Plot Intro
It’s the height of World War II, and General George Patton (George C. Scott) is called in to command American troops stationed in Northern Africa, after a humiliating defeat in the Battle of the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia. His disciplinarian, tyrannical techniques prove controversial but (spoiler alert!) highly effective.
This is the first film since 1957’s high-scoring Bridge on the River Kwai to deal with the Second World War from the point of view of the soldiers. A lot has changed historically since then, and last week’s Midnight Cowboy displayed an attitude to America that was distinctly disenchanted and unpatriotic. So I was excited to see what a war biopic made at a time when the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon were under considerable fire had to say.
And Patton is extremely detailed. There are extensive explanations of army manoeuvres and internal politics between American, British and Russian commanding officers. Battles and events barely touched on in schools are re-enacted, and the attention to detail is so extreme that Scott even acted with the very ivory-handled pistols that Patton owned. Being a history geek, this had some appeal. I was interested in the same way that I would be interested if Louis Theroux were commenting on proceedings.
But, and here’s the big problem with this film, it’s directed and written with such matter-of-factness and objectivity that it lacks heart. Did I feel anything at Patton’s various victories? Did I support him when he gave a rousing speech to motivate depressed soldiers? Did I hate him when he subjected some of them to nauseating abuse? No. I felt nothing. The film made no effort to bring historical events to life. They might as well have filmed a historical re-enactment society on a home camera and it would have the same effect.
Another problem is the depiction of the central figure. Scott’s performance as Patton is the fulcrum around which the entire film revolves, and he’s vaguely memorable. I liked his calm-voiced menace when distributing orders, and his commanding of crowd scenes too. The famous opening speech which he delivers to the camera in front of a sprawling US flag has icon status and it’s probably the reason why he won Best Actor (he was the first actor to reject the award, calling the Oscars a “meat parade”). I was, however, expecting more complexity in the writing. Patton was jingoistic, egomaniacal and disgustingly unsympathetic to anyone he considered a coward. He slaps soldiers suffering PTSD, shoots farmers’ horses in the way of tanks, was convinced that he was the reincarnation of one of Napoleon’s army, and would have probably voted for Trump. The film depicts this but, surprisingly, maintains a sense of Patton being a hero - he gets all the speeches, all the glory, and I think we’re meant to laugh when he insults a Russian ally. History books (and by “books” I mean Wikipedia) will give you a far more ambiguous dissection of such a man. Bearing in mind that this was Richard Nixon’s favourite film, I get the sense that this film is not as critical of 1970’s politics as I hoped, and actually has nothing to say other than the usual Republican pro-American propaganda.
Patton has won acclaim over the years, but I think this is from a predominantly American audience. It’s the same reaction that Darkest Hour has had from British critics- it’s a film about a national icon so it MUST be praised. I found it one-dimensional and slow-moving. But if you happen to share Britain First Facebook posts about respecting veterans, you’ll probably love it.
Highlight
The amusing scene involving some dogs - I’ll let Doug describe it in more delightful detail.
Lowlight
The battle scenes had so much more potential. Dunkirk, for all its faults, at least brought the audience into them so that you could not only see and hear it, but smell, taste and feel it too. Patton takes a more pedestrian approach and it doesn’t liven up the film no matter how much tanks get blown up.
Mark
3/10
I’ve been trying my best over the past couple of years - and especially in this project - to open up my mind and try and enjoy films I’d normally keep at arm’s length. And it has resulted in some delightful discoveries - Citizen Kaine was a fantastic film, and I found myself enjoying epics such as Lawrence of Arabia despite them being pretty far away from my usual viewing fare.
But the one genre of film that I think I’m never going to warm to is war films. By war films I mean out-and-out, only-point-is-to-have-lots-of-gunfire, drawn out scenes where people talk about shooting each other, followed by scenes where the people shoot each other. And unfortunately for me, Patton is nearly three hours of the following:
BANG CRASH BANG
[long technical scenes with really dull details and cardboard characters]
MORE BANG CRASH BANG
[more long technical scenes]
(Repeat ad infinitum)
So I dislike war films, this is a war film and nothing changed my mind. The main actor turns in I assume a good impression of Patton, but as Paul says, no one is likeable - or dislikeable. It’s incredibly dry and I spent most of the film on my phone, waiting for the dullness to end.
What was good? Well, as Paul says, there’s a great scene with two dogs. And as I can’t be bothered to spend any more time talking about films with white army men wielding guns, here’s why the dog scene was so great.
Firstly, Patton’s dog is a bull terrier, with the menacing glare, and Patton being your usual stereotype of toxic masculinity has decided he’s ‘William the Conqueror’ (don’t ask). But then he encounters a little fluffy poodle called Abigail. William snarls at Abigail, much to Patton’s pleasure, but then Abigail bears her teeth, growls right back and William slinks away, terrified. Patton renames him ‘Willie’ and Abigail’s little-old-lady owner approaches to apologise for Abigail scaring Patton’s big macho canine.
Why is this scene great? Well, it’s not the best, but it’s the only scene I was remotely interested in, and featured two dogs, so I liked it. It just goes to show: if your film is dull, overlong and rambling on about Men With Guns (TM), you can always chuck a couple of dogs in and at least one of your scenes will be half bearable!
Highlight
Willie & Abigail, as above. I eagerly await a spin-off about their tempestuous will-they won’t-they relationship complete with cute puppies and a wise-cracking greyhound.
Lowlight
Yet another film about macho white men with guns, complete with millions of gunfights/bombs/etc etc. It’s so predictable and uninteresting that I had to immediately put on an episode of Ugly Betty to make sure the evening didn’t feel a waste. War films are my kryptonite.
Mark
1/10
No comments:
Post a Comment