There isn't much about Patton's family background or his home life but that's okay. Nobody gets as well known as Patton because he was a good husband who collected stamps or something. His family in Pasadena, California, was well to do and he married into the local aristocracy. That's enough.
It's a finely detailed description of the battles Patton was involved in, beginning with the 1942 landings in Morocco. There is some combat footage, most of it from elsewhere, and several talking heads with often fascinating anecdotes. (The first night ashore at Morocco was very cold and the men made mattresses out of crushed corn flakes boxes and covered themselves with the flattened cardboard containers.) There is a good deal of footage and still photos of Patton himself, sometimes smiling, usually frowning. (He practiced that baleful scowl in front of the mirror.)
On his dash through France, Patton's forces were brought to a halt by a shortage of fuel. The documentary keeps referring to it as "PATTON'S fuel." But it belonged to the Allies, not to Patton. And in "The Struggle For Europe," the prominent Australian correspondent Chester Wilmot suggests that Patton managed to bootleg some of the fuel destined for Montgomery, without caring that it might be needed elsewhere. The film makes it sound as if Patton were being robbed, and I found that (and other sleights of rhetorical legerdemain) irritating. It's supposed to be a topical biography, not a hagiography.
And the series is marred by the same pointless directorial decision to always show some sort of motion on the screen, as if aimed at an audience weaned on MTV. If an aging survivor tells a tale, the background sparkles with dots and lines that come and go like a Fourth of July display. Few shots last longer than a few seconds. And the narrator's intonations ("supersegmentals") project a contempt for the enemy, as does the writing itself many times. American soldiers may "draw back" or "withdraw" but the Vichy French "lose heart and retreat." So far, in the first episode, it's as much a "Life of the Saints" as a biography. Commentators agree that Patton was destined to be a soldier. Patton's father is quoted approvingly, something like, "I've got the power; now you get the glory." As if there were glory in mutual destruction. Patton's son served in Vietnam and said -- whether he meant it or not -- that he "liked to see the arms and legs fly."
I obviously don't think Patton deserves quite the adulation shown by some of the military talking heads. He entered the war just at the time the Allies were beginning to win and the Germans beginning to be overwhelmed. No question about his intelligence or his bravery, but what would he have done in defense? It was a question he never had to answer. Robert E. Lee was a great general. In some ways, Dwight D. Eisenhower was a great general, even though he never was at the head of a tank column. As an historical figure, Patton seems incomplete, and sometimes vain to the point of fanaticism.
He believed that one must keep the enemy on the run and thus justified his obsession with attack. (His Naval counterpart was Halsey, colorful figures both.) But what would Patton have done if he'd found himself on the defensive or, worse, having to withdraw? Would he have been clever as his counterparts on the battlefield? Or would he have begun issuing orders like, "Retreat not one millimeter," as the aggressive enemy leader did?
The Germans were expert at withdrawal under fire. Before they retreated from a defensive line, they had marked every important position for mortars and artillery. Before leaving, they even planted mines in the bottoms of fox holes that they themselves had just occupied. There is no reason to either believe or disbelieve that Patton would have been so adept at retreat.
Patton was a successful warrior, known for his tendency to kick butt and get things moving. We'll never know if he'd have been quite as skilled at other kinds of warfare, as Rommel and Kesselring were. The Allies took Sicily but not before the Germans managed to slip the cream of their troops (plus their equipment) across the Strait into Italy. The Japanese were adept at secret withdrawals too, at least at Guadalcanal and the Aleutians, where their disappearance came as a surprise to the American troops.
Not to belittle the series. It's surprisingly candid both about the battles and about Patton's character. Some of the talking heads are permitted to express their disgust as well as their pride in having served with him. The reserved Bradley didn't like him much. But there's no doubt about Patton's singular ability to handle certain kinds of tasks. And the film gives us details of unspeakable trauma in battles that most of us have never heard of -- Troyen, for instance. Despite its weaknesses it deserves applause.
It's a finely detailed description of the battles Patton was involved in, beginning with the 1942 landings in Morocco. There is some combat footage, most of it from elsewhere, and several talking heads with often fascinating anecdotes. (The first night ashore at Morocco was very cold and the men made mattresses out of crushed corn flakes boxes and covered themselves with the flattened cardboard containers.) There is a good deal of footage and still photos of Patton himself, sometimes smiling, usually frowning. (He practiced that baleful scowl in front of the mirror.)
On his dash through France, Patton's forces were brought to a halt by a shortage of fuel. The documentary keeps referring to it as "PATTON'S fuel." But it belonged to the Allies, not to Patton. And in "The Struggle For Europe," the prominent Australian correspondent Chester Wilmot suggests that Patton managed to bootleg some of the fuel destined for Montgomery, without caring that it might be needed elsewhere. The film makes it sound as if Patton were being robbed, and I found that (and other sleights of rhetorical legerdemain) irritating. It's supposed to be a topical biography, not a hagiography.
And the series is marred by the same pointless directorial decision to always show some sort of motion on the screen, as if aimed at an audience weaned on MTV. If an aging survivor tells a tale, the background sparkles with dots and lines that come and go like a Fourth of July display. Few shots last longer than a few seconds. And the narrator's intonations ("supersegmentals") project a contempt for the enemy, as does the writing itself many times. American soldiers may "draw back" or "withdraw" but the Vichy French "lose heart and retreat." So far, in the first episode, it's as much a "Life of the Saints" as a biography. Commentators agree that Patton was destined to be a soldier. Patton's father is quoted approvingly, something like, "I've got the power; now you get the glory." As if there were glory in mutual destruction. Patton's son served in Vietnam and said -- whether he meant it or not -- that he "liked to see the arms and legs fly."
I obviously don't think Patton deserves quite the adulation shown by some of the military talking heads. He entered the war just at the time the Allies were beginning to win and the Germans beginning to be overwhelmed. No question about his intelligence or his bravery, but what would he have done in defense? It was a question he never had to answer. Robert E. Lee was a great general. In some ways, Dwight D. Eisenhower was a great general, even though he never was at the head of a tank column. As an historical figure, Patton seems incomplete, and sometimes vain to the point of fanaticism.
He believed that one must keep the enemy on the run and thus justified his obsession with attack. (His Naval counterpart was Halsey, colorful figures both.) But what would Patton have done if he'd found himself on the defensive or, worse, having to withdraw? Would he have been clever as his counterparts on the battlefield? Or would he have begun issuing orders like, "Retreat not one millimeter," as the aggressive enemy leader did?
The Germans were expert at withdrawal under fire. Before they retreated from a defensive line, they had marked every important position for mortars and artillery. Before leaving, they even planted mines in the bottoms of fox holes that they themselves had just occupied. There is no reason to either believe or disbelieve that Patton would have been so adept at retreat.
Patton was a successful warrior, known for his tendency to kick butt and get things moving. We'll never know if he'd have been quite as skilled at other kinds of warfare, as Rommel and Kesselring were. The Allies took Sicily but not before the Germans managed to slip the cream of their troops (plus their equipment) across the Strait into Italy. The Japanese were adept at secret withdrawals too, at least at Guadalcanal and the Aleutians, where their disappearance came as a surprise to the American troops.
Not to belittle the series. It's surprisingly candid both about the battles and about Patton's character. Some of the talking heads are permitted to express their disgust as well as their pride in having served with him. The reserved Bradley didn't like him much. But there's no doubt about Patton's singular ability to handle certain kinds of tasks. And the film gives us details of unspeakable trauma in battles that most of us have never heard of -- Troyen, for instance. Despite its weaknesses it deserves applause.