Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments [2016/09/22 07:40] – 70.174.189.165
+++ 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments [2016/09/22 12:49] (current) – [6 The So, what? question] mcarey
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 The fact that the Martin's treated their slaves and all other black people in the movie as equals seemed a little too unrealistic for the time. There may have been some people that were not racist, but in South Carolina that would have been very rare. Also, the fact that the man had his slave serve for him. This was known to have happened in the north, but in the South slaves were prohibited from serving in the continental army. Also, the movie showed one loyalist and one neutral and everybody else were strong patriots. We learned in class that the majority were neutral and there was a large portion who were loyalist. --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/21 23:30//
-I was greatly disappointed in the film’s erasure of slavery from the American Revolution narrative. Aside from a handful of token slaves and freedmen, the film neglects the fact that 20% of the colonies, 30% of the South, and 40% of South Carolina was black. This is poor representation on the director’s part. Also...is Aunt Charlotte's character realistic? An unmarried, white, plantation-owning woman in the South? Let's investigate this.  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/22 00:54//
+I was greatly disappointed in the film’s erasure of slavery from the American Revolution narrative. Aside from a handful of token slaves and freedmen, the film neglects the fact that 2**0% of the colonies, 30% of the South, and 40% of South Carolina was black.** This is poor representation on the director’s part. Also...is Aunt Charlotte's character realistic? An unmarried, white, plantation-owning woman in the South? Let's investigate this.  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/22 00:54//
+So a few things are not adding up here. Benjamin was a southern land owner, maybe even plantation owner so I really doubt that the Martin family was so enlightened on the slavery front. With 7 kids to raise, I am positive that Ben would use slave labor in order to maintain his land. **Gabriel was also talking of the New World potentially becoming free of slavery. I know that the Martin family are the good guys, but these ideas feel very progressive for a southern white landowner in this time period.** --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/22 04:29//
+I very much agree that racial attitudes are portrayed as much too progressive for the time. That all of the workers were free on the farm is historically inaccurate. In addition, while a handful of white southerners may have thiught of black people as people (as opposed to property), it is highly unlikely a white southerner would regard a black man as an equal or close to it. -Julia Peterson
+In the opening moments of the film, the production staff erroneously have Martin (Mel Gibson’s) crafting Rocking Chairs which were not invented until the 19th century. Furthermore, the slaves in the film seem…...non-existent. There are some, but there seem to be very few despite it being pre-Revolution South Carolina which would like when slavery was nearing it’s peak. And on the topic of slavery, **it seems as though Martin did not own any slaves, despite being a wealthy enough farmer to be welcomed into meetings of great political importance in Charleston as the local leaders discussed North Carolina’s involvement in the Revolution.** According to Mel Gibson, he was actually 'upset' that Martin was not portrayed as a slaveholder because he considered it a cop out on discussing the issue. Whether Gibson was actually concerned with telling a compelling story or his anti-Semitic issues included some level of white supremacy, the world does not really care to know.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/22 06:27//
 ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======
@@ Line 48: / Line 55: @@
 **Throughout the movie, there are little bits and pieces that were references to everyday activity that colonist did that the were correct.** A few of these being the bundling bag and ask permission to write a lady, showing how those who researched the culture of time actually did some digging and made sure it was represented in the film. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/21 20:49//
-The film realistically portrays the struggle colonists had between 1774-1776 in choosing a side. Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, changes from neutral to active Patriot. Originally questioning why he would exchange “1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away,” Martin catches Patriot fever and later reflects on his original neutrality with “I’ve done nothing, and for that I am ashamed.” The film is also successful in its depiction of the Patriots using guerrilla warfare. Martin’s militia employed guerrilla warfare tactics, i.e. running through swamps and forests, to counter the traditional warfare tactics of the British, i.e. formation. The militiamen in the film prided themselves on their underdog identity and vigilante tactics, and this is supported by the reading in which George Mason recalls “our Militia turn out with great Spirit, & have in several late Actions, behaved bravely, but they are badly armed & appointed” (205).  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/22 00:42//
+The film realistically portrays the struggle colonists had between 1774-1776 in choosing a side. Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, changes from neutral to active Patriot. Originally questioning why he would exchange “1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away,” Martin catches Patriot fever and later reflects on his original neutrality with “I’ve done nothing, and for that I am ashamed.” **The film is also successful in its depiction of the Patriots using guerrilla warfare. Martin’s militia employed guerrilla warfare tactics, i.e. running through swamps and forests, to counter the traditional warfare tactics of the British, i.e. formation. The militiamen in the film prided themselves on their underdog identity and vigilante tactics, and this is supported by the reading in which George Mason recalls “our Militia turn out with great Spirit, & have in several late Actions, behaved bravely, but they are badly armed & appointed”** (205).  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/22 00:42//
+In the film, I feel that the film makers correctly established the level of difficulty that picking war with the British brought. They showed multiple factions, like the patriots, loyalists, and those who were neutral. They made Benjamin Martin extremely wise. I found it funny that the film makers gave Ben the line, "Trading 1 Tyrannt 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away". It's cool film makers were trying to establish the feelings of the colonists during this time. Also, when Benjamin and Gabriel broke into a random dudes house. That also showed the level of fear of neutral colonists. **The fact that someone would leave their home in such a manner because of the war was astounding**.  --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/22 04:20//
+ As usual, I’m conflicted in my choosing between the film’s errors in fact, and its level of accuracy. And as usual, I will preference the right based on attention to historic detail (clothing, location, etc.) and the frequent mentioning of events relevant to this war, despite several inaccuracies placed within as enhancements to promote a cinematic atmosphere. Certainly an exception to this would be the traumatic events at Fort Wilderness but again, this was likely added to give the hero a retentive backstory. I believe that the movie’s main focus was aimed at events for its time and bring to light the use of guerrilla warfare tactics that would prove successful. Additionally, the film portrays the “regular” men of whom these “irregular forces” were composed of. In doing so, we are given a perspective of their social classes within, and out of their respective sides for the war. For example, early in the film (Charleston) we are shown the three general categories in which colonists were held prior to British presence in the south. On one side of the room we here from the loyalist represented by Adam Baldwin’s character, on the other side the large deaf man speaks on behalf of the patriots, and in the middle, neutrality is expressed by Gibson, or in the least, a general opposition to declare war. **And like those in the middle, an eventual decision for sides was forced upon them based on their perceived duality of war (typically in favor of patriotism). Afterwards, there is a visible class difference within the story’s militia when Heath Ledger’s recruits (pulled from church), linkup with Gibson’s band of dog eating ruffians out of a swamp tavern. This indifference is even extended to race at one point. Correspondence from Cornwallis make mention of his detestation for militia, as well as one (presumably) high ranking officer of the Continental Army who states that militia are “unreliable at best”.** --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/22 04:55//
 ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======
@@ Line 64: / Line 77: @@
 **Was Benjamin having a romantic relationship with his dead wife’s sister a normal thing in the colonial times? I’ve heard of betrothed women marrying their dead fiancé’s brother if her fiancé died before the marriage. It seemed a little weird to me but I wasn’t sure if that was common or not. Did a lot of white soldiers change their minds about working with African Americans in the army like that guy at the end? Another thing that really caught my attention was the two younger brothers getting quite involved. Although they could’ve been the “men of the house,” it still seemed like they were awfully young to be toting guns and protecting the house and family. Was it common for children that young to be involved in the war in the way these two were depicted?** --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/21 23:18//
-Depending on your source, “The Patriot” (or as I like to call it, “Colonial Heart”) can be ultimately interpreted as propaganda for freedom and democracy in opposition of tyranny. As usual, this is a Hollywood rendition of history so it strives to leave viewers feeling warm and fuzzy and well….patriotic. We are essentially give a representative from each side of the war. One is a hardworking and respectable family man of whom we are intended/expected to root for throughout the film (the good guy). The other, Col Travington, is a complete SOB whose demise we can’t wish fast enough (the bad guy). Naturally our mind is made up by the time he ruins the life of our hero in only a few minutes. Upon researching and discovering that our hero and villain are loosely based on factual characters, our sense of nationalism is validated (unless you’re English in which case some guilt may be expressed). However, further discovery states that our hero Benjamin Martin, is pieced together from numerous revolutionaries of note, displaying all of their best qualities despite conflicting sources that question their integrity. Specifically Francis Marion (Swamp Fox). Vice-versa (to a lesser extent) for the villainous Col whose name sounds surprisingly similar to the Banastre Tarleton, an English Colonel known for his brutality (assigned reading). This notion of despicability is also reinforced by our hatred towards the loyalist representative (Adam Baldwin) as he is seen in a most traitorous fashion via church burring. Since he is the only loyalist encountered throughout the film, we are left with the assumption that they are all rotten bastards.   --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/22 03:31//
+Depending on your source, “The Patriot” (or as I like to call it, “Colonial Heart”) can be ultimately interpreted as propaganda for freedom and democracy in opposition of tyranny. As usual, this is a Hollywood rendition of history so it strives to leave viewers feeling warm and fuzzy and well….patriotic. We are essentially give a representative from each side of the war. One is a hardworking and respectable family man of whom we are intended/expected to root for throughout the film (the good guy). The other, Col Travington, is a complete SOB whose demise we can’t wish fast enough (the bad guy). Naturally our mind is made up by the time he ruins the life of our hero in only a few minutes.** Upon researching and discovering that our hero and villain are loosely based on factual characters, our sense of nationalism is validated** (unless you’re English in which case some guilt may be expressed). However, further discovery states that our hero Benjamin Martin, is pieced together from numerous revolutionaries of note, displaying all of their best qualities despite conflicting sources that question their integrity. Specifically Francis Marion (Swamp Fox). Vice-versa (to a lesser extent) for the villainous officer whose name sounds surprisingly similar to Banastre Tarleton, an English Colonel known for his brutality (assigned reading). This notion of despicability is also reinforced by our hatred towards the loyalist representative (Adam Baldwin) as he is seen in a most traitorous fashion via church burning. Since he is the only loyalist encountered throughout the film, we are left with the assumption that they are all rotten bastards, quick to set their neighbors on fire.   --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/22 03:31//
+“I’m a parent, I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” The film turns the story from the conflict of the Revolution into some kind of revenge fantasy against Nazi-esque Redcoats that burn civilians alive in churches. The film turns from a historical tale into one man’s battle to avenge his dead son, which seems reductionist to an almost offensive degree. To a degree, it does accurately paint the picture of how someone that was formerly Neutral in the conflict would find something unrelated to the overall issue of the Colonies vs the Crown in order to fight.
+ --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/22 06:15//
 ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======
@@ Line 79: / Line 97: @@
 The Patriot is nothing but one giant propaganda piece. It is similar to other movies that came out around time, such as Independence Day, Last of the Mohicans, Air Force One, Glory and others, in that these were really patriotic movies. This is especially weird when these were made during relatively peaceful times. **They were made after the Cold War had ended, and made before the September 11th attacks in 2001.** --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/09/21 18:28//
-This movie, like Lauren says, continues with the strong female character type, pushing forward despite all odds (and historical probabilities). Once again, in this movie a woman steps up to tell others why they should do what's right. And this time, it works! We see that people are starting to get the idea that women should not just get thought-provoking speeches but actually have something result from it. Gabriel needs not further explain what she said. He just waits for the men to respond, and they slowly stand up to join the cause. Thanks, Anne! It kind of sucks that she gets killed soon after marriage in order to fuel the revenge-seeking part of the movie, but she had a good moment and I'm proud of that.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/21 23:23//
+**This movie, like Lauren says, continues with the strong female character type, pushing forward despite all odds (and historical probabilities). Once again, in this movie a woman steps up to tell others why they should do what's right. And this time, it works**! We see that people are starting to get the idea that women should not just get thought-provoking speeches but actually have something result from it. Gabriel needs not further explain what she said. He just waits for the men to respond, and they slowly stand up to join the cause. Thanks, Anne! It kind of sucks that she gets killed soon after marriage in order to fuel the revenge-seeking part of the movie, but she had a good moment and I'm proud of that.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/21 23:23//
 In terms of being a primary source, the main conflicts are fairly accurate. A man stays loyal to the crown, but then he changes his mind after the Red Coats don’t show the same respect. We had talked a bit in class about why people (usually Loyalists) changed sides. The guerilla warfare was also pretty accurate as well. Underage soldiers seem to be a commonality in a lot of pre-world war American wars. The slavery issues brought up (fighting, freedom, etc) were also somewhat accurate, in the way the British treated them and the way some of the Patriots treated them within the continental army. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/21 23:40//
 ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======
@@ Line 105: / Line 125: @@
 **If the movie does decide to show more slavery, how does that change the narrative?  Also, how does that reflect on a movie named, “The Patriot”?** -Christian Trout
-This film has a lot of American identity wrapped up in it. I think it's important to talk about for that part alone. After all, once the numerous attempts at revenge fail, it's the beautiful scene of a waving flag that leads Benjamin to finally realize that he should slay his enemy for his country, not his pride or his fallen children. The movie's release right before September 11, 2001, certainly plays a big part in its importance to the times, too. America was swelling with a sense of pride that let movies like this one become popular, but then the attack on the World Trade Center brought Americans back to reality, and patriotism became mandatory, not just a warm fuzzy feeling in your chest. I couldn't help but wonder what people thought of this film only a year after its release, after they felt that the ideals presented in this film were challenged by not only the threat of terrorism but also the sudden shift in governmental policies that led to a measure of suppression in order to "protect" America's interests. The government's new laws and acts were considered "patriotic", and maybe people connected that loss of independence with the struggle of the movie's patriots during the war. Or maybe they saw it as another British suppression. The event is still too fresh in America's mind for much open discussion to go on in regards to the aftermath, but it should still be addressed. What role does government have in this movie which might reflect parts of America post-9/11?  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/21 23:23//
+This film has a lot of American identity wrapped up in it. I think it's important to talk about for that part alone. After all, once the numerous attempts at revenge fail, it's the beautiful** scene of a waving flag that leads Benjamin to finally realize that he should slay his enemy for his country, not his pride or his fallen children.** The movie's release right before September 11, 2001, certainly plays a big part in its importance to the times, too. America was swelling with a sense of pride that let movies like this one become popular, but then the attack on the World Trade Center brought Americans back to reality, and patriotism became mandatory, not just a warm fuzzy feeling in your chest. **I couldn't help but wonder what people thought of this film only a year after its release**, after they felt that the ideals presented in this film were challenged by not only the threat of terrorism but also the sudden shift in governmental policies that led to a measure of suppression in order to "protect" America's interests. The government's new laws and acts were considered "patriotic", and maybe people connected that loss of independence with the struggle of the movie's patriots during the war. Or maybe they saw it as another British suppression. The event is still too fresh in America's mind for much open discussion to go on in regards to the aftermath, but it should still be addressed.** What role does government have in this movie which might reflect parts of America post-9/11?**  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/21 23:23//
+The treatment of the black workers / slaves in the movie contributes to the harmful narrative that slavery "really wasn't all that bad." Particularly the way in which the movie slipped in that all the black people working on Martin's farm were free people, there of their own accord, yet still clearly subordinate, allows viwers to be soothed into accepting this as okay.
+I highly doubt that the family would have recieved such a warm welcome showing up at the black settlement along the coast. While perhaps Abigail was glad to see them, she nevertheless would have been an employee at best. **Especially considering that the family had just barely escaped death from the English army, why would a hidden settlement welcome white people (who would've thought themselves superior) with open arms?
+While it makes sense within the worldof the movie, it belies the violent contentious racial reality at the time. It matters since it is a legacy that the US is still wrestling with today.**  --Julia Peterson