Oscars Retrospective: Patton (43rd Academy Awards Review)
General George Smith Patton is one of the most complex and controversial figures in World War II. He is often regarded as one of the best field commanders of the war and greatest generals in US history, known for his ability to whip soldiers into shape, tenaciously attack the enemy and break their will with all-out assaults. He was instrumental in defeating the Axis Powers during the North African campaign, the Siege of Sicily and the Battle of the Bulge, emerging as one of America’s biggest heroes of the war. At the same time, he was also known for being incredibly crass, bigoted, arrogant, abusive to his subordinates, insubordinate to his superior officers, insulting to America’s allies in the press, uncaring about the number of soldiers that died under his command, sympathetic towards Nazi viewpoints and just being an all-around horrible person. Shortly after World War II concluded, he would die in a car crash, effectively dying with the war, a fitting cosmic fate for someone whose life seemed to revolve around war and could not exist in a time of peace.
Given Hollywood’s love for heroes and WWII pictures, it goes without saying that plans to make a biopic about George Patton began while his body was still warm. Patton’s widow, Beatrice, adamantly refused to sign the rights to her husband’s life until she herself passed away in 1953. Hollywood harangued the rest of Patton’s family for the rights and the Pentagon for access to his diaries and finally was able to secure both of them in 1959. The movie would be mired in development Hell for the next decade, not finally being released until 1970, right in time for New Hollywood to offer its viewpoints on the most definitive war of the 20th Century.
And all I can say is thank God for that. Because you know that if this movie was made in the late 40s or 50s, it would’ve significantly whitewashed Patton into being a heroic figure who believes in truth, justice and the American way and would come off as WWII Jesus. But, instead, what we get is one of the most morally complex and greatest war movies and biopics ever made with a true acting tour de force by George C. Scott as the legendary General.
What’s interesting is that most movies, especially ones during the countercultural and Vietnam era, tend to take an overt point-of-view on the idea of war. You have movies that are pro-war (almost every war movie made during World War II) and movies that are anti-war (almost every war movie made after the 70s). So, which category does Patton fall into? Well, neither really and both. The film has very few musings on the justification of World War II and how the generational jingoism it unleashed could have parallels drawn to the then-modern-day quagmire in Vietnam. It trusts that you have probably made up your mind about these wars a long time ago by the time you got around to watching this movie. Instead, it keeps its focus entirely on the person of George Patton: a creature that eats, breathes and sleeps war. A man who is great at it but if someone is so good at war what else would that say about him?
Right from the word go, Patton knows exactly what type of movie it wants to be and this is evident in one of the greatest and most iconic openings in movie history. The film opens with the General standing in front of a colossal American flag, giving a rally speech to his men for the battle to come. Unlike many movies before and since, the camera does not show any reaction shots of the audience itself. Instead, it keeps it completely focused on Patton, putting you in the shoes of the men who served him. This (eminently quotable) speech tells you every little thing you need to know about the man from the word go and, after it’s over, you’ll feel ready to go kick some ass.
Given Hollywood’s love for heroes and WWII pictures, it goes without saying that plans to make a biopic about George Patton began while his body was still warm. Patton’s widow, Beatrice, adamantly refused to sign the rights to her husband’s life until she herself passed away in 1953. Hollywood harangued the rest of Patton’s family for the rights and the Pentagon for access to his diaries and finally was able to secure both of them in 1959. The movie would be mired in development Hell for the next decade, not finally being released until 1970, right in time for New Hollywood to offer its viewpoints on the most definitive war of the 20th Century.
And all I can say is thank God for that. Because you know that if this movie was made in the late 40s or 50s, it would’ve significantly whitewashed Patton into being a heroic figure who believes in truth, justice and the American way and would come off as WWII Jesus. But, instead, what we get is one of the most morally complex and greatest war movies and biopics ever made with a true acting tour de force by George C. Scott as the legendary General.
What’s interesting is that most movies, especially ones during the countercultural and Vietnam era, tend to take an overt point-of-view on the idea of war. You have movies that are pro-war (almost every war movie made during World War II) and movies that are anti-war (almost every war movie made after the 70s). So, which category does Patton fall into? Well, neither really and both. The film has very few musings on the justification of World War II and how the generational jingoism it unleashed could have parallels drawn to the then-modern-day quagmire in Vietnam. It trusts that you have probably made up your mind about these wars a long time ago by the time you got around to watching this movie. Instead, it keeps its focus entirely on the person of George Patton: a creature that eats, breathes and sleeps war. A man who is great at it but if someone is so good at war what else would that say about him?
Right from the word go, Patton knows exactly what type of movie it wants to be and this is evident in one of the greatest and most iconic openings in movie history. The film opens with the General standing in front of a colossal American flag, giving a rally speech to his men for the battle to come. Unlike many movies before and since, the camera does not show any reaction shots of the audience itself. Instead, it keeps it completely focused on Patton, putting you in the shoes of the men who served him. This (eminently quotable) speech tells you every little thing you need to know about the man from the word go and, after it’s over, you’ll feel ready to go kick some ass.
Fun fact: those decorative revolvers he's wearing were those worn by the real George Patton.
Normally, when a movie’s best scene is its opening, that spells bad news for the rest of the film but Patton is the exception to the rule. This intro tells you everything you could ever need to know about the movie you’re about to watch and it makes you excited to see it. We’ve seen the scene of the general rallying the troops speech in tons of movies before this but this one is so much more crass and filled with violent imagery. This isn’t about saving America, it’s about the joy of feeling blood splash on your face and ripping your enemy’s guts out (and using them to grease the tread of your tanks). Draped in front of the American flag, here’s an American icon telling you that war is not won with some quick justice but with death and destruction and that he considers that a great thing.
The rest of Patton is a war epic akin to prior war epics like The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) and Battle of the Bulge (1966) but in a much darker manner. The film follows General Patton throughout the aforementioned three major campaigns he was engaged in throughout the war. George C. Scott is on-camera for about 90% of the running time and his portrayal of the old General is downright mesmerizing. He’s very strict, charismatic and no-nonsense. He gives those who slack off a hard time but has nothing but respect for those who do their duty. He’s charming and affable to those who fete him but occasionally puts his foot in his mouth and will refuse to apologize for doing so.
There’s a lot of little character moments that George C. Scott perfectly nails that both endears us and adds layers to him. It’s one thing to simply say that this is a man who embodies the warrior spirit but the movie knows how to show it. For example, in the opening when Patton arrives at the Army base in Tunisia and reprimands every soldier on the entire base for incompetence but takes the time to salute a young child who actually does his job properly. Or how he walks through old Roman ruins, being such a student of historical wars that he feels a kinship with the bloodshed that happened there thousands of years ago. Or how when interacting with polite company, he still lets loose swear words and inappropriate language (this is enough to make this man my hero). Or how when the base gets attacked by an air raid, the crazy bastard runs outside with his pistol to try to get a few potshots off at the planes.
The movie does a great job at making you fall in love with Patton but that’s where the 10% of the time that he isn’t on-screen comes into play to remind you that he is a bit of a nasty piece of work. Many of the battle scenes revolve around Patton charging up and down, kicking ass and are exciting to watch but every now and then we experience cutaways to the soldiers at the front line, rightfully complaining about how they’re fighting for their lives for a man who doesn’t particularly care if they die so he can win.
This plays into the other two key characters of the movie. The villains of the film are obviously the Nazis, represented here by Colonel General Alfred Jodl (Richard Münch) and his aides in the Nazi base (the real Patton’s legendary rival and opposite on the German side, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (Karl Michael Vogler), is also in the movie although he’s not focused on as much). They spend most of the running time gushing like little fangirls of Patton, being in awe of how amazing he is and constantly wondering how they’re going to best him. It’s a very, uh, let’s say interesting acting and directing choice as they’re played more like the comic relief in a tone that’s utterly divorced from the rest of the fairly serious film. At first I thought this was a flaw and they were too over-the-top but eventually you realize that the Nazis are the only characters in the whole movie who seem to actually like our main character for who he is.
The deuteragonist of the film is General Omar N. Bradley (Karl Malden) who was known as the Soldier’s General for his concern for the welfare of his troops. Throughout the film, he often acts as Patton’s sidekick and allows for a sounding board for Patton to bounce his ideas off of. As time goes on, even this devoted friend starts to point out Patton’s flaws and proves himself as a leader. This adds to the theme of Patton being a man completely out of his own time. Sure, he’d fit right at home in the Roman centurions but this is now the 20th Century. The entire goal of World War II for the Allies was to save as many lives as possible. There’s some great conversations between those two men that emphasize this difference in attitude: Bradley saves lives but Patton wins wars.
It really cannot be emphasized enough just how impressive it is that this movie does not whitewash the man of George S. Patton. They even include one of the biggest controversies of the General’s career which is also a huge turning point in the movie. During the Siege of Sicily, Patton visits the infirmary tent, encounters one soldier (Tim Considine) who is suffering from intense PTSD/shell shock and this happens:
This really happened and got Patton into really big trouble, creating one of the biggest political scandals of World War II when the incident was leaked to Congress. From this point on, Patton is relegated to political niceties, a living Hell for a man who demands to be at the front of every battle.
Considering how much the movie is a character study of one of America’s most controversial Generals, analyzing the historical accuracy of the picture is more important/interesting here as the film has a very specific thesis and the details chosen to focus on are important if the audience is going to be invited to fairly judge the man and his legacy one way or the other. So, what are the inaccuracies and are they excusable in this case? Well an interesting one is that, in the movie, Patton and Bradley do seem to be genuine friends while, in real life, the two hated each other. By contrast, in the film, Patton has a strong rivalry with his British counterpart, Field Marshal Montgomery (Michael Bates), and desires to prove himself superior. In real-life, Montgomery was probably the only General on the Allied side that Patton actually treated with respect (probably because Bernard Montgomery was as much of a right-wing, war-obsessed, self-righteous nut job as George Patton was).
There are a few minor details like this that historians would quibble over but the changes seem to be made as a filmmaking shortcut to get to the theme of Patton’s moral greyness faster. Sure, having Bradley and Patton speak through clenched teeth to each other might have been more accurate but it makes for a more interesting and powerful dynamic to have a friend who likes you be disappointed in you as a person. Another example is when Patton has to publicly apologize for the aforementioned slapping incident; in real-life he just submitted a letter to the press while in the movie, he personally reads it out loud to a crowd. It’s a writing shortcut to show us how little he actually means the apology so inaccurate in the fact but accurate to the spirit of the fact. And I’m sure some of the battle tactics might not be fully accurate but they’re still awesome to watch.
One very interesting choice is that Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower never appears in the film. He’s mentioned multiple times but always as an off-screen commanding officer who makes Patton’s life hard because of his strict impatience for Patton’s bad behavior. Since Eisenhower had recently passed away at the time this movie came out, the filmmakers probably excised his character out of respect for the former war hero and President. But, still, it would have been an interesting dynamic to see, especially since Eisenhower was a grossly inferior tactician to Patton and had to be saved by him during the Siege of Sicily. The resentment of being bossed around by someone who isn’t as good at war as him would’ve been a fun acting choice to see George C. Scott play with.
Considering how much the movie is a character study of one of America’s most controversial Generals, analyzing the historical accuracy of the picture is more important/interesting here as the film has a very specific thesis and the details chosen to focus on are important if the audience is going to be invited to fairly judge the man and his legacy one way or the other. So, what are the inaccuracies and are they excusable in this case? Well an interesting one is that, in the movie, Patton and Bradley do seem to be genuine friends while, in real life, the two hated each other. By contrast, in the film, Patton has a strong rivalry with his British counterpart, Field Marshal Montgomery (Michael Bates), and desires to prove himself superior. In real-life, Montgomery was probably the only General on the Allied side that Patton actually treated with respect (probably because Bernard Montgomery was as much of a right-wing, war-obsessed, self-righteous nut job as George Patton was).
There are a few minor details like this that historians would quibble over but the changes seem to be made as a filmmaking shortcut to get to the theme of Patton’s moral greyness faster. Sure, having Bradley and Patton speak through clenched teeth to each other might have been more accurate but it makes for a more interesting and powerful dynamic to have a friend who likes you be disappointed in you as a person. Another example is when Patton has to publicly apologize for the aforementioned slapping incident; in real-life he just submitted a letter to the press while in the movie, he personally reads it out loud to a crowd. It’s a writing shortcut to show us how little he actually means the apology so inaccurate in the fact but accurate to the spirit of the fact. And I’m sure some of the battle tactics might not be fully accurate but they’re still awesome to watch.
One very interesting choice is that Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower never appears in the film. He’s mentioned multiple times but always as an off-screen commanding officer who makes Patton’s life hard because of his strict impatience for Patton’s bad behavior. Since Eisenhower had recently passed away at the time this movie came out, the filmmakers probably excised his character out of respect for the former war hero and President. But, still, it would have been an interesting dynamic to see, especially since Eisenhower was a grossly inferior tactician to Patton and had to be saved by him during the Siege of Sicily. The resentment of being bossed around by someone who isn’t as good at war as him would’ve been a fun acting choice to see George C. Scott play with.
Another inaccuracy is that the real Patton's voice was a bit more high-pitched even though it's impossible to read a biography about him without imagining George C. Scott's low growl.
If there’s any part of Patton’s life that the film is truly worse off for not including, it would be his horrific anti-Semitism. Shortly after the war, George Patton was appointed as the military governor of Bavaria where he resisted orders to de-Nazify the populace and dragged his heels on homing the Holocaust survivors put under his care. When asked about this by the press, he called Jews “a subhuman species” and several other vile things. In the movie, we do see a similar encounter with the press after the war’s over, where Patton mentions how greatly he is looking forward to fighting his next war with the Russians, casting a shadow over his heroism we just witnessed. However, this scene feels like it doesn’t go far enough; including these anti-Semitic comments would not only have provided a more truthful portrait of the figure but also would’ve acted as a nice shock for the audience in terms of finding out just how vile our protagonist truly is.
With this in mind, the only real flaw I can think of in regards to Patton might be on a meta level of how much it does whitewash or praise a pretty ugly figure. As the 70s continued and heroes in movies became more and more morally grey, a big discussion in critical circles is about the ethical responsibilities of a filmmaker and how blunt satire should be. From an artistic point of view, the greyer the better and making the war seem righteous and cool helps us understand the protagonist’s point-of-view. But if this is cool, does that still glamorize the war and the figure? (For other examples, think of how many people idolize the Corleone Family, Tony Montana or Walter White.)
Patton is nowhere near the only film that is a culprit of this as I think everyday audiences are only just recently starting to understand this phenomenon and, from an artistic point-of-view, it does provide some cognitive dissonance at making you question how much you are really supposed to like Patton. It also bears mentioning since this would go on to become President Nixon’s personal favorite movie, watching it so many times that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (who also enjoyed the film) grew to detest it. Needless to say, these men clearly deliberately misinterpreted the lessons of the film but, still, Patton was one of the movies that seemed to transcend the political barrier of the time and was enjoyed by both the left and the right.
It’s the common story of New Hollywood that the studios buckled under the weight of these overproduced and over-long epics but that’s not necessarily true. Epic films were still made throughout the 70s, they were just a lot less fluffy and a lot darker. Patton fits right at home as one of the greatest WWII movies and one of the greatest movies of all time. Spending 3 whole hours of running time focused primarily on one character is a big ask and George C. Scott answers the call admirably. The film is extremely well-paced, not feeling at all its 3 hours, and it gives the audience both epic entertainment but also makes them question themselves about the bloodthirst on display. You can have heavy debates about the movie and the man it portrays walking out of it or, if you’ve had a long day, just sit back and have a good time watching this glorious right-wing nut job kill every last Nazi between here and Hell. I don’t think I even need to mention all of the other bells and whistles that work perfectly: the cinematography, music, sound design, it’s all great.
Patton is nowhere near the only film that is a culprit of this as I think everyday audiences are only just recently starting to understand this phenomenon and, from an artistic point-of-view, it does provide some cognitive dissonance at making you question how much you are really supposed to like Patton. It also bears mentioning since this would go on to become President Nixon’s personal favorite movie, watching it so many times that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (who also enjoyed the film) grew to detest it. Needless to say, these men clearly deliberately misinterpreted the lessons of the film but, still, Patton was one of the movies that seemed to transcend the political barrier of the time and was enjoyed by both the left and the right.
It’s the common story of New Hollywood that the studios buckled under the weight of these overproduced and over-long epics but that’s not necessarily true. Epic films were still made throughout the 70s, they were just a lot less fluffy and a lot darker. Patton fits right at home as one of the greatest WWII movies and one of the greatest movies of all time. Spending 3 whole hours of running time focused primarily on one character is a big ask and George C. Scott answers the call admirably. The film is extremely well-paced, not feeling at all its 3 hours, and it gives the audience both epic entertainment but also makes them question themselves about the bloodthirst on display. You can have heavy debates about the movie and the man it portrays walking out of it or, if you’ve had a long day, just sit back and have a good time watching this glorious right-wing nut job kill every last Nazi between here and Hell. I don’t think I even need to mention all of the other bells and whistles that work perfectly: the cinematography, music, sound design, it’s all great.
In case you missed it:
Comments
Post a Comment