User Comments:
Epic hagiography,
12 February 2005
Author:
Robert J. Maxwell
from Deming, New Mexico
It's a splendidly done movie. Scott's performance is powerful. He does everything but reach out, grab you
by the shirt, and shout in your face. Karl Malden is likable and full of common sense, but he is the only
person in the movie whom we can grasp as a character -- except for Scott himself. Scott is as good at his job
as Patton was, and in fact the quality of his performance is less volatile than Patton's own, with virtually
no weak spots.
That's part of the problem. Patton himself. I suppose that like most people he had a "good" side --
loving family, played with his dog, collected stamps and whatnot. But as good and aggressive a general as he
was, he wasn't a particularly likable guy. It's easy to demand that everyone in your command have shoes as
shiny as yours -- especially when you've got some black PFC doing your shining for you.
The movie is noticeably slanted. Patton's weakness, like Coriolanus's, is ambition. Sometimes it's
played for laughs. He carried the stars of a Lieutenant General around with him until word of his promotion
comes down, then immediately has them pinned on. But only three times is his meanness illustrated without
tongue in cheek. (1) During a conversation with Bradley he reveals that he's disobeyed orders by sending his
army on a mission to beat Montgomery in taking Sicily. He calls the attack "a reconnaissance in force". He
receives an order to get his troops back where they belong and tells his aide to send the message back
because it's garbled. "A simple old soldier," Bradly comments disapprovingly. (2) He orders General Truscott
to stage some amphibious landings which will help him take Messina before Montgomery. Truscott complains that
they're not prepared to do that without heavy casualties. Patton lies down and threatens to fire Truscott and
get someone else to do the job. (3) While visiting a hospital and presenting the wounded with decorations he
comes across a soldier whose nerves are shot and who is weeping, and Patton slaps him twice and sends him
back to the front.
His mean streak went beyond those incidents. He used to practice his arrogant, threatening scowl in
front of the mirror. Whether or not it improved the GI's morale to wear neckties in combat is, at best,
arguable. (What would Patton make of the Israeli army?) But the simple historical fact is that the movie
pitches even these "mean" incidents at the audience like softballs. He didn't just slap a soldier who was
feeling sorry for himself, which is the picture the film presents. He slapped two soldiers on separate
occasions, one suffering from combat fatigue (which is no joke) and the other from malaria and other
illnesses.
That cost Patton a bit in the way of professional esteem but it didn't cost any lives. And it didn't
cause him any remorse. Even in his "apology," he claims he was trying to "shame a coward." What DID cost
lives was Patton's cobbling together a small task force to liberate a POW camp in Germany shortly before the
war's end, when such a dangerous move was no longer necessary. It was recognized by its leaders for the lost
cause it was, a plunge deep into enemy territory without any backup. There were 53 vehicles and 294 men. All
the vehicles were destroyed or captured. Twenty-five of the men were killed, 32 wounded, and almost all the
rest captured. The purpose of the mission, it was tacitly agreed, was the rescue of Patton's son-in-law, who
was a prisoner in the camp. When the camp was finally liberated at the end of the war, Patton sent in a Piper
cub to whisk his son-in-law to a hospital, leaving the other POWs, including the wounded, behind. Decorations
didn't include any Medals of Honor because they require an official explanation of the mission. "Task Force
Baum" isn't brought up in the film.
Everyone paid for Patton's ambition and vanity, even those not under his command. The gasoline and
other supplies he diverted to his own forces during the run through France helped him alright, but they were
also needed elsewhere.
I don't know why it's been said that George C. Scott himself didn't like Patton. Scott complained that
Patton was being treated too harshly in the film and he tried to undermine the message in small ways -- lying
down while ordering Truscott to conduct amphibious operations. Patton would never have done that, Scott
claimed.
The movie's subtitle is "Salute to a Rebel." Very stylish for 1970 audiences, but the material is
presented in such a way as to leave us with a lingering admiration for Patton's genius and bullheadedness.
What kind of "rebel" was he? He was more of an authoritarian Arschloch than anybody else in his greater
vicinity.
I gave the movie high marks because it's as well done as it is -- disregarding its relationship to
Patton himself. I didn't mind so much that the wrong tanks were used (although it was annoying) and that the
production could only find two Heinkel 111s in flying condition. The location shooting is great, the
cinematography crisp and unimpeachable, the score one of Goldsmith's best, and Scott's performance deserved
whatever awards it got.
|
