It is hard to believe that Patton and M*A*S*H were released in the same year. While M*A*S*H was innovative in its use of the camera and sound, Patton, aesthetically at least, resembles a classic Hollywood epic.
George C. Scott in the iconic opening scene.
Unlike Altman’s use of long lenses in M*A*S*H which created a voyeuristic sense of observing actual events, Patton director Franklin J. Schaffner, also known for Planet of the Apes (1968) and Papillion (1973), does very little creatively with the camera to tell the story. He uses the standard formula of wide-shot, medium-shots, and the odd close-up to capture each scene before moving on to the next one. The odd panning shot is used to move into an establishing wide-shot; and he does use a slow push-in zoom on his lead character, as well as a tracking shot, at the end of the film; but the camera remains static throughout most of the film; merely creating a proscenium for the action to play within rather than interacting with the material in a meaningful way. Of course there is more to directing and good filmmaking than playing with the camera and Patton remains a fine film regardless of the vanilla camerawork.
Core to the film’s success is George C. Scott’s performance as General George S. Patton. Scott is so convincing portraying Patton in his late-fifties that I was completely surprised to discover that he was little more than 42 when the film was shot. As Roger Ebert has noted, ”It is one of those sublime performances in which the personalities of the actor and the character are fulfilled in one another”. 
The excellent, if slightly verbose, screenplay was written by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North. North was brought in to ‘correct’ Coppola’s script as it was not conventional enough for the filmmakers. Although Coppola did manage to convince Schaffner to retain the opening speech which would become the most famous scene in Patton. And there are other moments where we can see Coppola’s attempt to get inside the mind of Patton. However Coppola’s voice is unfortunately sidelined. Had the filmmaker’s been aware of what Coppola would achieve in the next few years they may have given his opinion more credence.
As Coppola would go on, in my humble opinion at least, to become the titan of 1970′s American filmmaking. In the coming years he would produce two pop-culture juggernauts in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. While the latter is flawed, if only by its magnificent ambition, the former is often considered to be one of the top-three films ever-made. During this time Coppola would also produce The Godfather Part II, arguably better than its predecessor, and The Conversation. While The Conversation is less well known than his other three films, perhaps due to its more esoteric interests, it is Coppola’s third masterpiece and will be covered in great depth in a later post.
But, for this film at least, it was still old Hollywood running the show. It could be argued that the character of Patton paved the way for the anti-heroes of the ’70′s. However, while Patton is a consciously flawed character, it is his success on the battlefield and his tragedy of being lost when he is not in the throes of war, that are focussed on. Little time is spent on the men whose lives paid for his glory or any opponents to his point of view. Indeed, any oppositional point of view is merely used as antagonism to create obstacles for him to defeat on the way to completing his goals.
And this use of clear goals and obstacles that engages the audience in Patton’s story and makes for engaging viewing; in stark contrast to M*A*S*H, the audience becomes involved in Patton’s drive for glory.
Watching Patton today is an intriguing look at old Hollywood colliding with the ‘New Hollywood’ of the late ’60′s and early-to-mid ’70′s. While Coppola attempts to get inside Patton’s head and examine his flaws, the other filmmakers seem to be more interested in a standard bio-pic; a series of events that sum up a man’s life told against a grand backdrop. It will be interesting to compare The Godfather, a film co-written and directed by Coppola that retains an aesthetic sense of old Hollywood, with Patton and Schaffner’s direction of it.
Of course, any criticism I level at the film does not stop it from being worthwhile viewing. My predilection to the filmmaking style of the “New Hollywood” over the old does not reduce the marvel of Hollywood doing what it often does best. And, while some modern eyes may miss the lack of viscera that is so common in war films today (Saving Private Ryan), many viewers of the film will appreciate the old fashioned storytelling; not to mention the lack self-importance (yep, I’m looking at you again Saving Private Ryan).
[...] Looking Back At The 1970′s: Patton (1970) [...]