Paths of Glory is arguably the best film about the First World War, and certainly one of Stanley Kubrick’s finest. It is a treatise on human injustice; a compelling and harsh indictment of war. The title is entirely ironic and comes from a line in eighteenth century romantic poet Thomas Gray’s Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard: The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

This brilliant criticism of the macabre futility and horror in the trenches was adapted by Kubrick, Calder Willingham and pulp expert Jim Thompson, from the 1935 (Nineteen Thirty Five) novel by Herbert Cobb- which, scandalously, was inspired by a real event.

The scarred and brilliant George Macready plays French General Mireau, an officer who in 1916 (Nineteen Sisteen) orders a suicidally fruitless attack on a German stronghold. After the inevitable debacle, he orders three men to be chosen at random and shot for cowardice.

“The men died wonderfully!” he vainly crows as he enjoys tea and delicate pastries at Head Quarters. Utterly disregarding that they died in droves, failed to secure the objective and semi came under fire from their own artillery.

No, no, they died wonderfully.

In the trenches- amid the mud, the rats and the corpses of one’s friends- there is at least a sense of solidarity amongst the honourable yet ill fated soldiers. Their emotions are real.

Yet, in the General’s HQ, amongst the columns, frescos and sweeping staircases, the expensive art on the walls and marble floors underfoot, the aristocrats and officer class converse in ghoulish obscenities about acceptable death tolls. The Versailles-like structure sapping their moral thoughts, until they are strangled by protocol, precedents and military codes.

Away from the banal social etiquette, Kirk Douglas plays rough old soldier Colonel Dax, revolted with his superiors’ arrogant ineptitude. He attempts to defend the innocent men who are to be slaughtered. Kubrick’s juxtaposition of nauseating trifling tyranny behind the lines and battle scenes strewn with camaraderie is masterful.

And what battle scenes! The relentless right-to-left tracking shots through a no man’s land strewn with corpses and wire and the explosions that hurl showers of muddy debris on the actors- and the camera- were state of the art at the time.

Kubrick was just 28 when he directed Paths of Glory and I cannot stress enough just how magnificent the battle scenes are!

In the final sequence, a scene of enigmatic redemptive beauty, a German woman sings to the troops as Kubrick blends compassion, perhaps with something of those commanding officers’ detachment and control.

“Gentlemen of the court,” says Douglas’ Colonel Dax, in a line that could plausibly appear in a subsequent Kubrick film, “there are times when I’m ashamed to be a member of the human race, and this is one of them.”

Paths of Glory’s anti-war message and cinematic reprisal meant it suffered poor box-office returns, and was banned in France and Switzerland for almost twenty years following its release. Knowing that, to me, makes the film’s social message even more cutting.

Hello and welcome to the Classical Review… otherwise known as the Alfred Hitchcock Review… because yes, this week it’s another Hitchcock film: Torn Curtain! An American physicist, Michael Armstrong, shocks his friends and family by defecting to East Germany at the height of the Cold War! [VT- Shock!] Even his fiancée, Sarah, is surprised by the move. But! When she follows him behind the Iron Curtain she discovers… that her husband to be isn’t actually a Communist… he’s a double agent! Michael’s job is to discover Soviet nuclear secrets but, as they plot a way back to America, his cover is blown!

Is it the best film you’ve ever seen? Startlingly brilliant? Is it full of mystery and intrigue?!?!

Well, it’s not a total disaster.

Whilst there are some undeniably tense moments (almost all involving Wolfgang Keiling’s KGB agent Hermann Gromek), this is Hitchcock on autopilot and really quite unrewarding.

The 1966 spy thriller has one of the lowest reputations of his late works. But Hitchcock was incapable of making a completely uninteresting film- even when lumbered with the utterly unsympathetic Paul Newman and Julie Andrews (don’t give me that look- you know they are!) He’s a screen legend, one of the best cowboys of all time and his wry humour is fantastic… yet an academic he is not.

Much criticism at the time was aimed at Julie Andrews- whose performance is perfectly acceptable. No. Really. It’s fine. She’s… fine.

She’ll do.

Whatever.

But she doesn’t sing! Fresh from the hugely successful Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, she was in danger of becoming type cast… because she is really ruddy good at that one thing! Make her do that one thing over and over please!

Never mind. It’s an okay film. There is even a murder scene that subverts the film convention of a quick and painless death… Film convention of the time, obviously. I don’t think Saw exactly follows those rules.

This is one of those frustrating films of two halves: In the first half of the film, there is an interesting, off-centred moral tone as Michael is an opportunistic missile scientist, trying to worm his way into East Berlin so he can pick the brain of a leading communist researcher. The second half is more of a straightforward chase that manages to loose the momentum and trust it has gained. One wonders whether there was, perhaps, a better film left on the cutting room floor.

‘It tears you apart with suspense’, reads the tag line. ‘It tears you apart with mildly frustrated boredom’, might be a more accurate title.