Retro Film Review: Patton (1970)

Retro Film Review: Patton (1970) | Ecency

(source:tmdb.org)

It is said that war brings out the best and the worst in men. This has been appreciated by storytellers from the very beginnings of history, and some of the most important works of literature are stories about wars and the people who took part in them. In such extraordinary circumstances, all the emotions that make great drama - love, fear, hate, remorse - are brought to the extreme. The film industry did not fail to notice this, and some of the greatest films ever made are those that deal, in one way or another, with armed conflicts and the way they affect individuals and societies. War films are also a good way to show how the general perception of war tends to change through various periods, ranging from being condemned as senseless slaughter to being advocated as the extreme form of recreation. There are few films that take more than one perception of war, and it usually requires a special set of circumstances. In the case of Patton, the 1970 war film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, those special circumstances were provided by one very special individual.

General George S. Patton Jr. (1885 - 1945) is not the most important, but he is definitely among the more colourful figures of American military history. As such, he was destined to have a film made about him. Since most people in today's world get their knowledge of military history through American films, Patton is probably the best-known general today. Born in an age when young boys dreamed of becoming great military heroes rather than big athletes or pop stars, Patton had his childhood wish granted at the expense of millions who perished in two world wars. Many episodes from his long and distinguished military career could have been included in the film, but the script, written by Francis Ford Coppola and based on the books by Ladislas Farago and General Omar N. Bradley, concentrates on the last three years of Patton's life, when he left his most enduring impression on future historians.

The film starts in November 1942, shortly before American forces are about to receive their baptism of fire in the war against Hitler and Mussolini. A few months later, their inexperience at Kasserine Pass results in a major defeat at the hands of the German Africa Corps, led by the charismatic Field Marshal Rommel (played by Karl Michael Vogler). Due to his pre-war experience with tank warfare, General Patton (played by George C. Scott) is sent to take command of the demoralised troops, and he quickly establishes tight discipline. His methods begin to work, and the Germans and their Italian allies are gradually chased out of North Africa. During the Sicily campaign, Patton learns that the Germans and Italians are not the only enemies he has to worry about - a great rivalry emerges between him and the British commander, Bernard Law Montgomery (played by Michael Bates). Another issue is Patton's bad temper and fast mouth, which lead to a series of embarrassing incidents and almost destroy his career. He is given a second chance in France in 1944 and rewards his superiors' trust with a series of brilliant victories. Once the war ends, it soon becomes clear that the skills and character traits that had served Patton very well on the battlefield are liabilities in the peacetime world built on diplomacy, tolerance and compromise.

Patton features one of the most effective openings in the history of cinema – the protagonist in his most splendid uniform, decorated with medals and with a huge American flag as the background, delivers one of the most powerful and jingoistic speeches imaginable. The image itself became the most popular icon of American militarism, while the speech with its brutal bluntness reduces the whole nature of war to a few simple, universal truths. The biggest flaw of Patton is that the subsequent scenes lack the power of that opening. It is also the strangest moment in the film - hearing words about America never losing a war was almost a surreal experience during the last years of the Vietnam fiasco. It is hard to imagine how someone generally perceived as a militaristic icon could be portrayed as a hero in an age when militarism, patriotism and any -ism associated with the establishment began to drift away from popular sentiments.

Coppola's script offers an answer to that question by carefully emphasising certain parts of Patton's biography and character - he is portrayed as a poet; he believes in reincarnation; he freely speaks his mind and does not care about language; he ignores and disobeys his superiors; he defies conventional wisdom and well-established rules and, last but not least, he does what he does because he likes it rather than for such prosaic reasons as money or a sense of duty. Needless to say, these are the character traits that were associated with the social values and unconventional lifestyles adopted by the rebellious 1960s youth. The ironic twist in Coppola's Patton is that he does not rebel in order to create a brave new world, but in order to return to an idealised past. In the case of this film, that idealist past is the past of wars that were adventures, armies made of professional individuals, and personal bravery and honour being more important than political skills. The flaw in the script is in the things Coppola omitted from Patton's biography, some being too controversial (his role in the shooting of prisoners and his anti-Semitism) and some that could have added more complexity to his character. For example, Patton is portrayed as an almost anachronistic romantic, the last old-fashioned warrior; in reality, Patton was one of the most progressive officers in the US military, especially in the area of armoured warfare - a concept that few militaries took seriously until World War Two. Coppola is more consistent while portraying another contradiction in Patton's character - towards common soldiers, he showed almost simple-minded brutality more suitable for drill sergeants, while remaining at the same time a well-educated, refined and soft-spoken intellectual.

To say that George C. Scott played Patton brilliantly would be an understatement. This role (which he repeated in the 1986 TV film The Last Days of Patton) is famous not only for his truly memorable performance, but also for Scott's decision not to accept the "Oscar". In any case, that "Oscar" was well-deserved, and the film, with or without the extra gold statue, displays one of the finest acting jobs ever done. Scott's role is complemented by the equally powerful performance of Karl Malden, who plays Patton's close friend (and the film's chief technical advisor) General Omar N. Bradley. His presence prevents Patton from turning into an uncritical praise of its protagonist. Bradley, who was a very different kind of general, more aware of the true nature of modern wars, gives moral balance to the story - through Bradley, a quiet, unassuming fellow who admires his friend but does not shy away from his shortcomings, the audience is anchored to the reality that Patton failed to see.

Despite having a film almost exclusively concentrated on a single individual, director Franklin J. Schaffner gives this film an epic scope. Three years - probably the most intense period in the history of mankind - are skilfully compressed into three hours of a movie, and even those with little knowledge of the complicated strategic and political background can enjoy the film. Scenes of dialogue and character exposure are woven into the scenes of battles, which are spectacular, effective and convincing, despite the rival armies, both played by 1960s Spanish military, using tanks produced after World War II (a detail that would, ironically, bother only Patton-like military buffs). Jerry Goldsmith provides this film with one of the most effective and most recognisable scores in the history of cinema, which, just like the opening image, became forever associated with American militarism.

The final irony of Patton is that this film contradicts its own conclusion. Words like "all glory is fleeting" could not be applied to the makers of this great piece of cinema.

RATING: 8/10 (+++)

(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.films.reviews on January 29th 2004)