A very curious coincidence. Watching, in luminous black and white cinematography, Adolphe Menjou in army uniform walk around the rooms of some fairly palatial château requisitioned by the military in WW1, instantly recalled an all but identical scene shot some 25 years later (same actor, same war, same costume, b&w photography, setting, character, adjacent country). It seemed far too close to be just a coincidence - did director Stanley Kubrick make a deliberate connection in his 1957 film "Paths of Glory"?
But what an extraordinary difference in tone however between the two films? A Farewell to Arms is surely exclusively a traditional woman's picture, classy soap in fact. Shirtless young star Cooper - eye-candy personified - has an untroubled war, fussed over by a minor army of female nurses, and, presumably pre-Hays code, quite explicitly takes the virginity of a young nurse he has not long met; and, central drama in the film, nature takes its course. Tragedy when it comes is played out in comfort, the best medical attention, where the loved ones are together and able to say their full good byes in dignity and privacy.
In contrast the grittiness of WW1 drama "Paths of Glory", the blistering attack on officer ambition at the cost of the common soldier, the cynicism - unsurprisingly too strong to be shown where it was set: France - had few equals in its tone of moral indignation. Its central character, played by Kirk Douglas, held to the flames of forced moral choice. IMDb gives it thoroughly deserved 8.5, this film just 6.6. Hovering in judgement too over A Farewell to Arms is the authentic story of front-line WW1 nurses "Testament of Youth" where duty and sacrifice was the iron rule, not fluffiness.
So how did this silly soap-fest come to be made just 15 years after the events depicted? Europe was scarred by WW1, France by its immense loss of fighting men and suffering of civilians caught in the fighting. Hollywood in 1932, it seems, just sought bums on seats. History was safely in its graves and could be left to turn as it wished. Was Paths of Glory Kubrick atoning for Farewell to Arms? I strongly suspect it was.
"what does this war mean to me? What does anything mean to me? I must find her"
But what an extraordinary difference in tone however between the two films? A Farewell to Arms is surely exclusively a traditional woman's picture, classy soap in fact. Shirtless young star Cooper - eye-candy personified - has an untroubled war, fussed over by a minor army of female nurses, and, presumably pre-Hays code, quite explicitly takes the virginity of a young nurse he has not long met; and, central drama in the film, nature takes its course. Tragedy when it comes is played out in comfort, the best medical attention, where the loved ones are together and able to say their full good byes in dignity and privacy.
In contrast the grittiness of WW1 drama "Paths of Glory", the blistering attack on officer ambition at the cost of the common soldier, the cynicism - unsurprisingly too strong to be shown where it was set: France - had few equals in its tone of moral indignation. Its central character, played by Kirk Douglas, held to the flames of forced moral choice. IMDb gives it thoroughly deserved 8.5, this film just 6.6. Hovering in judgement too over A Farewell to Arms is the authentic story of front-line WW1 nurses "Testament of Youth" where duty and sacrifice was the iron rule, not fluffiness.
So how did this silly soap-fest come to be made just 15 years after the events depicted? Europe was scarred by WW1, France by its immense loss of fighting men and suffering of civilians caught in the fighting. Hollywood in 1932, it seems, just sought bums on seats. History was safely in its graves and could be left to turn as it wished. Was Paths of Glory Kubrick atoning for Farewell to Arms? I strongly suspect it was.
"what does this war mean to me? What does anything mean to me? I must find her"