The Oscar Project #43: Patton (1970)

by Chris Marshall:

Among Oscar winners, anyway, war films have tended to be character studies, rather than broad action movies. That’s understandable; the people involved in the wars are typically more interesting (to me, at least) than who wins and loses particular battles. War often brings out the very best and very worst of people, so it can lead to some fascinating cinema.

Just think about the films that have won so far. Even the very first Best Picture winner, Wings, was a war movie that focused on two pilots (and their love triangle, also a favorite of the Academy). In more recent years, there’s been Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai, the latter of which was in some sense a war movie but was more interested in Colonel Nicholson’s devotion to being a leader of men than it was in any bigger picture.

And now we have Patton, a hybrid war movie/biopic that examines a small period in the military life of General George S. Patton, one of the most successful and controversial men in the history of the American military.

Patton was a very enigmatic human being, and he was a man of many talents. Although the film only covers his World War II years, it would be easy enough to make just about any period of his life interesting. He even participated in the Olympics on the United States pentathlon team; always unorthodox, he used a .38 caliber pistol instead of the .22 caliber used by all the other competitors. He was a military man, after all.

The film does portray him as cultured, referencing his forays into poetry and even fashion (his proposed design for a new military uniform was rejected by the military). But it also shows him being dedicated to victory—and to his place in history—sometimes at the expense of his own soldiers. That being said, he was also dedicated to turning his men into the best soldiers possible, and he really did care about them.

Even the movie’s production was controversial, as it was greatly dependent on information from Omar Bradley, a fellow five-star general, who had a, shall we say, contentious relationship with Patton. Bradley, who is portrayed in the film by Karl Malden, does not have an overly antagonistic relationship with Patton in the film, but it is revealing to know that the story is told from Bradley’s perspective.

The only better role George C. Scott ever had.

For a man who was known to hate humor that was directed at him, Patton, as played by George C. Scott, anyway, was a funny man. It reminded me of Idi Amin—not that Patton and Amin are comparable in any other way—in The Last King of Scotland. They’re just some of the last people in the world that I’d expect to be funny.

The film dragged at times, but on the whole, it was an enjoyable watch. The battle scenes were mostly side attractions, but they were very well done. It’s difficult to make a movie about several years of a war and still have it all fit together seamlessly; they did their best, but there were times when I was a little lost.

Scott famously refused his Best Actor Oscar, claiming he didn’t want to be in competition with his fellow actors, but I have to believe he deserved the award. I don’t know what Patton was like in real life, but Scott creates such a consistent, believable character. It’s really fun to watch.

Although the film wasn’t perfect, I think this is a very promising start to a very promising decade. It’s amazing how much production quality has increased just in the decade between 1960 and 1970. Visually, the movies are better than ever. Tomorrow brings The French Connection, which is an embarrassing blind spot in my movie watching repertoire. And then… and then, The Godfather. And though I’ve seen it before, I’m still eagerly anticipating watching it again. It’s an opportunity I can’t refuse.