| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2020 [2020/09/17 12:07] – 68.100.149.156 | 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2020 [2020/12/03 02:26] (current) – 108.28.13.102 |
|---|
| |
| While I do not think this movie can be considered a good secondary source for the Revolutionary War as a whole, I do think it does an excellent job of portraying how the war was fought in a relatively realistic manner. I was mostly impressed by the stance it took on guerrilla warfare. When I think back on learning about the American Revolution, teachers tend not to tell you about the grittier parts of the war. They mainly focus on the Continental Army and disregard everything else. Looking at the Revolution from the angle portrayed in the film was a nice touch. Though they never use the term "guerrilla warfare," it's plain to see that those are the tactics being employed. Benjamin Martin, while not a historical figure, is based mainly on the real-life Francis Marion, notoriously known as "The Swamp Fox." While he is considered a Revolutionary hero in South Carolina, Marion was no saint. He adapted the tactics used against him in the French and Indian War, observing how the Cherokees used the landscape to their advantage to hide and ambush unwitting patrols. Marion then used these same tactics to deal devastating blows to the British in the south. Due to the nature of the British being spread pretty thin the south, it is reasonable to assume that Marion's expertise in guerrilla warfare helped the local militias hold the south despite not being part of an organized military force. | While I do not think this movie can be considered a good secondary source for the Revolutionary War as a whole, I do think it does an excellent job of portraying how the war was fought in a relatively realistic manner. I was mostly impressed by the stance it took on guerrilla warfare. When I think back on learning about the American Revolution, teachers tend not to tell you about the grittier parts of the war. They mainly focus on the Continental Army and disregard everything else. Looking at the Revolution from the angle portrayed in the film was a nice touch. Though they never use the term "guerrilla warfare," it's plain to see that those are the tactics being employed. Benjamin Martin, while not a historical figure, is based mainly on the real-life Francis Marion, notoriously known as "The Swamp Fox." While he is considered a Revolutionary hero in South Carolina, Marion was no saint. He adapted the tactics used against him in the French and Indian War, observing how the Cherokees used the landscape to their advantage to hide and ambush unwitting patrols. Marion then used these same tactics to deal devastating blows to the British in the south. Due to the nature of the British being spread pretty thin the south, it is reasonable to assume that Marion's expertise in guerrilla warfare helped the local militias hold the south despite not being part of an organized military force. |
| | |
| Crawford, Amy. “The Swamp Fox.” Smithsonian Magazine, June 30, 2007. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-swamp-fox-157330429/. -- Lyndsey Clark | Crawford, Amy. “The Swamp Fox.” Smithsonian Magazine, June 30, 2007. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-swamp-fox-157330429/. -- Lyndsey Clark |
| |
| This movie is interesting for its time period because I think this is the recipe for a “movie dads like”. **It has Mel Gibson who, as of 2020, is an extremely problematic actor who was blacklisted from Hollywood, but in 2000 this man was on top of the world. His name actually feels synonymous with inaccurate historical films, The Patriot being made only five years after Braveheart.** Both of these films, in my opinion, are loved by many (middle aged men), because they are recipes for misogyny and ego. They are the image of one man, a part of a nation, that overcomes adversity and saves the day. In the early 2000’s this was accepted as action movies with historical settings. The lead of these movies is the literal embodiment of whitewashed history, he is one name, one face and an epic story though absent of any substance or flaws. I find it interesting because in the past twenty years we have seen a critique of this type of film making, but not very much change. Movies are still heavily flawed when it comes to portraying any moment of history, particularly if that moment has to do with the American image. The British in the Patriot are evil, almost to the point of being sadists. This movie falls into the American myth of “were the good guys everyone else is bad”. This is not, never is, and never will be the case. -Janis Shurtleff | This movie is interesting for its time period because I think this is the recipe for a “movie dads like”. **It has Mel Gibson who, as of 2020, is an extremely problematic actor who was blacklisted from Hollywood, but in 2000 this man was on top of the world. His name actually feels synonymous with inaccurate historical films, The Patriot being made only five years after Braveheart.** Both of these films, in my opinion, are loved by many (middle aged men), because they are recipes for misogyny and ego. They are the image of one man, a part of a nation, that overcomes adversity and saves the day. In the early 2000’s this was accepted as action movies with historical settings. The lead of these movies is the literal embodiment of whitewashed history, he is one name, one face and an epic story though absent of any substance or flaws. I find it interesting because in the past twenty years we have seen a critique of this type of film making, but not very much change. Movies are still heavily flawed when it comes to portraying any moment of history, particularly if that moment has to do with the American image. The British in the Patriot are evil, almost to the point of being sadists. This movie falls into the American myth of “were the good guys everyone else is bad”. This is not, never is, and never will be the case. -Janis Shurtleff |
| |
| I actually looked up when the movie was released because I thought the style in which it was filmed indicated it could have been made post 9/11. I thought this could be the case because of how pro-American the movie is. It has the themes of freedom, equality, liberty, and overall portrays America in as positive a way as possible. The movie was not released post 9/11, but because of how patriotic it was, I thought it could have been. I believe a movie like this reveals that even though it was released relatively recently, times have changed since then. I do not believe that if a movie was made about the same subject in today's world that it would be made in the same way. America would likely be portrayed in a much more negative light. -Daniel Walker | I actually looked up when the movie was released because I thought the style in which it was filmed indicated it could have been made post 9/11. **I thought this could be the case because of how pro-American the movie is. It has the themes of freedom, equality, liberty, and overall portrays America in as positive a way as possible.** The movie was not released post 9/11, but because of how patriotic it was, I thought it could have been. I believe a movie like this reveals that even though it was released relatively recently, times have changed since then. I do not believe that if a movie was made about the same subject in today's world that it would be made in the same way. America would likely be portrayed in a much more negative light. -Daniel Walker |
| |
| //The Patriot//, like all of the movies we have watched so far, is a great primary source for analyzing the American film industry and their portrayal of American history. **I feel that the overall "pro-American" and "anti-foreign country" is the overall theme of these movies so far.** There aren't too many huge problems with this movie, historically, though the problems lie in its intentions to appeal to a popular audience. By the end of the movie, I noticed the shift in intention lying in the "anti- foreign country" as runs into the battle, American flag waving. --Tara Scroggins | //The Patriot//, like all of the movies we have watched so far, is a great primary source for analyzing the American film industry and their portrayal of American history. **I feel that the overall "pro-American" and "anti-foreign country" is the overall theme of these movies so far.** There aren't too many huge problems with this movie, historically, though the problems lie in its intentions to appeal to a popular audience. By the end of the movie, I noticed the shift in intention lying in the "anti- foreign country" as runs into the battle, American flag waving. --Tara Scroggins |
| |
| I think that //The Patriot// is a decent source for the time period in which it was made. The level of violence is one thing that comes to mind, many movies from this time, especially ones that are meant to be violent because of their subject matter, are often played up and bloodied. There is also the ever present theme of at least one, if not more, tragic love story. There is also the theme of severely villianizing the non american side, that is not to say that the British were by any means the good guys in real life and they did do a lot of horrific things, however there is often in movies from this time, the one "leader" who is meant to personify all that the main character fights against and is often not American in these types of movies. Another common theme of the time period is the victorious ending, as well as the traumatic past of the main character. One more identifiable aspect is the gloss over of slavery, there are only two indications of slavery, once when they ask Ben's freed African Americans about their freedom, and once when the white man signs over his slave to war without giving him the choice (something that based on the setting would not have happened in the revolution anyway because of the location), the only other hint at the conflict came from the tension between African American militiaman and his white comrades (which was later solved). I think this movie definitely would make a good primary source for the time it was made because of its common themes that can be found in other similar movies of the time. --Kimberly Sak | I think that //The Patriot// is a decent source for the time period in which it was made. The level of violence is one thing that comes to mind, many movies from this time, especially ones that are meant to be violent because of their subject matter, are often played up and bloodied. There is also the ever present theme of at least one, if not more, tragic love story. There is also the theme of severely villianizing the non american side, that is not to say that the British were by any means the good guys in real life and they did do a lot of horrific things, however there is often in movies from this time, the one "leader" who is meant to personify all that the main character fights against and is often not American in these types of movies. Another common theme of the time period is the victorious ending, as well as the traumatic past of the main character. **One more identifiable aspect is the gloss over of slavery, there are only two indications of slavery, once when they ask Ben's freed African Americans about their freedom, and once when the white man signs over his slave to war without giving him the choice (something that based on the setting would not have happened in the revolution anyway because of the location),** **the only other hint at the conflict came from the tension between African American militiaman and his white comrades (which was later solved). I think this movie definitely would make a good primary source for the time it was made because of its common themes that can be found in other similar movies of the time. --Kimberly Sak** |
| |
| Roland Emmerich, the director, is infamous for his massive set pieces and hundreds of hundreds of extras. Everything that happens in this movie is pretty typical of some of his other historical movies, such as Anonymous (2011), which is about the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare. Explosions, random love interests, lots of dirt and blood, and a romanticized version of the past. -Madison Roberts | Roland Emmerich, the director, is infamous for his massive set pieces and hundreds of hundreds of extras. Everything that happens in this movie is pretty typical of some of his other historical movies, such as Anonymous (2011), which is about the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare. Explosions, random love interests, lots of dirt and blood, and a romanticized version of the past. -Madison Roberts |
| |
| I felt the movie showed that the United States loves to glorify the men who fought in the revolutionary war. In the US the Revolution is thought of as our beginning and to make the men who fought in it look like heros makes the US look good. I thought the scene that captured this best was when Mel Gibson grabs the flag, runs into combat, and flips the horse. | I felt the movie showed that the United States loves to glorify the men who fought in the revolutionary war. In the US the Revolution is thought of as our beginning and to make the men who fought in it look like heros makes the US look good. I thought the scene that captured this best was when Mel Gibson grabs the flag, runs into combat, and flips the horse. --Helen Dhue |
| |
| This movie was only made 20 years ago. Which doesn't seem like that long ago but the way they portrayed African Americans is really telling. They sugarcoated it, the slaves at Benjamin Martins plantation weren't slaves they were just "freed men who work the land". In South Carolina. In 1776. Something doesn't add up here. Any time there was a moment of racial tension which when presented were very light, it was immediately followed with something like the conversation Gabriel had with the African American man in the militia fighting for his freedom. Gabriel said something along the lines of "In this new world after the war all men will be created equal". Which we know was not the case. If anything this film just trys to gloss over the fact that slavery was a bad thing occurring during this time.- Dan Dilks | This movie was only made 20 years ago. Which doesn't seem like that long ago but the way they portrayed African Americans is really telling. The**y sugarcoated it, the slaves at Benjamin Martins plantation weren't slaves they were just "freed men who work the land". In South Carolina. In 1776. Something doesn't add up here. Any time there was a moment of racial tension which when presented were very light, it was immediately followed with something like the conversation Gabriel had with the African American man in the militia fighting for his freedom.** Gabriel said something along the lines of "In this new world after the war all men will be created equal". Which we know was not the case. If anything this film just trys to gloss over the fact that slavery was a bad thing occurring during this time.- Dan Dilks |
| |
| By trying to be authentic to history, I think the filmmakers really missed their mark and created an even more fictional character. As we talked about in class, Gibson’s character is supposed to be based off of real people: Thomas Sumter, Daniel Morgan, Andrew Pickens, and Francis Marion. After the movie came out, it was especially criticized for it’s interpretation of Francis Marion, claiming it was glorifying "a serial rapist who hunted Red Indians for fun." (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jul/06/news.spikelee) By trying to create a tough with a heart of gold character like Benjamin, the filmmakers only ended up painting over incredibly important nuances of the Revolutionary War, making it seem like there were not major issues on both sides of the war. Interestingly about the film, there also seems to have been some controversary revolving around the review of the film. Supposedly a reporter from a small newspaper in Connecticut wrote a glowing review of the film. However, later it was revealed that the reporter was not a real person at all, and was only created to make a super positive review of The Patriot. (https://web.archive.org/web/20010609225327/http://www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1) | By trying to be authentic to history, I think the filmmakers really missed their mark and created an even more fictional character. As we talked about in class, Gibson’s character is supposed to be based off of real people: Thomas Sumter, Daniel Morgan, Andrew Pickens, and Francis Marion. After the movie came out, it was especially criticized for it’s interpretation of Francis Marion, claiming it was glorifying "a serial rapist who hunted Red Indians for fun." (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jul/06/news.spikelee) By trying to create a tough with a heart of gold character like Benjamin, the filmmakers only ended up **painting over incredibly important nuances of the Revolutionary War, making it seem like there were not major issues on both sides of the war.** Interestingly about the film, there also seems to have been some controversary revolving around the review of the film. Supposedly a reporter from a small newspaper in Connecticut wrote a glowing review of the film. However, later it was revealed that the reporter was not a real person at all, and was only created to make a super positive review of The Patriot. (https://web.archive.org/web/20010609225327/http://www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1) |
| Overall, I think this film is a heavy reflection of the year 2000, especially what the government wanted. This was the year George W. Bush became president, after a hotly contested election against Al Gore, and only after a supreme court ruling made it so. The country was divided and angry, and needed something to rally around. Something to point to and say “this? This is what it means to be America. This is why I love this country.” In a really weird way, this is what I think The Patriot delivered in the summer of 2000. | Overall, I think this film is a heavy reflection of the year 2000, especially what the government wanted. This was the year George W. Bush became president, after a hotly contested election against Al Gore, and only after a supreme court ruling made it so. The country was divided and angry, and needed something to rally around. Something to point to and say “this? This is what it means to be America. This is why I love this country.” In a really weird way, this is what I think The Patriot delivered in the summer of 2000. |
| --Cat Kinde | --Cat Kinde |
| |
| I think that this movie is a good representation of how war was portrayed during the 90s, very bloody and extreme. I think that it also was very negative in their portrayal of the British, and portrayed America in a very positive, benevolent light. Their portrayal of slavery was also something that really displays that type of benevolence. Overall, I believe that the movie would be a good primary source on a variety of different filmmaking aspects, some good and some not so good. -- Mariah Morton | **I think that this movie is a good representation of how war was portrayed during the 90s, very bloody and extreme. I think that it also was very negative in their portrayal of the British, and portrayed America in a very positive, benevolent light.** Their portrayal of slavery was also something that really displays that type of benevolence. Overall, I believe that the movie would be a good primary source on a variety of different filmmaking aspects, some good and some not so good. -- Mariah Morton |
| |
| This film can act as a pretty strong primary source for the time period it was made it. The 90s and early 2000s were a time period where movies relied heavily on stereotypes and historical fiction movies were promoting a rhetoric which supported characters that embodied American principles. Gibson’s character represented a form of the ideal American man. This was also an era that tended to gloss over problematic portions of history, and this is clear in the way they sugar-coated the role and presence of African Americans in this time period. African Americans weren’t treated awfully in the movie and it was even possible for some of them to earn their freedom which wasn’t something that happened back then. Furthermore, Gibson’s ideal patriot man is shown to be nuanced because he is guilty about his past actions. This is another way of addressing and sugar-coating the actions of patriot soldiers during the war. -Purnaja Podduturi | This film can act as a pretty strong primary source for the time period it was made it. **The 90s and early 2000s were a time period where movies relied heavily on stereotypes and historical fiction movies were promoting a rhetoric which supported characters that embodied American principles.** Gibson’s character represented a form of the ideal American man. This was also an era that tended to gloss over problematic portions of history, and this is clear in the way they sugar-coated the role and presence of African Americans in this time period. African Americans weren’t treated awfully in the movie and it was even possible for some of them to earn their freedom which wasn’t something that happened back then. Furthermore, Gibson’s ideal patriot man is shown to be nuanced because he is guilty about his past actions. This is another way of addressing and sugar-coating the actions of patriot soldiers during the war. -Purnaja Podduturi |
| |
| ===== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ===== V. The "So, what?" question ====== |
