Number 68: Patton (Best Picture Ranking)

Patton was one of the last Best Picture winners I saw and somehow also always the one I anticipated the least – I don’t know why since it won an astonishing seven Oscars and features one of the most celebrated performances of the last century. But somehow I always thought that this was not the kind of movie I would truly appreciate – and, to an extent, I was right.

Considering the just mentioned 7 Oscars, it’s surprising that Patton is probably among the least discussed winners ever – nobody ever complains about it while nobody ever seems to happy about it either. In fact, every discussion about Patton is always dominated by one aspect – the central performance by George C. Scott. Is this justified? Yes! In fact, I am sure that George C. Scott alone is responsible not only for his own Oscar win but for ever other Oscar Patton received, too, and he is also alone responsible for bringing Patton on position 69 in my ranking (this may sound like a negative thing since 69 isn’t too high but I think one single performance can only do so much for the quality of a whole film so it’s actually quite an achievement). George C. Scott is pure dynamite on the screen, creating a character that is truly larger-than-life while always constantly developing his inner characteristics, too. He is not only completely believable but also deliciously entertaining and, being onscreen for almost every moment of this 3-hour-epic, perfectly able to carry the whole story on his shoulders. All this makes Patton the kind of movie that should be remembered for having received a well-deserved Best Actor award, and maybe some technical Oscars, too – but Best Picture seems like a slight exaggeration.

As I said, the technical aspects of Patton are impressive. All the battles, especially in Northern Africa, feel very authentic and overall, Patton manages to make history alive in front of our eyes. But – here comes the b-word – Patton, even though it has one of the most unconventional characters at its centre, never manages to become more than a big, expensive, conventional biography. And not even an overly good one. Even though the movie obviously worships Patton and tells his life during World War II, I still never have the feeling that it really tells me anything about him that I couldn’t find out by checking his Wikipedia-page. In fact, I even had to do that a few times because Patton may worship its central character but it somehow never explains why he deserves such a big, long and elaborate movie about him. I learn that he was an important general and he loved to fight and obviously made a big impact on the enemy but somehow Patton fails to really present itself as a movie about this man. I am also always surprised when Patton is described as an ‘anti-war’ movie since its main character, its plot and its direction constantly state the opposite.

I also strongly dislike all the scenes with the German officers (even though I am happy that they actually cast actors who sound German, unlike other movies or TV-shows, like Scrubs or The Simpsons) because their dialogue is so horribly contrived (how many times do they need to analyze the character of Patton?) and everything about those scenes so fake that they alone are enough to deny Patton the Oscar for Best Screenplay.

Patton has impressive battle scenes and features a great performance at its centre and I also won’t deny the excellence of various technical aspects. But it feels unnecessarily elongated at various points and not even George C. Scott can save the production from almost being crashed by its own exaggerated monumentality.