George C. Scott= George S. Patton

Rating: 10/10 (26 January 2008)

'Patton' is pretty much a one-man show. George C. Scott's Oscar-winning portrayal dominates the film and overshadows all the other characters, much as Patton dominated those under his command in real life. There is no real attempt to create another strong character in the movie; Karl Malden's Omar Bradley is mainly used to react to Patton and the British General Montgomery is seen as a caricature, a stereotypical stuffy Brit who contrasts with Patton's earthy and impulsive nature. Scott truly becomes Patton in this film; it's difficult now to think of one without the other. The characterization and the film have many layers. On the one hand, 'Patton' is a straightforward war flick, with big, well-staged battle sequences. But it is also a brooding psychological study of a complicated individual, one who's near-madness goes hand in hand with his cunning and courage. Patton comes across as, among many things, an outsider in his own chosen field of endeavor. The other officers, including the generals who are his superiors, consider him something of a brilliant kook, to be used when needed and shunted aside when he isn't, or when he embarrasses them. Eisenhower, who is never seen or heard in the film, and his group of generals are businesslike, no-nonsense types who share none of Patton's flamboyance or showmanship. To them, the war is an ugly business to be concluded as quickly and painlessly as possible. For Patton, it is a holy, glorious crusade that defines him and his reason for being. Some critics claimed the movie was both pro-war and anti-war. I have to agree with Roger Ebert, it's no such thing; it's about as pro-war as you can get. But since its setting is World War II, that is not a difficult or far-fetched notion to accept. Even in this confused day and age where we agonize over whether conflicts are worth getting involved in, most people agree that the U.S. was on the right side in the second world war and that vanquishing Hitler and the Nazis was the right thing to do. Patton embodies that ideal and so we naturally root for him even if some of his actions and statements go against what we would do. George C. Scott so inhabits the character of Patton that it almost becomes irrelevant whether the portrayal is one-hundred per cent accurate. As war historians have pointed out, liberties are taken both with dialogue and plot points; there was no 'race' for Messina between Montgomery and Patton, there were actually two soldiers who were slapped, etc. But these easily fall into the realm of cinematic license and do nothing to detract from the essential reality Scott brings to his characterization. And it certainly says something about General Patton that the famous speech he gave in 1944 had to be toned down for a movie that was released in 1970!