MovieChat Forums > Paths of Glory (1957) Discussion > People dying with no blood or gun fire i...

People dying with no blood or gun fire in the air.

posted 8 years ago by Nayr39
11 replies | jump to latest

Did anyone else get completely taken out of the film when this happened? I understand it's an old movie, maybe I'm spoiled. The last war movie I saw was Hacksaw Ridge, which I enjoyed much more. Not because of the graphic nature of death, but the depiction of death in that and this make it look like a G rated movie compared to a NC-17. People just fall over in this, to the point I wasn't always sure they had been hit. They'd fall into a hole making me think they might of tripped, but nope, dead. All we have to go off are sound effects and people falling. I never felt any suspense or thrill from the action, it all felt hollow and at arms reach.

[–] cowgoesmoo 8 years ago

I'm watching it right now and the attempt to take the Ant Hill is on playing. I've seen it many times before but hadn't noticed. You're right, though. I notice it now, but it hasn't bothered me in the past.

I guess I've been assuming bullets were flying everywhere in addition to airbursts and shrapnel from German artillery raining down from above.

I've also read elsewhere that most of the extras playing French soldiers were off-duty German policemen, not professional actors. It may be that that with so many men, they didn't know how to "act" like they were dying and simply stopped in their tracks, fell down, and closed their eyes.

[–] DaveBowman2001 (520) 7 years ago

Na. Didn't bother me. It's a great movie. Hacksaw Ridge on the other hand is unmemorable. The execution scene(s)..before and during really were good. You could feel the dread in your gut. The man protesting and crying was more realistic and the stoic bullshit you usually get in movies. It's painful to watch. The debates, head games and arguments were most enjoyable.

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

Not to me. The fact it achieves same effect of the horror and pointlessness without the perfect blood squat on the camera lense is a thing a beauty. I love the gore and blood we see in movies today, but I take my hat off to productions like this where they rock on without it.

Would same approach work in a movie today? Likely not. But this is not a movie of today and it is impossible not to view it as such... I will go even further; the fact that it is made so few years after a world war makes its production unique and insurmountable to ever reach again. And you feel it.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

saw this movie a couple of weeks ago and it is a wonderful war movie right up there with Saving Private Ryan

[–] HAL 9010 (907) 7 years ago

A war movie should foremost make the viewer really think and contemplate more than just make the viewer clap in awe of its magnificent pictures or settings. Perhaps I know of no other movie to better make or even force the viewer to think deeper about the point of of it all. It really is a very strong movie.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

No Oscar noms for Douglas or McCready was a shame

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

WHAT? A piece of fiction didn't ABSOLUTELY conform to the standards of reality? Call the cops! (And not the Keystone Cops, dammit!)

[–] fleischwolf (294) 7 years ago

Please remember when this was made! The first really bloody shooting with bulletholes and all was Bonny and Clyde as I recall.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I'm glad this is a 3 years old post so you might have learned something in the interim.
At that time, we didn't have an appetite for blood like we do now. If you want to see blood, go to an Emergency Room. Enjoy !
And this isn't the point of the movie at all.

[–] Druff (1845) 5 years ago

"Did anyone else get completely taken out of the film when this happened?"

Not me, because I'm not a puerile asshole.

[–] liscarkat (19416) 2 years ago

I know for a fact that all the characters in this movie had to take a leak or a dump at some point, but I never saw them do it. Took me right out of the movie.