-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
The Patriot
- Thread starter oomcurt
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Blackpowder Injun
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 0
probably the same thing I would do, I couldnt imagine life without my children. I would get revenge first tho....
I hadn't come across this before now, or I wouldn't have been so long in replying.
One of the biggest problems I had with this movie was its starting in 1776, then jumping ahead four years to 1780, which was the year Cornwallis occupied Charleston. Yet no one, not even the various kids, aged.
Tavington's ramrod-flinging was amusing, and the accuracy of his fire with smoothbored pistols nothing short of phenomenal :haha: . The depiction of Benjamin Martin's field hands as free employees (I assume they weren't working for nothing) was technically correct -- such situations existed at the time -- but the overwhelming number of such relationships were the standard master/slave arrangement. The burning of the church, with the entire village locked inside, is not something that is documented as having happened during the Revolution, and if such a thing had happened the odds are excellent it would have been Americans burning their neighbors, not British regulars (even Tavington/Tarleton's bunch) acting like Nazis.
All that said -- I love "The Patriot". Hollywood is going to be Hollywood. It's going to cater to the lowest common denominator, even when it would be just as easy to do and show things correctly. You can harp on movies like this or "Kingdom Of Heaven" (about the Crusades) or "Last Of The Mohicans" for not being 100% correct to history, or on "The Lord Of The Rings" for not being 100% correct to Tolkien, and on and on and on -- but Hollywood's going to keep doing it the way it does, and the vast majority of people aren't going to care, and, IMHO, after the griping's done there are a lot of fine movies out there to be enjoyed. I choose to just enjoy them.
"The Patriot" accomplished one thing that a lot of history in school (all factual, one assumes) failed to do: it hit my wife hard enough, emotionally, to finally make her understand why I'm such a fanatic about our freedom and our way of life. For all the inaccuracies in the process, seeing what it cost Benjamin Martin to fight the Revolution got through to her. :thumbsup:
One of the biggest problems I had with this movie was its starting in 1776, then jumping ahead four years to 1780, which was the year Cornwallis occupied Charleston. Yet no one, not even the various kids, aged.
Tavington's ramrod-flinging was amusing, and the accuracy of his fire with smoothbored pistols nothing short of phenomenal :haha: . The depiction of Benjamin Martin's field hands as free employees (I assume they weren't working for nothing) was technically correct -- such situations existed at the time -- but the overwhelming number of such relationships were the standard master/slave arrangement. The burning of the church, with the entire village locked inside, is not something that is documented as having happened during the Revolution, and if such a thing had happened the odds are excellent it would have been Americans burning their neighbors, not British regulars (even Tavington/Tarleton's bunch) acting like Nazis.
All that said -- I love "The Patriot". Hollywood is going to be Hollywood. It's going to cater to the lowest common denominator, even when it would be just as easy to do and show things correctly. You can harp on movies like this or "Kingdom Of Heaven" (about the Crusades) or "Last Of The Mohicans" for not being 100% correct to history, or on "The Lord Of The Rings" for not being 100% correct to Tolkien, and on and on and on -- but Hollywood's going to keep doing it the way it does, and the vast majority of people aren't going to care, and, IMHO, after the griping's done there are a lot of fine movies out there to be enjoyed. I choose to just enjoy them.
"The Patriot" accomplished one thing that a lot of history in school (all factual, one assumes) failed to do: it hit my wife hard enough, emotionally, to finally make her understand why I'm such a fanatic about our freedom and our way of life. For all the inaccuracies in the process, seeing what it cost Benjamin Martin to fight the Revolution got through to her. :thumbsup:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,366
- Reaction score
- 188
Mongrel, you are absolutely right about the greatest atrocities (the church burning scene) being the sort of thing Americans did to Americans. That really was America's first Civil War. (In fact, it may have been America's only Civil War. I'm not sure the one in the 19th century really meets the definition.) That means the partisans fighting in the backcountry here after revocation of the '80 paroles were every bit as viscious as guerilla fighters everywhere have always been.
One thing I get a kick out of is that the hoi polloi assume Tarleton met his "just rewards" as shown in the movie. In actuality, he went back to England and served as a popular member of Parliament. Cornwallis went to India, eventually, and conducted some amazing military campaigns against the rebellions there.
Gotta be extremely careful when it comes to learning history from Hollywierd, eh?
One thing I get a kick out of is that the hoi polloi assume Tarleton met his "just rewards" as shown in the movie. In actuality, he went back to England and served as a popular member of Parliament. Cornwallis went to India, eventually, and conducted some amazing military campaigns against the rebellions there.
Gotta be extremely careful when it comes to learning history from Hollywierd, eh?
As much as he deserved to die, it's actually good that Tarleton survived to pen his (biased) memoirs for us to enjoy today. I wished that Col. James Webster ("Come on my brave fuzileers") of the 33rd Regiment of foote and "Gentle Pattie" Ferguson survived to write their memoirs.
I really enjoy this film, including Mel's tomahawk scene - not for the gore, but because we all fantasize that's how we'd react if the same thing happened to one of our children. It's also good at showing that retribution like this ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Regarding the inaccuracies and cartoonish British baddies, one thing to bear in mind about this and Mel's other historical films (Gallipoli, Braveheart) is his Australian perspective on England and the English, i.e., a fairly dim view. In Australian history, the English courts were responsible for the transport of convicts to Australia, the English oppressed the Irish (lots of Irish in 19th century Australia), and the English sent the Australian army to slaughter at Gallipoli in 1915. But as a result of this perspective, Mel can bring a passion to anti-Britishness (or Englishness, I should say, in the case of Braveheart) that make these films into great drama - you just have to treat them as fiction, that's all.
Regarding the inaccuracies and cartoonish British baddies, one thing to bear in mind about this and Mel's other historical films (Gallipoli, Braveheart) is his Australian perspective on England and the English, i.e., a fairly dim view. In Australian history, the English courts were responsible for the transport of convicts to Australia, the English oppressed the Irish (lots of Irish in 19th century Australia), and the English sent the Australian army to slaughter at Gallipoli in 1915. But as a result of this perspective, Mel can bring a passion to anti-Britishness (or Englishness, I should say, in the case of Braveheart) that make these films into great drama - you just have to treat them as fiction, that's all.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 38
Mel Gibson was born and raised in the U S of A.
He was 12 when his family moved down under.
When this movie first came out... we called it "Braveheart II: The Colonial Years"
I have no idea as a swordsman how you can parry the mass of a 13 pound musket and bayonet with a knife...
but, I love the movie too. :winking:
True about his background - but he still brings a pretty thoroughly Australian perspective to these films, and his family background is Australian on his mother's side if I recall correctly. If you see him interviewed and in films as a young man, he's totally Australian - he only re-Americanised himself once he'd made it big in Hollywood, when he developed the odd Americanised accent he has now!
He is a great actor.
He is a great actor.
IMHO if we cut ALL these films to pieces, then who would make them? They are not designed to be 100% accurate and never will be either! You have to put your demons into perspective here.
Simply put .. they are made to entertain folks (and make money for the studios) .. and for the most part they do that pretty well.
I hope they do continue to make them, 100% accuracy aside .. I enjoy them, and they do at least give a folks a glimpse of history they would not get watching the Simpsons, or much of the other tripe we see on TV today! :thumbsup:
Davy
Simply put .. they are made to entertain folks (and make money for the studios) .. and for the most part they do that pretty well.
I hope they do continue to make them, 100% accuracy aside .. I enjoy them, and they do at least give a folks a glimpse of history they would not get watching the Simpsons, or much of the other tripe we see on TV today! :thumbsup:
Davy
Guest
Best Rev. War movie since "Revolution" with Al Pacino made back in the 70's. Neither are perfectly HC but dern good movies. I wish Hollyweird would make more films that celebrate loyalty to the values of freedom in this country.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 38
Hello Davy,
I agree, I just put on a pair of "History Blinders"TM and enjoy the show... it's has to really be bad for me not to be entertained.(The Musketeer falls into to this catagory... first time I've ever seen "musketeers" charing a castle with swords drawn... as a cavary charge...
:youcrazy: :bull: )
Cheers,
DT
I agree, I just put on a pair of "History Blinders"TM and enjoy the show... it's has to really be bad for me not to be entertained.(The Musketeer falls into to this catagory... first time I've ever seen "musketeers" charing a castle with swords drawn... as a cavary charge...
:youcrazy: :bull: )Cheers,
DT
If you pay close attention to the script and know a little south carolina history you will realize that the story is based on Francis Marion. The church burning happened 3 miles from Moncks Corner (8 miles from my house) and killed a smaller group of people 7. He did not exchange prisoners with the british as portrayed in the movie,but, he did force the british to evacuate/surrender port of Georgetown by having his soilders take their horses and drag tree limbs behind them making it seem like there was a large body of infantry marching on the town. Many good stories about this hero of South Carolina. Do a web search he was amazing. BTW Tarleton was who nicknamed Marion the "swampfox".
perry
perry
Well said Davy!! :thumbsup: :hatsoff:
Thomas
Thomas
The story - and I use that word advisedly - of the events of 1775-83 is the keystone of American nation building, and from early on it was important to present those events as 'us versus them', Americans versus British, rather than as a civil war between English colonists. History has always been treated that way, especially by the victors, and from that viewpoint the emotions stirred up by 'The Patriot' should give Americans a sense of how their antecedents felt after those events when the saga of the Revolution was recounted to them.
So I agree about the dramatic value of the film. My concern with accuracy, though, relates to the uses of history today, and the danger that oversimplification of the past - which had its uses, as I've just suggested - can lead to an oversimplified, Hollywood-style world-view of black and white, good and bad, moral certitude. The true history of the American War of Independence shows how complex and ugly these events often are. Now that nation-building is done in America - or as done as it's ever going to be - this is what history is for, and why the kind of passion for detail and accuracy seen on this forum (for example) is so important. If only our leaders had this knowledge, perhaps we wouldn't have embarked on some of the military adventures of the last forty-odd years in the way we did, with the simplistic, Hollywood-style expectations we had.
So I agree about the dramatic value of the film. My concern with accuracy, though, relates to the uses of history today, and the danger that oversimplification of the past - which had its uses, as I've just suggested - can lead to an oversimplified, Hollywood-style world-view of black and white, good and bad, moral certitude. The true history of the American War of Independence shows how complex and ugly these events often are. Now that nation-building is done in America - or as done as it's ever going to be - this is what history is for, and why the kind of passion for detail and accuracy seen on this forum (for example) is so important. If only our leaders had this knowledge, perhaps we wouldn't have embarked on some of the military adventures of the last forty-odd years in the way we did, with the simplistic, Hollywood-style expectations we had.
Strider, Good points in your post! :thumbsup:
Thomas
Thomas
I know! Just didn't want to offend anyone who holds out current leaders in high regard ...
I'm just a tired former history prof spouting out what I used to say when people would ask, 'what's the point of what you do?' I used to get this from engineers and scientists who thought what they were doing was more 'relevant' and 'vocational'. Well, you can have all the engineers and scientists you want but it's a waste of time if we embark on the third world war because we haven't learned the lessons of history. Every time we devote a whole thread on this forum to some tiny point of accuracy it's part of that process. Actually, to get really high-minded, that's one of the great things about living in a free society where you're not told what to think or do all the time - I somehow don't think a forum like this would exist in North Korea or in Iran.
Enough of this, now back to the far more important problem of what decoration I put on the cheekpiece of the rifle I'm building ...
I'm just a tired former history prof spouting out what I used to say when people would ask, 'what's the point of what you do?' I used to get this from engineers and scientists who thought what they were doing was more 'relevant' and 'vocational'. Well, you can have all the engineers and scientists you want but it's a waste of time if we embark on the third world war because we haven't learned the lessons of history. Every time we devote a whole thread on this forum to some tiny point of accuracy it's part of that process. Actually, to get really high-minded, that's one of the great things about living in a free society where you're not told what to think or do all the time - I somehow don't think a forum like this would exist in North Korea or in Iran.
Enough of this, now back to the far more important problem of what decoration I put on the cheekpiece of the rifle I'm building ...
capt-pp said:
Hi Capt.PP,
Please explain about the church with people being burned. I always believed that was just Hollywood drama. I know Tarleton's men massacred a bunch of folks when they thought he had been killed, but thought that the church burning with people inside was strictly Hollywood. Lots of history of Brits burning churches, but not that I was aware of with people inside.
Thanks!
---------------------------------------
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
