246 PATTON
time when anti- war sentiment was raging in the United States, an epic biopic about
a gung-ho WWII general had to be constructed in ambiguous terms in order to
appeal to the widest pos si ble demographic. Hence, Patton is portrayed as a very
capable military commander, pleasing Vietnam- era hawks, but also as an egomani-
acal crackpot, confirming the biases of doves who abhorred war- mongering. In the
end Toplin judges Patton as historically quite accurate and a “balanced” portrait.
Patton is not, however, the “balanced” cinematic portrait that Toplin contends that
it is. It contains contrived events and false characterizations designed to skew
viewer identification toward George Patton. For example, George C. Scott’s Patton
speaks in a raspy growl whereas the real Patton had a high- pitched, squeaky voice
that did not exude Scott’s machismo. The movie also misrepresents the relation-
ship between Patton and Gen. Omar Bradley. Depicted as close friends in the film
they were, in real ity, distant; Bradley found Patton’s personality grating and offen-
sive. The movie also suggests that Patton and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower were dis-
tant, whereas they had been close friends for de cades. Oddly, Eisenhower is barely
represented in the movie. The film depicts a sustained a rivalry between Patton and
Field Marshall Montgomery. In real ity, the rivalry was one- sided; Montgomery
was less concerned about his reputation relative to Patton than Patton was to his.
All of these touches tend to humanize Patton and make him more sympathetic.
Patton was an avowed anti- Semite—an unsavory aspect of his character that the
movie chooses to overlook. The film portrays George Patton as a largely solitary
figure, barely mentioning his wife and family and completely omitting the fact that
Patton had a long- term extramarital affair with his niece, Jean Gordon. The film
also omits the fact that Patton set up a disastrous secret raid on a Nazi prison camp
in Hammelburg, Germany, in a failed attempt to liberate his son- in- law, John K.
Waters. The film excludes this incident to protect the myth of Patton as a mili-
tary genius. Another key omission concerns the infamous slapping incident. The
movie depicts just one slapping incident, but in point of fact, there were two sepa-
rate incidents, and Patton bragged about them to Bradley, showing a pattern of
disrespect for subordinates. In his book, American Films of the 70s: Conflicting
Visions, film historian Peter Lev notes that Patton consistently enlists viewer iden-
tification with the film’s protagonist: “General Patton is the focus of identification
because he is the only character available for audience sympathy. We experience
what he experiences; we share his hopes and dreams [ because] we really have no
alternatives for emotional investment” (Lev, 2000, p. 115). For corroboration, Lev
reports the reaction of WWII veteran and war scholar Paul Fussell, who also noted
the film’s tendency to manipulate viewer identification. Fussell says that he would
have preferred “a more complex” view of Patton “as a dangerously out- of- control
individual, instead of the eccentric but brilliant leader of myth.” Fussell adds that
“ there are other real moments that the film wouldn’t think of including, such as
the sotto voce remark of one disgruntled ju nior officer to another after being forced
to listen to a vainglorious Patton harangue: ‘What an a—hole!’ That would be an
in ter est ing historic moment. I know it took place,” says Fussell, “ because I was the
one who said it” (quoted by Lev, 2000, p. 115).