PattonThe bigger the personality, the more fire it draws. Patton is an epic war movie and biopic of the eponymous and infamous General George S. Patton, Jr. (George C. Scott), commander of the Third Army of the United States during World War II. The film focuses on Patton's involvement in the war from the time he took charge of the American command in North Africa in 1943, through his exploits in Sicily and the Battle of the Bulge, to the end of the devastating war itself. But rather than simply be a recounting of military conquests, Patton is a character study about this larger than life personality, the controversial military titan whose legacy continues to provoke varied opinions about "Old Blood and Guts" himself.
|
|
Patton begins with perhaps the boldest opening in cinema. There is a massive American flag in an auditorium that encompasses the entire screen...and from below, General Patton himself rises onto the stage--as if triumphantly cresting a hill--emerging as a walking legend of military prowess. He delivers a rousing speech to stir his troops into action on the eve of war--part drill sergeant, part football coach, all testosterone. He is dressed in a uniform so decorated in medals and honors, you can barely see the clothes beneath it. He wields a riding crop in one hand, and at his hip is his signature ivory-handled (not pearl, mind you) pistol, monogrammed with his initials. A staggering amount of insight can be gleaned from his appearance, all reinforced throughout Patton by his actions and manner of speech. He is a man who is loaded with seemingly paradoxical values; he famously proclaims that though he loves war, yet he conveys no satisfaction in seeing the loss of life of those who fall in war. He does not suffer his men to show a lack of discipline, and believes that by molding his men into a highly-organized unit, they will not only command respect, but will inspire fear in his enemies, like Nazi Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (Karl Michael Vogler), whom he longs to meet on the field of battle in Tunisia. Patton is a bombastic man, who shouts orders with a mighty barbaric yawp, and demands obedience. As if a voice of reason on his shoulder, his friend and comrade-in-arms, General Omar N. Bradley (Karl Malden) speaks straight with him, even when Patton refuses to hear it. Conversely, Patton finds himself in a rivalry with British General Bernard Montgomery (Michael Bates), whom Patton acknowledges--like himself--is something of a "prima donna", relishing the glory that comes with military success. As a result, in the campaign to take Sicily, when his established strategy is undermined by Montgomery's own self-serving campaign, Patton, perhaps somewhat petulantly, turns his forces to Palermo to beat Montgomery to Messina. What was a battle for Italy becomes a battle for ego, and Patton's motivations become forever suspect after that upstaging. And yet Patton's military acumen is never depicted as being less than cunning; as a matter of fact, his keen military mind is often the decisive element in many battles. Patton's prowess is so respected and feared by Nazi Germany that in scenes depicting the German High Command, their strategies are based around what they anticipate that he will do, forever keeping them on the defensive. It is interesting that in Patton, the Nazi military compound is not portrayed as a realm of cruel tyrants ruled by hateful bigots or progenitors of the Holocaust, but as a war complex virtually identical to the Allied forces, save for different flags. The key point here is that Patton does not claim that victory over Germany was due to some sort of "moral imperative", but--as Patton declares in the opening monologue--by being a superior soldier, a hard-earned victory that has everything to do with discipline and skill; America doesn't tolerate losers, as he says. However, as Patton was released in 1970--shortly into the Vietnam War--Patton's opening speech about America's refusal to lose a war adopts an measure of dramatic irony some years later as a result.
What makes George S. Patton so beguiling and intriguing is that unlike virtually all of the other, more "level-headed" British and American commanders surrounding him, Patton speaks his mind and gets results. This makes him sympathetic in the capacity of a war movie, where the "hero" is beset on all sides--even his allies--to prevent him from achieving his "destiny", to deliver Europe from the clutches of tyranny. Conversely, Patton is also portrayed in a tyrannical way; his appearance and stern demeanor is designed to intimidate. When Patton rebukes the idea of denazification as a safeguard against the pendulous threat of the Soviet Union at the end of the war, he is unmistakably portrayed as a warmonger. So the question becomes "which is the real Patton?" There is a moment where Patton's subordinate, Lt. Colonel Charles R. Codman (Paul Stevens), comments that sometimes the men can't tell when he is acting or not, to which Patton replies that it isn't important that they know, only that he knows. This expression is at the core of the persona of Patton, in history and in the film, and is reminiscent of Shakespeare's "Hamlet", where the ambiguity of whether the protagonist is crazy or merely feigning it to gain an advantage over his adversary affords the audience a multifaceted way of perceiving the story. Even at the time of World War II--especially so, really--Patton's public image was such that popular opinion about him was not always founded in truth but in the sentiments he elicited. There are times when the scandal-seeking media crowds around Patton, and they prod him with questions designed to provoke the military man into letting slip a comment out of candor. This infuriates the Allied High Command, perhaps overly concerned with their image at home, and carries the unintended political peril of discontinuing Patton's beloved involvement in the war. Even that which Patton didn't say comes back by reporters as misquotes, leading to much of what the man really said to be given to apocrypha. These strong opinions--growing ever bigger than the facts allow--make Patton an all the more relevant and intriguing film today, with President Donald Trump perhaps being the most identifiable, public parallel of Patton. In this light, watching Patton becomes a film which is sure to provoke a wide array of interpretations and responses by the audience, and as a result, experiencing the character of Patton becomes an individual experience.
George C. Scott's portrayal of General Patton is intensive and nuanced, rather than being merely an exaggeration of a figure from history or a caricature of his most notorious traits. He is shown as a man who embodies a particular view of honor, and seemingly contradictory values. In once scene, the Catholic Church visits in support of his campaign, and they comment favorably about his making time to read the Bible. He expresses his gratitude for God's support while taking the Lord's name in vain, all without any apparent intended irony. Patton takes Bradley to a ruin in Tunisia and comments that he had "been here before", referring to a battle in Carthage thousands of years in the past. It is said that Patton believed in reincarnation, a claim which is periodically revisited as though he were an eternal champion of the battlefield--such as when he speaks of the campaign to relieve Bastongne, a winter campaign he likens to Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. During these moments, Patton sometimes speaks in the past tense, as though he genuinely recalls the events first-hand, as though he were a soldier always present in the most famous battles of history. Alternately, in Germany, Captain Oskar Steiger (Siegfried Rauch)--who has studied Patton greatly, and may even admire the man--describes his old-world sensibilities as being reminiscent of Don Quixote, recalling a story where a young Patton attempted to preserve the maiden honor of a young woman only later to discover that she was with her fiance. This comparison is later revisited at the end of Patton, when Patton walks his bull terrier through a field, and past a windmill. Does Patton don this "uniform" of the grandiose and even unhinged warrior-god to achieve a degree of psychological superiority over his enemies? Is this why Patton jumps out the window and begins firing his pistol at a pair of fighter jets bombarding the command center in Tunisia? Or does his own personality occasionally become too gargantuan for even him to manage at times? The ill-fated episode that brought an outcry from the media and resulted in Patton's reduced role in the Allied push into Europe dealt with an infamous moment where Patton slaps a soldier under the effects of "shell shock", decries him as a coward, and orders him to the front lines. In the context of the film, it immediately follows--within mere moments--a scene where Patton is pinning a Purple Heart to the pillow of a critically wounded soldier, with Patton on his knees and on the verge of tears at the man's heroism and sacrifice. It is a fracturing moment, one which best represents how a public figure and his actions--right or wrong--ripple outward and affect the attitudes of the world. The irony is that when the news reaches the German High Command, Colonel General Alfred Jodl (Richard Münch) sneers at the suggestion that Patton was reprimanded for slapping a soldier, disbelieving it as some kind of propaganda. Patton struggles to understand how the media can sway his nation's military, as if they were accountable to the politicians and public outcry, and it is this challenge that he struggles with as he clamors to regain a seat of command in the Third Army following his public humiliation. General Bradley puts it to Patton best in the ending where he describes the role of the soldier in a new world as one which has to account for diplomacy and politics, as well as military prowess.
Recommended for: Fans of a compelling character study and biopic of a key figure in the Allied military campaign in World War II, a figure larger than life and whose history and legend are difficult to separate.
What makes George S. Patton so beguiling and intriguing is that unlike virtually all of the other, more "level-headed" British and American commanders surrounding him, Patton speaks his mind and gets results. This makes him sympathetic in the capacity of a war movie, where the "hero" is beset on all sides--even his allies--to prevent him from achieving his "destiny", to deliver Europe from the clutches of tyranny. Conversely, Patton is also portrayed in a tyrannical way; his appearance and stern demeanor is designed to intimidate. When Patton rebukes the idea of denazification as a safeguard against the pendulous threat of the Soviet Union at the end of the war, he is unmistakably portrayed as a warmonger. So the question becomes "which is the real Patton?" There is a moment where Patton's subordinate, Lt. Colonel Charles R. Codman (Paul Stevens), comments that sometimes the men can't tell when he is acting or not, to which Patton replies that it isn't important that they know, only that he knows. This expression is at the core of the persona of Patton, in history and in the film, and is reminiscent of Shakespeare's "Hamlet", where the ambiguity of whether the protagonist is crazy or merely feigning it to gain an advantage over his adversary affords the audience a multifaceted way of perceiving the story. Even at the time of World War II--especially so, really--Patton's public image was such that popular opinion about him was not always founded in truth but in the sentiments he elicited. There are times when the scandal-seeking media crowds around Patton, and they prod him with questions designed to provoke the military man into letting slip a comment out of candor. This infuriates the Allied High Command, perhaps overly concerned with their image at home, and carries the unintended political peril of discontinuing Patton's beloved involvement in the war. Even that which Patton didn't say comes back by reporters as misquotes, leading to much of what the man really said to be given to apocrypha. These strong opinions--growing ever bigger than the facts allow--make Patton an all the more relevant and intriguing film today, with President Donald Trump perhaps being the most identifiable, public parallel of Patton. In this light, watching Patton becomes a film which is sure to provoke a wide array of interpretations and responses by the audience, and as a result, experiencing the character of Patton becomes an individual experience.
George C. Scott's portrayal of General Patton is intensive and nuanced, rather than being merely an exaggeration of a figure from history or a caricature of his most notorious traits. He is shown as a man who embodies a particular view of honor, and seemingly contradictory values. In once scene, the Catholic Church visits in support of his campaign, and they comment favorably about his making time to read the Bible. He expresses his gratitude for God's support while taking the Lord's name in vain, all without any apparent intended irony. Patton takes Bradley to a ruin in Tunisia and comments that he had "been here before", referring to a battle in Carthage thousands of years in the past. It is said that Patton believed in reincarnation, a claim which is periodically revisited as though he were an eternal champion of the battlefield--such as when he speaks of the campaign to relieve Bastongne, a winter campaign he likens to Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. During these moments, Patton sometimes speaks in the past tense, as though he genuinely recalls the events first-hand, as though he were a soldier always present in the most famous battles of history. Alternately, in Germany, Captain Oskar Steiger (Siegfried Rauch)--who has studied Patton greatly, and may even admire the man--describes his old-world sensibilities as being reminiscent of Don Quixote, recalling a story where a young Patton attempted to preserve the maiden honor of a young woman only later to discover that she was with her fiance. This comparison is later revisited at the end of Patton, when Patton walks his bull terrier through a field, and past a windmill. Does Patton don this "uniform" of the grandiose and even unhinged warrior-god to achieve a degree of psychological superiority over his enemies? Is this why Patton jumps out the window and begins firing his pistol at a pair of fighter jets bombarding the command center in Tunisia? Or does his own personality occasionally become too gargantuan for even him to manage at times? The ill-fated episode that brought an outcry from the media and resulted in Patton's reduced role in the Allied push into Europe dealt with an infamous moment where Patton slaps a soldier under the effects of "shell shock", decries him as a coward, and orders him to the front lines. In the context of the film, it immediately follows--within mere moments--a scene where Patton is pinning a Purple Heart to the pillow of a critically wounded soldier, with Patton on his knees and on the verge of tears at the man's heroism and sacrifice. It is a fracturing moment, one which best represents how a public figure and his actions--right or wrong--ripple outward and affect the attitudes of the world. The irony is that when the news reaches the German High Command, Colonel General Alfred Jodl (Richard Münch) sneers at the suggestion that Patton was reprimanded for slapping a soldier, disbelieving it as some kind of propaganda. Patton struggles to understand how the media can sway his nation's military, as if they were accountable to the politicians and public outcry, and it is this challenge that he struggles with as he clamors to regain a seat of command in the Third Army following his public humiliation. General Bradley puts it to Patton best in the ending where he describes the role of the soldier in a new world as one which has to account for diplomacy and politics, as well as military prowess.
Recommended for: Fans of a compelling character study and biopic of a key figure in the Allied military campaign in World War II, a figure larger than life and whose history and legend are difficult to separate.