PATTON (1970) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Director: Franklin J. Schaffner Writers: Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North (based on the book "A Soldier's Story" by Omar M. Bradley and "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph" by Ladislas Farago) Starring: George C. Scott, Karl Malden, Michael Bates, Edward Binns, Stephen Young, Lawrence Dobkin, John Doucette, James Edwards, Frank Latimore, Tim Considine
The film "Patton" is a film filled of many contradictions, just as the man it's portraying was. General George S. Patton Jr. was the flamboyant military commander who was at the same time brilliant and clueless, and came off as being everything that someone like me would say is wrong with war, and also everything that is right about it. Watching the film is seeing an exercise in a film that takes both sides of the story, sits on the fence, and still gets away with it, mainly because it just knows how to show both sides equally and doesn't try to make any pro or con statements against war.
On the surface, "Patton" is at once an epic war film and an intelligent biopic of a very controversial and notable figure in history. On one level, we see a wildly entertaining cinemetic war picture that probably could have starred almost anybody (probably John Wayne), following one man's need to conquer in battle and to come out the winner of each and every battle, primarily because he's such a brilliant strategist. And we also see an intelligently and brilliantly layered biopic on a man who's need to bring the best out of his troops by following a series of codes ultimately leaves him without anything else to do one he's completed it, as well as a three-dimensional depiction of a man who most people thought was such an asswhole because he just wanted to do things right.
The film opens with Patton (played with a fiery intensity by George C. Scott) addressing several troops (and the audience) about the many codes one must follow in order to be succesful in war as well as why war is such a great thing, all while standing in front of a giant American flag (a stunning and textured shot). He mentions how individuality is a terrible thing, how much of war is getting revenge, and other things that many people will easily take offense at since it's so honest about what war really is, and what the many costs of war are. It's easy to pick out all the problems with war from his speech, but then one must realize that if you're going to fight a war, this is the only way you're going to win.
The film takes off from there to depict many of his World War II ups-and-downs, starting out as he takes over a base in North Africa, and follows right up to his conquest in Germany. We see Patton as he tries to shape his new troops up into the right kinds of troops, prohibiting pin-ups from the barracks, and forcing everyone to wear helmets at all times. His strategies are so brilliant because he knows so much about war history, and is able to manneuver as to what worked before and what didn't, and also because he's so consumed with the business of war strategies that it's hard seeing him doing anything else in life.
But with this, there's his many negative traits. He's almost totally made of stone, and becomes one of the biggest nuiscances to the American army because of this and his lack of public bravauda. When giving a speech about what will happen at the end of the war, he accidentally forgets to mention their ally, Russia, and says that America and England will be ruling the world afterwards, prompting a ton of negative feedback from everyone, especially Russia. But Patton has worse problems: he's so consumed with war and how everyone must be part of a group that he worries only about those who are physically wounded by the war and not those who are psychologically so. His treatment of a soldier who has "bad nerves" becomes an indictment of his character and the entire American military by the media, and wounds Patton's career from that point on.
As this goes on, we get a couple asides to pull us away from Patton. We not only follow his career, but also that of a colleague and later friend, General Omar M. Bradley (Karl Malden), who's the exact opposite of Patton: patient, just, and only following orders. We see how Bradley's career actually gets better than Patton's, and by the end, the man who was once under his command is giving him orders. We are also privileged to see how the German soldiers react to him, as they are constantly trying to study him and understand him, but never do.
Patton was a complex and mysterious man, and the script by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North is a brilliant one that understand this notion, and instead tries to show him as he most likely was. Seen in history as a one-dimensional crazy man, the script actually deepens his character, and by the end, elicits actualy sympathy for him. This film is not a criticism of him or war, but really an almost documentary on him, not taking any real side on him, but showing him as a three-dimensional person. Scott's performance is like this: at his most tempermental, you can see why so many people impersonate his performance; but many times Scott goes down about 100 notches to show him as a man tortured by his own fear of a lack of war.
The film sees Patton not as what is good or bad about war, but really as a giant contradiction of both of these. He's a man who basically embodies everything about war, and when a war is around, he's the best at training his men to fight a war, and at coming up with strategies that help his side win battles. He's so good because he understands that war needs dehumanization, that people with a high amount of emotion over the idea of war need to have their spirits broken, and need to learn to be an animal. But again, this is exactly what is wrong with war, how it turns humans into psychotic, unfeeling monsters, and the film shows this as the main contradiction in Patton's life: he was heroic, but at the same time he was tragic.
"Patton" is an amazing film, one that is able to stir up emotions for someone who could easily be reduced to just a simple monster. It understands that without war, there was little else of Patton left, and it is able to touch on a part of all of us that fears becoming obsessed with accomplishing something, and the fear of what to do next after it has been accomplished. The best biopics, "Amadeus," "Raging Bull," were all able to find something about their subjects that can easily be conveyed to all of us, and did so in an entertaining manner. And since "Patton" is as deeply entertaining and fascinating as it is introspective and brilliant, it ranks as one of the best films to ever be made.
MY RATING (out of 4): ****
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews