Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/14 20:37] – [How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?] 199.111.65.11
+++ 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/15 14:13] (current) – 199.111.65.11
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 For some of the flaws in The Patriot’s historical accuracy, it gets the bigger picture of the Revolutionary War correct. It accurately focuses on the British campaign in South Carolina as being particularly brutal in the context of the war. Many films about the Revolutionary War focus on the early war in New England, or on Washington’s army, but rarely on the war in the South, possibly because of the level of violence it experienced. While the film’s main antagonist is largely fictionalized, General Cornwallis is portrayed rather accurately, in terms of his path through the South, goals in defeating the Americans, and his eventual defeat at the end of the film. These are both fairly accurate historical points as covered in the film. Unfortunately, they are a minority among the details The Patriot gets wrong. - Hunter M.
 ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?======
+The Patriot is a very idealistic portrayal of the American Revolution in the south. It was basically an action movie. The biggest inaccuracy I saw in the movie was the portrayal of Black Americans. Benjamin Martin did not own slaves, they were freedmen who worked by their own decision. Nor did his sister in law, I presume, given that their former workers provided them refuge after the British came for Martin’s family. Even though both of them owned plantations in the south. There was a nice appearance of what I assume were the Gullah people, who provided the Martin family and Charlotte with refuge and care. The one slave that earned his freedom by fighting with Martin was apparently slowly accepted by his white colleagues and was just fine with his treatment once they became nice to him. The Patriot was just an objectively bad representation of black Americans in the south and during the revolutionary war. Although the exaggerations done here weren’t unlike other decisions made in the movie. -Katie D.
 ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?======
+One major way that the film deviates from scholarly sources is the invention of several leading characters in the movie including Benjamin Martin and Colonel Tavington. The characteristics of Martin as a militia leader during the Southern Campaign match several real historical figures such as Francis Marion who was known to lead guerilla bands of rebel soldiers against the loyalists. The character of Colonel Tavington closely resembles the real historical figure of General Tarleton who led the British to brutally slaughter the patriots in the Battle of Waxhaw in 1780. However, some characters in the movie do have real historical basis like Lord Cornwallis and General Gates. -Kendall
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 The Patriot dates to a time period of particular American exceptionalism in media. The idea of “patriotic movies” has existed long before the year 2000, but in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the sense of the United States being the world’s sole superpower renewed a sense of national patriotism, which would be strengthened even further by the 9/11 attacks after the film’s release. The Patriot taps into feelings of national pride from the period by telling its embellished version of the Revolutionary War, in which the colonists are clearly “the good guys,” and the British are clearly “the bad guys.” The lack of trying to make the British antagonists nuanced in their motivations to hold the colonies exemplifies this further; they appear almost cartoonishly evil at times. Overall, The Patriot leans into its patriotism particularly hard due to the period in which it was made, contributing to some of its issues in historical accuracy. - Hunter M.
+This movie demonstrates the popular perception in the early 2000s about the American exceptionalism in the Revolutionary period. In the movie, the colonists, specifically the patriots, are shown to have higher moral standing than the loyalists and British. The patriots fight for their families and for the higher calling of independence like the Martins. Meanwhile the British fight for greed and with no moral integrity. By casting the British and loyalists as evil, the complexities of why people picked which side are thrown aside in favor of painting the rebels in a friendly light that would resonate with the viewers in 2000. -Kendall
 ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?======
+The Patriot is one of the few movies I would say historical inaccuracy does not matter that much, if you have knowledge of the American Revolution and can recognize the cartoonish characters. From my understanding, this movie was extremely popular which means it has left a massive impression on a wide audience. But the movie is basically one big action scene, all hinging on one guy’s revenge, with a cartoonishly evil British Officer. While there are definitely problematic representations in the movie, the movie is very obviously not accurate to history, nor is it trying to be. It's an action movie that so happens to be set in the 1790s. -Katie D.