Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/15 03:02] – 76.78.225.144
+++ 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/15 05:35] (current) – coleman_taylor
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 I really enjoyed how the movie showed a nuanced view of how the colonists felt about joining the Revolution. Normally, most media that depicts the American Revolution depicts colonial sentiment 100% patriot with some loyalists thrown in as well. At the beginning of the Patriot, however, it's nowhere near as black and white. Benjamin agrees with patriot ideals, but doesn't want to fight because it would put his family at risk. Some of the other men in the meeting house have their own reservations for joining the fight, while others want to go to war against the British crown. The movie also does a really good job at showing alliances shift from neutral to the patriots, as Lucca and Sophie have mentioned. -Katherine Rayhart
+The movie works pretty well as a secondary source! I found it to be much more accurate than the previous ones we have viewed, While there are inaccuracies, it is obvious that the filmmakers made big efforts to be more historically correct. I particularly enjoyed the beginning part where the elder sister was teaching her younger brother to read. In the 18th century most schooling was done in the home, either by elder siblings or other relatives. It’s a small detail, but one that they truly put thought into. -Michaela
+As a secondary source about the American Revolution, this movie is okay. Many of the real people the characters are based on did not do the same horrible things that happened. However, the battle scenes, as well as the diplomacy shown in the beginning was decent and seemed accurate to the time period, as far as I could tell. As a basis for someone who has never studied the American Revolution, it is certainly a good start. However, the treatment of slavery and black characters seemed very uncharacteristic of the time period, so that is a flaw in the ability of this to be a secondary source. -Sarah M.
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 29: / Line 34: @@
 Usually when watching historical movies, the inaccuracies stand out more than the accuracies; but the Patriot (2000) had two extremely intriguing accuracies that I found. Benjamin Martin and William Tavington, the two main conflicting characters in the movie, are based on two real-life historical figures, Francis “Swamp Fox” Marion and Banastre Tarleton, respectively. The similarities between Benjamin Martin and Francis Marion can be seen within both of their involvements in the French-Indian War and their usage of guerilla and ambush tactics. For William Tavington and Banastre Tarleton, they both led in the Battle of Cowpens and were both ordered to capture Benjamin Martin/Francis Marion. https://screenrant.com/patriot-movie-true-story-historical-accuracy-what-happened/ - Zack Steinbaum
+One of the biggest historical inaccuracies was how slavery was represented. One of the first things that was off was the freed men on Ben’s plantation. While freed men (and women!) did exist during that time period, there is little chance that a plantation in the south would have any, let alone have all of them free. The was highly unlikely, especially during the peak of tobacco being the cash crop. There also wasn’t enough depiction of slavery within the movie. In the southern colonies there was a much higher density of enslaved people. In the beginning shot of the movie you see several working the crops, in actuality there would have been many more men, women, and children among those fields. -Michaela
+The most glaring historical inaccuracy in this movie was the treatment of slavery and the black characters. In this movie, the only time slavery is really brought up is when the man has his slave fight in his stead. However, Occam was eventually freed due to a declaration put out by George Washington. Other than him, all other black characters on the screen longer than a few seconds are not slaves. This is very out of place from the general sentiment in the colonies at this time, especially in the gentlemen farming culture in the South. Characters like Abigale would have likely been enslaved and not treated like a part of the family, as in this movie. - Sarah M.
 ====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
@@ Line 36: / Line 45: @@
 Although there were similarities between Benjamin Martin/Francis Marion and William Tavington/Banastre Tarleton respectively, their similarities still pale in comparison to their differences. For example, in the movie, Benjamin Martin is shown as a peaceful farmer who only joins the fight due to his son’s untimely death. Francis Marion, however, raped his female slaves and slaughtered Native Americans for fun. For some reason, these facts were completely passed over in the creation of the movie in order to paint Martin as a heroic figure. The opposite is true for Banastre Tarleton and his counterpart William Tavington. In the movie, Tavington is shown slaughtering civilians without a second thought - shown especially in the burning of the church filled with civilians. Banastre Tarleton was not so cruel. He was a commander of the British Army who was simply ordered to hunt down Tavington - but to make the movie interesting, he was extremely vilified. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jun/15/news.melgibson - Zack Steinbaum
+The Patriot had several glaring inaccuracies that gave the film a big hit to its overall credibility. First, the film completely ignores slavery, failing to acknowledge a huge part of historical context simply because it is an uncomfortable subject for Hollywood audiences. The story eliminates that aspect of history and makes the Americans the heroes, forgetting that they held and abused countless slaves themselves. In addition, the film invents the burning of the church scene, portraying the British and their Colonel as far worse than they actually were. Although the film does do a fine job of portraying battles and landscape, it seems that this is the case with most historical films. However, they always seem to fall short when it comes to true historical accuracy, as The Patriot does here. -Burke Steifman
 ====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
@@ Line 43: / Line 55: @@
 There is a big issue with the portrayal of white plantation owners and enslaved people. In order to protect Mel Gibson’s character and ensure that he is every inch the hero, the audience learns that the people working on his plantation are free, not enslaved. Not only that, but the main character even works in the field with them, something I cannot imagine was common at the time. The movie deals with racism and slavery more or less by sweeping it under the rug — Occam is accepted by all but one member of the militia, who comes to accept him in the end, African Americans in the movie are always happy to see the Martin family, and they all live happily ever after. I think this is representative of a larger trend common in American history: we sanitize our past and our founding fathers to the point where people forget they had faults at all. Only in recent years have we looked back at people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and admitted that everything they did for America does not excuse the fact that they enslaved people. This movie is a product of its time in that it still has that sanitization of American history in it, which the good people are good, the bad people are bad, and that’s that. No one wants to make or watch a movie about a heroic slave owner, so the movie removes that part, which results instead in a historically inaccurate portrayal of the time period that damages people’s perception of slavery. — Sasha Poletes
+Similar to The Last of the Mohicans, The Patriot says a lot about the time period that it was made. The 1990’s and early 2000’s featured some extremely inconsiderate and inaccurate films, as the historical genre suffered greatly from dramatization. While The Patriot was not as racist as Mohicans, it was on the same level of inaccuracy, and it is racist in the sense that it ignores slavery altogether. From what I have seen in this time period, the films are just trying too hard to be dramatic and impactful. To have the hero of the story fight the villain with an American flag as a spear is simply overdoing it. It seems like overdoing it is the overall theme for movies from this era, as they consistently promote a dramatized tale over an accurate recount of an event. -Burke Steifman
+I think one of the most surprising things for me was to discover this was released in 2000 and not post-2001. The film overall invokes a sense of patriotism that was on the rise in the late 1990s and 2000s. The showing of the thirteen colonies' flag, coming together as a nation, the conversation about “all men are created equal”, and the general attitude of the main characters was used to drum up a sense of pride in people that watched it. I was even excited for Tavington to die because he was such a good evil British guy. The film ignores slavery to emphasis everyone coming together for one cause. It was a sense of togetherness to ignore the glaring history of injustices and otherness. American history has long been scrubbed of its wrongs, and cinema (as clear from our past films) seemed to be the medium to convey a togetherness in our history in the 1990s and 2000s. - Taylor Coleman
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
@@ Line 73: / Line 90: @@
 The movie definitely works as a primary source for the time period it was made. You can see this in its view of Women (the aunt being a landowner) and Slaves (freemen working on plantations in the deep south). But it was also patriotic and strangely anti-war. It seems strange to say it, because the movie is a war movie, but throughout the film, there were many themes of anti-war. The alluding to war becoming too bloody with us needing to stay our hand for injured enemies, the speech at the beginning saying how he didn't want to join the war, the whole thing with the sons. -Annika
+This movie has a lot of pros and cons, and I think we can use this movie as a reference for what can be done. Obviously a fairly accurate historical movie can be make well. What it needs to well-rounded historical accuracy, point case being the depiction of enslaved people. That is something that was clearly skirted around, and it makes sense for the time period in which the movie was made. Even in the year 2000 a lot of racial issues were not at the forefront in the way they are today. There was also a lot less sensitivity to these tragic events, as oftentimes they were ignored or downplayed. That aspect of the movie is a direct correlation to the political and social attitudes of the early 2000s. -Michaela
+I enjoyed this film even if I felt no joy in some parts (I mean this in a good way, the film was great at telling the story. When I saw everyone gather in a church I said ‘no’ about ten times). This film did to me what I think it set out to do in everyone, made me feel patriotic while watching. Overall, the film is actually a pretty good secondary source about the past. I personally did not know much about the Revolutionary War in the south, and the film worked well to give me an introduction to it. The film also did a good job at showing the differing and changing opinions of colonists towards the British. Ben at first did not want to fight in the war, but the second the British started acting in a way he disagreed with, he changed. According to our class discussion, the changing of opinion is a more accurate portrayal than the typical ‘all colonists vs the British and if a colonist is with a British, they are traitors’ depiction. There are glaring issues with it though. As mentioned in numerous comments, slavery was brushed over in favor of Ben looking more favorably. Even the dialogue at the beginning where the enslaved person said that they were free and just worked the land felt so off. You cannot make a story about America’s past and brush over slavery like it was no big deal. It was/is a big deal and still continues to impact us today. To ignore it is criminal. - Taylor Coleman