Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_9_questions_comments • 329--week_14_questions_comments-2018 • 329--week_2_questions_comments-2022 • 329--week_4_questions_comments • 329--week_10_questions_comments-2022 • 329--week_14_questions_comments-2020 • 329--week_11_questions_comments-2022 • 329--week_12_questions_comments • 329--week_2_questions_comments • 329--week_6_questions_comments
329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2018

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2018 [2018/09/25 05:21] – [Things the Movie got right] 76.78.227.37329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2018 [2018/09/25 13:36] (current) – [The movie as a primary source of its time] lwiley
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Errors in fact ====== ====== Errors in fact ======
 +In the movie, all the Continental Soldiers are wearing the same outfits but in reality the officers and normal recruits wore different attire from each other-- Lindsey Sowers
  
 Although there was a 'Wilderness' Campaign in the French and Indian war, the only **Fort Wilderness** I could find exists today at Disney World. Although there was a 'Wilderness' Campaign in the French and Indian war, the only **Fort Wilderness** I could find exists today at Disney World.
Line 18: Line 19:
  
  
-The regular continental soldiers (both in the beginning in what is presumably Valley Forge, during Gabriel's letter to his family, and into Camden and Cowpens) are remarkably well-equipped and clean. Also during the two big battles the lines seemed to be way too close together. Additionally, Harry Burwell, for being apparently based on Light-Horse Harry Lee, is much older, in a different rank and doesn't even command cavalry or act with Greene's army. http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/characters/burwell.html --Jessie Fitzgerald +**The regular continental soldiers (both in the beginning in what is presumably Valley Forge, during Gabriel's letter to his family, and into Camden and Cowpens) are remarkably well-equipped and clean.** Also during the two big battles the lines seemed to be way too close together. Additionally, Harry Burwell, for being apparently based on Light-Horse Harry Lee, is much older, in a different rank and doesn't even command cavalry or act with Greene's army. http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/characters/burwell.html --Jessie Fitzgerald 
  
 In the movie, the British are shown burning down a church with people inside of it. However, there is no evidence to show that this event occurred during the American Revolution.  –Courtlyn Plunkett In the movie, the British are shown burning down a church with people inside of it. However, there is no evidence to show that this event occurred during the American Revolution.  –Courtlyn Plunkett
Line 33: Line 34:
 ~Will Everett ~Will Everett
 ====== Things the Movie got right ====== ====== Things the Movie got right ======
 +The dressing of the people from the American Revolution was historically accurate as well as the weaponry based on it's time period. Also, the French did in fact help the Continental Army. -- Lindsey Sowers 
  
 The movie got right the fact that General Horatio Gates, commanded the Continental troops that were crushed by General Cornwallis in the scene that must be the Battle of Camden.  Gates was replaced by General Nathanael Greene, and well, the rest is History.  As an aside, Gates was no stranger to defeat, having been part of the failed Braddock Expedition with George Washington of French and Indian / “Seven Years War” fame, fighting the French in the Ohio campaign we saw depicted loosely in LoTM.   The movie got right the fact that General Horatio Gates, commanded the Continental troops that were crushed by General Cornwallis in the scene that must be the Battle of Camden.  Gates was replaced by General Nathanael Greene, and well, the rest is History.  As an aside, Gates was no stranger to defeat, having been part of the failed Braddock Expedition with George Washington of French and Indian / “Seven Years War” fame, fighting the French in the Ohio campaign we saw depicted loosely in LoTM.  
Line 44: Line 46:
 In the movie there was a local militia for the Continental Army. The men would not follow the war, but rather locals would round up when the war came to them. This is in contrast to the British Army, which had trained soldiers that would travel from battle to battle. --Maryanna Stribling In the movie there was a local militia for the Continental Army. The men would not follow the war, but rather locals would round up when the war came to them. This is in contrast to the British Army, which had trained soldiers that would travel from battle to battle. --Maryanna Stribling
  
-The names of the battles that occurred in the film were based off of actual battles such as the Battle of Camden, the Battle of Cowpens, and the Battle of Yorktown. As well, Mel Gibson’s character Benjamin Martin was partially based off a Francis Marion, Indian fighter from the French and Indian War. Another name that the movie mentions is General Charles Cornwallis who is based on the real-life Lt. General Charles Earl Cornwallis. Just like movie portrays, General Cornwallis oversaw the British Army in the Carolinas in 1780-81. http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/factfiction/index.html - Courtlyn Plunkett+**The names of the battles that occurred in the film were based off of actual battles such as the Battle of Camden, the Battle of Cowpens, and the Battle of Yorktown. As well, Mel Gibson’s character Benjamin Martin was partially based off a Francis Marion, Indian fighter from the French and Indian War. Another name that the movie mentions is General Charles Cornwallis who is based on the real-life Lt. General Charles Earl Cornwallis. Just like movie portrays, General Cornwallis oversaw the British Army in the Carolinas in 1780-81. http://www.patriotresource.com/thepatriot/factfiction/index.html** - Courtlyn Plunkett
  
  
 The film had accurate uniform and weaponry, as historians from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History consulted on the film. St. George, William Ross. The Journal of American History 87, no. 3 (2000): 1146-148. doi:10.2307/2675444. [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2675444]]. The Colonial Army did use guerilla tactics against the British because of their greater number. The French also did help the Colonial army during the war. -Kyle Moore The film had accurate uniform and weaponry, as historians from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History consulted on the film. St. George, William Ross. The Journal of American History 87, no. 3 (2000): 1146-148. doi:10.2307/2675444. [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2675444]]. The Colonial Army did use guerilla tactics against the British because of their greater number. The French also did help the Colonial army during the war. -Kyle Moore
  
-CW: Sexual Assault --Towards the beginning of the film, one of the younger sons at the dinner table casually mentions that the British Soldiers will "do lord knows what to you women." The fact that such a young character recognizes the possibility of R*pe and other abuse towards captured women reveals how prevalent of an issue this was. As we discussed in class, systemic sexual abuse was a horrid reality colonial women had to face, as civilians were often victims of war as well. --Jessica Lynch +CW: Sexual Assault --Towards the beginning of the film, one of the younger sons at the dinner table casually mentions that the British Soldiers will "do lord knows what to you women." The fact that such a young character recognizes the possibility of R*pe and other abuse towards captured women reveals how prevalent of an issue this was.** As we discussed in class, systemic sexual abuse was a horrid reality colonial women had to face, as civilians were often victims of war as well.** --Jessica Lynch 
  
 When Gabriel returns to his family's house wounded, he describes the fight at Waxhaws and notes that the dragoons killed all of the surrendering soldiers. This was somewhat accurate. Col. Tavington’s character is based on British Col. Banastre Tarleton. At Waxhaws, Tarleton continued to fight against the surrendering Continental soldiers, earning him the nickname, “the butcher.”   When Gabriel returns to his family's house wounded, he describes the fight at Waxhaws and notes that the dragoons killed all of the surrendering soldiers. This was somewhat accurate. Col. Tavington’s character is based on British Col. Banastre Tarleton. At Waxhaws, Tarleton continued to fight against the surrendering Continental soldiers, earning him the nickname, “the butcher.”  
Line 60: Line 62:
 https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/thomas-sumter    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/thomas-sumter   
  
-Enslaved people like Occam often fought in the Revolutionary War for their masters who wanted to support the cause but were unable too. Some of the enslaved people fought for their own freedom that they believed would come with fighting for the continentals but only a few achieved their freedom. A majority still remained as property of their masters. Some enslaved men went to the British because they saw that their chance for freedom with them was better than with the continentals. But like shown when the British attacked Benjamin’s home, they did also take enslaved people as well. +**Enslaved people like Occam often fought in the Revolutionary War for their masters who wanted to support the cause but were unable too. Some of the enslaved people fought for their own freedom that they believed would come with fighting for the continentals but only a few achieved their freedom.** A majority still remained as property of their masters. Some enslaved men went to the British because they saw that their chance for freedom with them was better than with the continentals. But like shown when the British attacked Benjamin’s home, they did also take enslaved people as well. 
 Dobyns, Lloyd. "Fighting... Maybe for Freedom, but Probably Not." Terms of Estrangement: Who Were the Sons of Liberty? : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site. 2007. Accessed September 24, 2018. http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn07/slaves.cfm. -- Ellora Larsen Dobyns, Lloyd. "Fighting... Maybe for Freedom, but Probably Not." Terms of Estrangement: Who Were the Sons of Liberty? : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site. 2007. Accessed September 24, 2018. http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn07/slaves.cfm. -- Ellora Larsen
  
Line 76: Line 78:
  
  The film does a pretty good job of capturing how the war dragged in everyone- the Native Americans, the slaves, and the freedmen & women. Each and everytime the British soldiers would show up at someone’s home that had African Americans they’d give them no other option than to leave with them. They would say to them that it was a privilege to fight for their cause. - Johana Colchado   The film does a pretty good job of capturing how the war dragged in everyone- the Native Americans, the slaves, and the freedmen & women. Each and everytime the British soldiers would show up at someone’s home that had African Americans they’d give them no other option than to leave with them. They would say to them that it was a privilege to fight for their cause. - Johana Colchado 
 +
 +In the scene when Tavington questions a wounded British scout about "the ghost", his aide mentions "Cherokee scouts" that were working with the British forces. This was, indeed, historically accurate, since the Cherokee sided with the British during the Revolutionary War. 
 +
 +Source: https://nativeheritageproject.com/2012/03/09/indians-in-the-revolutionary-war-choosing-sides/
 +
 +~Will Everett
  
  
Line 101: Line 109:
 ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ====== ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======
  
-Mel Gibson, an Australian known for his performances as a victim of English cruelty and incompetence in Gallipoli and Braveheart, clearly has an ‘axe to grind’ against the British, (pun intended) and continues that quest in The Patriot.  – Andrew Mullins +**Mel Gibson, an Australian known for his performances as a victim of English cruelty and incompetence in Gallipoli and Braveheart, clearly has an ‘axe to grind’ against the British, (pun intended) and continues that quest in The Patriot.  – Andrew Mullins 
 +**
 The Patriot was made after the World War II blockbuster Saving Private Ryan (1998), which shares the same head writer. The way the British are portrayed, specifically Tavington and the British seemed to be overly embellished to fit the good guy vs. bad guy formula that worked in Saving Private Ryan and other war movies of the late 90’s/early 2000’s. -Kyle Moore The Patriot was made after the World War II blockbuster Saving Private Ryan (1998), which shares the same head writer. The way the British are portrayed, specifically Tavington and the British seemed to be overly embellished to fit the good guy vs. bad guy formula that worked in Saving Private Ryan and other war movies of the late 90’s/early 2000’s. -Kyle Moore
  
Line 109: Line 117:
 This movie may have been centered around history and patriotism, but the focus on the fictional characters relationships with a dash of blood-filled action sequences said about as much to me as the history aspect did. There were multiple different plotlines about different relationships (Benjamin and his kids, Benjamin and Catherine, Gabriel and Anna) that speak for the genre as well as time period. -Erin Andrewlevich This movie may have been centered around history and patriotism, but the focus on the fictional characters relationships with a dash of blood-filled action sequences said about as much to me as the history aspect did. There were multiple different plotlines about different relationships (Benjamin and his kids, Benjamin and Catherine, Gabriel and Anna) that speak for the genre as well as time period. -Erin Andrewlevich
  
-The Patriot demonstrates a severe desire to simplify and idealize the motivations that created this country. Characters are motivated to join the war due to a desire to escape perceived unfair taxation or due to the British forces’ cruelty and aggressive tactics. The sides in the movie are clear cut with the British being the obviously wrong side of the war as they don’t take prisoners, kill innocent civilians, and are obsessed with superficial items such as clothing or valuing commanders above regular soldiers. In contrast, the militia becomes a morally superior group as they have only a momentary doubt in whether or not to kill surrendering forces, they are never shown to harm civilians, and hold each soldier as much as they would a commander. Even the worst aspects of the colonist militia soldiers is brushed off, as the racist soldiers are swayed by the commanders who aren’t racist and all issues are put aside by the climax.  Any issues that could have possibly existed in the budding country is cast aside or solved by the end of the movie. There is also the idea that Benjamin embodies the ideal American, who learns from his mistakes and becomes a better person. However, when he acts in a more brutal and vicious fashion at the beginning of the movie, he is using a tomahawk before “elevating” to a more civilized method with traditional weaponry. --Sky Horne+The Patriot demonstrates a severe desire to simplify and idealize the motivations that created this country. Characters are motivated to join the war due to a desire to escape perceived unfair taxation or due to the British forces’ cruelty and aggressive tactics. **The sides in the movie are clear cut with the British being the obviously wrong side of the war as they don’t take prisoners, kill innocent civilians, and are obsessed with superficial items such as clothing or valuing commanders above regular soldiers. In contrast, the militia becomes a morally superior group as they have only a momentary doubt in whether or not to kill surrendering forces, they are never shown to harm civilians, and hold each soldier as much as they would a commander.** Even the worst aspects of the colonist militia soldiers is brushed off, as the racist soldiers are swayed by the commanders who aren’t racist and all issues are put aside by the climax.  Any issues that could have possibly existed in the budding country is cast aside or solved by the end of the movie. There is also the idea that Benjamin embodies the ideal American, who learns from his mistakes and becomes a better person. However, when he acts in a more brutal and vicious fashion at the beginning of the movie, he is using a tomahawk before “elevating” to a more civilized method with traditional weaponry. --Sky Horne 
 + 
 +Does this movie romanticize war? This movie does show loss and gruesome death (cannon ball to the head and axes in the face) but it does fit this happy ending, things work out for the better genre, therefore romanticizing war. -Amiti Colson
  
 ====== Comparing the reading to the movie ====== ====== Comparing the reading to the movie ======
Line 121: Line 131:
 One thing that struck me in particular about the readings in comparison to the film was the relative lack of the revolutionary forces’ brutality. While there certainly was both the immediate visceral violence that comes with warfare, the militia forces did not demonstrate much cruelty after their first instance of killing those who surrendered. The film did not show the militia forces dealing with loyalists except those who had first proven themselves to be the “bad guys” and thus were completely justifiable to kill. The film seemed more focused on hitting some broad strokes with any negative aspect of the militia, such as the involuntary enlistment of slaves, and simply brush away these actions after the characters are scolded for doing a bad thing and then let free. --Sky Horne One thing that struck me in particular about the readings in comparison to the film was the relative lack of the revolutionary forces’ brutality. While there certainly was both the immediate visceral violence that comes with warfare, the militia forces did not demonstrate much cruelty after their first instance of killing those who surrendered. The film did not show the militia forces dealing with loyalists except those who had first proven themselves to be the “bad guys” and thus were completely justifiable to kill. The film seemed more focused on hitting some broad strokes with any negative aspect of the militia, such as the involuntary enlistment of slaves, and simply brush away these actions after the characters are scolded for doing a bad thing and then let free. --Sky Horne
 ====== The "So, what?" question ====== ====== The "So, what?" question ======
- This movie is practically a textbook definition of American patriotism (hell, Patriot is in the title of the movie). American war films like this carry a common motif of romanticizing our history as something of a morale-booster or a feel-good nostalgia trip. Of course there are plenty of issues with over romanticizing; as we've seen in the other films, the risk of losing true historical credibility and accuracy diminishes the more an event is romanticized. At the same time though, **it's that romanticizing that brings people to the cinema, and it's these over-the-top images of  our past that inspires us to have pride in our country.** ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE: I appreciate that this movie took subtle jabs at Gregory Smith's previous role in //Small Soldiers// by constantly having his character playing with tiny figurines of soldiers: literal Small Soldiers. --Robert Dallas+ **This movie is practically a textbook definition of American patriotism (hell, Patriot is in the title of the movie). American war films like this carry a common motif of romanticizing our history as something of a morale-booster or a feel-good nostalgia trip. Of course there are plenty of issues with over romanticizing; as we've seen in the other films, the risk of losing true historical credibility and accuracy diminishes the more an event is romanticized. At the same time though, **it's that romanticizing that brings people to the cinema, and it's these over-the-top images of  our past that inspires us to have pride in our country.** ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE: I appreciate that this movie took subtle jabs at Gregory Smith's previous role in //Small Soldiers// by constantly having his character playing with tiny figurines of soldiers: literal Small Soldiers.** --Robert Dallas
  
 **I found an interview from Mel Gibson from after the movie was released where he said " "If one were to adhere to historical accuracy all the way, you'd probably have the most **I found an interview from Mel Gibson from after the movie was released where he said " "If one were to adhere to historical accuracy all the way, you'd probably have the most
Line 131: Line 141:
 When it comes to historical accuracy, this movie succeeds in certain ways that our other Mel Gibson movie failed. Pocahontas’ biggest weakness was the way it took actual historical figures and reworked their characters until they might as well be completely different people. The Patriot, on the other hand, has the good grace to change the names of historical figures when they change the stories. If this was a movie about Francis Marion fighting Banistre Tarleton, then it would be one thing, but instead the movie is about Benjamin Martin fighting William Tavington. This allows the movie some leeway, but the movie takes it too far, because although the characters are fictional the Revolutionary War was real, and everything that happens is just a little too Hollywood Clean. Yes, there are slaves in the movie, but the characters we are supposed to like don’t have them. Yes, there are atrocities committed by both sides, but the characters we are supposed to like feel real bad about it. It makes an attempt to say something real about war, but it gets bogged down in, well, patriotism. (Justin Curtis) When it comes to historical accuracy, this movie succeeds in certain ways that our other Mel Gibson movie failed. Pocahontas’ biggest weakness was the way it took actual historical figures and reworked their characters until they might as well be completely different people. The Patriot, on the other hand, has the good grace to change the names of historical figures when they change the stories. If this was a movie about Francis Marion fighting Banistre Tarleton, then it would be one thing, but instead the movie is about Benjamin Martin fighting William Tavington. This allows the movie some leeway, but the movie takes it too far, because although the characters are fictional the Revolutionary War was real, and everything that happens is just a little too Hollywood Clean. Yes, there are slaves in the movie, but the characters we are supposed to like don’t have them. Yes, there are atrocities committed by both sides, but the characters we are supposed to like feel real bad about it. It makes an attempt to say something real about war, but it gets bogged down in, well, patriotism. (Justin Curtis)
  
-The British treatment of the population poorly as they waged war which in the movie and in history caused many of the populace to switch from their neutral positions to support of the Patriots.(Notes) The church that was burned down was very period accurate as there were family boxes that would have been in most churches as well as a raised pulpit. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/christ-church-alexandria/ --Jack Hagn+**The British treatment of the population poorly as they waged war which in the movie and in history caused many of the populace to switch from their neutral positions to support of the Patriots.(Notes) The church that was burned down was very period accurate as there were family boxes that would have been in most churches as well as a raised pulpit.** https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/christ-church-alexandria/ --Jack Hagn
  
 Thank you Ellora for finding that clip of Gibson. If they wanted to make an accurate representation of those events with no added drama, or romance, then it would have been made into a documentary. I believe this movie accurately represents the emotions and situations people had to go through during the war. - Johana Colchado  Thank you Ellora for finding that clip of Gibson. If they wanted to make an accurate representation of those events with no added drama, or romance, then it would have been made into a documentary. I believe this movie accurately represents the emotions and situations people had to go through during the war. - Johana Colchado 
  
-In the scene when Tavington questions a wounded British scout about "the ghost", his aide mentions "Cherokee scouts" that were working with the British forces. This was, indeed, historically accurate, since the Cherokee sided with the British during the Revolutionary War. +This movie glorified the past, it makes it more dramatic, it has drama, bloodshed, a love interest, fighting for a cause, but maybe this movie along with the wave of other war movies at the time helped to continuously reinforce the support for war and that country was founded on a war. In the 1960s, the country developed this F the government mentality, stop war; maybe all these movies, since then that are war movies, not only depict history and the horrors of war, but they reinforce that we should support our country in war.   
  
-Source: https://nativeheritageproject.com/2012/03/09/indians-in-the-revolutionary-war-choosing-sides/ 
- 
-~Will Everett 
329/question/329--week_4_questions_comments-2018.1537852873.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/09/25 05:21 by 76.78.227.37