Reviews in the United States, 1957–1958
Despite the film's harsh reception in Europe by various governments, French war veterans, and media outlets, in the months after the motion picture's initial screenings in the United States, reactions to Kubrick's production featured in American newspapers and trade publications were generally positive. Nevertheless, perceived deficiencies in the film's structure and content were expressed by some of the nation's leading reviewers in 1957 and 1958.
In his December 26, 1957, review for The New York Times, Bosley Crowther credits Kubrick for creating a visually "terrific", highly intense picture. In particular, Crowther draws attention to the story's execution scene, which he describes as "one of the most craftily directed and emotionally lacerating that we have ever seen." He does, though, also identify two "troubling flaws" that he saw in the film, one being within the "realm of technique", the other within the "realm of significance":We feel that Mr. Kubrick – and Mr. Douglas – have made a damaging mistake in playing it in colloquial English, with American accents and attitudes, while studiously making it look as much as possible like a document of the French Army in World War I. The illusion of reality is blown completely whenever anyone talks....As for the picture's significance, it comes to an inconclusive point. Its demonstration of injustice is like an exhibit in a bottle in a medical museum. It is grotesque, appalling, nauseating – but so framed and isolated that, when you come away, you are left with the feeling that you have been witness to nothing more than a horribly freakish incident.
The absence of any spoken French or suitably accented English dialogue in a highly focused portrayal of French soldiers continued to be a point of debate in American critical analysis of Paths of Glory. Philip K. Scheuer, who wrote about films for the Los Angeles Times from the 1920s to 1967, was another reviewer who addressed the issue again in the newspaper's January 16, 1958, edition. In a follow-up discussion about the "controversial war picture", in a commentary subtitled "Question of Foreign Accents Raised by 'Paths of Glory'", Scheuer cites the style of speech used in the film and the screenplay's "weak" ending as two reasons he omitted the production from his "selection of 1957's best". Like Bosley Crowther, he found the "linguistic" aspects of the dialogue wholly distracting. "In 'Paths'", Scheuer writes, "the actors all...employ ordinary colloquial English – much of it, I felt, delivered badly – although Adolph Menjou, being of French descent, did convey a certain quality of Frenchness," adding, "The others were simply Hollywood types."
The overriding tone of the motion picture also evoked comments about the picture's marketability, namely its scant appeal to a very large segment of moviegoers. "Grim" is the word that frequently appears in contemporary reviews of the film, an adjective understandably applied given the story's brutal subject matter, and a word still commonly used even in complimentary assessments by critics. In its March 18, 1958 edition, the Chicago Daily Tribune summarizes the release as "a grim, forceful story, presented in blunt, unvarnished fashion, entirely lacking in the customary cliches, deftly directed." Whitney Williams, a critic for Variety, previewed the film six weeks before it opened at the Fine Arts Theatre in Los Angeles. In his review, which was published on November 20, 1957, Williams anticipates limited interest as well as limited box-office revenue for the picture:"Paths of Glory" is a starkly realistic recital of French army politics in 1916 during World War I. While the subject is well handled and enacted in a series of outstanding characterizations, it seems dated and makes for grim screen fare. Even with the Kirk Douglas star name to spark its chances, outlook is spotty at best and will need all the hard selling United Artists, which is distributing the Bryna production, can muster.
Harrison's Reports, an independent and advertisement-free film review journal in 1957, agreed with Variety's critic and in November expressed doubts too that the "World War I melodrama" would be successful commercially after its general release in January 1958. "Just how it will fare at the box-office is a matter of conjecture", Harrison's stated, characterizing its central theme as "a grim and unpleasant study of man's inhumanity toward man".
Edwin S. Schallert, a fellow critic of Philip Scheuer at the Los Angeles Times, also attended the film's first screening in Los Angeles on December 20, 1957. The following day the newspaper published Schallert's evaluation, which begins by classifying Paths of Glory as "A minor contribution but an interesting one to the war effort on the screen". Next he describes the drama's storyline in some detail before addressing specifically the film's final scene, which he found odd and disconnected in its presentation so soon after "the grim gray execution". "Susanne Christian", Schallert writes, "is seen as the German girl forced to sing to a huge body of [French] troops right at the end of the picture – a peculiar sort of payoff for the miscarriage of justice to which the whole gathering of men seems to be oblivious." He then concludes, "'Paths of Glory' is a commendably sincere picture, very well told for the most part, though it does not fulfill itself in the best screen and entertainment terms. It is practically like a documentary."
The review in Harrison's Reports addressed the ending as well, maintaining that it was the "picture's one weak spot", was "difficult to understand", and "leaves one with a feeling that it is inconclusive". The journal then offered its own interpretation of the final scenes. From Harrison's perspective, as Colonel Dax is returning to his quarters after his confrontations with his superior officers, "he notices his soldiers enjoying themselves in a cafe. It disgusts him to think that they had so quickly forgotten their executed comrades, but he compassionately realizes that life must go on." Whitney Williams in Variety also commented about the film's finale, noting that it "ends so abruptly [the] audience is left with a feeling of incompletion."
Other assorted critics in newspapers and trade publications viewed the film's ending and the production's significance cinematically far differently than the cited critics at the Los Angeles Times or the reviewers for Harrison's Reports and Variety. Richard Gertner of the New York-based trade paper Motion Picture Daily was one of them. He, unlike Edwin Schallert, did not see Paths of Glory as a "minor contribution" to the genre of wartime portrayals. Nor did he find its closing scenes "peculiar"; but instead, "poignant". After viewing what he termed "a brilliant and arresting film" only a few weeks after its world premiere in Munich, Gertner highly recommended it to his readers, many of whom were theater owners. He then advised those motion picture "exhibitors" not to misjudge the film's content in advance:Technically, this is a war picture, but any exhibitor who promotes it as just another action film will be making a serious mistake. Its exciting battle scenes and the suspense of a subsequent court martial assure it of appeal in that market. But it also has deeper and stronger elements under the surface that will attract customers who like strong drama....Just as exciting as the physical events are the ideas about war and men that Kubrick trenchantly puts across – about military discipline, the [fallibility] of those who carry it out and the futility of attempting to fight [it]. These are timeless ideas – relevant to any war. Let us hasten to add, however, that this is no "message" picture. The theme is implicit to the story and the characters.
Finally, in contrast to Philip Scheuer's omission of the production from his "selection of 1957's best", Gertner ends his appraisal emphatically: "No doubt about it – 'Paths of Glory' is one of the strongest dramas of the year."
In spite of issues being raised in various reviews about the film's manner of dialogue, its anticipated marketing challenges, and its ending, in the United States in 1957 and 1958 there was near universal admiration expressed for the directorial abilities and technical expertise that the 29-year-old Kubrick exhibited in the production. Jay Carmody – the drama critic for The Evening Star in Washington, D.C., and winner of the Screen Directors Guild's "Critic of the Year" award for 1956 – commended Kubrick for directing a "film with sting" and doing so with "chilling incisiveness". At the New York Herald Tribune, critic William Zinsser judges the film to be "outstanding" in his December 26, 1957 review and describes Kubrick's direction and editing as first-rate. "His scenes", Zinsser observes, "are vivid and well composed, and he knows the art of cutting – the scenes make their point, with economy and bite, and move on." Even at this relatively early stage in Kubrick's career directing feature films, he had already gained a reputation in the motion picture industry for commanding all aspects of his projects and being, as one colleague described him, "'meticulous with everything, from scripting to editing'". What is notably missing, however, from Zinsser's comments or in other contemporary reviews about the quality of the production's "cutting" are any allusions to Eva Kroll, the film's credited editor, and to her contributions in helping to construct or at least refine the end product.
