement and then bouncing back 3 hours to another character. The negative to come from this is a very cheesy sounding narrative that sounds like something plunked from a Dragnet episode.

With that type of storyline, the heist is well-handled because we see things before they always know what they mean in the context of the robbery. Two parts especially stand out as Clay hires two men, Timothy Carey as a marksman, Carey's scenes with MASSIVE SPOILERS, and Kola Kwariani as a strongman, Kola's introduction, to cause diversions during the robbery. I liked both subplots and would have liked to know more about them, but maybe that's not what Kubrick was going for. Also, the subplot which becomes a major turning point in the movie, whipped Cook Jr and wife Windsor, are difficult to watch because Windsor is such a nasty character. Her plan with boyfriend Vince Edwards ends up making quite an impact on the aftermath.

I'd like to give The Killing a higher ranking, but I just couldn't get into it. Like I said though, I can't blame the movie itself for that. It set the groundwork for future heist/robbery movies with its style and frankness in dealing with thieves turning on each other and the double and triple cross. Maybe I'll give this one a try down the road because I can appreciate that it is a good movie, just not one I necessarily liked.

The Killing <----trailer (1956): ** 1/2 /****