Interesting take on "The Patriot"

[BillinOregon]

I thought this was an interesting analysis of "The Patriot," still one of my favorite films:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/amrevfilm.cfm

 

[colmoultrie]

I would agree with much of the analysis. "Mad Max Wins the Revolution" has some fun scenes, but as history? :rotf: :rotf:

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

I wonder where the author got his historical information. During the southern campaign after the British came out of Charleston, most of the Presbyterians were preaching revolution. The British burned down every Presbyterian church they came across. They did not burn them down loaded with townspeople. With the gangs of loyalist and patriot militia's patrolling the back country it was very hard to remain neutral.
In the fall of 1780 there are records of large groups of refugees, women and children walking up the road to North Carolina to escape the blood and slaughter of the South Carolina back country.
General Nathaniel Greene's comment was Nothing but Blood and Slaughter. The Movie was somewhat mild compared to actual history. Several of the Patriot officers who fought the British in South Carolina did so after the British burned down their farms, slaughtered their farm animals and scattered their families to the wind. If a militia showed up the adult males could be shot or hung before the burning started.

 

[colmoultrie]

True, they did burn churches, but as you note, not with people inside. Tavington's (Tarleton's) "Green Dragoons" wearing standard British red has always bothered me, as has the formulaic nature of the plot, which turns the Revolution into a standard action film. I am also bothered by the explosive shells fired by the field artillery at the final battle (Cowpens), and by the film's approach to slavery.

By 1776 colonial attitudes toward slavery had hardened, thanks to Bacon's Rebellion in VA and the Stono River Rebellion in 1739 in SC, not to mention the New York uprising in 1741. In fact, after the Stono uprising, South Carolina passed a Negro Act, codifying slavery more strictly. Someone like Martin who freed his slaves would have been a pariah, if he were allowed to do it at all. Lord Dunmore's proclamation in VA, promising freedom to any slave who fought in the British Army, terrified southerners even more. Even Washington and Jefferson lost slaves to the British (Washington recaptured at least one, according to Joseph Ellis, in the aftermath of Yorktown).

As far as I recall, the film does show guerrilla resistance, but I don't remember a real neighbor against neighbor conflict. Everyone seems to be fighting the Satanic British, when even the vast majority of Tarleton's Legion were American Loyalists.

The film is entertaining, but it's not good history.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I;m not all that familiar with the southern revolutionary history, but patriot and loyalist militias torching each others homes did occur in NJ.

In Pennsylvania, Shortly after the revolution, there were several dozen families that packed up and left for Canada. Some were from branches of my family. Those who fought for the new nation atayed put, while their brothers left.

 

[CaptainKirk]

It's Hollywood, yes.
But, like "Jeremiah Johnson", it brings our country's history alive to a whole new generation of kids who would rather be playing with their X-Box or Wii's, and more importantly, opens the window of curiosity about that "black powder stuff".
Thumbs up in my book! :thumbsup:

 

[buzz]

hollywood rewrites history to make a movie then the next generation thinks its fact
never has there been a movie historicaly correct then that be a documentory
in the real world movies sparks a lot of interests in our hobbies/ and interests in our lives

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

The only two facts they got right, The British invaded Charleston in 1780 and Lord Cornwallis was there. If you don't look at it as pure history
it is a good movie. Check your PCness at the door!

 

[preston cook]

just might be ,people just like it for entertainment everyone is not a historian :thumbsup: :surrender: (jmo)

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

I agree, at least it did stir up an interest in the Revolutionary War down here...for a couple of years. :v

 

[flintlock10]

I am a Canadian and having said that (I bet you think that I'm on the side of the british)I rooted for the british to loose in this movie tavington was the villan to be sure however I wonder about artistic licence when that mounted colonel pulls out his pistol and shoots a fellow off his horse while galloping down a creek bed at what appears to be 100 yards. Yes, I rooted for the patriots. I was stationed in Quebec for 3 years with the Canadian forces in the Eastern townships that were populated by loyalists whos ancestors moved north and settled in what was upper Canada during the revolution. Fascinating history.
The truth be told, I'm not a British fan.

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

The family of one of my good friends were loyalists. They moved way north, Greenland I think, Stayed there for a couple of years and had no luck farming rocks so they moved back south and said " We Love George" The grass is not always greener on the other side particularly when you have to plant it on rocks!

 

[CaptainKirk]

Always makes me wonder...with the British being the world dominating force they were, would YOU have been a Patriot?
I would love to say "Yes", but I guess unless I was actually there, I can only speculate..... :hmm:

 

[tg]

Vengance tales building to the final battle between the good guy and bad guy seem to be timesless.

 

[bangfxr]

The film was good but some things were changed as the english dragoons jackets were green but hollywood wanted red as they could be seen easier. Cornwallis did have distain for the militia and Morgan used that fact at the Cowpens.
The english did torch farmsteads and churches. There was also animosity between some folks in the back country of SC used the war as a reason to avenge old grudges.

 

[truckwilkins]

as a long time windsor chair maker.since 1969.the part about making the chairs liter and lighter is dumb i make mine fairly lite but i want them to last forever your friend truckwilkins

 

[Southlander]

Some good points were made, but the article fails to point out (as some here have), that it is good historical fiction.

I would note that the author is very wrong with one assertion he makes near the end of the article: it was not a civil war. Civil war is, by its very nature, an armed conflict for ultimate control of a government. The Revolutionaries were seeking independence from, and not control over, His Majesty's government.

Either way you see it, it was a good movie and as many have noted, it generated interest in history and the hobbies that surround it. Maybe a few more movies might just improve both the story telling and our various hobbies.

 

[Josh Smith]

I thought this was an interesting analysis of "The Patriot," still one of my favorite films:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/amrevfilm.cfm[/quote]

Were exploding shells used -- I mean, in addition to grape, canister, and solid? I thought there were Howitzer cannon in use.

I've had folks claim they weren't, but I have to wonder (see my post "Timeline For Explosive Shells?" in with the cannon stuff).

Thanks,

Josh

 

[Kevin Makel]

True, they did burn churches, but as you note, not with people inside. Tavington's (Tarleton's) "Green Dragoons" wearing standard British red has always bothered me, as has the formulaic nature of the plot, which turns the Revolution into a standard action film. I am also bothered by the explosive shells fired by the field artillery at the final battle (Cowpens), and by the film's approach to slavery.

By 1776 colonial attitudes toward slavery had hardened, thanks to Bacon's Rebellion in VA and the Stono River Rebellion in 1739 in SC, not to mention the New York uprising in 1741. In fact, after the Stono uprising, South Carolina passed a Negro Act, codifying slavery more strictly. Someone like Martin who freed his slaves would have been a pariah, if he were allowed to do it at all. Lord Dunmore's proclamation in VA, promising freedom to any slave who fought in the British Army, terrified southerners even more. Even Washington and Jefferson lost slaves to the British (Washington recaptured at least one, according to Joseph Ellis, in the aftermath of Yorktown).

As far as I recall, the film does show guerrilla resistance, but I don't remember a real neighbor against neighbor conflict. Everyone seems to be fighting the Satanic British, when even the vast majority of Tarleton's Legion were American Loyalists.

The film is entertaining, but it's not good history.

I agree, a fun film but not historically accurate.

 

[Tomcat1066]

History and film may brush up against one another from time to time, but that's where they typically end. In addition to my love of history, I'm also a film buff and have tried writing screenplays (all suck so far). In a screenplay, you have 90-120 pages to try and convey the story you're trying to share. There's a LOT of white space on each page as well. One page roughly translated to a minute of screen time (more or less).

In order to grasp someone's attention, you have to try and make the audience feel something they can relate to. Most people can't really understand the desire to fight for freedom as they've never had to. They don't see the taxation as being that bad, since we all pay taxes today. Sure, it sucks not having representation, but a war? They just don't understand it. Wanting to avenge the loss of your son? That's visceral. Everyone, even those without children, can understand that. So that's what they do.

The rest of the film is about trying to appeal to a modern audience. Making Benjamin Martin anti-slavery was about appealing to the broadest market humanly possible. You need your main character to be sympathetic, not necessarily realistic.

Write The Patriot realistically, and no one will watch it. Reviews would describe Benjamin Martin as a misogynistic racist and the British...well, when the enemy is perfectly polite and reasonable to modern sensibilities as possible, while the hero holds his fellow man in bondage and you're going to have a problem with your audience rooting for the wrong side.

Writers have always used history as a backdrop for their tales. Sometimes, the tales have more than a passing resemblance to what happened. However, one should never expect perfect historical accuracy from film. Look for entertainment, and you'll spend less time disappointed.