A hilarious bit of Oscar trivia for you: Patton swept the Academy Awards in 1971, winning most of the major awards. George C. Scott, after his towering performance as Gen. Patton, believed himself to be in another league than the four other actors in the same category, so he did not accept his Best Actor award. In fact he didn't show up to the ceremony at all. In fact though it was accepted by someone else he told them to return it the following day because he didn't want it. Gen. Patton was called a prima donna on more than one occasion, and I wonder if it would have been possible to find a better actor to bring to the silver screen. I think not.
This is a war film, yes. It follows Gen. Patton as he lead marvelous campaigns in North Africa, Italy and France during WWII with brilliant strategy and brilliant strategy. It is a biopic as well. The film traces George S. Patton as he navigates--or rather blunders--through the most important years of his life. But most of all this is simply a character study, which I find to be very different than a biopic, though the two often tend to work in tandem. Really though this is an opportunity for the audience, like the mid-level Nazi who profiled him, to thoroughly analyse the man who had Rommel shaking in his boots, but also had much of the American and British forces calling for his dismissal. If it seems incongruous that a man who lead campaigns that took well over 100 thousand casualties and prisoners should be shouted out of the army, then you ought to watch this film to get a full taste of what Patton was all about.
It is very interesting to watch the way in which Patton and the Nazi's were similarly drawn. He admired the war machine of Germany, and Patton and Rommel both recognized and respected each others' genius. It seems to me that the Teutons and Patton were both presented as warmongers, exceptional strategists, and far more competent than others around them. Especially on the side of Patton, who at one point said it was a shame to kill such great infantry, had a very high level of respect for his enemy. At times it even came dangerously close to admiration or envy at seeing such high quality troops on the other side of the line. But this was not really a man involved in politics. He didn't specifically hate "Nazis", he hated "the enemy". I am not even so sure that he hated them, as much as he simply loved to fight. War was interesting, war was life. Without a war, Patton was sure to die.
But that paints a rather narrow picture of the man, which the film and the actor work hard to avoid. Patton wrote poetry, was a great military historian, was a deeply religious man who believed in reincarnation, he spoke French, and was a die-hard romantic. One man called him a "16th century man" who was trapped in a war without the honor that he so craved. There were moments for glory which he seized upon, but there was none of the beauty of the wars of the Carthaginians, Romans or Greeks whom he loved so dearly.
All this we learn from Patton, and all of this Scott does unflinching conviction. It is interesting to me that often, when discussing the great film actors Marlon Brando, Laurence Olivier, Robert De Niro, Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert Reford, Paul Newman and Orson Wells always come up, but it is so infrequent that Scott does, even though he has done some of the most defining work of the 60's and 70's. A character with as much presence and nuance as Patton was not unusual for him, but it takes a character with the immense power of Patton to ever get a name to face recognition with many people I talk to. This is his crowning achievement, and I wish that it were more well loved.
Beyond the amazing personality this movie is also a great war film. The drama and politics of the high-ranking commanders is punctuated with large, moving battle sequences which are well staged, though typical of the type of film that it is. They aren't exactly necessary or the point of the film, but what would a movie about a general in WWII be if it didn't have a couple of Nazis getting blown up?
Karl Malden is good as always as the competing three-star general that worked along side Patton during many of his campaigns. It is interesting, though, that beyond these two main characters, a couple of Germans, and one or two British actors the supporting cast was really sloppy--especially from the Americans. They all did the cheesy doughboy, cornshucker routine that was awful at times. However, they were all there simply as adornment for its obvious main attraction.
Patton was the only general that the Nazi's ever feared and, frankly, I think that that was a perfectly reasonably thing to feel. He was a mad genius who saw his role in the war not simply as a duty to his country, but as his responsibility to fate. Perhaps it was fate that brought Scott to his defining role.
4/4
No comments:
Post a Comment