| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments [2016/09/22 12:47] – [4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made] mcarey | 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments [2016/09/22 12:49] (current) – [6 The So, what? question] mcarey |
|---|
| **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 | **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. | 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? | 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 | 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 |
