BEFORE: Tossing it back to World War I - the great war, the "war to end all wars". Yeah, how did calling it that work out? This is one of the few Kubrick films I haven't seen - "Spartacus" is still on the list, and I have no desire to see "Barry Lyndon", but I am a fan. How do you classify a man who made such vastly different films, from "Dr. Strangelove" to "Full Metal Jacket"? "Lolita" and "The Shining"? One of my faves, "2001: A Space Odyssey", and also (ugh) "Eyes Wide Shut"?
Anyway, I'm linking from "Casualties of War" through Michael J. Fox, who was also in a comedy called "Greedy" with Kirk Douglas (last seen in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea").
THE PLOT: When soldiers in WW1 refuse to continue with an impossible attack, their superiors decide to make an example of them.
AFTER: This is a film that tries to get to the heart of what it means to be a soldier. A foot soldier, that is, because there's a very deep distinction here between the men in the trenches and the officers who seem to be living in luxury. The generals come and visit the trenches and wish the men luck (gee, thanks), then get upset when the men don't run on to the battlefield quickly enough. Try to die a little faster, won't you?
This puts the soldiers in a terrible position - when tasked with a difficult assault, they can either rush forward and die, or retreat and face charges. The top brass here set impossible goals, and then look for scapegoats when the goals are not met. But the impossible nature of the attack cannot be proven, and neither can it be proven whether the soldiers were unwilling or able to carry out their orders. Either way, the effect is the same.
Instead of going through the expense of a court-martial, and the trauma of a firing squad, why not just send the men back into the trenches? It sort of seems like that will produce the same result. But then this brings up a lot of questions about the existential nature of things - how do men act when they think they might die, and do they act differently when they KNOW they're about to die? When a condemned man gets injured, why do they try to save his life? It seems odd to save a man's life so that he can be properly executed, but I'm sure it happens.
Kubrick did find the beauty in the horror of war (or is it the other way around?) with a long battle sequence with no dialogue - the sounds of explosions and the colonel's whistle combining to make a strange form of music. It's sort of comparable to the "Blue Danube" sequence from "2001", only much more disturbing. Maybe it's more like the rape scene from "A Clockwork Orange".
NITPICK POINT: These are French soldiers - and not one of these actors speaks any French, or has anything even close to a French accent. Really, no one's even going to try to sound French?
A reminder that my rating (unlike those of professional reviewers) is based on how much I enjoyed the film, not how brilliant or relevant it is. This film is very thought-provoking, but it was tough to watch, so that has to be factored in. Still, it ran under 90 minutes, and for Kubrick, keeping it short was probably tough for him to do.
Also starring Ralph Meeker (last seen in "The Dirty Dozen"), George Macready (last seen in "Tora! Tora! Tora!"), Adolphe Menjou, and Richard Anderson (last seen in "The Long, Hot Summer")
RATING: 4 out of 10 bayonets
No comments:
Post a Comment