I was talking to someone about the ending of the film and she mentioned that Paul's face should have been shown. I thought that the ending was perfect the way it was, and that showing his face would be too common and would steer away from the message.
Paul is reaching out towards a butterfly, a sign of life and beauty. Tension rises when the sniper sees him and the camera toggles between Paul and the sniper, creating a suspense where we can predict what will happen but hope that it won't. Having Paul's hand express death with its lifeless drop added to the idea that death does not have a face. In the war, the director showed faces only to illustrate how ridiculous they can look sometimes (the frenchman in the ditch). In this case, Paul's face in unnecesary in the scene. In most of the cases, his hands were doing all the work, they were the ones killing, and his mind was often elsewhere. After he returned from the ditch, he was so heartbroken about killing someone innocent and the rest of the soldiers told him that it would become second nature and it wouldn't be as personal anymore. All of this adds to the theme of dehumanization in the film. Now that his hands have become lifeless, they have allowed someone else to live. But, this is not the positive message expressed in the film. Rather, while his hands were reaching out for hope, it was all destroyed by someone who did not even know him, or want to kill him consciously.
I thought the last scene was so beautiful in its power and message. It was in so many dimensions simple but complex.
Also, the leit motif of the windows and doors. I was unsure of their exact meaning, but I think there can be many. Throughout the movie, the characters were entering and exiting. Windows and doors were ways to open up and close a scene. I looked at in in this sense: why would someone introduce an image where the scene can be seen through a square/rectangle/window/door? I thought that this was perhaps to show the contrast between the safe environment and the dangerous one. There is a scene where we see men running through rain, but we see this through a quiet room. Then, one of the soldiers comes into the room, and disturbs the peace. These doors and windows always contain the scene in some way, they bring it into a range. They encapsulate it as well as reveal it and open it. It is in some ways implying a spectator.
I'm not sure about them....
Your comments about the last scene are on target, as far as I am concerned. The fact that Milestone filmed the scene after all the actors went home, using his own hand for the shot, does not in any way negate your logic. The facelessness of war is a controlling theme. Also, the idea that Paul is reaching for something that is now beyond him. His youth, his family, his friends, his life ... all these are now out of reach. He tells Kat that "I'm not good for that anymore" meaning his home. Kat is all he has left.
ReplyDeleteTHe doors and windows might fit into this thesis, as well. Moving from one stage of life to another, or, with the windows, the chasm between watching something and actually doing it. I think Paul uses those exact words to his old teacher. Perhaps not.
I write these words in a StarBucks in San Juan Puerto Rico on a borrowed computer. So, perhaps I'm not making sense. I am always grateful for a new and seemingly plausible excuse for that particular failing.
Thanks for your very thoughtful analysis. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Dr. Aronson would be proud. You gave the work an intelligent analytical overview, and you did it in a style that seems to fit you. As in I could see you more or less saying the same thing in class, just not all at once.
ReplyDelete