329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2022
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/15 03:59] – [II.Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?] steifman_burke | 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/15 05:35] (current) – coleman_taylor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| 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, | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| Line 34: | Line 36: | ||
| 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 | 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? ====== | ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== | ||
| It deviates from scholarly historical sources in it's portrayal of slavery. As other people have mentioned, the movie completely glosses over slavery. It gets mentioned a few times and then never mentioned again. Slavery was a big deal back then. Southerners, | It deviates from scholarly historical sources in it's portrayal of slavery. As other people have mentioned, the movie completely glosses over slavery. It gets mentioned a few times and then never mentioned again. Slavery was a big deal back then. Southerners, | ||
| Line 42: | Line 47: | ||
| 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 | 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? ====== | ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 58: | ||
| 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 | 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' | ||
| ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ||
| Line 83: | 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 | 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 | ||
329/question/329--week_4_questions_comments-2022.1663214342.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/09/15 03:59 by steifman_burke