2001: The Shining / Analyses of Kubrick's Films

[feralgoose]

Originally Posted by 1331

Can't see it i'm afraid. However i saw this.



A banner(?) Camp Climax pointing at frame with butterflies (Monarch reference?). In the novel i believe it was called Camp Q.

very good that one ELuded me but that looks about right!

I wondered if there was anything to Lolita mentioning kissing the Blarney Stone, this comes immediately after it is implied Hum & Lolita have sex for the first time. I'm aware there is some godess mythology behind it and that if you kiss it you are given the gift of the gab, something it seems quilty bestows

[1331]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

In EWS isn't it obvious that Nicole was at the orgy! I think that the real "slime ball"(Sandor Szavost) that was chatting her up at the party may have been the guy in the red costume? This character in the film comes over extremely well as someone who can worm is way in with a young woman, but did he already know her before the party?

That aside the vision Tom Cruise keeps having of her being seduced what looks like a Navy Officer - could be his own paranoia, that he thinks she's with some other guy, which is what keeps him after sex with another woman. But there is some dialogue between Tom and Nicola when they come back from the party and are smoking a joint in bed, and I don't recall exactly what she said to him?

Also at the end when Tom returns to their appartment and she is asleep and his mask that went missing, is on the pillow next to her. Which suggests that this is telling him/us, that she was there at the orgy most definately. It also suggests she could have been one of them for a long time and may have helped set him up. The plot reminds me a bit of Rosemary's Baby and another one Afterhours.

You are probably correct. It wasn't obvious at the time i saw it, i then interpreted the mask on the bed as someone had been in the apartment placing it there while she was sleeping as a threat. And it could have well been been him in the red dress. I now look forward to watching it again.

[feralgoose]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

Wasn't Dr Strangelove laughing at the military and the madness of them all.

Right you are, and the sinister Dr Strangelove possibly alludes to the Nazi origins of the technology that fuelled the arms and space race of the cold war.

Dr Strangelove is Peter Sellers playing almost an identical role to Dr Zempf who he played for a 6 minute scene in Lolita, this scene was important as it showed Kubricks acknowledgement of the great power of subliminal messages in mind control and manipulation of will.

Just started watching Paths of Glory (57) and already the 2 characters are talking about mind reading.

[octopusrex]

Originally Posted by 1331

I found this which goes in the same lines as what i already have posted.






- http://watch.pair.com/new-messiah.html

According to wiki you may be correct that the Faun is not Pan.




What i find strange is that if Guillermo del Toro didn't want petray Pan why did he give these references? May mean nothing though.



And one of his earlier pieces:
Cronos (1992) - Youtube

Who WAS the King of Atlantis?

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by 1331

You are probably correct. It wasn't obvious at the time i saw it, i then interpreted the mask on the bed as someone had been in the apartment placing it there while she was sleeping as a threat. And it could have well been been him in the red dress. I now look forward to watching it again.

Like you first time I saw EWS, I thought that it was put there as a threat. 2nd time I drew the conclusion that Alice was in on it - but not so sure. Does anyone have the dialogue when they are argueing in the bedroom after coming back from the first party and she says something to Tom which upsets him - anyone know what she said?

[feralgoose]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

Like you first time I saw EWS, I thought that it was put there as a threat. 2nd time I drew the conclusion that Alice was in on it - but not so sure. Does anyone have the dialogue when they are argueing in the bedroom after coming back from the first party and she says something to Tom which upsets him - anyone know what she said?

from wiki:

Just before dawn, Bill arrives home guilty and confused, where his wife Alice is now awake and tells him of a troubling dream in which he and she were in a deserted city without their clothes. She felt frightened and ashamed while he went off to try to find their clothes. After he left, she felt better, finding herself, still naked, in a beautiful garden. The Naval Officer emerged, stared at her, and the two of them began making love surrounded by many other couples doing the same. She then started having sex with many of those men and laughing at the idea of Bill seeing her with them.

[the_ohmbudsman]

Originally Posted by feralgoose

from wiki:

Just before dawn, Bill arrives home guilty and confused, where his wife Alice is now awake and tells him of a troubling dream in which he and she were in a deserted city without their clothes. She felt frightened and ashamed while he went off to try to find their clothes. After he left, she felt better, finding herself, still naked, in a beautiful garden. The Naval Officer emerged, stared at her, and the two of them began making love surrounded by many other couples doing the same. She then started having sex with many of those men and laughing at the idea of Bill seeing her with them.

Yeh I meant the bit more nearer the beginning after they come back from the first party and smoke a joint. I just found this interview with Nicole Kidman about it. She tells Bill that she wants to get off with some Navy Officer who is apparently a fantasy.

Remembering Stanley Kubrick - Kidman on Kubrick @2 - YouTube

Remembering Stanley Kubrick - Kidman on Kubrick @2 - YouTube

[the_ohmbudsman]

A message from Stanley Kubrick - YouTube

A message from Stanley Kubrick - YouTube

[mata]

Hi feralgoose, thanks for forwarding that material by Blavatsky and Oak. I am not familiar with Oak, but I am aware that there is a lot of debate surrounding the validity of some aspects of Blavatsky's work. I've not studied her work directly, so I do not have a position on whether or not the derisions made about her work hold water. Either way, the idea that Vedic culture influenced the Arabian peninsula prior to the formation of Islam seems highly likely to me. It would be interesting to do a comparative study between Vedic and Arabic astronomy, for example. On my last trip to India I spent a good deal of time under the treatment of an (authentic) Aryuvedic Practitioner from Kerala, on the South Western Coastal province of the Indian Penninsula. Kerala is where the Practice of Aryuveda originates. He is the 14th generational family member to have inherited the unchanged body of knowledge which he applies as a Practitioner. His closely guarded and cared for reference-tablets are composed in Tamil script. He stated very clearly that Mahadev, as an 'incarnation' of Shiva, is the founder of the Vedic sciences. Whilst the body of knowledge he Practices from is (as I understood) strictly Vedic - his ancestors, at some later point, 'incorporated' Islam, as evidenced by the fact that he is Islamic. At the time I found that concept confusing. However, I am now starting to understand that whatever it was that went on between Vedic culture and Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, there most certainly was significant exchange between the two; and I, for one, believe - in my gut - that the Vedic tradition held the primary custodial, or Senior role, in what was developed between the two of them. Anyway, pressing on, thank you very much for bringing the Blavatsky and P.N. Oak material to my attention. I've repeated the links you provided below. I've then synopsised both bodies of material, in order to allow for easier reading. Whatever the 'academic' standing of Blavatsky, or Oak - when put into the context of the information that all us members have been pooling together here on this thread, I don't see why their material couldn't also contain clues that might help us arrive at a better understanding of the meaning of The Obelisk.


http://www.greatdreams.com/planets/s...ths-truths.htm
http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

Blavatsky, p. 578: "Abraham is held until the present day by the Mohammedan Arabas as Saturn in the Kaaba […] Abraham and Israel were names of Saturn[…] This source is […] purely Indian, and original if it may be found in the Mahabharata […] whether Brahmanical or Buddhistical, it must certainly be much older than the Jewish Pentateuch, as compiled by Ezra after the Babylonian captivity, and revised by the Rabbis of the Great Synagogue" [...] p. 216: "As Saturn, [Shiva] was always held in great respect by the Talmudists. He was held in reverence by the Alexandrian Kabbalists as the direct inspirer of the law and the prophets".

P.N.Oak: "The ancient Indian empires may have extended up to the eastern boundaries of Arabia until Vikramaditya and that it was he who for the first time conquered [Pre-Islamic] Arabia [...] The Vikramaditya inscription, found inscribed on a gold dish hung inside the Kaaba shrine in Mecca.. says that king Vikram dispelled the darkness of ignorance from Arabia…King Vikramaditya is known for his great devotion to Lord Mahadev (Shiva). The text of the crucial Vikramaditya inscription is found recorded on page 315 of a volume known as ‘Sayar-ul-Okul’ [which was] published in Berlin in 1864 [&] contains biographic details and the poetic compositions of pre-Islamic Arabian poets, [including an] elaborate description of the ancient shrine of Mecca. This should convince readers that the annual Haj of the Muslims to the Kaaba is of earlier pre-Islamic congregation. The principal shrines at both Varanasi in India and at Mecca in Arvasthan (Arabia) were Siva temples. It is the Shankara (Siva) stone that Muslim pilgrims reverently touch and kiss in the Kaaba".

It is clear that there is a relationship between Saturn, Abram and Shiva; and I have to ask if somewhere therein lies the meaning of The Obelisk? Could the Obelisk, or perhaps Monolith is a better term, be the Saturnic Cube - geometrically splayed open in order to reveal a 'Mystery'? The mystery being that Saturn, Shiva and Abram are indeed all related - which directs us then to the following question: what are the implications of the idea that Saturn is a hidden ruling body presiding over Humanity as a Collective?. It is a question that sits quite aside from whether or not any of us, as individuals, have been raised within a particular 'religion'. It pertains to the questioning of what Saturn (as an ever-more quantifiable influence) has brought to bear upon the development of Humanity as a whole. We as Humans are collectively subject to 'Time'. Ok. But could what Kubrick is presenting (with The Shining, 2001 and other films) allude to the possibility that it may not always have been so? That, perhaps, 'for those in the know' it may not even be the case now? What are the implications of this for the concept of human inter-dimensionality? Or for the concept of our inter-relationship with "All That Is"? Certainly, one thing is obvious: Kubrick showed us Jack Torrence as having been present in the 'present day' setting of The Overlook Hotel - and he also showed us Jack Torrence as having been present in the same location in 1921. With this Kubrick unequivocally states that the 'concept' of Time is to be questioned. How we go about that is I guess up to each individual, based upon their own vantage point as 'the Observer'. Below are two other things that arose for me after reading the Blavatsky excerpts. The first of which is a 'conversation' between yourself, feralgoose, and hammarberg (on pages 11 and 12 of the thread) about the 'ritual' compositions created by Jocelyn Pook for Eyes Wide Shut. What you turned up is now taking on an extra layers of importance, for me atleast! Just to close, I'm sure that most people here in this discussion would agree that it's clear Kubrick did not make arbitrary decisions in his work. Surely it's fair, then, to give some thought to why he chose Hindi, Tamil and Romanian chant narratives to 'seal' the ritual scenes played out at Somerton? I have a hard time believing they were decisions made solely in order to 'spook' the untrained 'Western Ears' of what could be considered his primary audience.

Originally Posted by hammarberg

I wonder what language that chanting is? And is it reversed?

Originally Posted by feralgoose

The chanting drummed up some controversy from sikh or hindu circles if I remember correctly?

From wiki sourced by feralgoose: "Complaints came from offended members of the Hindu religion.. [who].. wrote to Warner Brothers requesting they change the voice-over chant that plays as Bill Harford wanders from room to room at the mansion. According to the American Hindus Against Defamation, "the background music subsides and the Shloka (scriptural recitation) from the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most revered Hindu scripture is played out... The main musical track at the beginning of the orgy scene is the chanting of a Romanian priest being played backwards... One musical cue [as noted above] is sung in Tamil... Other sections (according to film composer Jocelyn Pook) are sung in Hindi, taken from an earlier recording by Manickam Yogeswaran... Eventually, Warner Brothers agreed with the Hindu community of Great Britain to replace it with a chant of similar dramatic tone. These changes were not made in the North American release.

Originally Posted by mata

Does Saturn - Kronos relate to the origin of the concept of Money?

Blavatsky, p. 216: "Abraham is called Zeru-an, or Zerb-an - meaning one very rich in gold and silver".

[EDIT] p.s. I'd probably have to take up issue with Oak regarding his statement about 'black stone' on the Ka'aba being the Shiva Stone, which I understand to be 'The Lingam'. The Lingam has a totally different shape. But that's not to exclude the possibility that the 'black stone' could be a Proto-form of The Lingam.

Lingam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lingam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lingam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Edited some bad grammar out of the post]

[Edited Tamil Bhrami to Tamil, in relation to the Aryuvedic Practitioner's reference-tablets. He'd said 'Tamil', I'd looked it up on wikipedia and assumed it was Tamil Bhrami, but there may be other forms of Tamil script, so I best not make an assumption that could confuse matters].

[noobcybot]

Originally Posted by mata

[EDIT] p.s. I'd probably have to take up issue with Oak regarding his statement that about 'black stone' on the Ka'aba being the Shiva Stone, which I understand to be 'The Lingam'. The Lingam has a totally different shape. But that's not to exclude the possibility that the 'black stone' could be a Proto-form of The Lingam.

Lingam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would suggest that it is actually representing the Yoni.

[mata]

Originally Posted by the_ohmbudsman

I meant the bit more nearer the beginning after they come back from the first party and smoke a joint. I just found this interview with Nicole Kidman about it. She tells Bill that she wants to get off with some Navy Officer who is apparently a fantasy.

Hi the ombudsman, here is a rough approximation of the dialogue from the scene you are referring to. Alice explains that Sandor Szavost wanted to take her 'upstairs', Bill says something like "is that all? He just wanted to fuck my wife? Well, that's understandable, you're beautiful" Alice says "Whoa, so you think the only reason a man would want to talk to me is because he wants to fuck me? Is that right?" Bill says something like " a little over-complicated but, yes, something like that. I think we both know what men can be like?" Alice goes: "so on that basis I should assume that you wanted to fuck those two models" He's a bit stumped, there's another bit at this point related to Dr bill's female clients, Alice asking him if he really thinks that when they're having their titties squeezed wouldn't they be wondering "what hansome doctor Bill's dickie might be like?" Bill says that it would be the last thing on the mind of this "fucking hypothetical" patient. Alice then cracks up laughing. He says something like "great, now we get the fucking laughing fit. I'll tell you what, I think you've had a little bit too much to drink tonight and this pot is making you aggressive". Alice retorts: "Millions of years of evolution! right? right? Men have to stick it in everywhere they can - but for woman it's all about commitment and security and what the fuck ever else. if you men only knew" Bill is silent. Alice describes an incident when she, Bill and their daughter Helena were away on holiday somewhere and Alice developed a crush on some sailor that walked past her in the foyer. She closes by saying that she would have been prepared to loose everything, her family, future, everything - if she could've had one night with the sailor. the sailor was gone in the morning, and Alice says "I was relieved". Bill is sitting there stunned. Before he can gather his thoughts - the phone rings. He is called away to the death-bed of one of his patients.

[Edit] oops: Bill saying 'over-simplified' instead of 'over-complicated'?

[mata]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

I would suggest that it is actually representing the Yoni.

That sounds more like it noobcybot! Yes, it's even set within a huge vulvic silver housing!

[mata]

Thanks 1331 for the Pan info, i'll read through it properly tonight

[mata]

Originally Posted by noobcybot

I would suggest that it is actually representing the Yoni.

Hi again noobcybot. Something just connected up in my head with your idea of the 'black stone' (in it's vulvic silver housing on the Ka'aba!) being the Yoni. I happen to be from a Polynesian cultural back-ground and we have a 'trickster' prometheus-like, character called Maui, an ancestor who undertook a number of significant 'campaigns', one of which altered our understanding of 'diurnal' Time. His final exploit was an act that altered our experience of existence itself. This is where what you have said about The Yoni comes in, and I must say I'm kind of freaking out a little about how it's piecing together - just in relation to my own background. Maui attempted to steal the secret of immortality from the Goddess of The Night. She was a goddess who, until that point, was charged with the role of guiding humans, who were all still immortal, during their visits to the Underworld. The way Maui sought to steal the secret of immortality, was to creep between The Goddess of The Night's legs - to where the secret of immortality was known to be located. Unfortunately one of the birds he had as a companion - squeeked - and woke the goddess up from her slumber. Maui and his bird-companions were then crushed between her thighs - from which point, all humans and birds, and other creatures of the forest - became subject to mortality.

[mata]

Originally Posted by 1331

Saturn Devouring His Son

Could what is being depicted here be a 'poetic' (albeit horrific) representation of the arrival of mortality into the human time paradigm? If we can see past the gore of the image and just look at it symbolically, it could be said to be depicting the end of cell-replication. The concept of life having new parameters imposed on it. New life/ The Child (eternal renewal/immortality) being halted in it's tracks?

[dr steam]

This thread has been completely diluted by 2-3 freaks who cultivate a theosophic thoughtful Association games on all sorts of ancient gods and religions .Blavatsky mombo jombo crab.

The Shining and 2001 has plenty of material that deserves attention according to a rational context, instead of all this schizophrenic irrational over-interpreted religious bullshit and as there are plenty of threads of here in this forum .Shame .






There has been much speculation over the years about the history of the two pieces of art Dick Hallorann has hanging above his bed and television in The Shining.The source for the piece above his TV has finally been discovered: It is a photo taken in the early 1970’s that was sold as a poster titled “Supernatural Dream”. The model is named Azizi Johari,
(there'll be a freak or two who see a connection with her to Cronos.Saturn and Pan or black cube, I think)

Kubrick on The Shining
An interview with Michel Ciment
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/d...erview.ts.html

"Of course there is a danger that some audiences may misunderstand what you say and think that one can dispense altogether with reason, falling into the clouded mysticism which is currently so popular in America."

"People can misinterpret almost anything so that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had their views about anything important changed by a work of art?"

"Did you have a religious upbringing?"

"No, not at all..........................................."

[mata]

Originally Posted by dr steam

This thread has been completely diluted by 2-3 freaks who cultivate a theosophic thoughtful Association games on all sorts of ancient gods and religions .Blavatsky mombo jombo crab. [...] The Shining and 2001 has plenty of material that deserves attention, instead of all this schizophrenic over-interpreted religious bullshit and as there are plenty of threads of here in this forum , Its a shame .

Well, dr steam, why don't you simply contribute more "un-freakish" material? I understand why you'd be frustrated with the tangents some of us are exploring. But we're just all waiting for size_of_light to come back in with the new material he's working on. I don't see how you can make a complaint of "dilution" when you haven't really been putting much out on the table yourself. Just do it! Everyone will be keen to see what you have to say. The things you have posted so far have been fantastic - we all need to see more of it. You have a great 'Eye', you deploy a succinct use of graphics to really great effect. Maybe just expound on them a bit more and we can start moving the thread in a direction that goes with that? Just get it on the table so we can all work with it!

[feralgoose]

Originally Posted by dr steam

This thread has been completely diluted by 2-3 freaks who cultivate a theosophic thoughtful Association games on all sorts of ancient gods and religions .Blavatsky mombo jombo crab.

The Shining and 2001 has plenty of material that deserves attention, instead of all this schizophrenic over-interpreted religious bullshit and as there are plenty of threads of here in this forum , Its a shame .

Well I knew there could only be so long before someone would start calling names and trying to exert some authority in this thread. DI's forum was friendly enough to almost convince me to be naive as to think this wouldn't happen.

I don't see what you're problem is dr steam. size of light opened this thread up to wider discussion on Kubricks work as a whole, and it was he who first set several of us on the trail of Ishtar

You're both doing brilliant work as is everybody else contributing here.

Please keep doing it, it's fascinating!

One of the strengths of a forum thread is that a lot of information can be condensed and presented as one long stream of thought that might not be immediately coherent, but provides the opportunity for ongoing reflection and revision and for essential meanings to eventually coalesce and become clear.

I have a big chunk of stuff to post that I think is a small, preliminary fragment of the puzzle, so will hold off responding to some of these fascinating insights you guys are making until then, because I'm already sidetracking myself enough as it is from doing that by finding more detail as I go.

In the meantime, I hope anybody and everybody treats the thread as their own and uses it to transfer all those ideas about Kubrick's work that are vaguely swirling around in our heads onto the page, so that they can begin to crystalise and become more defined. Eventually, I think the big picture and the real meaning will start to emerge if we keep doing that.

For a long time I didn't look into this because I was subconsciously intimidated by Jay Weidner's and other persons analyses of these films, but once you roll up your sleeves and jump in the water yourself, you discover that insights come fairly quickly and easily, and the more people working on this the better, because Kubrick's works are undeniably encoded, and it will require far more than just any one person to be able to decode them all properly.

Originally Posted by size_of_light

Ishtar?

I dont see why you despute these references to archetypal gods when they are there in each and every scene of Lolita.

Besides I think the most important discovery I have made in relation to my closer look at Lolita was this revelatory allusion to subliminal messages, in fact it was a subliminal message hidden within a subliminal message. And this is what I'm more interested in chasing up.

Anyway dr steam, who are you to direct this stream of consciousness and to attempt to censor us? If you have a problem with it then I suggest YOU make your own thread and set the rules as to not deviate from the title. But as this is size of lights thread and he has opened it up for all of us to discuss kubrick's entire work at length, as it is his choice to do, then we will.

But please, lets not descend into debate about forum rules and the such im not interested in anything else in this thread than kubricks work which we are all here to explore.

[feralgoose]

Originally Posted by mata

Well, dr steam, why don't you simply contribute more "un-freakish" material? I understand why you'd be frustrated with the tangents some of us are exploring. But we're just all waiting for size_of_light to come back in with the new material he's working on. I don't see how you can make a complaint of "dilution" when you haven't really been putting much out on the table yourself. Just do it! Everyone will be keen to see what you have to say. The things you have posted so far have been fantastic - we all need to see more of it. You have a great 'Eye', you deploy a succinct use of graphics to really great effect. Maybe just expound on them a bit more and we can start moving the thread in a direction that goes with that? Just get it on the table so we can all work with it!

Well said mata


sorry if i came across aggressive there dr steam but you did too, i just dont want us to descend to name caling and who has the right to post what. we all have the right to post whatever we want so long as we are not offensive and relevent to the topic.

[feralgoose]

I decided to take a closer look at Paths of Glory before going to clockwork orange I've also ordered Spartacus (Kubricks first colour movie with a cast of tens of thousands) and am waiting for it to arrive.

My first take on Paths of Glory from first look is as follows

Indeed it follows the multilayered signature that seems to be key in understanding kubricks work as one whole. On the surface paths of glory is the story of the seemingly insane French army commanding officers and their suicidal war effort followed by their attempts to instill a fighting spirit into their men by selecting three soldiers at random to be executed on the firing range for cowardice. The central themes seem to be based around the concept of what heroism and bravery is and what cowardace is as we are shown the attitude of the soldiers who face probable death in the trenches and their changing attitude when they are faced with a certain death of execution.

Like Lolita and the way it comes full circle from beginning to end it invites us to a repeat viewing as the story of one crazed officer who originally says he cares about his men then commits his men to certain slaughter at the offer of promotion. at the end of the film the 'bad' officer is to stand trial or his actions and the 'hero' of the film (Kirk Douglas) who shows that he cares for his men is offered promotion and we are invited to wonder if the story is to be played out again, or this time different choices are made by the influential characters.

another theme is the juxtaposition of the gritty horror of the trenches and the grandiousity of the army command headquarters and their ballrooms and manner of dress. The headwear of the officers resembles the headwear of a roman emperor and reminds me of quilty in his tunic standing in the place of the roman centurion statue talking about roman ping pong.

Another theme was one of the soldiers existential questions about death, he wonders if we are scared of death or of pain. he asks the soldiers to question how they would rather die - quick and painless. its all about being sliced up with metal he concludes but wether fast or slow is the question. at the end of the film he attacks the priest who comes to console him as he faces execution, he says his alcohol is his god and he is carried to the execution on a stretcher and held up to be shot as he couldnt face his death sober.

One soldier who is chosen for execution is named paris which invites us to reference helen of troy and the seige of troy, which seems to be the intention of the soldiers suicide mission in storming the impenetrable German 'Anthill' outpost.

Finally I did notice some ram or goat symbolism in the film.



as the officer highest in chain of command in this film is shown proposing the seige of the anthill and offers the reward if successful as a promotion, he stands infront of the blind in the background numerous times with his head inbetween the two "horns". Then at the end of the film when he informs the same officer that he is to be sent to trial in a public inquiry intoto his actions he says, "you're making me the goat".

As I said the film comes full circle and invites a closer second look so I will and post any findings. In the first 3 minutes of screen time these two pivotal characters the general and his commanding officer are the two men who suggest one is reading the others mind.


Finally this film certainly invites me to link and compare with Full Metal Jacket which also shows horrific scenes of war, and the relationship between the soldiers at the different steps of the chain of command, and their opinions of and the decisions they make regarding their men.

Another possible theme of Paths of Glory is human sacrifice. As the execution of the proposed one hundred men to be executed for cowardice the 'bad' officer puts them on trial for execution and says "they wont face german bullets they'll face french ones" and he is then shown to be concerned with the number of soliders to be put to death, he is dismayed that only 12 men are to be executed to make an example as opposed to the hundred he proposed.

The officer who fights in the trenches drives his men into battle and is seemingly invulnerable as no bullet or shell hits him as all those around him die. his men retreat and he urges them forward but as he climbs back out of the trench one of his fallen comrades comes down and knocks him uncocious as he climbs the ladder. The men remain in the trench and refuse to fight this senseless suicide battle. the 'bad' officer orders his artillery to fire into their own trenches because they wont advance but the artillery captain refuses to comply. When he is told his men will face trial before execution the 'good' officer demands he be allowed to defend them, a lawyer in his civil duties. His view of war is quite different to that of his commanding officers, who seem blind to all reason and the court is a farce. the men are cowards they think but the 'good' officer says how ridiculous the suggestion is that the few men who survived as all others died should be expected to continue fighting the germans alone and take the anthill single handed, they are not cowards but unwilling to face certain death for no gain.

The 'bad' officer seems concerned with his mens death at all costs wether it be in a suicide seige of the anthill, by bombarding them with artillery himself when they refuse to advance and then by attempting to get a large number of them put to death by firing squad. He acts completely different throughout the film to how he seems in the first few minutes when he initially refuses the senseless idea of the seige and says one of his 8000 men is worth more than all the 'stars and decorations in France' this proves to be quite the opposite as the story tells.