spartacus.

as i was watching, i had planned on writing this cute little introduction about how surprised i am with myself for not seeing this sooner since it was referenced in my all time favorite movie "clueless". (chee and christian watched "spartacus" on their first date because christian had this thing for tony curtis. and yes, curtis was dreamt in this with those blue eyes! swoon).

i had also planned on writing how disappointed i was by how the film looked and felt very hollywood. and very un-kubrickesque. it looked more like "the ten commandments" and "ben-hur" than "a clockwork orange" and even "barry lyndon." as i was watching i was certain kubrick didn't direct it, it was so mainstream. (i just read on wikipedia that there was a previous director and kubrick did not have complete artistic control. so that explains that.)

[quick random sidenote but wikipedia also told me the movie was based on a novel, which upholds kubrick's movies being based on literary works.]

i was also going to complain about how
long it was! 3 hours and 15 minutes! actually i will still complain about that. seriously 3 hours and 15 minutes?!?!

anyway, all on judge-iness went on the window with the last 45 minutes and that ending. my god! that ending!

how beautiful and tragic the last 15 minutes were! the irony of the fight between spartacus and antoninus. they actually fought due to their love for each other; spartacus wanted to save antoninus from a slow and painful death, and antoninus did not want the romans to crucify spartacus! but at least they were able to declare their love and appreciate for each other.

and then the ending!!! i was so unprepared. spartacus still partially alive and hanging on the cross, while varinia introduced him to his son. so compelling yet so weird. i mean i still cannot get my head around it. it was beautiful but spartacus was literally hanging on a cross with his newborn at his feet. though maybe my issue with the scene is due to the sacredness of the cross due to my christian upbringing. (mormons do not recognize the cross as a symbol of christ which makes it ultra taboo which might be why i was uneasy with the last scene. uneasy is the wrong word, just surprised. it did pull at my heartstrings.)

since we are on the topic of shocking scenes, i was surprised by the showing of the curfixiaions along the road. but then i guess i got my wish of the film being more kubrickesque. also the battle scenes with limbs being chopped off and sword fights. also those fights scenes were good considering how low tech they were. like how did they do the fire scenes unless they just fired up people? also all of those extras?!?! how did they do that.

and of course, one of the most memorable scenes, "i'm a spartacus". i first hear that phrase in "that thing you do!" (the drummer). and kinda wished i didn't cos it kinda killed the scene. but again so compelling, all of the slaves. standing by spartacus' side. and in a way, they were all him. and of course just single tear down douglas' face, so powerful!

seriously though i was not enjoying "spartacus" at all, but that last hour just reinforced how amazing of a director kubrick truly was.

and one last thought, how lovely was jean simmons? very.

paths of glory.

so i had never heard of "paths of glory" before but came across it while searching the library catalog for "kubrick". after watching "barry lyndon", i was a little weary of watching what looked like a war film. but kirk douglas was in it so assumed it couldn't be that bad. plus it was an hour and 27 minutes, i could survive that.

and what a gem this film was! it was a sad and tragic story but done extremely well. it raised questions of morality, humanity and war.

the movie centered around a french colonel, dax, played by kirk douglas. dax was given a suicide mission to take ant hill, however since it was a suicide mission, he did not succeed. his troops saw that it was a lost cause, so they did not advance and retreated. colonel dax's superior general mireau played by george macready, who saw the capture of ant hill as an opportunity to advance his career was outraged when the troops did not advance. mireau even attempted to fire at his own troops because they did not advance. since the mission was a fail, mireau wanted to execute 100 men for being cowards but this could not be done, instead, three random men were placed on trial and charged with cowardice and mutiny.

of course, the charges against the men are ridiculous. it was a suicide mission, they retreated because it was impossible to advance. because the charges are preposterous, colonel dax, who was an attorney prior to the war, decided to act as counsel for the soldiers. sadly, just like the mission, the odds were stacked against them. for example, one of the men was unable to advance because he was unconscious because another solider and fallen on him and knocked him out. however, the court wanted him to produce witnesses to prove that he was in fact unconscious. since they were in the middle of battle, he was unable to produce witnesses. in the end, colonel dax gave a compelling closing argument about how unjust the trial was, the soldiers were never formally charge, there was no record kept of the court proceedings and all in all, it was obvious that charges were made to prove a point versus seeking justice. but in the end, the soldiers were executed. also mireau was punished for his attempt on his troop, this resulted in dax being promoted which he did not want because he was insulted that his superior assumed that advancement was the reason he wanted to defend the soldiers, not justice. it demonstrated how immoral war really is.

"paths of glory" is an compelling anti-war film, which is why i think i enjoyed it. in fact, i learned on wikipedia that "paths of glory" was rumored to be banned in france because of its portrayal of the french army. in actuality, there was pressure put on the studio to not release it and as a resulted it wasn't released until 1975. germany did not allow it to be released in alliance with france and spain did not because of its anti-military stance (franco was not a fan.)

aside from the corruption among the generals. it was also sad to see innocent men killed for no reason. but if one thinks of it in a larger scheme that is what war is, innocent men being killed for lofty ideas like freedom or justice. i want to clarify that i support us troops and servicemen but i do not respect the governments that puts them in the position of war. i always think of "all quiet on the western front" when it is discussed why kings and leaders do not battle when they are the ones that benefit most directly from the winning of wars. instead wars are fought by young men who do not completely understand why they are at war. wars are fought but does anyone truly understand why? this reminded me of "1984" and how the "war" was fought as the means of economic benefit than the gaining of power, and the only ones that knew this truth was the inner party and not the people fighting the war.

soldiers are the ones that fight and suffer the most but governments treat them as insufficient. in the film, in the trials for the soldiers it was known that one of the soldiers did not advance because his general did not give orders too, yet that general was not charged for anything. why was this general not charged with mutiny? and we knew this solider to be a coward and drunk yet he was not placed before the court. he got away with due to the politics of military status. it sad because one associates the military with being upright since it fights for our freedom but there is corruption within it as well.

i think one of the most haunting scenes from this film is the image of the solider who was injured yet was tied, stretcher and all to the post to be shot for execution. all of this to make a point about mutiny and cowardice. here these men were willing to give up their life for france by being in the army but were executed because they could not complete a suicide mission. so sad and powerful.

i have been really impressed with kubrick's story lines and have started to realize that his works are based on novels. this was as was the shining, barry lyndon, a clockwork orange and lolita. i am not hating just observing. he is telling these stories filtered through his own eyes and adds to them so it's not like he is simply stealing someone else's genius. but with each film i find myself more and more excited about his othe films. i would just like to reiterate how much i enjoyed this film and looking forward to completing his catalog.