Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== 1 Errors in fact ======

**There are no records of the British ever burning down churches, as well as the the real person that Tavingtons character is based off of, never commented such intense attacks.** Uniforms on both sides had details that were not correct like coloring and paring of certain pieces of clothing would actually be seen worn less than shown in the movie. That ambush is also pretty impressive with a musket reload time of like 20 seconds. --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/19  5:04//

**In the film a lot of issues exist with the improper portrayal of the demographics of South Carolina.There are few slaves pictured in the film, which does not make a lot of sense considering the large plantation culture of South Carolina at the time. Especially wrong was that the Martin family had no slaves they instead had free men hired on their plantation. This was not something that would not have been accepted and would have made the Martin family outsiders most likely to their white neighbors. All of the instances where the Martin family interacts with freed men or black slaves the interactions are positive. We see this especially when Benjamin Martin hides his children from the British in an all black community. The Martin’s it seem are depicted as far more progressive then would have been at all possible for the time.** --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/09/20 19:15//

The movie got wrong how slaves joined the British side. In the movie, Ben’s African American hired workers (even though that didn’t exist in south during that time and plantation owners used only slaves as workers since it didn’t cost them) were forced to join the British side in the war for the promise of freedom. Hypothetically, if the filmmakers had chosen to include slaves on the plantation instead of the “hired workers” the British would not need to force any of them to run away and fight. **There were plenty of slaves who ran to the British side because they wanted freedom.** I think the filmmakers added this scene in for character development only. To show that Ben was a good and honest person who did not own slaves and paid them well. While, the British officer was seen as the bad guy for forcing perfectly happy workers off to a war they did not want to fight.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/09/20 19:31//

Martin’s tortured legacy of his Battle of Wildness remains a secret throughout the film until Benjamin finally reveals the truth to Gabriel. While the Battle of Wilderness did happen, the details Benjamin recounts are inaccurate. For one, the Cherokees who fight with the French against the British actually are allied with the British. The Cherokees and the British have a history of disputes which ultimately mount to the Cherokee-Anglican War after the French and Indian War. During the French and Indian War, they ally with the British against the French and serve as an important factor for the British victory. Another inaccuracy lies in the participants, the French were allied with other tribes such as the Ottawas. Additionally, the Battle of Wilderness, known also as the Battle of Monongahela, historically is a failure where Braddock was defeated. 
Works Cited:
Paul Kelton. "The British and Indian War: Cherokee Power and the Fate of Empire in North America." //The William and Mary Quarterly// 69, no. 4 (2012): 763-92.
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/09/20 22:16//

**There’s hardly any mention of slavery.**  In fact, in the beginning of the movie, the children are helping who are later to be revealed as freemen gather the crops.  The reference to Bunker Hill is incorrect.  While Bunker Hill was the intended target, the battle in which Colonel Prescott advised his men “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes” was actually on Breed’s Hill.  
The worst and most insensitive offense of the movie in my opinion was when Colonel Tavington ordered his men to burn the church when the civilians inside.  While it’s naïve to think immoral officers didn’t exist on both sides, A, there are no reports at all of an incident like this occurring in the Revolutionary war, and B,** a similar event did happen and was committed by the Nazis in WWII.**  http://entertainment.time.com/2011/01/26/top-10-historically-misleading-films/ Also, Fort Wilderness exists in Disney World. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/20 22:43//

There was a quote in the beginning scene with the meeting about the levy where someone said, “we are an American nation and we’re being threatened”. “America” had yet to become a term or even a concept in the minds of the British colonists, who had yet to cultivate such strong desires to sever ties from the crown. Another inaccuracy was the technicality with the runaway slave community being located by the sea rather than the swamp.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/21 10:55//

**Am I wrong or is it odd that Aunt Charlotte seemed to own her own plantation? I don’t believe that it is very accurate to portray a single, colonial, southern woman in charge of a large home, plantation, and slaves in this time period.** Other than this, there were larger issues pertaining to the slaves in the film. Benjamin Martin wouldn’t have had only black hired workers at this point in the South. But I agree with those who have commented before me that this was probably done to make Mel Gibson’s character look better.  --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/09/21 14:38//

Aside from the costumes, set design, and battle sequences, everything in The Patriot is wrong. The movie shows a South Carolina plantation owner (Benjamin Martin) freeing his slaves, **that every American, except for one, was anti-British, that the only motivation for fighting was “taxation without representation” and freedom, that the British motivation was westward expansion (which in reality they had no interest in, and promised the Natives they wouldn’t), the Francis Marion character (again Martin) is given a family of children.** The Banastre Tarleton character (Colonel Tavington) is shown killing prisoners of war, killing children, and burning buildings for no good reason except evil. In fact, the church burning scene didn’t even happen, at least in America. Something like that didn’t happen until World War II!!! http://www.oradour.info/ --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/09/21 17:52//

As many have pointed out previous me, the movie has a large number of inaccuracies from; the slave/freedmen ratio, the social interactions of sed individuals, the costume for display/distinction (reasonable)and so on.One that bothered me was the **lack of any Native Americans**... I guess this movie follows the cinematic chronology of Last of the Mohicans and after the French and Indian War the Native American story was finished? But the ending with the whole 'start a fresh' and lets build your house first... depicted was a Balloon Framing structure, a method not popularized until the early 1800s, geez Hollywood get it right.  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/09/21 19:23//

Benjamin Martin would not have been half the inspirational character he was as depicted in The Patriot had the filmmaker depicted him as a historically accurate South Carolinian. The movie was very obviously intended to stir up nationalism and pride in the Patriots, portraying Benjamin Martin as an honorable, family man. While many colonists stayed neutral due to familial obligations, Martin is seen as a mix of a loving father and a brutal war hero (depending on which side you were fighting on). He owned a large plot of land and supposedly hired freed black men and women to work it. I digress from the inaccuracies of his character… when his family fled from the British troops sent to murder them in their sleep; they stumbled upon a maroon community.** I would be interested to know what would have happened had a wealthy, plantation-owning family stumbled upon a community of recently freed or runaway slaves. Would there really have been an elegant wedding? Would the white men really be welcomed without the slightest bit of resistance?**  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/09/21 19:57//

As for things that the movie got wrong there are few things that stuck out to me. One of these being how easily swayed those who were neutral. These people would not let one incident that made them mad turn against the strongest country in the world. It took quite a bit more than just a few hanging for those who were neutrals to become patriots. Also the scene where the slaves are given the option to leave, but preferred to stayed is something that you wouldn’t see, or at least very often. Slaves were usually treated as slaves rather than extended family, and this is later shown in the movie when the one slave signed up to fight was chastised by one of the militia men. The movie also portrayed this slave as a hero for saving that militia man, which is more evident of the time the movie was made, rather than the time it portrays. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/21 20:49//

Leaving out errors that are movie magic related (because we are supposed to believe that while falling to his death the preacher somehow got his musket off of him and was able to throw it to Heath Ledger who caught It perfectly and was able to shoot first), but it does have a lot of factual errors. **One major one I noticed was how the different classes were shown. The elites were shown in the movie as siding with the British and engaging with them, while the lower classes were shown as good and for independence. From our lector on Tuesday we know that is not the case. In reality it was the opposite, and there were more neutrals then shown in the movie where it was just the main character. Another issue I had was the portrayal of women. We know more took over businesses and households, but we are not shown any of those. We also know that they had more involvement in the war effort but the film never shows us.** --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/21 20:59//

The fact that the Martin's treated their slaves and all other black people in the movie as equals seemed a little too unrealistic for the time. There may have been some people that were not racist, but in South Carolina that would have been very rare. Also, the fact that the man had his slave serve for him. This was known to have happened in the north, but in the South slaves were prohibited from serving in the continental army. Also, the movie showed one loyalist and one neutral and everybody else were strong patriots. We learned in class that the majority were neutral and there was a large portion who were loyalist. --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/21 23:30//

I was greatly disappointed in the film’s erasure of slavery from the American Revolution narrative. Aside from a handful of token slaves and freedmen, the film neglects the fact that 2**0% of the colonies, 30% of the South, and 40% of South Carolina was black.** This is poor representation on the director’s part. Also...is Aunt Charlotte's character realistic? An unmarried, white, plantation-owning woman in the South? Let's investigate this.  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/22 00:54//

So a few things are not adding up here. Benjamin was a southern land owner, maybe even plantation owner so I really doubt that the Martin family was so enlightened on the slavery front. With 7 kids to raise, I am positive that Ben would use slave labor in order to maintain his land. **Gabriel was also talking of the New World potentially becoming free of slavery. I know that the Martin family are the good guys, but these ideas feel very progressive for a southern white landowner in this time period.** --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/22 04:29//

I very much agree that racial attitudes are portrayed as much too progressive for the time. That all of the workers were free on the farm is historically inaccurate. In addition, while a handful of white southerners may have thiught of black people as people (as opposed to property), it is highly unlikely a white southerner would regard a black man as an equal or close to it. -Julia Peterson

In the opening moments of the film, the production staff erroneously have Martin (Mel Gibson’s) crafting Rocking Chairs which were not invented until the 19th century. Furthermore, the slaves in the film seem…...non-existent. There are some, but there seem to be very few despite it being pre-Revolution South Carolina which would like when slavery was nearing it’s peak. And on the topic of slavery, **it seems as though Martin did not own any slaves, despite being a wealthy enough farmer to be welcomed into meetings of great political importance in Charleston as the local leaders discussed North Carolina’s involvement in the Revolution.** According to Mel Gibson, he was actually 'upset' that Martin was not portrayed as a slaveholder because he considered it a cop out on discussing the issue. Whether Gibson was actually concerned with telling a compelling story or his anti-Semitic issues included some level of white supremacy, the world does not really care to know.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/22 06:27//

====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======

The clothing is accurately portrayed in the film. **Benjamin Martin is a made up character although he is based on ( multiple ) real people.** The guns used in the movie were accurately chosen for the time period. The battles that were shown in the movie were actual battles of the American Revolution. **Examples: The battles of Camden and Cow-pens.** --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/19  5:10//

**The film got right how British soldiers had the ability to push neutral plantation owners in the south to be on the patriot’s side.** Ben clearly illustrated in the beginning of the movie that he wanted to stay neutral in the war and did not want to fight the British. However, once Ben’s home was raided and destroyed and his son killed, it drastically pushed him to fight with the patriots. I think the movie obviously over did it when it came to how patriotic Ben became after being neutral for so long but it does show the process in which these people were pushed into siding with the patriots.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/09/20 19:31//

I think the traits of the Patriots vs Tories vs Neutrals were done fairly accurately.  The “flip flops” from side to side as it were, were very believable.  Mel Gibson’s character was neutral until his son was murdered.  Even some patriots shied away from their beliefs, albeit momentarily when death became a very real factor.  There was also a reference to the British armies having help from Native Americans, though I’m not sure if referring to him as a Cherokee spy was accurate. **One thing that the movie did get right regarding slaves was the fact that their masters were free to sign them up to fight in their stead,** though I don’t think that that particular slave would have benefited from Washington’s declaration of freedom given that he was part of a small militia rather than the continental army.  **The fact that the colonies were vastly outmanned and outgunned was touched on well too, I think,** from the soldier telling Gabriel as he was picking up the tattered flag that it was a “lost cause” to Colonel Burell saying they were “a breath away from losing the war”. Bundling was also a practice done in those times during courting to allow for intimacy without sexual contact.   --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/20 22:43//

Leah and Lauren make good points in that the film showed how neutrals, especially in the south, were convinced to join the patriot side after the British wronged them in some way. T**he film also displayed some accuracy in having Ben become a guerrilla fighter, which was what many southern men became after deciding to join the patriots**.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/09/21 09:56//

Accuracies included the scene where Benjamin was in the bar in the South enlisting soldiers and the one older man had “the Negro fight in [his] stead”, **the looting of properties** (illustrated with the runaway carriage that all the stuff comically fell off of), and the depiction of “the chaos of war” that occurred when Benjamin and the two boys ran after the Redcoats to save Gabriel. **Although that chaos provided African servants the chances to escape,** and the movie used it a a plot point to further the action rather than depicting it in full accuracy, it allowed me to walk in one of the slave's shoes and imagine how they could similarly capture on such opportunities that surprise/counter attacks formed to escape like Gabriel was able to. **This scene also gave me a good image of the guerrilla soldiers and their tactics in the Revolution with pre-Patriot Benjamin, specifically the brutality, cunningness, lack of formation and generally unplanned nature of their fighting**.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/21 11:08//

**Throughout the movie, there are little bits and pieces that were references to everyday activity that colonist did that the were correct.** A few of these being the bundling bag and ask permission to write a lady, showing how those who researched the culture of time actually did some digging and made sure it was represented in the film. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/21 20:49//

The film realistically portrays the struggle colonists had between 1774-1776 in choosing a side. Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, changes from neutral to active Patriot. Originally questioning why he would exchange “1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away,” Martin catches Patriot fever and later reflects on his original neutrality with “I’ve done nothing, and for that I am ashamed.” **The film is also successful in its depiction of the Patriots using guerrilla warfare. Martin’s militia employed guerrilla warfare tactics, i.e. running through swamps and forests, to counter the traditional warfare tactics of the British, i.e. formation. The militiamen in the film prided themselves on their underdog identity and vigilante tactics, and this is supported by the reading in which George Mason recalls “our Militia turn out with great Spirit, & have in several late Actions, behaved bravely, but they are badly armed & appointed”** (205).  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/22 00:42//

In the film, I feel that the film makers correctly established the level of difficulty that picking war with the British brought. They showed multiple factions, like the patriots, loyalists, and those who were neutral. They made Benjamin Martin extremely wise. I found it funny that the film makers gave Ben the line, "Trading 1 Tyrannt 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away". It's cool film makers were trying to establish the feelings of the colonists during this time. Also, when Benjamin and Gabriel broke into a random dudes house. That also showed the level of fear of neutral colonists. **The fact that someone would leave their home in such a manner because of the war was astounding**.  --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/09/22 04:20//

As usual, I’m conflicted in my choosing between the film’s errors in fact, and its level of accuracy. And as usual, I will preference the right based on attention to historic detail (clothing, location, etc.) and the frequent mentioning of events relevant to this war, despite several inaccuracies placed within as enhancements to promote a cinematic atmosphere. Certainly an exception to this would be the traumatic events at Fort Wilderness but again, this was likely added to give the hero a retentive backstory. I believe that the movie’s main focus was aimed at events for its time and bring to light the use of guerrilla warfare tactics that would prove successful. Additionally, the film portrays the “regular” men of whom these “irregular forces” were composed of. In doing so, we are given a perspective of their social classes within, and out of their respective sides for the war. For example, early in the film (Charleston) we are shown the three general categories in which colonists were held prior to British presence in the south. On one side of the room we here from the loyalist represented by Adam Baldwin’s character, on the other side the large deaf man speaks on behalf of the patriots, and in the middle, neutrality is expressed by Gibson, or in the least, a general opposition to declare war. **And like those in the middle, an eventual decision for sides was forced upon them based on their perceived duality of war (typically in favor of patriotism). Afterwards, there is a visible class difference within the story’s militia when Heath Ledger’s recruits (pulled from church), linkup with Gibson’s band of dog eating ruffians out of a swamp tavern. This indifference is even extended to race at one point. Correspondence from Cornwallis make mention of his detestation for militia, as well as one (presumably) high ranking officer of the Continental Army who states that militia are “unreliable at best”.** --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/22 04:55//

====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======

**Why wouldn't this movie use actual people who existed rather than create a composite character like Martin? does it give the movie wiggle room to less historically accurate?** --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/19  5:04//

**My biggest question about the interpretation is during one scene when the British generals are talking and when they speak of the rewards of victory one says “tell me about Ohio”. However, after that Ohio is never mentioned. If they are going to say things like that you think that there is some underlying meaning to it and they will later expose what it meant but they never did.** I can tell you man, we have a lot of corn in Ohio (I’m from there that is why I said we). However, why did he specifically want Ohio? Basically what I am trying to get at is when a movie is interpreting a historical event and they have lines such as the Ohio one, shouldn’t they have given us at least 2 lines of information about why Ohio? Or do minor details like that just not make the cut because they feel like it is unimportant?  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/09/20 18:17//

In //The Patriot//, the way slaves were treated vastly differs from reality. Martin is hailed as a hero and abides by a moral code. With the lens of historical hindsight, Martin is made to romanticize and thus fabricate the way slaves are treated. In Martin’s militia there is a black officer. In the scene where Martin meets with Cornwallis, a black militia man is seen on the hill commanding the other white militia men. However, black soldiers were never in positions of power. Instead black men were low ranking, and faced discrimination and prejudice within their units. When British officers burn down Martin’s home, they confiscate the slaves or as Martin’s workers later reveal, ‘hired help.’ I’m not sure if this was customary, or if it was just for dramatic effect. However, labor on plantations and farms were almost exclusively slave labor. **Martin’s ‘hired help’ wasn’t realistic because farm owners and plantation owners in the South utilized slave labor.** In South Carolina, where the movie is set, farms and plantations used slaves for agricultural labor, and they weren’t freed. Instead, unlike the romanticized version Martin’s family has, blacks were enslaved. //The Patriot’s// romanticized view of slavery is damaging because it brings a history that isn’t there.  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/09/20 21:42//

The director of the film wanted the movie to have a fictional plotline set against a historically accurate background. He does a decent enough job of this. However, reading about this, the director seems to have loosely based characters off of real people and changed some of their actions. Such as with Ben, who is loosely based off of Francis Marion and a few others. Marion was criticized for being a serial rapist and Indian-hater. In the movie, Ben’s dark side is that he brutally murdered French soldiers in the French and Indian War. Even the character Tavington is based off of an actual British commander named Tarleton. Both the real person and fictional character are known for their brutality, but the actual atrocious acts committed belong more to the character. **Does it make sense for the director to make these fictional changes in order to enhance his movie or should have just kept these characters as the actual people they were based off of?**  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/09/21 10:18//

My favorite parts of the movie usually had something to with Heath Ledger, and so I was definitely taking notice of his scenes (recall that I’m quite the fangirl, and a lot of things I fangirl over usually have to do with cute celebs). I think the "next morning scene" towards the beginning of the film, after he returned home badly injured was extremely well directed in the way Gabriel was startled awake and panicked immediately upon waking up. I got an air of insomnia from that scene. I am curious to whether the director and filmmakers as a whole researched** the ravaging mental effects, like PTSD**, that the war inflicted upon men from both sides and all camps, just to add it in through details that likely went unnoticed by the majority of viewers. Another question I have came about in watching the interactions of the whole Martin family, since the family aspects of the film really tugged on my heartstrings. Did the filmmakers purposely consider, and add in where they could, the affects that war had on the family as well? I did really notice that they may have through the careful depictions of the tensions between Gabriel and Benjamin due to the different sides they were on, the secret keeping, and ESPECIALLY the insane trauma the younger children endured in seeing one of their two eldest brothers shot at almost point blank, having to gun down a massive group of soldiers and probably worrying about hitting their captured brother the whole time (who they would eventually loose to the war anyway), their dad leaving them to ride off into the gun smoke instead of the sunset, things like that. Basically, I think that if there was a sequel to The Patriot taking place one year later, it would be all about the psycological warfare everyone was trying to recover from and probably never truly did. Side note: Susan straight up made me cry. Every. Single. Time. --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/09/21 11:22//

**Was Benjamin having a romantic relationship with his dead wife’s sister a normal thing in the colonial times? I’ve heard of betrothed women marrying their dead fiancé’s brother if her fiancé died before the marriage. It seemed a little weird to me but I wasn’t sure if that was common or not. Did a lot of white soldiers change their minds about working with African Americans in the army like that guy at the end? Another thing that really caught my attention was the two younger brothers getting quite involved. Although they could’ve been the “men of the house,” it still seemed like they were awfully young to be toting guns and protecting the house and family. Was it common for children that young to be involved in the war in the way these two were depicted?** --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/21 23:18//

Depending on your source, “The Patriot” (or as I like to call it, “Colonial Heart”) can be ultimately interpreted as propaganda for freedom and democracy in opposition of tyranny. As usual, this is a Hollywood rendition of history so it strives to leave viewers feeling warm and fuzzy and well….patriotic. We are essentially give a representative from each side of the war. One is a hardworking and respectable family man of whom we are intended/expected to root for throughout the film (the good guy). The other, Col Travington, is a complete SOB whose demise we can’t wish fast enough (the bad guy). Naturally our mind is made up by the time he ruins the life of our hero in only a few minutes.** Upon researching and discovering that our hero and villain are loosely based on factual characters, our sense of nationalism is validated** (unless you’re English in which case some guilt may be expressed). However, further discovery states that our hero Benjamin Martin, is pieced together from numerous revolutionaries of note, displaying all of their best qualities despite conflicting sources that question their integrity. Specifically Francis Marion (Swamp Fox). Vice-versa (to a lesser extent) for the villainous officer whose name sounds surprisingly similar to Banastre Tarleton, an English Colonel known for his brutality (assigned reading). This notion of despicability is also reinforced by our hatred towards the loyalist representative (Adam Baldwin) as he is seen in a most traitorous fashion via church burning. Since he is the only loyalist encountered throughout the film, we are left with the assumption that they are all rotten bastards, quick to set their neighbors on fire.   --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/22 03:31//

“I’m a parent, I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” The film turns the story from the conflict of the Revolution into some kind of revenge fantasy against Nazi-esque Redcoats that burn civilians alive in churches. The film turns from a historical tale into one man’s battle to avenge his dead son, which seems reductionist to an almost offensive degree. To a degree, it does accurately paint the picture of how someone that was formerly Neutral in the conflict would find something unrelated to the overall issue of the Colonies vs the Crown in order to fight. 
 --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/22 06:15//

====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======

I love this film visually, I am not a history buff so I can only say that cinematically this movie is shot nicely, all the reviews I read gave tons of positive feedback on how the movie was actually shot. I think that this film is keeping its focus on the life of Benjamin Martin and what lengths he will go to to protect and avenge his family. Alongside the screenwriter, the producer, Mark Gordon says: "What we ultimately came to thematically is that you can't save your own family unless you are willing to put yourself on the line to save the families of all men - in this case, to fight in the American Revolution on the side of the patriots”. --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/09/19  5:25//

This movie was made during 2000 and if you look at a list of American War movies you see a trend of surplus war movies being made from around 1998 until present day. A surplus of the movies were being made post 9/11 but we won’t get into that for the time being, **but as a primary source of time that it is made, you can argue that The Patriot  is a great primary source in starting the trend of patriotism in movies**. We not only see how our nation was born, but we also watch the gruesome toll it took on our country. As the decade goes on and more war movies come out you can start a trend line of cinematic patriotism in movies that are portraying different wars or parts of US history. Especially in post 9/11 society, The Patriot plays more of a key role in the starting trend of that patriotic theme more or less.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/09/20 18:17//

I think Ben’s family unit reflects the late 20th and early 21st century family values because it shows that a single father can be hands on with his children. It looked like Ben in the film was a wealthy plantation owner and in the 18th century most wealthy people sent their children to schools or had many maids and nannies take care of them. Although, Ben did have his wife’s sister and his slave Abigail to fulfill some of motherly roles, it is clear that Ben’s bond with his children was unbreakable. He showered them with affection, taught them useful skills, and protected them at any costs. **I think filmmakers knew that Ben’s character would resonate with a lot of fathers watching the film and that’s why he was portrayed in a more active role in his children’s life since that what most fathers are like in the 21st century**. --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/09/20 19:31//

Once again, the 90’s and early 2000’s wanted to show women as strong feminist characters.  When Gabriel went to rally volunteers at the church in South Carolina, Anne Howard, whom I believe was seventeen, possibly eighteen was the one who spoke up and rallied the men. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/20 22:43//

**While the inaccuracies in this film hinder one’s understanding of general facts regarding the Revolutionary War, it is those inaccuracies that lend a hand to the motifs of nationalism, patriotic pride, and pro-Revolutionary sentiment.** This makes the film an efficient primary document in understanding priorities in the 1980’s/ 90’s. It was more important to show the patriots as the complicated heroes with a troubling background. At times, the movie would make me cheer or silent applaud for small and large victories by the Continental Army. The British are depicted as condescending (which may not be entirely inaccurate…) as well as malicious. Overall, the filmmaker wanted to instill in his audience a sense of pride in being American. Throughout the entire movie I planned just how I was going to convince my English boyfriend to watch this movie and side with the colonies but I definitely feel that this was aimed at a primarily American audience.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/09/21 21:00//

The Patriot is nothing but one giant propaganda piece. It is similar to other movies that came out around time, such as Independence Day, Last of the Mohicans, Air Force One, Glory and others, in that these were really patriotic movies. This is especially weird when these were made during relatively peaceful times. **They were made after the Cold War had ended, and made before the September 11th attacks in 2001.** --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/09/21 18:28//

**This movie, like Lauren says, continues with the strong female character type, pushing forward despite all odds (and historical probabilities). Once again, in this movie a woman steps up to tell others why they should do what's right. And this time, it works**! We see that people are starting to get the idea that women should not just get thought-provoking speeches but actually have something result from it. Gabriel needs not further explain what she said. He just waits for the men to respond, and they slowly stand up to join the cause. Thanks, Anne! It kind of sucks that she gets killed soon after marriage in order to fuel the revenge-seeking part of the movie, but she had a good moment and I'm proud of that.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/21 23:23//

In terms of being a primary source, the main conflicts are fairly accurate. A man stays loyal to the crown, but then he changes his mind after the Red Coats don’t show the same respect. We had talked a bit in class about why people (usually Loyalists) changed sides. The guerilla warfare was also pretty accurate as well. Underage soldiers seem to be a commonality in a lot of pre-world war American wars. The slavery issues brought up (fighting, freedom, etc) were also somewhat accurate, in the way the British treated them and the way some of the Patriots treated them within the continental army. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/21 23:40//

====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======
The readings on the accounts of two different battles from both the British and colonial sides speak to the violence both sides often inflicted. While it is important to consider the bias in those accounts the presence of violence was clearly tactics used by both sides. The film however makes the British out to be far more violent the Patriots. There is one instance in the film where the newly recruited militia men kill British soldiers trying to surrender. This outburst of violence however is used to clarify that the militia in no way should behave in that manner, and in the rest of the film they do not act out violently for violence sake. The British side however goes on to increasingly elevate their violent behavior as the film progresses. **In reality both sides often acted out beyond necessary to assure defeat or rally support. The film however would lead you to believe that it was only the cruel British who ascribed to that particular manner of fighting.**  --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/09/20 19:28//

====== 6 The "So, what?" question ======

I’m torn on this movie.  On the one hand, it was made back when Mel Gibson was still a respectable actor, and he does a decent job in it.  I absolutely love Jason Isaacs, and he too worked very well with what he was given.  I like Tom Wilkinson, and though I knew Donal Logue from Grounded for Life at the time, I thought he had some great character development.  The late Heath Ledger, despite being an Aussie, did well as a member of the Continental Army.  I was surprised to find that this was a Roland Emmerich film, as I tend to think of him as more of a disaster/end of the world type.  I try not to let the historical inaccuracies bother me, despite how bad they are, just because I do really like the cast. Also, the movie does hold a sense of nostalgia for me.  When I first joined the Air Force, I was in Tech School learning my career field at Lackland Air Force Base, the same place I was at during boot camp, or Basic Military Training as it is called in the Air Force.  Every Sunday, I went to the church the trainees who were still in BMT attended.  For a few weeks, the church used a music video someone made using clips of The Patriot with Christina Aguilera’s Fighter.  At the end of the song when Christina is really belting it out as she does, the video showed the scene where Mel Gibson was charging forward in the battle, carrying the flag.  Each and every week, when new trainees would come, the entire church would begin chanting “USA, USA, USA!”  It was a pretty damn cool thing to see.
--- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/20 22:43//

**While this film did have some historical inaccuracies, it did succeed in promoting American patriotism (with a title like The Patriot how could it not?) So what if it got a few things wrong? I believe that this film portrays the struggle between Patriots, Loyalists, and Neutrals well and helps the audience understand the unrest at the time.** And who doesn’t mind watching an action film with love, a still-respected Mel Gibson, and of course the dreamy Heath Ledger even with the gory violence and blood-splatter? --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/09/21 14:43//

**Overall I really enjoyed the movie. I was having a hard time throughout the film not enjoying the testosterone filled, love struck, hot mess that it was. Was this an action movie, a love (family love as well) story, or a Bloody Drama? The history is not all accurate, but it was a product of its time. The turn of the 21st century was filled with 'Murican based movies and this one fit the bill just right (See what I did there). The movie offered an amazing, and long, cinematic picture of the cruelties of war and the fears war brought with it**.  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/09/21 19:39//

Whenever I watch a movie with obvious political rhetoric I try to envision what I think the director wanted the audience to do/ feel/ think leaving the theatre (or in today’s movie venue, the Netflix tab). When it comes to patriotic movies about the American Revolution, I can’t help but ask “so what?” That point in time is over and done with. We no longer had the Brits, **in fact they’re one of our most trusted and supportive allies. So unless the filmmaker or director is presenting new and accurate information, why continue to make movies about the war except to promote patriotism and nationalism?**  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/09/21 21:08//

**I do believe this movie is important to look at in this class because this is the first movie about the Revolutionary War that had been made since 1987.** This is a movie that is in a very short, if not the shortest, list of movies on one war. For all its inaccuracies (though it is the most historically accurate film the director has made *cough cough* Stonewall *cough cough*) it is still a huge important film to this list. **So now the question becomes, is this film good for bringing the audience a piece of history that tends to be overlooked in Hollywood, or is it bad because it doesn’t do the events themselves total justice?** --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/09/21 21:35//

I do not think this movie is trying to give a complete historically accurate plot line. I believe the intention was to have a fictional plot within a historical background. I think the slave relations was glossed over to have a more picturesque view of American history as having us as the good guys. That is flawed along with every single person being a die hard patriot, which was not the case. However, with these flaws and many others I still love this movie. It is so obvious that on what it is trying to do, but it succeeds anyways. It makes you proud to be an American in a cliche and obvious way, but who cares. I love it and I love Mel Gibson. **The fact that the Martin's treated their slaves and all other black people in the movie as equals seemed a little too unrealistic for the time.** There may have been some people that were not racist, but in South Carolina that would have been very rare. Also, the fact that the man had his slave serve for him. This was known to have happened in the north, but in the South slaves were prohibited from serving in the continental army. **Also, the movie showed one loyalist and one neutral and everybody else were strong patriots. We learned in class that the majority were neutral and there was a large portion who were loyalist.** --- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/21 23:41//

This film as a secondary source, in my eyes, does not bear much merit.  Films that positively portray America will almost always sell, no matter what time period they were made in.  **If this film had been made 10 years earlier or 10 years later it would have made no difference.**  -Christian Trout

**If the movie does decide to show more slavery, how does that change the narrative?  Also, how does that reflect on a movie named, “The Patriot”?** -Christian Trout

This film has a lot of American identity wrapped up in it. I think it's important to talk about for that part alone. After all, once the numerous attempts at revenge fail, it's the beautiful scene of a waving flag that leads Benjamin to finally realize that he should slay his enemy for his country, not his pride or his fallen children. The movie's release right before September 11, 2001, certainly plays a big part in its importance to the times, too. America was swelling with a sense of pride that let movies like this one become popular, but then the attack on the World Trade Center brought Americans back to reality, and patriotism became mandatory, not just a warm fuzzy feeling in your chest. I couldn't help but wonder what people thought of this film only a year after its release, after they felt that the ideals presented in this film were challenged by not only the threat of terrorism but also the sudden shift in governmental policies that led to a measure of suppression in order to "protect" America's interests. The government's new laws and acts were considered "patriotic", and maybe people connected that loss of independence with the struggle of the movie's patriots during the war. Or maybe they saw it as another British suppression. The event is still too fresh in America's mind for much open discussion to go on in regards to the aftermath, but it should still be addressed. What role does government have in this movie which might reflect parts of America post-9/11?  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/09/21 23:23//

The treatment of the black workers / slaves in the movie contributes to the harmful narrative that slavery "really wasn't all that bad." Particularly the way in which the movie slipped in that all the black people working on Martin's farm were free people, there of their own accord, yet still clearly subordinate, allows viwers to be soothed into accepting this as okay. 
I highly doubt that the family would have recieved such a warm welcome showing up at the black settlement along the coast. While perhaps Abigail was glad to see them, she nevertheless would have been an employee at best. Especially considering that the family had just barely escaped death from the English army, why would a hidden settlement welcome white people (who would've thought themselves superior) with open arms?
While it makes sense within the worldof the movie, it belies the violent contentious racial reality at the time. It matters since it is a legacy that the US is still wrestling with today.  --Julia Peterson

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International