And it's ironic because two out of the three of them answer dutifully and courageously, and the third stands strong and tall. None of them evince the cowardice that they're eventually executed for.
Kyle Pitts ye exactly, it furthers the point that the general may say he cares and is chatting to the soldiers but he really is distant from them and doesnt care - ww1 the soldiers were on the front line and the generals were in their chateaus drinking brandy
Also notice at the third stop, with the shell shocked guy, that the sergeant is the same sergeant who would command the firing squad at the end of the picture (actor-Bert Freed).
The insincere, repeated greeting, the total denial of the existance of anything resembling a PTSD, the complete lack of sympathy for a traumatized soldier... Yup, it's an early 20th century officer for you. What a powerful setup scene.
A mid century General almost lost his career by lacking sympathy. It still goes on today. Less tolerable now to be sure, but, well I’ll end it there. You would have to have worn the uniform to understand. Be well.
@tommy cane115 it was called "shell shock" because it was believed that the amount of sonic shock through the artillery fire would case bran damage. Given that this sin't the case, the name didn't stick. Why everything is now a suppose problem of suppose PC changes I don't know.
@@machia0705 The French throughout the war sentence at least 918 of their own soldiers that we know of to death. The British executed at least 306. This doesn't include unreported isolated incidents and impromptu executions for cowardice during assaults, of which there is anecdotal evidence. There are recorded incidents of French and British generals priming their men with talks about the many faces of cowardice and many adopted standing orders very early in the war to arrest shell shocked men that refused to advance. One such case that stands out in my memory was a French general calming a man on his way to be executed for desertion in the face of the enemy. He told the man that to die as an example to his comrades was another way for him to die for his country, if not at the hands of his enemies. There was no sympathy from the brass for the common soldier in the Great War. There's a reason that in the fallout of the war, monarchies fell and socialism exploded. The conditions these men fought in are incomprehensible to any single living human today save for those who may have fought in Stalingrad in the Second World War, conditions that drove men insane, men that were made sick by war that were ordered to be shot like dogs by uncaring and brutal aristocrats
Well how would you know? If Ted Bundy was in the trench would you give him an MRE, pat him on the head and tell him not to worry? Or would you be like, “ I hope you take a direct hit from arty because you are exhibit A.” Given how desperate and poor the first half the 20th century, what makes you think the general himself didn’t put them in a great spot to die?
I love how the general is not even saluting properly here, he's doing some sort of half assed wave instead; an example of Kubrick using meaningful details to support the elements of characterization and plot.
I think that’s an instance where it’s okay to credit the actor first. Kubrick is an auteur and he would have told the actor not to do that if he didn’t like it- in fact it may have been Kubrick’s idea or even been in the script- but it just as likely may have been an acting choice. We should resist getting so mesmerized with great men that we cinema is an art of collaboration
To be fair thats actually fairly common in the military. Not so much a wave but a half assed salute as they get them a thousand times a day. Still lazy but pretty on par
To quote RSM Lauderdale from Guns at Batasi “When you pass a commissioned officaaah… you don’t wave your end about like a pregnant penguin, you execute a salute in the following manner: Raiseyourrightarmbytgelongestroutetillyoursecondfingerrestsoneinch abovetherighteyesametimeturnyourheadtillyoufacethwofficerwhenonepassestgeofficerreturnyourheadandloweryourarmbytheshortestrouteisthatclear!”
@BossHossGT500 My great grandfather earned british medals fighting with the british army in Flanders and the Somme. Yet he was part of a french unit. There was no british or french sectors. There were units of both nations all around.
To add to that, i will say that the only movies i've seen where this reality is accurately portrayed are French movies about the war (Joyeux Noel springs to mind, where French and British units fight next to eachother in the trenches). Mendes found ways to include african and indian soldiers on his frontlines. Yet he didn't find a way to include any of the other nationalities present on the western front in 1917: French, Belgians, Portuguese, Americans, heck even russians, chinese, etc...
I agree only with part of what you say. Great technician! Great on-set schemer! Great cinematographer- he could have been the best DoP that ever lived, had he specialized only in that. But directing is another story. His films (almost in the totality) have vast holes in their pacing. Some of them are pretentious, others plain boring, hiding behind the pretense of being artistic; but still boring! If you focus long enough (and that's a mistake in itself, since you, as audience, should get lost in he story), you can see almost every camera move. And I mean every one! I understand the respect for a fellow filmmaker, and I'm perfectly fine with it. But you people should also point out the many flaws he had.
@@thealex2971 5 millions casualties, 1.5 million dead, which amounted of 4.5% of the French population at the time. The movie was seen as offensive, understandably.
This is the first time i've heard or seen anything of this film, i was wondering why the cinematography looks so progressive for 1957 ... then someone in the comments said it was stanley kubrick directing, that explains it. This scene put this movie right on my watch list
Stanley Kubrick was also photographer at one point. So that could be partly why why he has an eye for good visuals. But I know what you mean it's shot so well for 1957. It looks like is could be shot in the late 60s early 70s just in black in white. The Cinematography is great in this movie.
Then you need to watch more movies , Bridge on the River Kwai came out the same year and its prettier and has better than composition , obviously kubrick is great as well , but dont make uninformed blanket statements
One thing no one seems to talk about is how utterly amazing the production values of this movie are. It just flawlessly recreated the trenches of WWI. Everything looks perfectly authentic.
A nice detail here is that Mireau shows a stronger reaction to the explosions than any of the soldiers. Either he hasn't been in the trenches for a long time or he's just a coward.
Interesting that you noticed the progression of his reaction. This was shadowed by the officer with him, Maj. Saint-Auban, played by Richard Anderson. Each shell shook him up a little bit more. The film is so effective that I've only watched it once. It's too real.
Mireau decides to walk the trenches to inspect the platoon, but he does so in a arrogant, false, and haughty manner. He barely sees and hears the first bomb that falls relatively close to him, he overreacts out of fear and chooses to quickly move away from that place. Which is contrasted with the following scene, in which Kirk Douglas's character never speeds up his pace, never gets scared or overacts throughout his walk, when the bombs fall on the edges of the trench.
The accomplished director of photography of the movie, Georg Krause, was from Germany .Shortly before this movie he had also photographed two parts of the classic trilogy of the "o8 / 15" - movies, which were among the first movies made in Germany about WW2 in 1954/55. He was known and acknowlegded for his particular grim and gritty black & white cinematography. ( Actually he never shot a single movie in color.) Some further bits of trivia about this movie: Kirk Douglas played not only the lead role, but served also as producer of the movie thru his own production company, Bryna-Productions. The movie was completely shot on a pretty tight budget ( close to 1000000 $) at the Bavaria Studios, Munich-Geiselgasteig and some nearby surroundings in Germany. The trenches were built and the battle scenes filmed on a field near Munich-Pullach. The "New Castle Schleißheim" in Oberschleißheim is the location, where the execution scene was filmed in front of, and also the trial scenes were filmed inside that same castle. The specialist providing the (then still solely ) practical pyrotech effects was the famed German FX-man, Karl "Charlie Boom Boom" Baumgartner, who'd provide the pyrotech effects for some thirty years for many international movies, among them "The Longest Day" (USA 1962), "Dunkirk 1940" ( France 1964), "The Bridge at Remagen" (USA 1968), "Waterloo" ( Italy/USSR 1970), "A Bridge too Far" (GB 1977), "Steiner - The Iron Cross" ( Germany 1977) and "Das Boot" (Germany 1979/80/81) To save the production same money ironically all the ( non-speaking ! ) extras playing French soldiers were actually German policemen recruited from the state police of Bavaria, because they got payed by the Bavarian federal state and were by law not allowed to earn some extra money, because, as said, they were state officials. There really lies some irony in the fact, that all the extras playing French soldiers were actually Germans, doesn't it !? ;) This was a rather cheap method for the Bavarian goverment to promote the movie production facilities in Munich to foreign producers and attract them to produce their movies there. The policemen would be sent to the movie set during their official work hours and got paid by the state. Another advantage of hiring policemen as extras was, that they were naturally used to handle arms, so the production had not to spend considerable time in give unexperienced extras some training lessons in it. ( Five years later another classic American war movie would be produced here as well : "The Great Escape" with an all star cast. And in 1979/80 another classic, "Das Boot", this time as a complete German production.) But it is pretty likely, that most of these men had also actually fought as soldiers, the older ones in WW1 ( and maybe they were even forced to fight again in the "Volksturm" during the last months of WW2 ) and the younger men probably in WW2. So most of the non-speaking extras certainly knew the song, that tje German girl sings on the last scene ( "Der treu' Husar" / "The Faithful Husar") and could fully understand the lyrics. So it was probably no big acting deal for them to tear up, when Christiane Kubrick had sung it in front of them so movingly and in such plain fashion like a German mother from a hundred years ago would have sung it to her little child. There lies so much "innocence" in the unpretentious way she sings this simple tune, that you can't help but being deeply touched by it. Btw. Kirk Douglas had quite a relation to Bavaria and the movie studios in Munich there. He would make three movies there in the second half of the fifties and at the beginning sixties. This one and then immediatly after that "The Vykings" ( yes, really, that movie was actually shot for the most part on and near a lake in the Bavarian Alpes, the Walchensee, which was quite s convincing stand-in for a Norwegian fjörd, and the battle scenes actually in the Normandy/France. At the Hardangefjörd in Norway were only a few second-unit establishing shots filmed, since the Vykings ships replica were actually not ocean-going. and in 1961"Town without Pity", a movie, that obviously had felt into oblivion today ( probabably due to its even more controversial subject), and where Kirk played a very similar role, but this time an American military lawyer. And of course Kirk Douglas got some connections to Germany since in 1954 he'd married his second wife, Anne, who was from Hannover. Kind regards from a classic movie buff from Germany !
Great film and cast. Ralph Meeker, 1 of 3 tried for cowardice, a B-movie actor, in his best role. George McCready, the general who blamed his troops for failing to capture a German stronghold, was an American actor... great voice and diction. You heard every word.
For this scene it probably helped the performance. The general appears less and less interested in the responses of the soldiers and gives the same greeting over and over again. Its why Kubrick was the best.
The Russians have lost a disproportionate number of staff officers if we are to believe a fraction of the western reports. Leaders generally want to be close to their men to instill confidence.
@@againsttheleftandright4065 I do. I haven't heard a casualty figure yet that I could believe. The difference is, the Russians try and make their lies remotely probable, while the Ukes and the Brits, to name the most prolific, essay the limits of empyrean with their lies.
I'll give him credit for that. At least he bothered to actually go into the trenches, even though it was only to encourage the soldiers instead of fighting side by side with them.
RIP, Richard Anderson, who played the General's aid. I remember him played Oscar in the Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman. He's best known for Oscar.
He was on a ton of TV shows. He became the replacement for Lt. Tragg on Perry Mason after Ray Collins died, was a murder victim on one of the early Columbo episodes, and even played on a number of episodes of Zorro, where he was a friend of Don Diego, but was trying to catch Zorro because he didn't know they were the same guy.
@@RRaquello I know he was on a tan of TV shows, but he is only best known for the role of Oscar in "The Six Million Dollar Man" and "The Bionic Woman". A lot of articles mostly called him as Oscar in both of two shows when he passed away.
Just watched it today. Like other Kubrick's films, say, Clock work orange, it lacked a total plot or story. It just had characters, who were put into situations which are tough. The climax scene signifies the futility of war. A gem from Kubrick. Really love his work, what a gem, he was.
Kinda weird how it seems the insanely luxurious headquarters where he dines and works is so close to the front, that he can visit the front any time he wants.
I love this scene, when we meet the general he says one life of his men mean more than any of his stars, then we immedeately cut to him unaffected by a dead or wounded soldier in a stretcher, laughing at bombs going off, and belittling the mental struggles of one of his men. Tells you everything you need to know about this character
It is true that the french army did not recognize shellshock as a real medical condition. As far as doctrines of war, they were probably the most backwards of the nations fighting in the western front
Most of the armies were not able to accurately describe or recognise the symptoms of shellshock during the Great War. Now, as far as "being backwards" actually means anything, it would probably be the italian army, since it executed the most important amount of men. French uniforms, on the other hand, were really the most ill-thought.
@Grimgerde Yes they were. The mid and late war uniforms actually proved effective, as the Model 1915 horizon blue tunic and greatcoat blended in with the sky if viewed from a certain distance.
None of them did, at the time, because WW1 was the first conflict of its kind: the napoleonic/romantic view of war, colliding with artillery, gaz attacks and machine guns. WW1 became "the war to end all wars" because this romantic vision of war died with the return of the physically and mentally broken soldiers from the frontline.
I wish this clip was a little longer, and showed the shell that almost got the general and his snotty staff, played to perfection by Richard Anderson (Oscar Goldman in 6 Million Dollar Man). There's a close-up of his face just after the shell hits the ground near him: Pure Terror! Then, he's up and strutting around again, and later oversees the execution of men he accuses of cowardice.
I mean what are they going to do? This wasn't like the past where the command on the battlefield, the need to be behind the front to command the entire army.
This movie reminds me of the cops at that Uvalde school who were too afraid to intervene. As a fellow person who would be scared af I proudly admit I may also have stood back and wouldn't be a hero/wouldn't do my job/wouldn't be a ww1 soldier
It is good that you have the self awareness to know your limitations. I will not fault you for that. Nobody actually knows what they are capable of until they find themselves in the situation. There can be just as much honor in being a simple plumber or farmer or other job where there is no risk of dying as there is honor in being a solder. Studies have been done in every generation of soldier across multiple countries since WW1 that show only about 20% of conscripted infantry (which is pretty representative of humanity as a whole) do most of the actual killing done by infantry. Most conscripted soldiers only shoot in the general direction of the enemy to appear like they are doing their job, or they run away. This is why nearly all militaries today use all-volunteer professional troops as their primary forces because recruiting volunteers is much more likely to result in soldiers with the X factor that enables them to be part of that 20% of people who can do most of the intentional killing as infantry soldiers.
I think this was one of his best roles, but there were so many great performances in this film - Adolph Monjou, George Macready, Ralph Meeker, Tim Carey........
@@inkfishpete8695 Its only my opinion but this is one of the best films ever made. Its for sure the best film Kirk Douglas ever did. It gets better the more you watch it like all Kubrick films.
@@DelightLovesMovies absolutely agree. Every time I watch this film there is one more detail I find. Really an overlooked masterpiece. (BTW, with regards to great performances by Kirk Douglas, have you seen "Lust for Life"?
General Mireau is worried this may be depressing the men a tad. So he's looking for a way to cheer them up. "Well, his resignation and suicide seems the obvious choice." Points for getting the Innuendo ;]
The casualty rate amongst officers in the British Army was significantly higher than it was for enlisted men. During the war 78 British officers ranked Brigadier General or higher were killed in action, and 146 were wounded, gassed, or captured. The idea of the officers staying safe whilst sending their men to die is largely a myth, at least in the British army - most Generals visited the front line daily, and were on average much closer to the fighting than Generals typically are today. The British Army also put huge efforts into making sure their men had decent food and accommodation. Units spent about 40% of their time in the forward area, and rotated men in and out of the actual front line trench system so that men only spent 2-3 days there. Whilst in the rear the men were billeted in farmhouses and villages where they had access to good food and hot water. In fact, it was not uncommon that an enlisted man who joined the army would gain significant weight in the months afterwards, because food was available in larger quantities than he was used to in civilian life. It was the lack of such efforts that led large parts of the French Army to mutiny in 1917. The British only ever convicted less than 3,000 men of mutiny - in an army of some 5 million men. And 85% of those were subsequently pardoned. Field Marshall Haig, who everyone loves to depict as uncaring, refused to allow any man to be executed unless he'd been given a full medical examination.
@@davidrobertsemail There are several ranks of General, so you're probably reading the total for a higher rank than I quoted. That's why I specified the number I quoted was for Birgadier General and higher.
@@davidrobertsemail It is. A lot of people assume that because Generals sent thousands to die, they must have been uncaring bastards. But what could they do? You can't just sit in your trenches and do nothing, or the war goes on forever. You're supposed to win it! The only way to do that is to attack. But for most of the war, if you send men in to attack there's no communication with them. You can't coordinate artillery with infantry, you can't coordinate groups of men with one another, if circumstances change you can't update your orders. Sending in mass human wave attacks was their only option. But as soon as those things became possible late in the war, the Brits started doing them. And of course the Brits invented the tank, specifically because they were *desperately* looking for any way to break the trench system. And it worked.
There’s smth about how the camerawork in older films just. The right amount of distance from everything and real it feels. Shaky cams now was just not my cup of tea
Havent seen this film yet, but I love those I have sen by Kubrick. Funny how the General ducks the close bombs longer than the men, and doesn't actually have to participate in any bloodshed, yet has no problem dismissing shell shock and calling the man who exhibits it a coward. Takes me back to my childhood watching these films, when I'd notice why the trenches were full of the vulgar masses, while the clean and supposedly seasoned generals and commanders worked low risk jobs, generally planning assaults. It's like they were expendable and not supposed to realize and react to it, and if they did realize it, it was an honor. Horrific :/
1917 was more about a linear plot, Nd the suspense and built up around that. This film is way better than that, and obviously, some of the scenes in the first 30-45 minutes clearly show the Mendez got heavily inspired from this film to make 1917. The cinematography style, the trench potrayal, everything was brilliant in this film. My 5th most fav film of all time.
No they wouldn't. That's a romanticised version of military officers. Only a small handful of them actually have the balls to carry themselves like that in the middle of an explosion.
@@tomnorton4277 Not the lieutenants and the captains, as they were always in trenches with their soldiers and NCO and they led the attacks outside the trenches.
Well, Haig was a field marshal, he commands generals. But actually there were a great number of Generals that actually died on the front. Though I'm sure by which side is a question that could be asked a couple of times.
In this scene Private Ferol is not married but when he crying to the priest near the end he says "I´ll never see my wife again". Maybe I'm not understanding something correctly? Have not watched in a long time, it just stood out to me
French had the best uniforms in World War One. Germans had the best in World War Two. PTSD was not well understood, even in the next war. So you have to cut the officers some slack. Of course, it is a motion picture.
Because even when they're calm, there would be several machine guns covering the trenches. And phones there to connect them to artillery. Plus mortars. And all that behind literally miles of barbed wire, which slowed you down to give all those weapons lots of time to shoot at you. If you just sent a big wave of people over the top, they'd be cut to pieces in minutes. And often they were.
Why invade a trench downhill that is perfectly fitted by the french as a sewage-duct? ...and why invade, when the pioneers just had scores of barbwire-varieties erected to taunt the enemy (or even urge him to come uphill for an armed courtesy-visit? WW1 wasn't a paradise for attackers prone to the martial concept of surprise! It was more of a very ugly mess, that got freaky on a stupifying day by day basis...
Note that at each stop, whoever the general comes across, one among them will end up before the firing squad at the end.
good catch!
And it's ironic because two out of the three of them answer dutifully and courageously, and the third stands strong and tall. None of them evince the cowardice that they're eventually executed for.
Kyle Pitts ye exactly, it furthers the point that the general may say he cares and is chatting to the soldiers but he really is distant from them and doesnt care - ww1 the soldiers were on the front line and the generals were in their chateaus drinking brandy
No, you're kidding
Also notice at the third stop, with the shell shocked guy, that the sergeant is the same sergeant who would command the firing squad at the end of the picture (actor-Bert Freed).
The insincere, repeated greeting, the total denial of the existance of anything resembling a PTSD, the complete lack of sympathy for a traumatized soldier... Yup, it's an early 20th century officer for you. What a powerful setup scene.
A mid century General almost lost his career by lacking sympathy. It still goes on today. Less tolerable now to be sure, but, well I’ll end it there. You would have to have worn the uniform to understand. Be well.
@tommy cane115 it was called "shell shock" because it was believed that the amount of sonic shock through the artillery fire would case bran damage.
Given that this sin't the case, the name didn't stick.
Why everything is now a suppose problem of suppose PC changes I don't know.
@@machia0705 The French throughout the war sentence at least 918 of their own soldiers that we know of to death. The British executed at least 306. This doesn't include unreported isolated incidents and impromptu executions for cowardice during assaults, of which there is anecdotal evidence. There are recorded incidents of French and British generals priming their men with talks about the many faces of cowardice and many adopted standing orders very early in the war to arrest shell shocked men that refused to advance. One such case that stands out in my memory was a French general calming a man on his way to be executed for desertion in the face of the enemy. He told the man that to die as an example to his comrades was another way for him to die for his country, if not at the hands of his enemies.
There was no sympathy from the brass for the common soldier in the Great War. There's a reason that in the fallout of the war, monarchies fell and socialism exploded. The conditions these men fought in are incomprehensible to any single living human today save for those who may have fought in Stalingrad in the Second World War, conditions that drove men insane, men that were made sick by war that were ordered to be shot like dogs by uncaring and brutal aristocrats
Well how would you know? If Ted Bundy was in the trench would you give him an MRE, pat him on the head and tell him not to worry? Or would you be like, “ I hope you take a direct hit from arty because you are exhibit A.” Given how desperate and poor the first half the 20th century, what makes you think the general himself didn’t put them in a great spot to die?
@tommy cane115 no, they call it PTSD because it’s caused by severe trauma that isn’t only found in war! Nothing to do with PC cultural
I love how the general is not even saluting properly here, he's doing some sort of half assed wave instead; an example of Kubrick using meaningful details to support the elements of characterization and plot.
I think that’s an instance where it’s okay to credit the actor first. Kubrick is an auteur and he would have told the actor not to do that if he didn’t like it- in fact it may have been Kubrick’s idea or even been in the script- but it just as likely may have been an acting choice. We should resist getting so mesmerized with great men that we cinema is an art of collaboration
He actually looks like he's blessing them. Like a bishop would.
To be fair thats actually fairly common in the military. Not so much a wave but a half assed salute as they get them a thousand times a day. Still lazy but pretty on par
To quote RSM Lauderdale from Guns at Batasi “When you pass a commissioned officaaah… you don’t wave your end about like a pregnant penguin, you execute a salute in the following manner: Raiseyourrightarmbytgelongestroutetillyoursecondfingerrestsoneinch abovetherighteyesametimeturnyourheadtillyoufacethwofficerwhenonepassestgeofficerreturnyourheadandloweryourarmbytheshortestrouteisthatclear!”
Sam Mendes saw that camera 1 shot movement and thought:
"I bet I can make a whole movie like that lol"
The difference is that Mendes didn't seem to see a single french soldier anywhere on the western front...
@@thibaudduhamel2581
We got to see some French civilians at least. Most of them were corpses in the river sadly.
@BossHossGT500 My great grandfather earned british medals fighting with the british army in Flanders and the Somme. Yet he was part of a french unit. There was no british or french sectors. There were units of both nations all around.
To add to that, i will say that the only movies i've seen where this reality is accurately portrayed are French movies about the war (Joyeux Noel springs to mind, where French and British units fight next to eachother in the trenches).
Mendes found ways to include african and indian soldiers on his frontlines. Yet he didn't find a way to include any of the other nationalities present on the western front in 1917: French, Belgians, Portuguese, Americans, heck even russians, chinese, etc...
Historical accuracy clearly wasn't a top priority for Mendes.
Just wanted to say that 1957 was as far away from 1917 as 1980 is from today
bruh
bruh
bruh
I'm confused
@@aliayld bruh
How the hell did Kubrick shoot this without a steadicam? Way ahead of its time
Ramon Virgen easy. With a dolly
Yeah you can see the dolly tracks on the ground if you look carefully. Still, expertly done.
I agree only with part of what you say. Great technician! Great on-set schemer! Great cinematographer- he could have been the best DoP that ever lived, had he specialized only in that. But directing is another story. His films (almost in the totality) have vast holes in their pacing. Some of them are pretentious, others plain boring, hiding behind the pretense of being artistic; but still boring! If you focus long enough (and that's a mistake in itself, since you, as audience, should get lost in he story), you can see almost every camera move. And I mean every one! I understand the respect for a fellow filmmaker, and I'm perfectly fine with it. But you people should also point out the many flaws he had.
@@daniellatteo_thefilmmaker ohh look at the hipster
Yet 1917 gets all the praise for it's "original" cinematography...
RIP Kirk Douglas
A True Screen Legend Who Transcends Cinema For All Time.
The Cinematic Mind he was one of the greatest of old Hollywood
In Memory Kirk Douglas (1916-2020)
@@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401 Even Death didn't want to mess with Kirk. LOL.
I love how the general walks and boom explosion. While all the soldiers don't care.
They are just so used to it, so unfazed, they don't care.
@@SpiderkillersInc Its not that they dont care, they are mostly all been traumatized/adapted to it. Which isnt suppose to be a good thing.
This film was banned in France until 1975
Double Ghod why ?
That’s where the war took place
They didn't like the way the French Army was portrayed.
And in Spain until 1986. And in Switzerland until 1970.
@@thealex2971 5 millions casualties, 1.5 million dead, which amounted of 4.5% of the French population at the time. The movie was seen as offensive, understandably.
A great tracking shot. A true Kubrick classic.
This is the first time i've heard or seen anything of this film, i was wondering why the cinematography looks so progressive for 1957 ... then someone in the comments said it was stanley kubrick directing, that explains it. This scene put this movie right on my watch list
Stanley Kubrick was also photographer at one point. So that could be partly why why he has an eye for good visuals. But I know what you mean it's shot so well for 1957. It looks like is could be shot in the late 60s early 70s just in black in white. The Cinematography is great in this movie.
Then you need to watch more movies , Bridge on the River Kwai came out the same year and its prettier and has better than composition , obviously kubrick is great as well , but dont make uninformed blanket statements
One thing no one seems to talk about is how utterly amazing the production values of this movie are. It just flawlessly recreated the trenches of WWI. Everything looks perfectly authentic.
cause it was like 30 years after the war has ended it makes it easier
They actually had to make the trenches wider but only to fit the camera and dolly through.
Really feels like peering through a window into 1917
A nice detail here is that Mireau shows a stronger reaction to the explosions than any of the soldiers. Either he hasn't been in the trenches for a long time or he's just a coward.
Interesting that you noticed the progression of his reaction. This was shadowed by the officer with him, Maj. Saint-Auban, played by Richard Anderson. Each shell shook him up a little bit more. The film is so effective that I've only watched it once. It's too real.
Mireau decides to walk the trenches to inspect the platoon, but he does so in a arrogant, false, and haughty manner. He barely sees and hears the first bomb that falls relatively close to him, he overreacts out of fear and chooses to quickly move away from that place.
Which is contrasted with the following scene, in which Kirk Douglas's character never speeds up his pace, never gets scared or overacts throughout his walk, when the bombs fall on the edges of the trench.
Seeing 1917 I couldn't help remembering this scene, the way it is filmed.
Absolutely devastating and brilliant movie about the horrors of war in the trenches!🤨
The accomplished director of photography of the movie, Georg Krause, was from Germany .Shortly before this movie he had also photographed two parts of the classic trilogy of the "o8 / 15" - movies, which were among the first movies made in Germany about WW2 in 1954/55. He was known and acknowlegded for his particular grim and gritty black & white cinematography.
( Actually he never shot a single movie in color.)
Some further bits of trivia about this movie:
Kirk Douglas played not only the lead role, but served also as producer of the movie thru his own production company, Bryna-Productions.
The movie was completely shot on a pretty tight budget ( close to 1000000 $) at the Bavaria Studios, Munich-Geiselgasteig and some nearby surroundings in Germany.
The trenches were built and the battle scenes filmed on a field near Munich-Pullach.
The "New Castle Schleißheim" in Oberschleißheim is the location, where the execution scene was filmed in front of, and also the trial scenes were filmed inside that same castle.
The specialist providing the
(then still solely ) practical pyrotech effects was the famed German FX-man, Karl "Charlie Boom Boom" Baumgartner, who'd provide the pyrotech effects for some thirty years for many international movies, among them
"The Longest Day"
(USA 1962),
"Dunkirk 1940"
( France 1964),
"The Bridge at Remagen"
(USA 1968),
"Waterloo"
( Italy/USSR 1970),
"A Bridge too Far"
(GB 1977),
"Steiner - The Iron Cross"
( Germany 1977) and
"Das Boot"
(Germany 1979/80/81)
To save the production same money ironically all the ( non-speaking ! ) extras playing French soldiers were actually German policemen recruited from the state police of Bavaria, because they got payed by the Bavarian federal state and were by law not allowed to earn some extra money, because, as said, they were state officials.
There really lies some irony in the fact, that all the extras playing French soldiers were actually Germans, doesn't it !? ;)
This was a rather cheap method for the Bavarian goverment to promote the movie production facilities in Munich to foreign producers and attract them to produce their movies there.
The policemen would be sent to the movie set during their official work hours and got paid by the state.
Another advantage of hiring policemen as extras was, that they were naturally used to handle arms, so the production had not to spend considerable time in give unexperienced extras some training lessons in it.
( Five years later another classic American war movie would be produced here as well :
"The Great Escape"
with an all star cast.
And in 1979/80 another classic,
"Das Boot", this time as a complete German production.)
But it is pretty likely, that most of these men had also actually fought as soldiers, the older ones in WW1 ( and maybe they were even forced to fight again in the "Volksturm" during the last months of WW2 ) and the younger men probably in WW2.
So most of the non-speaking extras certainly knew the song, that tje German girl sings on the last scene ( "Der treu' Husar" / "The Faithful Husar") and could fully understand the lyrics.
So it was probably no big acting deal for them to tear up, when Christiane Kubrick had sung it in front of them so movingly and in such plain fashion like a German mother from a hundred years ago would have sung it to her little child.
There lies so much "innocence" in the unpretentious way she sings this simple tune, that you can't help but being deeply touched by it.
Btw. Kirk Douglas had quite a relation to Bavaria and the movie studios in Munich there.
He would make three movies there in the second half of the fifties and at the beginning sixties.
This one and then immediatly after that "The Vykings" ( yes, really, that movie was actually shot for the most part on and near a lake in the Bavarian Alpes, the Walchensee, which was quite s convincing stand-in for a Norwegian fjörd, and the battle scenes actually in the Normandy/France. At the Hardangefjörd in Norway were only a few second-unit establishing shots filmed, since the Vykings ships replica were actually not ocean-going.
and in 1961"Town without Pity",
a movie, that obviously had felt into oblivion today ( probabably due to its even more controversial subject), and where Kirk played a very similar role, but this time an American military lawyer.
And of course Kirk Douglas got some connections to Germany since in 1954 he'd married his second wife, Anne, who was from Hannover.
Kind regards from a classic movie buff from Germany !
this is such a great film by Stanley Kubrick that gets better with repeat viewings.
Great film and cast. Ralph Meeker, 1 of 3 tried for cowardice, a B-movie actor, in his best role.
George McCready, the general who blamed his troops for failing to capture a German stronghold, was an
American actor... great voice and diction. You heard every word.
McCready got that scar in WW1
@@NormAppleton No he didn't. The scar was the result of a car accident.
@@ricardocantoral7672 A handy car-crash: it made him look ruthless.
And the scar on his right cheek, which was real, from an accident he had in his youth.
Ralph Meeker's best role was Mike Hammer in Kiss Me Deadly. The best role isn't necessarily in the best film.
Stanley Kubrick was known for doing a huge number of takes on every scene in his movies. I wonder how many takes they did for this.
For this scene it probably helped the performance. The general appears less and less interested in the responses of the soldiers and gives the same greeting over and over again. Its why Kubrick was the best.
@@bigbake132 He geniusly replicated the disconnect IRL, amazing.
The scene were the prisoners are sitting in their cell eating duck apparently took over 50 takes. That was due to the actor playing Ferrol though.
Mireau was a hell of a lot closer to the front than you'll ever find a general officer nowadays...
The Russians have lost a disproportionate number of staff officers if we are to believe a fraction of the western reports. Leaders generally want to be close to their men to instill confidence.
@@againsttheleftandright4065 Don't believe any of that rubbish. The US and its poodles are all liars, and the Ukes somehow manage to be even worse.
@@matthabir4837
The Russians are winning, but I don't doubt the high number of staff officer KIAs.
@@againsttheleftandright4065 I do. I haven't heard a casualty figure yet that I could believe. The difference is, the Russians try and make their lies remotely probable, while the Ukes and the Brits, to name the most prolific, essay the limits of empyrean with their lies.
I'll give him credit for that. At least he bothered to actually go into the trenches, even though it was only to encourage the soldiers instead of fighting side by side with them.
Notice that the general flinches at the explosion more than the corporal does...
0:30 "the gun is your best friend"
(also used in Full Metal Jacket)
Wherever I came on a Douglas' movie I never get bored of those rip tribute. I will deeply miss him even if I am not part of John Wayne generation
1:35 Lloyd The Bartender (Joe Turkel) from The Shining on the right. RIP.
More time has passed from the making of this film till now than the actual Great War to when this film was made.
"I am a coward, sir!"
*SLAP!* "SNAP OUT OF IT, SOLDIER!"
RIP, Richard Anderson, who played the General's aid. I remember him played Oscar in the Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman. He's best known for Oscar.
He was great in Seconds too
If he had gotten the Bionic Man and the Bionic Woman to help in the WAr Effort, France would have won the War much earlier.
and also The Long Hot Summer with Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward
He was on a ton of TV shows. He became the replacement for Lt. Tragg on Perry Mason after Ray Collins died, was a murder victim on one of the early Columbo episodes, and even played on a number of episodes of Zorro, where he was a friend of Don Diego, but was trying to catch Zorro because he didn't know they were the same guy.
@@RRaquello I know he was on a tan of TV shows, but he is only best known for the role of Oscar in "The Six Million Dollar Man" and "The Bionic Woman". A lot of articles mostly called him as Oscar in both of two shows when he passed away.
One of the best movies about war.
Much better WW1 movie. Who agrees.
who doesn't?
toss up between this and "All Quite" (1929)
Much better WWI movie than 1917?
Hell yeah.
I cared what happened in this one since I believed in the story.
I do agree....
Just watched it today. Like other Kubrick's films, say, Clock work orange, it lacked a total plot or story. It just had characters, who were put into situations which are tough. The climax scene signifies the futility of war. A gem from Kubrick. Really love his work, what a gem, he was.
Rest in Peace Kirk! The last of the golden age of film.
Kinda weird how it seems the insanely luxurious headquarters where he dines and works is so close to the front, that he can visit the front any time he wants.
I love this scene, when we meet the general he says one life of his men mean more than any of his stars, then we immedeately cut to him unaffected by a dead or wounded soldier in a stretcher, laughing at bombs going off, and belittling the mental struggles of one of his men. Tells you everything you need to know about this character
This is called perfect masterpiece director brilliance
Martin Scorsese said that Stanley's movies were worth ten of anyone else's when Scorsese was growing up and going to see movies.
1957?!?! Meaning, this film was most probably filmed in 1956!! The footage is so sublime, I’m blown away.
RIP Kirk Douglas you’ll be remembered.
I have this on VHS !! EXCELLENT movie!!
It is true that the french army did not recognize shellshock as a real medical condition. As far as doctrines of war, they were probably the most backwards of the nations fighting in the western front
and as far as uniforms go :)
Most of the armies were not able to accurately describe or recognise the symptoms of shellshock during the Great War. Now, as far as "being backwards" actually means anything, it would probably be the italian army, since it executed the most important amount of men. French uniforms, on the other hand, were really the most ill-thought.
@Grimgerde Yes they were. The mid and late war uniforms actually proved effective, as the Model 1915 horizon blue tunic and greatcoat blended in with the sky if viewed from a certain distance.
None of them did, at the time, because WW1 was the first conflict of its kind: the napoleonic/romantic view of war, colliding with artillery, gaz attacks and machine guns.
WW1 became "the war to end all wars" because this romantic vision of war died with the return of the physically and mentally broken soldiers from the frontline.
I wish this clip was a little longer, and showed the shell that almost got the general and his snotty staff, played to perfection by Richard Anderson (Oscar Goldman in 6 Million Dollar Man). There's a close-up of his face just after the shell hits the ground near him: Pure Terror! Then, he's up and strutting around again, and later oversees the execution of men he accuses of cowardice.
It's easy to be brave when your bravery is founded in sending other's to die.
The sets were made so well
I always thought generals were right behind their men. Usually 30 kilometres right behind them.
Oftentimes they had to come forth to get a picture of the situation
I mean what are they going to do? This wasn't like the past where the command on the battlefield, the need to be behind the front to command the entire army.
Patron did the same thing in WW II and almost lost his commission.
This movie reminds me of the cops at that Uvalde school who were too afraid to intervene. As a fellow person who would be scared af I proudly admit I may also have stood back and wouldn't be a hero/wouldn't do my job/wouldn't be a ww1 soldier
It is good that you have the self awareness to know your limitations. I will not fault you for that. Nobody actually knows what they are capable of until they find themselves in the situation. There can be just as much honor in being a simple plumber or farmer or other job where there is no risk of dying as there is honor in being a solder.
Studies have been done in every generation of soldier across multiple countries since WW1 that show only about 20% of conscripted infantry (which is pretty representative of humanity as a whole) do most of the actual killing done by infantry. Most conscripted soldiers only shoot in the general direction of the enemy to appear like they are doing their job, or they run away. This is why nearly all militaries today use all-volunteer professional troops as their primary forces because recruiting volunteers is much more likely to result in soldiers with the X factor that enables them to be part of that 20% of people who can do most of the intentional killing as infantry soldiers.
RIP Kirk Douglas...
:(
I can understand the black and white because it's 1957, but the quality is so clear hot damn.
God bless General Mireau for visiting his men at the front to boost morale.
It would have been a privilege to serve under him.
Those who've only seen the fine ,1917 need to see this brilliant tracking shot
Before Patton...there was General Remi Gulliard!
Kirk Douglas is so great in this I love it
I think this was one of his best roles, but there were so many great performances in this film - Adolph Monjou, George Macready, Ralph Meeker, Tim Carey........
@@inkfishpete8695 Its only my opinion but this is one of the best films ever made. Its for sure the best film Kirk Douglas ever did. It gets better the more you watch it like all Kubrick films.
@@DelightLovesMovies absolutely agree. Every time I watch this film there is one more detail I find. Really an overlooked masterpiece. (BTW, with regards to great performances by Kirk Douglas, have you seen "Lust for Life"?
@@inkfishpete8695 no I never saw. Is it good?
@@DelightLovesMovies it's Kirk Douglas playing Vincent Van Gogh. There's a trailer on RUclips. Check it out.
Soldier still means working class cannon fodder
Well carry on soldier and good luck to you.
Macready stole this picture...his pauses and crescendo are intoxicating...
Masterpiece.
General Mireau is worried this may be depressing the men a tad. So he's looking for a way to cheer them up.
"Well, his resignation and suicide seems the obvious choice."
Points for getting the Innuendo ;]
Easy to forget how good this movie really was.
I read many high ranking generals died o nether front lines in the Great War, not all officers, colonels, and generals were donkeys leading lions.
The casualty rate amongst officers in the British Army was significantly higher than it was for enlisted men. During the war 78 British officers ranked Brigadier General or higher were killed in action, and 146 were wounded, gassed, or captured. The idea of the officers staying safe whilst sending their men to die is largely a myth, at least in the British army - most Generals visited the front line daily, and were on average much closer to the fighting than Generals typically are today.
The British Army also put huge efforts into making sure their men had decent food and accommodation. Units spent about 40% of their time in the forward area, and rotated men in and out of the actual front line trench system so that men only spent 2-3 days there. Whilst in the rear the men were billeted in farmhouses and villages where they had access to good food and hot water. In fact, it was not uncommon that an enlisted man who joined the army would gain significant weight in the months afterwards, because food was available in larger quantities than he was used to in civilian life.
It was the lack of such efforts that led large parts of the French Army to mutiny in 1917. The British only ever convicted less than 3,000 men of mutiny - in an army of some 5 million men. And 85% of those were subsequently pardoned. Field Marshall Haig, who everyone loves to depict as uncaring, refused to allow any man to be executed unless he'd been given a full medical examination.
I’ve read the British General count for WW1 was 48 dead and 2 in WW2
@@davidrobertsemail There are several ranks of General, so you're probably reading the total for a higher rank than I quoted. That's why I specified the number I quoted was for Birgadier General and higher.
Graham Kennedy I wasn’t trying to contradict you at all. I’m in complete agreement. It’s frustrating to see the depiction of British Generals in WW1
@@davidrobertsemail It is. A lot of people assume that because Generals sent thousands to die, they must have been uncaring bastards. But what could they do? You can't just sit in your trenches and do nothing, or the war goes on forever. You're supposed to win it! The only way to do that is to attack.
But for most of the war, if you send men in to attack there's no communication with them. You can't coordinate artillery with infantry, you can't coordinate groups of men with one another, if circumstances change you can't update your orders. Sending in mass human wave attacks was their only option.
But as soon as those things became possible late in the war, the Brits started doing them. And of course the Brits invented the tank, specifically because they were *desperately* looking for any way to break the trench system. And it worked.
There’s smth about how the camerawork in older films just. The right amount of distance from everything and real it feels. Shaky cams now was just not my cup of tea
That punch was hilarious.
The General's aid in the trench is Oscar from Bionic Man...
Yes, and a common yes-man, that (contrary to belief) DO NOT save the World..
Havent seen this film yet, but I love those I have sen by Kubrick.
Funny how the General ducks the close bombs longer than the men, and doesn't actually have to participate in any bloodshed, yet has no problem dismissing shell shock and calling the man who exhibits it a coward. Takes me back to my childhood watching these films, when I'd notice why the trenches were full of the vulgar masses, while the clean and supposedly seasoned generals and commanders worked low risk jobs, generally planning assaults. It's like they were expendable and not supposed to realize and react to it, and if they did realize it, it was an honor. Horrific :/
1:14 Sergeant: he’s bit a shell shock. General: I begged your pardon Sergeant, there’s no such thing, as shell shock
1917 was more about a linear plot, Nd the suspense and built up around that. This film is way better than that, and obviously, some of the scenes in the first 30-45 minutes clearly show the Mendez got heavily inspired from this film to make 1917. The cinematography style, the trench potrayal, everything was brilliant in this film. My 5th most fav film of all time.
The Academy Awards totally ignored this shattering anti war movie...No wins and No nominations...Too close to the truth.
Why copyright restriction on a 1957 movie while all other likes are in full circulation? Weird.
Woah that was a 1 whole minute of long shot in that long trench setup 🤯
I mean, if my superior approached me with this kind of charisma my morale would've been sky high.
Mine would've plummeted watching him slap a shellshocked soldier silly
God bless France 🇫🇷🙏
0:01 the commander resembles the director R Scott
this scene was reproduced by Scott in the Gladiator
My fave K Douglas movie!
Hello there soldier, welcome to the comments section.
Love ur comment🤣🤣
The slapping scene remind you of Patton?
It's true though, that sort of thing could spread
PTSD? Nah, just headaches, like today.
It's funny that the braves one's are always behind the line's!!!
This movie provided much inspiration for my book on WW I, 'The Great Class War 1914-1918' (Toronto, James Lorimer, April 2016).
The only unrealistic thing about this scene is the officers ducking under fire. They would have stood straight and proud.
No they wouldn't. That's a romanticised version of military officers. Only a small handful of them actually have the balls to carry themselves like that in the middle of an explosion.
@@tomnorton4277 Not the lieutenants and the captains, as they were always in trenches with their soldiers and NCO and they led the attacks outside the trenches.
Does anyone know what this armband of the adjutant means?
Dear God. Kubrick guts me.
A general visiting the front lines in WW1? Unheard of. During Passchendaele, Haig never came within 100 miles of the battlefield
Well, Haig was a field marshal, he commands generals.
But actually there were a great number of Generals that actually died on the front.
Though I'm sure by which side is a question that could be asked a couple of times.
In this scene Private Ferol is not married but when he crying to the priest near the end he says "I´ll never see my wife again". Maybe I'm not understanding something correctly? Have not watched in a long time, it just stood out to me
I'm just staring at that man's chin....that's some cartoonish effect.
ach der Kommandant von der Language Violence Prevention Brigade
Frenchmen speaking English?
It sounds a little bit strange, don't you think?
War is old men talking and young men dying.
I felt the first soldier’s tears when he was about to die.
This does not look or sound like a movie from 1957. WHY does this not look like a movie from 1957???
Wait a sec, it's a single shot. At that time
Watch Alfred Hitchcock's Rope
Sunday August 28th 2022 225pm
French had the best uniforms in World War One. Germans had the best in World War Two.
PTSD was not well understood, even in the next war. So you have to cut the officers some slack. Of course, it is a motion picture.
Ah yes, the mentality of the US Marine Corps....
I mean the French army.
Anyone able to find a link for this film would love to watch it
Yes, this place called RUclips has the entire film available to stream (for a fee). 😉
FROM NOW ON YOUR GOMER PYLE
More like "out of my Division."
Patton did the same.
That guys chin looks photoshopped
Really, an ad, sweet jesus.
Ah world war I, the last time France was actually good at fighting.
They would have almost been defeated by the Germans in fact, if it had not been for the interfering Russians on the Eastern front
The TQIA to the LGB during Pride Month
How wouldn't the germans try to invade their trench while they're all calm with a surprise attack?
Because even when they're calm, there would be several machine guns covering the trenches. And phones there to connect them to artillery. Plus mortars. And all that behind literally miles of barbed wire, which slowed you down to give all those weapons lots of time to shoot at you. If you just sent a big wave of people over the top, they'd be cut to pieces in minutes. And often they were.
Why invade a trench downhill that is perfectly fitted by the french as a sewage-duct?
...and why invade, when the pioneers just had scores of barbwire-varieties erected to taunt the enemy (or even urge him to come uphill for an armed courtesy-visit?
WW1 wasn't a paradise for attackers prone to the martial concept of surprise! It was more of a very ugly mess, that got freaky on a stupifying day by day basis...
canadavatar Isn’t that what the Canadians did in Vimy Ridge?