A commanding officer defends three scapegoats on trial for a failed offensive that occurred within the French Army in 1916.
A commanding officer defends three scapegoats on trial for a failed offensive that occurred within the French Army in 1916.
The film's central thesis explicitly promotes a progressive ideology by offering a scathing systemic critique of military injustice, class disparity, and the dehumanizing nature of war and power.
The film features a cast that is predominantly white and male, consistent with its historical setting in World War I. Its narrative primarily critiques military command, class structures, and the futility of war, rather than focusing on themes of diversity, equity, or inclusion related to race or gender.
The film depicts the institutional presence of Christianity, through the priest, as largely ceremonial and ineffective in challenging the profound injustice and moral corruption of the military leadership. The church as an institution fails to provide a moral counterweight to the state-sanctioned murder, implicitly highlighting its impotence or complicity within a system that is fundamentally oppressive and cruel.
Paths of Glory does not feature any identifiable LGBTQ+ characters or themes. The narrative is entirely centered on the grim realities of warfare and military bureaucracy, with no depiction of queer identity or experiences.
The movie does not contain any action or adventure elements.
The film "Paths of Glory" is an adaptation of a novel. All significant characters in the film maintain the same gender as established in the original source material. There are no instances of characters being portrayed on screen as a different gender than their canonical or historical depiction.
The film, based on a 1935 novel and set during World War I, features characters who are consistently portrayed by actors of the same race as established in the source material and historical context. There are no instances where a character's race was changed from their original depiction.
Combines user and critic ratings from four sources