Overly Melodramatic?

I watched this last night, and, while I enjoyed all the actors and the dialogue, I couldn’t help but feel that the movie was overly melodramatic and unsubtle. The whole movie just pounded you over the head with “war is terrible,” which I do enjoy to some extent, because, well, war is terrible, but I wish that the movie had a little bit more moral complexity. I’m curious as to why it’s so highly regarded. Is it primarily the acting and the competent cinematography of a still-improving Stanley Kubrick? I just can’t help but feeling that those things were overshadowed by the simplistic moralizing of the story.

What’cha think?

Nope, the best part of it is how much Kirk Douglas tries to emphasize how horrible everything is, and his admonitions are completely ignored.

It’s sort of how everything ends up happening in it, really. How the point cannot be stated enough.

—PolarisDiB

I thought it was boring.

What bothered me about Paths of Glory is the implicit generalization of the film. It obviously isn’t meant to be an isolated incident of corruption, it’s supposed to imply all military men think like that.

Whereas in The Thin Red Line there was a character with very similar motivations, but in that case it came off as more human, because the behavior seemed like it was imposed by the incentive structure of the system.

Kubrick’s military characters never come off as human beings, whereas it’s totally possible to represent the same military corruption with characters who do come off as human beings.

The melodrama was part of the mainstream American style of the late 50s. Other films of the period are even more melodramatic, Watch films A Face in the Crowd, 12 Angry Men or Sweet Smell of Success.and you will see.

“hereas in The Thin Red Line there was a character with very similar motivations, but in that case it came off as more human, because the behavior seemed like it was imposed by the incentive structure of the system.”

which character Jirin?

Francisco – I really enjoy melodrama when it’s done the right way, but, for me, Paths of Glory fell in the middle where I would have liked it more had it been either more or less melodramatic. Where it was, it felt like it really wanted to be taken seriously, but it just couldn’t. Sweet Smell of Success isn’t making as much of a “Point” as Paths of Glory, so I found that melodrama to be much more enjoyable.

“I really enjoy melodrama when it’s done the right way, but, for me, Paths of Glory fell in the middle where I would have liked it more had it been either more or less melodramatic”
Interesting, like turning things up to 11, like Aldrich in Baby Jane.

“Sweet Smell of Success isn’t making as much of a “Point” as Paths of Glory…”
I thought it was making a big statement about careerism and how it leads to corruption.

@Joks

I don’t remember the character’s name, but he ordered them to take the hill because he knew it would advance his career.

That I found far more believable than “They didn’t follow a suicidal order? COWARDS KILL THEM ALL!”

It was Nick Nolte’s character (LtCol Tall, I believe).

Hmmmm… I agree with you that Sweet Smell was making a point, although it didn’t seem as blunt as the point in Paths of Glory, even thought the points are fairly similar. I guess I didn’t really like Paths of Glory‘s approach where Kirk Douglas and the SPOILER ALERT executed men were totally good and the generals etc. were totally bad. At least in Sweet Smell everyone’s bad, which makes the general setup seem less cheesy to me. I’m trying to articulate in my own mind the differences between the two movies, and it’s really interesting to compare them! I would have never thought about the two together!

Also, Sweet Smell shows you a point, Paths of Glory tells you a point. It sets up a military straw man then makes sanctimonious speeches at it.

Yes, a bit too melodramatic. I think it to be even a bit overrated as a film, both within Kubrick’s canon and the war film canon in general.

Just rewatched this for the first time in a long time and my answer is a resounding no – I don’t think it’s overly melodramatic. I think the melodrama works perfectly within the context of the film and to be honest, I wasn’t even thinking about it while viewing it, probably in part due to Kirk Douglas’s great performance. Anyway, I didn’t see anyone here defending the movie so I figured I’d throw a brief opinion out there.

“That I found far more believable than “They didn’t follow a suicidal order? COWARDS KILL THEM ALL!””

Paths of Glory is loosely based on a true story of men under the command of General Géraud Réveilhac, who had 4 soldiers executed for cowardice under similar circumstances . He also apparently ordered French artillary to fire upon his troops in order to force them out of the trenches. Apparently the families sued, the executions were ruled unfair and the families received one franc each in compensation. It’s unbelievable, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

The British executed 306 soldiers for desertion or cowardice during WWI. The French sentenced nearly twice that many during WWI for similar offenses (although the number of men actually executed seems to be a matter of some dispute).

From wiki:

“In April 1917, French Commander-in-Chief General Robert Nivelle tried to break the German line on the Western Front with a great attack at the Chemin des Dames on the Aisne River. For this attack the French adopted a tactic they had first used on a lower scale at Verdun in October 1916,Template:Snfp a creeping barrage, in which artillery fired their shells to land just in front of the advancing infantry. This was supposed to suppress the defending troops in their trenches right up to the moment that the attackers closed with them. The infantry was to follow the barrage so closely that they were expected to suffer many casualties from friendly shells falling short as this was a new tactic and not something fully comprehended at the time by military commanders . . . Nivelle’s attack (the Second Battle of the Aisne) failed with enormous losses. This was largely due to the appearance in very large numbers of the new lighter and more portable German MG08/15 machine guns. Nivelle was removed from his command on 15 May 1917 and was replaced by General Philippe Pétain.”

Sounds pretty terrible to me.

That WWI-style fighting is some pretty brutal stuff. If I’m a soldier give me post-Vietnam combat any day of the week instead!

(*cue all the grizzled veterans with “you don’t know a thing about nam, until you see your best friend…”)

Kirk Douglas tilts toward the bombastic and the melodramatic in virtually all his films, of which Paths of Glory may be his best. If Paths of Glory is remotely melodramatic, that rests squarely on Douglas’ shoulders. However, without his star presence, the film might not have been made, or made with another director. This is the picture that set Stanley Kubrick on his, um, path to glory. The Killing got him noticed, but Paths of Glory sealed the deal that this was a director to watch. This is not mere conjecture; it is established fact.

The camera work in the early battle scene is still astonishing. The performances of the doomed soldiers destined for the firing squad are without peer. Ralph Meeker is one of the most sadly overlooked performers of his generation. And if it were not for the amazing Timothy Carey, John Turturro would not have a career (watch Paths of Glory, wait a day, then watch Turturro in Miller’s Crossing).

As for claims the film is boring, well, those claims can be dismissed outright as coming from individuals of uninformed opinion. Sure; you’re entitled to opine all day, if you like, that this picture is boring. And I will laugh briefly, wonder for half a second how many films you’ve actually seen, then ignore you as you deserve.

Maybe true but “The Killing” is a better film than “Paths of Glory”. It has more emotion and more immediacy, and it is a stylistic tour de force. “Paths of Glory” is one of those outwardly self-important “quality” films, which is why it is the film that cemented his reputation. But it is not the film that people remember Kubrick by when they think of him.

“But it is not the film that people remember Kubrick by when they think of him.”

And neither is The Killing.

Kubrick is remembered first and foremost for 2001, Dr. Strangelove, and Clockwork Orange, pretty much in that order. That is the trifecta almost always mentioned first whenever Kubrick is discussed.

The thing that makes Kubrick great is his command of genre. Few directors could make The Killing AND Paths of Glory, much less step up to the plate and knock it out of the park with his later work. By comparison, Tarantino is a one-trick pony who has been playing around with the stylistics of The Killing (and The Asphalt Jungle) for damn-near 20 years.

True, most people don’t remember “The Killing” either. But the people that really care about cinema do, like Tarantino (wow, almost 20 years? is time really flying that fast?). And yes, Kubrick was one of the greats when it comes to moving effortlessly through genres. But let’s get back to “Paths of Glory” and whether the melodramatic story and acting hurt the film. How does this film stand up to the tradition of the war film? It’s very romantic and sentimental. That;s not necessarily an inherent fault, but a film like “Grand Illusion” did it better.

I’m surprised that no one’s tried to distinguish the term “melodramatic” from the simple word “DRAMATIC.”

I’d call this film (and most of the performances) “DRAMATIC.” War is, after all, an inherently intense subject — with life and death (among other BIG subjects) at its basis. Most of the performances were completely in line with classical acting of that period (although the “Methodists” were different) and, by that standard, not really overacted.

If you want to see melodrama, watch Douglas Sirk films.

I’ll disagree with you, unless you care to forward a distinction between melodrama and drama. Or maybe we need a third category in between if we only want to call soap-opera style romantic narratives melodramatic. Granted, I’m no expert on Sirk. For me “Paths of Glory” slips into melodramatic sensationalism in the final scene, even though it flirts with it throughout the film. I believe melodrama is an exaggeration of the dramatic. All that prancing around, soapboxing, and debating on the moral horrors of war and the numerous moments of pulling heartstrings in the film just seemed a little too manipulative and forced to me. I’d say this is still an immature Kubrick directing this film, reaching for accolades and the high ground. Instead of a gritty and more naturalistic drama he relies on melodrama. Give me “Full Metal Jacket” any day.

It’s a masterpiece but that’s why i like FMJ even more.

Bobby: I’d venture the following: that melodramatic films (and TV shows) are a subgenre of drama (as are other specific genres such as the courtroom drama), They’re usually characterized by heightened appeals to the emotions and personal or family crises — e.g., failed love or friendship, strained family situations, abortion, interracial marriage, domsteic violence, alcoholism, rape, fatal illness, neuroses, or emotional and physical difficulties. In academia, at least, the war film is not generally listed as melodrama (even if the acting is occasiobnally over the top). That is why the soap opera is the paradigmatic example of a melodrama.

Film critics ofetn use the term “melodrama” as a pejorative to mean an unrealistic, pathos-filled, almost campy tale of romance or domestic situations with stereotypical characters (usually a female) that would directly appeal to female audiences — hence the term “women’s pictures.”

Your example from the end of PATHS OF GLORY is, perhaps, a good example of exaggerated acting, but I would still say that the film itslef is not melodramatic — that it is simply dramatic, without the melo (which comes from teh original definition that involved music). In fact, teh Kirk Douglas character is a lawyer and a passionate one at that, so his debating tactics, raised voice, and occasional sneers can be justified by the circumstances of the narrative.

FULL METAL JACKET has its share of exaggeration and melodrama, including the bathroom confrontation with Gomer Pyle and the final scene with the dying sniper and the moral dilemma of Joker.

Good point about Douglas’ character being a lawyer. I hadn’t considered that. It does seem like he’s always performing in a courtroom. I think calling melodrama a sub-genre is taking things too far. Melodrama is more of an effect, or affect. But even if the melodrama was a sub-genre that doesn’t mean it isn’t able to be melded with the war film. Kubrick doesn’t normally hybridize genres but maybe we could make that argument here if we were so inclined.

I don’t think “Full Metal Jacket” has much exaggeration or melodrama. It’s very raw and straightforward. Now that I think about it the final singing sequence can be compared with “Paths of Glory” is an interesting way. Irony and pathos. The bathroom confrontation is pure suspense, not melodrama. The dying sniper scene doesn’t seem overly-emotional to me. And Joker’s moral dilemma isn’t played at the forefront of the film so much. It’s a minor concern. This is really an ensemble film. And on the subject of sub-genres, we can call it a great example of the Vietnam War film. It plays by the rules of the (sub)genre and may actually be Kubrick’s least exaggerated work.

I love this film. Uncomprimising and at times torturous. The entire stretch showing us the men walking to their deaths had me holding my breath.