Yesterday I had a day off and I was ambitious. Both Spartacus and Patton was sitting before me, needing to be watched, so I watched both of them. (Well, I finished the final hour of Patton this morning).
Both are biographies of famous generals. Both have powerful war scenes. Both are about three hours. And both are crazy ambitious and cinematic.
Spartacus is among the finest of the sword-and-sandal Roman epics. Kirk Douglas has that chiseled-heroic look, but he can actually act (as opposed to some other heroic leads of this genre). I quickly forgot that this was a Kubrick film and was comparing it to The Robe, Gladiator and Ben-Hur. While it doesn't have the thrilling action as Ben-Hur, it holds together better and deals with more complex, thorny ethical issues. How do we respond when a whole society is built on immorality? If the only opportunity for freedom is criminal activity, should we choose that? How do we respond when confronted with unwanted, but very forward, sexual advances? Of course, this is just history, nothing we need to worry about today.
Spartacus is also cinematic. We are all familiar with the great, but too short, "I am Spartacus" scene. But there is the rolling balls of fire, the rebellion at the gladiator compound, the contrast between two kinds of training. It is stunning. But only sometimes. There is also politics and long periods of talking that didn't always capture my attention. I know epics were a big thing when this film was made, but I feel that this film would be so much better if an hour were cut from it. Still great, but it drags.
As opposed to Patton. There is barely a moment is which every ounce of cinematic juice that isn't distilled and pushed into every moment. Every scene has a powerful, memorable image that one cannot turn away from. The opening scene is so very well known that it would seem dull. Not at all. It is the perfect introduction to a man who tried to make himself as big as possible, and a film that tried to be as big as he saw himself.
I love these scripts that only keep the big scenes and we have to fill in the gaps ourselves. They move so quickly and demand that we pay attention or lose track. The supporting cast is marvelous and solid, but this is George C. Scott's film and his charisma works perfect. He can be the most charismatic jerk, and his manner and face almost shout the need for fame and power. Everything about Patton is over-the-top, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Still, there is strong discomfort here. This film wants me to appreciate a man who is the military equivalent of Trump. His demand that others pay for his aching need, the casual speech that he blows off, the disregard for any code of ethic except his own, which he makes up on the fly. I am glad Karl Malden is there to both appreciate the man, but also insist upon limits that Patton cannot give himself. If it weren't for his voice, I don't know that I could bare the film. But with him, not only do I bare it, but I glory in the foolishness and destruction. I know that there were real people, real lives that were harmed in this real-life drama, but I can rest my conscience in the wonderfully gruff voice of Karl Malden.
Although the ethical considerations will draw me back to Spartacus, my vote will go to the stunning Patton.