Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/26 01:04] – 76.78.172.32
+++ 329:question:329--week_4_questions_comments-2026 [2026/09/29 13:32] (current) – 199.111.65.35
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?======
+In the U.S., the 1990s and the early 2000s were very much a time drenched in nationalistic ideals and patriotism. Hollywood was producing constant films that further impassioned this rhetoric, often having clear and simple good vs bad characters and dramatically heroic narratives. In this film there were also themes of protecting one's home and family in the face of frankly cartoonishly evil violence, which was another common theme of movies during this time. Heavy elements of racial sanitization and fear of broaching controversial topics involving our country's flawed history also pervade the film's storyline, as the protagonist is shown to be a southern plantation owner who very uniquely doesn't have slaves working his fields but instead paid freedmen. The film is very clearly refusing to acknowledge the fact that the rich and middle-class white colonists who historically fought for American independence against the violent and despicable British empire were very often violent and despicable in their own right. Such an admittance to this fact would go against the overall themes of clear good vs evil and the encouragement of thoughtless nationalism, so it was omitted.
 The 2000s are rather famously known for their major displays of American Exceptionalism in the lead-up to the Post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan, aptly dubbed the "War on Terror"; films catered to that foundational cultural pride and related martial agenda. This is ably reflected in Roland Emmerich's The Patriot (2000), as it depicts the very genesis of the United States of America, its formation, and the correlated militaristic forces American citizens coveted in the 2000s period. It practically functions as a love letter to the American people's national pride. -Bailee Eberenz
@@ Line 73: / Line 75: @@
 ======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.
+The film is important to view and study as both a primary and secondary source. It has legitimate merit in its historical accuracy, albeit still flawed in its retelling since it is still merely a fictional drama meant for entertainment purposes. It illustrates quite well some of the more brutal aspects involved in the fight for American independence, and also the British’s perspective of the colonists. Fighting tactics and military operations were also often well represented. The film is also notably saturated in 1990s/early 2000s American political ideals. There was obviously quite a lot of effort put into the production of this film. And despite its shortcomings and rather disappointing sanitization of racial issues, as someone who doesn’t typically enjoy war films, I still think this is generally a good movie with good storytelling value. - Leo Tooks
 I think the fact that this movie heavily shallows out the history of slavery and racism in South Carolina is a really important discussion that makes this movie important to look at today in 2026. We discussed a bit in class on Tuesday about how this was likely done to maintain the "good guy" image of Benjamin Martin and the overall desire to enforce moral clarity, which was important to American society in the 1990s-2000s. However, we can understand today that that nuance and complexity is necessary to understanding the history of the American South. It also adds to our overall discussion we've been having throughout the course about how, what, and why movie makers sacrifice certain historical details in films and whether or not that's significant enough for us to be ok or not ok with. I think this movie makes us think about manhood or the American version of manhood and how that has changed over time, what kinds of qualities or actions do Americans value in men, and how that's portrayed or carried on to modern audiences. -- Grayson D.