Paths of Glory (1957) / Cross of Iron (1977)

There's already some time since I want to put "Paths of Glory" and "Cross of Iron" in a side-by-side entry, enough time to forget pretty much all I wanted to write. By chance, I've watched this year both movies, both of them being part of a similar anti-war niche. "Paths of Glory" is among the first movies of Kubrick, while "Cross of Iron" is an indie movie by Sam Peckinpah (probably the most underrated director of the 70s). Both movies are book adaptations and both have the same antagonist typology - a superior ranked officer, whose primary objective in a critical war situation is a "quest for glory" and (up to some point) also the same typology of the main character - the inferior ranked officer, sick of war, for who the glory equals zero.

In "Paths of Glory" we have on one side a French general during WW1 who, following a discreet suggestion coming from the army commandment, decides to sacrifice based on preliminary estimation more than half of the people under his command for conquering a hill, a strategic objective that will bring praise and a potential promotion. On the other side, we have a colonel who should carry the order till the end, but fails, the soldiers being unable to advance through enemy fire; consequence - he must choose 3 soldiers, one in each company, for bringing them in front of the martial court for cowardice. In "Cross of Iron" we have a captain of the German army, descending from an Prussian aristocratic family, who in the final days of WW2 asks for a transfer near the enemy lines because he cannot accept getting out of the war without obtaining an Iron Cross for bravery. On the opposite side we have a sergeant, commanding a group of soldiers, saviors of the company in difficult no-exit situations, who refuses to lie on witnessing his superior leading a heroic assault.

The closeness of the two movies is interesting, not necessarily from the war context perspective, but more for the general approach of life: the boss-employee relationship, the world in which each of them lives seen from above by one and closely within by the other, approaching impossible tasks, etc. The similarity has, however, a limit, the movies being split apart by their general feeling, and the character who struggling within the harsh reality takes different directions from some point onward. (Spoilers) One of the characters manifests a loyal insanity up to the point when the accumulated sickness reaches a limit, the other is also a sickened person but one who plans, trying all he can to solve the situation within its constraining bounds. In "Cross of Iron" the sergeant is offered with the opportunity to accuse his superior and he's not doing it. In "Paths of Glory" the colonel is refused on any attempt of defense. Which approach is the right one?... :) I'll just say that it's probably better to watch the movies in reverse chronological order ;) also because I find "Cross of Iron" much more harsh than "Paths of Glory".

Rating:
Paths of Glory - 3.5 out of 5
Cross of Iron - 3 out of 5