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.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

The movie the Patriot can work as a secondary source due to the fact that the movie does take place in a historical setting. But, of course, we would not rely on this movie to be a sole resource to get information from. Just like the Last of the Mohicans, and Pocahontas it opens the conversation of the Revolutionary War via a movie that appeals to a mature audience. This movie does get some things wrong, but it also gets the clothing, music, weapon styles, and timelines correct. - Kaylee Williams

The film can work on a more basic level as a secondary source when looking at the specifics of the time period, such as weapons, battle tactics, architecture, clothing and other such things. Certain aspects of the film are done very well, however it is almost completely overshadowed by some very important missteps with the character writing. This film has incredibly basic information on slavery and race relations in SOUTH CAROLINA during the American Revolution. This film also goes out of its way to portray the British in the most Evil way they can, and glorifying the patriot cause (despite making a point to show that the Patriot cause was violent and it was bad that they would kill surrendering men.) This movie falls into many generic and cliche storytelling traps, and works more as a propaganda film than a historical epic. However all in all, the film can work as a secondary source for the time period, but certainly not the motivations and actions of the people living during that time.-- AJ DeGeorge

The movie, The Patriot, works as a secondary source for the Revolutionary War because it depicts the story taking place in a historical setting with a somewhat accurate timeline. There were some things that were wrong in the movie such as who was exactly fighting in a battle scene and why. The clothing, music, and weapons that were used also seem to be correct in how the characters used and wore these items. Another aspect that was correct was the 18th century tactics that were used, such as the Guerrilla forces that helped keep the war alive in South Carolina. This was done by using an untrained, ragtag group of militiamen that made an American victory possible by hiding out in swamps, taking advantage of the British, and outsmarting them. -Lauren Simpson

Mel Gibson’s The Patriot is an excellent secondary source on the American Revolution because it gives viewers an insight into what life was like for a family that tried to stay neutral. In my opinion, it is not something we typically see, and why I liked this film.

While this movie doesn’t get everything right it does get the timeline correct. Also, it shows how some people felt that Americans could govern themselves independently but they didn’t think they should go to war over it. Additionally, this movie shows the relationship between slaves and their owners, and how some owners would send slaves in their place. Another thing I feel like they got right was their furniture, toys, and houses. While I can’t speak about their guns, I can say the architecture of the town with the church seemed very accurate.-Megan Williams

While I do not think this movie can be considered a good secondary source for the Revolutionary War as a whole, I do think it does an excellent job of portraying how the war was fought in a relatively realistic manner. I was mostly impressed by the stance it took on guerrilla warfare. When I think back on learning about the American Revolution, teachers tend not to tell you about the grittier parts of the war. They mainly focus on the Continental Army and disregard everything else. Looking at the Revolution from the angle portrayed in the film was a nice touch. Though they never use the term "guerrilla warfare," it's plain to see that those are the tactics being employed. Benjamin Martin, while not a historical figure, is based mainly on the real-life Francis Marion, notoriously known as "The Swamp Fox." While he is considered a Revolutionary hero in South Carolina, Marion was no saint. He adapted the tactics used against him in the French and Indian War, observing how the Cherokees used the landscape to their advantage to hide and ambush unwitting patrols. Marion then used these same tactics to deal devastating blows to the British in the south. Due to the nature of the British being spread pretty thin the south, it is reasonable to assume that Marion's expertise in guerrilla warfare helped the local militias hold the south despite not being part of an organized military force. 
Crawford, Amy. “The Swamp Fox.” Smithsonian Magazine, June 30, 2007. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-swamp-fox-157330429/. -- Lyndsey Clark

I found the details of the movie to be pretty accurate, the buildings that they used seemed to be pretty accurate- I noticed the flemish brick bonds on one of the buildings. They did a fairly good job of showing the brutality of war, although it was very dramatized. I also found that it was interesting they followed a character who wanted to remain neutral, like many of the colonists at the time but became swayed later on when the war started affecting him more personally.--Helen Dhue

I think that this movie makes a good secondary source for the tone and warfare exhibited in the Revolutionary War. It is not a good exhibit of the war as an event and the viewer should not take every circumstance, character, and comment as factual history, however, it is a good exhibit of the relationships and emotions that the men went through. It is also a good example of the Guerrilla warfare that started at the time, showing the tactics that the Guerrilla militiamen used to fight. I think that there is a lot wrong with the details in the movie, but, if you were to pick apart the movie, there are things that could be used to better explain certain aspects of the war and the lives of the soldiers. --Kimberly Sak

Like the other movies we’ve seen so far, it’s hard to take this as a good secondary source because the lens it’s viewed through is so rose colored. There’s no “good” British soldier shown, and there’s no “bad” colonial soldier either. Despite the insanely bloody scene where Benjamin massacres a group of soldiers and then proceeds to hatchet an already dead man to the point where both are completely covered in blood, Benjamin is never presented as bad. All the soldiers that he kills over the course of the movie and they’re all justified. Certainly in a way Tavington’s actions are not. For someone to take only this as a good representation of the Revolutionary War and the people who fought in it is very detrimental to understanding the various sides involved. However, as an example of colonial life, there are many good depictions here.-Madison Roberts

The Patriot like the other films we have watched this semester place a falsified story amidst aspects that draw from the historical record. The setting and look of the film, seems rather standard with the time as far as my limited knowledge allows me to be confident on the clothing and weaponry. I rather liked the various perspectives portrayed throughout the movie. Such as the patriotic son of Mel Gibson’s character which contrasted with Mel Gibson’s neutral character who was spurred into patriotism by the deaths of his sons. The movie even presents a loyalist and feasible debates that considered the options of rebellion or continued efforts to be heard by the crown. The brutal tactics displayed and utilized by the British and militia added to the revenge seeking pursued in the war as they ignored the rules of a gentlemanly war and sought to fight and destroy each other at all turns. The raids by the colonial militia who knew the landscape and fought in quick raids seemed a little overdone, but the presence of such guerrilla fighters certainly was a nuisance to the British. I personally liked the children’s excitement over the mail as in those olden days it rarely arrived and was the sole source of news and a source of entertainment. -Robert Keitz

====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
The historical inaccuracies of ‘The Patriot’ were plentiful, the movie lies far more in an entertainment light than in a secondary source in anything other than whitewashing and gross undermining of real tragic events.  According to the film the main reason for the Revolutionary War was not frustration of the colonists at Britain but for the revenge of one man, whos son was shot by a British officer for absolutely no reason.  But an even bigger historical inaccuracy of the Patriot was the portrayal of slavery.  There was one token black character who we got the vaguest, briefest backstory of; he was a slave, who by the end of the movie had earned ‘freedom’ for fighting in the revolution and then became best friends with the racist, now not racist, white guy and decided to work with him.  It was grossly undermining of actual brutal racism and slavery of colonial America.  The film is absent of almost any slaves except for those of Charlotte, who owns a plantation, and eventually get shot by the British.  In the primary source reading Samuel Johnson remarks on how the rebels are “yelping the loudest” for freedom while owning slaves which this movie ironically does as well.  Ofcourse the one black slave does earn his freedom in the end but this is also inaccurate as both Britain and America agreed that granting freedom to slaves was cause for social revolution and therefore not in their interests. -Janis Shurtleff

This week's movie, 'The Patriot' does get a lot of correct in the film, but there are a lot of errors as well. For example, the weapons that were featured in the movie were not at all as accurate as the movie made them out to be. The musket guns that were used during the Revolutionary War were very unreliable and inaccurate. -Kaylee Williams

There are quite a few inaccuracies that occurred in the film, The Patriot. The first error that occurred in the film was the soldiers engaging in drills and taking commands from their Colonel. While in actuality, the militia did not know how to do drills or take commands and were not good at facing up to a battle against the British. When the militia was faced with well-trained and well-armed British troops, they threw down their arms and ran away. Another inaccuracy is the portrayal of some British soldiers as evil, blood thirsty sadists who would kill anyone that got in their way. In the film, we see the redcoats go as far as rounding up a village of people, locking up a church and setting it ablaze. No such thing ever happened during the Revolutionary War. In reality, some soldiers did have that "kill at all costs" mindset but the majority of them sided with the General and wanted to fight the war with honor and not vengeance. -Lauren Simpson

One of the most glaring historical inaccuracies that I saw was how the movie handled the issue of slavery. For a movie that purports itself to be a historical film, the way they handled this issue was extremely disappointing. The first introduction we get to African Americans in the film is through the lady of the house, who I assume acts as a stewardess. Not only that, there is a comment made by the workers of the farm to the British, claiming they work the land and are not slaves. While this could be true, it is also highly unlikely. This story takes place in South Carolina, a place where slavery was the dominant form of labor for the southern economy. Benjamin Martin is portrayed to be a rather wealthy landowner, meaning he would have most likely own slaves. Similarly, Benjamin's sister-in-law (and later lover?) appears to be a slave owner, though this is note outright said in the film. This entire situation combined with the plot hole where the entire family ends up living in a maroon settlement for free slaves is bamboozling from a historical standpoint. Furthermore, the side-story involving Occam, the slave who is sent in place of his master (the only historically accurate thing I saw in his story), feels like it was done for the sake of the audience rather than as a historical aside. While his story of his search for freedom is compelling, emancipation was not something that was guaranteed for enslaved men in the army. Nor were they treated as equals, which is something that is touched upon then thrown out the window. To make matters worse, Occam is not serving in the Continental Army because Martin's rag-tag group is a militia that specializes in guerrilla warfare tactics. It makes his story seem less relevant, because the sad truth is that many slaves probably were under the assumption that they would gain freedom for fighting with them, only to have that taken from them once the war was over. This is the reason why Dunmore's Proclamation was so popular among enslaved people, because the British at least tried to guarantee freedom to slaves willing to betray their masters and fight on the side of the Crown. -- Lyndsey Clark

//The Patriot//, or should I say, Mel Gibson's //The Patriot//, features a surface-level historically accurate film. By surface-level, I mean that from the inside, there are several key factual errors. For one, the idea of the black man that was serving in Gibson's militia would not have probably served, as black men were not allowed to bear arms in South Carolina. Though, they may have been in the navy forces, not portrayed in the film. Another point to note is the lack of slavery portrayed in the film. It seems that most of these early American films do a lot of cover-up on the poor treatment of slavery. Overall, there are more small errors, but these are the huge ones I noticed when watching the film. --Tara Scroggins

While this film gets a lot of things right it is definitely a dramatized version of the events that occurred. The scene that bothers me the most when it comes to historical accuracy is when they burn down the church with people inside. According to one article, I read there is no evidence that an event like this occurred during the American Revolution. It said that this scene was actually based on an incident from WWII when Nazi soldiers burned a church with French villagers alive.-Megan Williams

My biggest issue throughout the movie was the colonial women. A woman of Charlotte’s age would not have worn her hair down and in one of the scenes at the maroon town, she’s not wearing a petticoat, just stays and an underskirt. In this time period, it would have been the same as wearing a bra and underwear in public. Even Benjamin’s daughters probably wouldn’t have worn their hair down, though liberties can be given since they’re the daughters of a farmer, not an upper-middle class lady like Charlotte. The public displays of affection also would have been very scandalous. Kissing in public before marriage (which both Gabriel and Benjamin participate in) is something a prostitute would do, not two ladies. It is also unlikely that Charlotte would have run her plantation as well as reside in a house in town (at least if the magistrate was still enforcing British entail laws). If the immediate family had no sons for the property to pass to, it would most likely have gone to an uncle or cousin rather than pass to a daughter. -Madison Roberts

They definitely villainized the British to a crazy extent making the movie to be good against evil rather than the complexities of the actual revolution. A large part of the reason the war started was because of taxes and that the British felt like they should be able to tax the colonies because they basically fought a war for them. I also found it odd that the only black man in the movie was really happy to work for Benjamin Martin in the end, I felt that the movie downplayed slavery a lot.

As the reading touched on the movie definitely downplayed the assistance that the French gave the Americans. It honestly boiled it down to one character, Jean Villeneuve. Another interesting fallacy was the depiction of Fort Carolina which was quite obviously Stratford Hall in Westmoreland County, VA. - Dan Dilks

The film takes on a very American-centric view with many of the events portrayed throughout its runtime. The idea of an American nation in 1776 is counter to what was known of the colonials as they would have still considered themselves as British. The British officers that we meet are displayed as evil while the colonial staff are the underdogs with good hearts. The colonials are too much the good guy while the British are just cruel selfish snobs. Cornwall cares only for his luxuries and comfort while the colonial militia make the most of their situation. The movie sides with the colonials as the good guys while the British are cruel evil souls. Additionally, the use of famous lines in the assembly stood out to me as it sets it up as natural dialogue with phrases of famous or known works which was weird and out of place. -Robert Keitz

Overall, the movie screams red, white, and blue (which makes sense, because it is literally called The Patriot.) Gibson a rugged, stand alone not-a-hero hero.  A bit like Daniel Day-Lewis’ character was supposed to be like in Last of the Mohicans. He’s a man’s man, who is going to do whatever it takes for his family, and for freedom. It was also strongly geared towards the American hero ideal and the British villain, which again, makes sense when you think about what the film is all about. The film definitely takes liberties with the way the African Americans who work on Gibson’s farm are treated by Americans, seeming to work in harmony and equality on the farm, and casting the British as the only group who mistreated African Americans. I understand that for the purpose of the film, it was easier to make this clear-cut distinction and have the Americans be the all-around good guys, but as far as historical accuracy goes it really missed the mark. --Cat Kinde

I'm not going to sugar coat it, this is the worst movie ever. I can't think of a single thing from this film that stood out as historically accurate. Everything from the material culture to portrayals of pretty much every character were wrong on so many levels. The filmmakers took loose themes of British ruthlessness and rugged American ideals of equality way too far. One could point to the few cases of British massacres throughout the war (Paoli, Baylor's massacre, Waxhaws) and claim them as the basis for British atrocities in this film, but the fact is most historians believe many of these events weren't really massacres at all, they were simply played up for American propaganda. Either way, the fact that Tavington orders a church full of civilians burned and countless executions of wounded soldiers is just comically inaccurate. There's not enough time in the world to talk about everything wrong with this film, I think anyone who's ever read a single book on this topic would agree.

Spring, Matthew H. With Zeal and with Bayonets Only: the British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010.

Hagist, Don N. British Soldiers, American War. Yardley: Westholme, 2014. -Wilson LeCount

====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
The character of Col. William Tavington is evidently based on Banastre Tarleton, one of the men mentioned in the first letter in “The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South” PDF. (The Patriot (Special Edition)) Both sport the green uniform that sets them apart from the other officers in the British Army. Tavington’s bloodthirsty-ness seems unrealistic until you read the PDF and realize that there was a person like that. However, Tavington’s readiness to burn down the church full of colonists stretched the imagination a little too much. The Church of England is just too much of an institution for the sacrilegious act of burning a church to be accepted by those involved. -Madison Roberts

====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

This movie is interesting for its time period because I think this is the recipe for a “movie dads like”.  It has Mel Gibson who, as of 2020, is an extremely problematic actor who was blacklisted from Hollywood, but in 2000 this man was on top of the world.  His name actually feels synonymous with inaccurate historical films, The Patriot being made only five years after Braveheart.  Both of these films, in my opinion, are loved by many (middle aged men), because they are recipes for misogyny and ego.  They are the image of one man, a part of a nation, that overcomes adversity and saves the day.  In the early 2000’s this was accepted as action movies with historical settings.  The lead of these movies is the literal embodiment of whitewashed history, he is one name, one face and an epic story though absent of any substance or flaws. I find it interesting because in the past twenty years we have seen a critique of this type of film making, but not very much change.  Movies are still heavily flawed when it comes to portraying any moment of history, particularly if that moment has to do with the American image.  The British in the Patriot are evil, almost to the point of being sadists.  This movie falls into the American myth of “were the good guys everyone else is bad”.  This is not, never is, and never will be the case. -Janis Shurtleff

//The Patriot//, like all of the movies we have watched so far, is a great primary source for analyzing the American film industry and their portrayal of American history. I feel that the overall "pro-American" and "anti-foreign country" is the overall theme of these movies so far. There aren't too many huge problems with this movie, historically, though the problems lie in its intentions to appeal to a popular audience. By the end of the movie, I noticed the shift in intention lying in the "anti- foreign country" as runs into the battle, American flag waving. --Tara Scroggins

I think that //The Patriot// is a decent source for the time period in which it was made. The level of violence is one thing that comes to mind, many movies from this time, especially ones that are meant to be violent because of their subject matter, are often played up and bloodied. There is also the ever present theme of at least one, if not more, tragic love story. There is also the theme of severely villianizing the non american side, that is not to say that the British were by any means the good guys in real life and they did do a lot of horrific things, however there is often in movies from this time, the one "leader" who is meant to personify all that the main character fights against and is often not American in these types of movies. Another common theme of the time period is the victorious ending, as well as the traumatic past of the main character. One more identifiable aspect is the gloss over of slavery, there are only two indications of slavery, once when they ask Ben's freed African Americans about their freedom, and once when the white man signs over his slave to war without giving him the choice (something that based on the setting would not have happened in the revolution anyway because of the location), the only other hint at the conflict came from the tension between African American militiaman and his white comrades (which was later solved). I think this movie definitely would make a good primary source for the time it was made because of its common themes that can be found in other similar movies of the time. --Kimberly Sak

Roland Emmerich, the director, is infamous for his massive set pieces and hundreds of hundreds of extras. Everything that happens in this movie is pretty typical of some of his other historical movies, such as Anonymous (2011), which is about the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare. Explosions, random love interests, lots of dirt and blood, and a romanticized version of the past. -Madison Roberts

I felt the movie showed that the United States loves to glorify the men who fought in the revolutionary war. In the US the Revolution is thought of as our beginning and to make the men who fought in it look like heros makes the US look good. I thought the scene that captured this best was when Mel Gibson grabs the flag, runs into combat, and flips the horse.

This movie was only made 20 years ago. Which doesn't seem like that long ago but the way they portrayed African Americans is really telling. They sugarcoated it, the slaves at Benjamin Martins plantation weren't slaves they were just "freed men who work the land". In South Carolina. In 1776. Something doesn't add up here. Any time there was a moment of racial tension which when presented were very light, it was immediately followed with something like the conversation Gabriel had with the African American man in the militia fighting for his freedom. Gabriel said something along the lines of "In this new world after the war all men will be created equal". Which we know was not the case. If anything this film just trys to gloss over the fact that slavery was a bad thing occurring during this time.- Dan Dilks

By trying to be authentic to history, I think the filmmakers really missed their mark and created an even more fictional character. As we talked about in class, Gibson’s character is supposed to be based off of real people: Thomas Sumter, Daniel Morgan, Andrew Pickens, and Francis Marion. After the movie came out, it was especially criticized for it’s interpretation of Francis Marion, claiming it was glorifying "a serial rapist who hunted Red Indians for fun." (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jul/06/news.spikelee) By trying to create a tough with a heart of gold character like Benjamin, the filmmakers only ended up painting over incredibly important nuances of the Revolutionary War, making it seem like there were not major issues on both sides of the war. Interestingly about the film, there also seems to have been some controversary revolving around the review of the film. Supposedly a reporter from a small newspaper in Connecticut wrote a glowing review of the film. However, later it was revealed that the reporter was not a real person at all, and was only created to make a super positive review of The Patriot. (https://web.archive.org/web/20010609225327/http://www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1)
Overall, I think this film is a heavy reflection of the year 2000, especially what the government wanted. This was the year George W. Bush became president, after a hotly contested election against Al Gore, and only after a supreme court ruling made it so. The country was divided and angry, and needed something to rally around. Something to point to and say “this? This is what it means to be America. This is why I love this country.” In a really weird way, this is what I think The Patriot delivered in the summer of 2000.
--Cat Kinde

===== V. The "So, what?" question	======

Edit summary

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