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. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken

**Please, please, please do not delete other people's comments! -- Dr. McClurken**

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

The film was surprisingly good at conveying the history of the conflict in the American south, in the big picture anyways. The film accurately portrayed the sentiment of many neutral colonists, that they didn’t like the taxes, but they didn’t want to go to war over it. The film brilliantly portrayed why many of these neutrals in the south took up arms after the British comportment in their lands. A large portion of the film focused on the way civilians and noncombatants were treated (at least by the British, the film glossed over American war crimes). And these depictions of the brutality of war on non-combatants was very well done; homes burned, civilians and POWs killed, and even a church set ablaze with people inside it; (though this moment did not actually take place historically and was criticized by critics for resembling an actual war crime called the “Oradour-sur-Glane massacre” committed by the SS in Germany during WWII). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_(2000_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre 
The film also got several smaller details right. I particularly like a scene, near the first hour mark, where the protagonists watch a battle playing out. In the battle we get to see cannons firing and the large metal balls plowing through Revolutionary lines, taking arms, legs, and even, in one notable instance, a head from off the shoulders of a soldier. I loved the shot in this scene where the camera angle switched suddenly to have the cannonball flying right into the camera’s pov, it was great. But the important part of it is that the cannonballs bounced. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that correctly portrayed in film, usually you just see them explode; but cannonballs bounced, they tore through their targets’ ranks like great big bouncy balls of death.   –Lucca Crowe

This film works fairly well as a secondary source. I found most of the battle tactics used by the British and patriots to be spot-on for the time period. As they lined up against each other in a big field and shot at one another as their form of battle. Another part that was historically accurate was the amount of more horrific tactics used by both the British and the patriots, as it was mentioned in class that in the South there was much more severe acts of war. This movie was quite gory, so it definitely went along with the actual historical events. As a whole, I found the movie to be very accurate in its portrayal of the tail-end of the Revolutionary war. -Margaret Jones

I think this movie does a pretty good job at being accurate to the history. It starts by showing how not everyone was so inclined to fight in the war. Some people wanted to be patriots and fight while others were okay with remaining under British rule and then some were neutral and didn’t see the point in fighting. I think the film did a good job explaining why Benjamin wanted to remain neutral but then also did a good job showing how some people were forced to ultimately pick a side. The fighting style at the beginning of the movie is accurate since they would stand in lines and shoot at each other but I assume that as more militiamen began fighting and the French started helping, those fighting styles became more diverse just like in the middle of the movie. With Colonel Tavington being based off of Banastre Tarleton who murdered children and communities, I would say that his character seems rather accurate, if not a bit dramatized. Lastly, I have to bring up the bundling bag cause that scene confused me but then looking up what it was, I was shocked and amused that that was a real thing. -Sophie Weber

I really enjoyed how the movie showed a nuanced view of how the colonists felt about joining the Revolution. Normally, most media that depicts the American Revolution depicts colonial sentiment 100% patriot with some loyalists thrown in as well. At the beginning of the Patriot, however, it's nowhere near as black and white. Benjamin agrees with patriot ideals, but doesn't want to fight because it would put his family at risk. Some of the other men in the meeting house have their own reservations for joining the fight, while others want to go to war against the British crown. The movie also does a really good job at showing alliances shift from neutral to the patriots, as Lucca and Sophie have mentioned. -Katherine Rayhart

====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

The treatment of enslaved people in this movie was sort of glossed over and mostly promoted the idea that the war immediately improved their lives and that those who were the "good guys," (in the continental army), had always treated them well and allowed them to fight and work alongside them as equals. Later in the movie when the remaining members of Mel Gibson's character's family flees their SC plantation, they stay in what looks to be a maroon community, which also does not make much sense. The relationships between the family and the Black workers who lived on their plantation - who were presumably not slaves in the movie - would not have been that good in real life, obviously since that family was certainly rich enough to own slaves and honestly probably would not have respected freed Black women enough to look after their children. Even had the relationship between this fictional family and their freed slaves been that good, many of the residents of maroon communities were runaways and definitely would not have welcomed a white family, much less one from a plantation. -- Jane Michael

One historically inaccurate thing I noticed in the movie was how it portrayed slavery and slaves fighting in the war. In the film it showed a slave, Occam, fighting with the local South carolina militia led by Mel Gibson’s character, Banjamin Martin. In the film Occam’s master volunteered him for the militia and he fought alongside the other members of the militia, all of whom were white. Historically, Occam would have not been in the same unit or militia with these men, nor would he be armed. Furthermore, he would also most likely not be sitting next to them sharing a meal. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jul-07-ca-48838-story.html  -Teresa Felipe

There were a few things that I noticed throughout the movie. The biggest problem was the portrayal of enslaved people. They made them seem like they were part of the family and treated well when reality, that was not the case and this is a problematic depiction of slavery. Another being the timeline. I was very confused as to when things were occurring. Gabriel joined in 1776 and the letter that was then sent was right after the British took control of Charleston which was in 1780. The war ended in 1781. Was the time jump actually four years? And did the majority of the movie only take place during one year? I feel like for the movie to make sense though, the siege of Charleston would have had to have been earlier so if that is the case, then that is not accurate. Cornwallis seems to be a bit indifferent towards all of it. He mostly just wants to be done and start working with the colonies again which I feel like is a bit inaccurate. Lastly, Tarleton was a real person who was very aggressive in his fighting but I think/hope Tavingon was made to be harsher than reality. -Sophie Weber

Obviously, the militia is put in a better light than the british troops, who commit atrocities against civilians, including women and children. Though the militia fire on troops and kill them even after they surrender, they are never seen killing innocent people. The church burning scene is not historically accurate, as there is no evidence of British troops burning people alive during the war. Lt. Colonel Banastre Tarleton, the inspiration behind Colonel Tavington, had a reputation of being ruthless but even he did not target civilians. In fact, the church scene was “based on an incident from World War II, when Nazi soldiers burned a group of French villagers alive.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/07/did-the-brits-burn-churches.html. In fact, it is possible that the militia violated the rules of war more often than the British. Obviously these events were added for dramatic effect, though I appreciated the overarching theme of morality throughout the movie that at least made it clear to viewers that neither side was necessarily in the right. -Sasha Poletes

This film had an unfortunate way of handling slavery in its narrative. The slaves themselves are only a small part of the film, but they are still present. The most prominent black characters in the film are one man who is a part of Benjamin Martin’s troop, and the rest are slaves. However, the film refuses to call them slaves, exactly. In one scene where the British troops offer to free the slaves in exchange for them serving in the military, one man protests and says that they are not slaves, but they work the land. I find this somewhat implausible, given that the farmer they are on is in South Carolina in 1776. It felt to me that the filmmakers (more specifically Roland Emmerich, king of historically inaccurate “history” films) did not want to address the question of slavery so tried to sweep it under the rug rather than show the realities. However, if that was the case, one must ask why make the hero of the film a southern landowner at all? A lot of revolutionaries were landowners and most owned slaves; the men that Benjamin Martin was based on were all such people. But the film shows, from the very start, that it is not necessarily interested in the highest degree of historical accuracy, so why keep this in? Why not make the hero of the film someone who obviously owns slaves? Why even try to address the issue if you are not going to do it with grace and respect? I can only suspect that those involved with the film wanted to portray a false narrative of the American Revolution. The tale this movie tells is one of a united front of a country with freedom for all when we know that simply is not the case, especially not in the time the movie is set. - Maris Tiller

Many people have said this, but the representation of slavery during this era was definitely inaccurate. The main character conveniently not having slaves is definitely glossing over issues in order for him to seem more patriotic and heroic. Most South Carolinians with the wealth to do it owned slaves. Like having Gabriel say “We’re all men created equal under G-d” to a black man in a Revolutionary war movie? That was rough. The whole movie tried to avoid the issue for the sake of the narrative of heroism.- Logan Kurtz

Usually when watching historical movies, the inaccuracies stand out more than the accuracies; but the Patriot (2000) had two extremely intriguing accuracies that I found. Benjamin Martin and William Tavington, the two main conflicting characters in the movie, are based on two real-life historical figures, Francis “Swamp Fox” Marion and Banastre Tarleton, respectively. The similarities between Benjamin Martin and Francis Marion can be seen within both of their involvements in the French-Indian War and their usage of guerilla and ambush tactics. For William Tavington and Banastre Tarleton, they both led in the Battle of Cowpens and were both ordered to capture Benjamin Martin/Francis Marion. https://screenrant.com/patriot-movie-true-story-historical-accuracy-what-happened/ - Zack Steinbaum

====== 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, including South Carolinians, were motivated to fight for the colonials after Lord Dunmore's proclimation that tried to free the enslaved people in the rebelling colonies. -Katherine Rayhart

I felt as though this movie did a better job than most in depicting the depth of the war, that it wasn’t just cut and dry patriots and loyalists.  While it did a good job with showing that everyone was not just 100% loyalist or patriot, it did portray the British as bloodthirsty, horrible people. Loyalists did not get their side developed either, as one says, “Those neighbors of mine who stand against England deserve to die a traitorous death.” The British are depicted as to be as bad as Nazis. For example, there is nothing in historical record about the British burning down a church full of civilians. The horrible church-burning scene in the movie is actually based on an incident from World War II, when Nazi soldiers burned a group of French villagers alive. Using a Nazi action in order to further villainize British soldiers was very unsettling to watch. The movie tended to deviate from true American history in a way to promote a more "Yay America!" view. - Logan Kurtz

Although there were similarities between Benjamin Martin/Francis Marion and William Tavington/Banastre Tarleton respectively, their similarities still pale in comparison to their differences. For example, in the movie, Benjamin Martin is shown as a peaceful farmer who only joins the fight due to his son’s untimely death. Francis Marion, however, raped his female slaves and slaughtered Native Americans for fun. For some reason, these facts were completely passed over in the creation of the movie in order to paint Martin as a heroic figure. The opposite is true for Banastre Tarleton and his counterpart William Tavington. In the movie, Tavington is shown slaughtering civilians without a second thought - shown especially in the burning of the church filled with civilians. Banastre Tarleton was not so cruel. He was a commander of the British Army who was simply ordered to hunt down Tavington - but to make the movie interesting, he was extremely vilified. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jun/15/news.melgibson - Zack Steinbaum

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

While I did really enjoy this movie compared to The Last of the Mohicans, all I could think of while watching it was: “this is propaganda.” The villainization of the British troops and having this caring father figure as the lead character going against them was definitely intentional to evoke a specific emotion from the audience. Especially the fighting scenes involving the American flag that Benjamin was waving and the flag that his son Gabriel had found and mended. The film was released during 2000, and a resurgence of American pride and nationalism wouldn’t have been surprising at this time. A majority of war films released around this time were based on Vietnam, Korea, or some science-fiction variety. I think it was an interesting choice to choose the Revolutionary War, but nonetheless it evokes the same emotions of American patriotism and pride, and maybe more than other American war films, for its audience. I did see criticisms from British reviewers that the movie was too harsh in depicting the British soldiers and that it was an unfair portrayal. --Olivia Foster

There is a big issue with the portrayal of white plantation owners and enslaved people. In order to protect Mel Gibson’s character and ensure that he is every inch the hero, the audience learns that the people working on his plantation are free, not enslaved. Not only that, but the main character even works in the field with them, something I cannot imagine was common at the time. The movie deals with racism and slavery more or less by sweeping it under the rug — Occam is accepted by all but one member of the militia, who comes to accept him in the end, African Americans in the movie are always happy to see the Martin family, and they all live happily ever after. I think this is representative of a larger trend common in American history: we sanitize our past and our founding fathers to the point where people forget they had faults at all. Only in recent years have we looked back at people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and admitted that everything they did for America does not excuse the fact that they enslaved people. This movie is a product of its time in that it still has that sanitization of American history in it, which the good people are good, the bad people are bad, and that’s that. No one wants to make or watch a movie about a heroic slave owner, so the movie removes that part, which results instead in a historically inaccurate portrayal of the time period that damages people’s perception of slavery. — Sasha Poletes
====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

The film was criticized for, as film actor Harrison Ford put it “it boiled the American Revolution down to one guy wanting revenge.” And while I can agree with that, I think it is best to interpret the film as an exploration for some of the reasons why many Revolutionary soldiers decided to fight; for while many fought for the ideals of liberty, many others were motivated to fight because of crimes committed by British soldiers. I think the real issue in the film is how it glorifies the American Revolution, glossing over all the Revolution’s moral grey areas, and presenting us with a pristine binary retelling of history where the good guys fought and kicked ass and the evil British lost. The issue is that the real world, real history, isn’t so black and white. On which point, an excellent example of this glossing over of history is the way the film portrays enslaved African Americans. In the film, our protagonist, A RICH PLANTATION OWNER IN RURAL SOUTH CARALINA, actively disagrees with the notion of slavery. The black workers on his farm are all “free” and working there of their own free will because they just like him so much. While these characters don’t have many lines, they are always portrayed as smiling and happy to see the protagonist and his family; so much so that when British soldiers arrive at their farm and offer them freedom serving in the British military, these African Americans refuse, prodding the British officers to push them forcibly into joining. To restate this, this film has the audacity to recontextualize enslaved African Americans and their attempt to gain freedom, as a bunch of mean British people forcibly kidnaping them from their nice plantation life. The protagonist’s sister-in-law even feels the need to state directly that she is not a racist, before she feels comfortable kissing her brother-in-law; (which is its own thing but doesn’t connect directly to the film’s failings in conveying history so we will let it be). The only moderately racist character in the film even has his own “redemption arc” where he values a black soldier fighting beside him after realizing the soldier is fighting even after gaining his freedom; and that’s it, racism go bye bye, the Americans win. I think this recontextualizing of early American History says more about the times in which the film was made, rather than the period it is trying to convey. The early 2000’s, following the 90’s, was a time where people were vaguely aware of social issues like racism, but weren’t comfortable addressing it directly. They knew that racism was bad, so their characters made a big point of stating their opposition to it, but little time was actually spent addressing the issue. Unlike many other nit-picky issues with the film, the matter of racism can have a real-world negative effect on society. It’s not enough to grow up being told that racism is bad, if you are then told it’s all gone away now. Films drive social trends and awareness, by teaching us that racism has disappeared films can make us docile, ignorant, and ultimately complicit in racial injustice. This is the real danger in movies like The Patriot, by glorifying our history and intentionally understating the gravity of our national crimes and their legacy, films like The Patriot contribute to an American society that refuses to come to terms with the darker parts of our past, preferring instead to lounge in a comfortable ignorance. –Lucca Crowe

“The Patriot” I thought told a good story about the Revolutionary war and the events that transpired during it. I personally thought that the storyline was slightly confusing/ I wasn’t sure what was going on at the beginning, but it made more sense as the film progressed. This film tells an important part of US history and I think it does so quite well. It sticks fairly close to the actual history and provides an insight into what was happening in the South during the time period. I feel like the storyline that is usually told in movies about the Revolutionary War revolve around New England, and in focusing on the South it provides a slightly different view than pop culture is used to. I think that this film serves as a fairly solid secondary source as a non-documentary film for the time period. -Margaret Jones

Out of curiousity, I looked up reviews from movie critics, and the biggest critique was that this movie villainized the British and more specifically, with "the biggest controversy" - the burning of the church. (https://screenrant.com/patriot-movie-true-story-historical-accuracy-what-happened/, rotten tomatoes, etc.) Several of these critics compared the scene to an event of WWII, where people in a French village were herded into a church by Nazis and massacred with grenades. I didn't make this connection and I don't know if many of the average watchers would have, but it was interesting that the filmmakers decided to pick an atrocity equatable to a Nazi crime, even though it was definitely just to up the drama and Heath Ledger's character arc. I also wouldn't assume that the average viewer would be aware of any details of the events that transpired during the war, and although we know that neither side played it particularly honorable or clean, I'm sure many people watched this movie and truly believed that the British were cold and heartless villains and the Patriots were vindicated and noble in all their actions. -- Jane Michael

This movie was released around the Fourth of July in the year 2000. It was a new century and about to be one of the biggest holidays in the US. This movie had a surprising ability to make one feel patriotic, which is not an easy feat. It is pretty influential seeing how big name actors such as Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger play major roles in the movie. It can be easily interpreted as being historically accurate, in some ways it is, however, it can be harmful. The portrayal of slavery, for example, was washed down tremendously. It showed that there was a better, easier relationship between slaves and colonists than there actually was. This interpretation in an influential movie can be dangerous because it can give people the idea that slavery really wasn’t that bad, when it was. -Teresa Felipe

This movie kept me very engaged and on the edge of my seat always waiting for what would happen next. I was impressed with the film and how it did seem accurate to the history. I think the blood and gore was a bit much and shocking at times (when the cannon shot the guys head off), but I know that this is an accurate depiction of what occurred. This movie allowed people to learn but it is problematic with how it portrays the British and enslaved. They are not accurate and this movie was made to evoke a patriotic feeling out of the viewers. I thought the romance in this movie between Gabriel and Anne felt very natural but the romance between Benjamin and Charlotte was unnecessary. These historical movies like to emphasize romances that are not necessary to the story. -Sophie Weber

The major thing that I really liked about this movie, especially in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans, is that it depicted a local militia, rather than an entire army. The fighting scenes in this movie were very different , with the guerilla war tactics rather than being in the formal lines and shooting. The fighting scenes in The Last of the Mohicans were very repetitive and boring, while these were much more dynamic and different. This made the movie feel more cohesive and thought out. A major critique I have is that in some parts, the movie made it feel almost like a thriller/horror movie when the British soldiers were involved. Especially the scene where the Green Dragoons came into Charlotte’s home looking for the children. The scene with the church burning was extremely cruel and upsetting, and it made me think: did things like this actually happen to civilians? It was very dramatized and clearly meant to evoke emotions from the audience, rather than be historically accurate. But as an audience member, it did make the movie much more interesting to watch. --Olivia Foster

This film is, I think, exemplary of what we like to think the American Revolution was like. In addition to that, what we think of American history in general. Like in Last of the Mohicans, Benjamin Martin is a lone American hero, a trope we see often in American film and literature. He is tough and rugged and fights for freedom (unless it’s the freedom of his slaves in which case he doesn’t bother). The American hero is one that represents what we think of America: individualistic and fighting for freedom at whatever cost. We like to think that history is like this, that it is the actions of a few great men who make historical happenings. This idealizes figures of the past into faultless heroes. The way this film glosses over any possible slave owning a planter in South Carolina in 1776 so he can be a perfect hero reminds me of how we still think of the founding fathers. We like to lionize these men, much like how the film lionized the fictional Benjamin Martin, and protest the idea that they could have also been immoral. We would rather look at our history through an idealized lens, and that’s what this movie feels like to me: too idealized to be actually impactful or interesting. - Maris Tiller

When it comes to the historical context, the conflict between both sides is definitely present as we stated in class. You can see the dynamic struggles from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. When it came to the loyalist, there was a question of how loyal they are even to the King. Also when the members were recruiting more for their army, the father and son have a discussion of who should be part of their army like if there are specific requirements of morality or how the men conduct themselves. Speaking of the army, the fashion style they had was similar to what we discussed in class where solders would line up on both sides and then fire at the command of one another. The fighting sequence themselves were filled with gore which although I have never been in combat, is as close as they could get. There were scenes in which I think they displayed some of the harsh accuracies of war, how loved ones were kill and who was killed in a way and why. Some deaths were pointless but there’s reason in that too, its just war. 
Another thing I noticed was the connection Abigail had with the children surprised me, she was like another mother to them but I doubt that would have even happened in the true history of families such as that. 
Overall, the historical accuracy in this movie felt greater than the movies we have talked about before.  I feel like this could be a movie to depend on to show an example of the dynamics or how much responsibility can be on an individual as a man, woman, child etc. 
I actually enjoyed this movie more then I thought. I thought it was pretty good especially when it came to the acting or dynamic with these characters. I know with some characters I found myself intrigued and wanting to know about their backstory. It was quite gory with there fight scenes but I feel it was needed to portray war the best the filmmakers could. But even with this seriousness of war there were still moments in the film that were funny, which I didn’t expect. Ironic how the dogs didn’t even want to come back to the original owner (the general?) even when the man called them and then the “Ghost” took the dogs back, quite funny. Also when they pulled off the “I have your soldiers” but they were actually dummies again I felt like it kept the viewer engaged with the film. - Paula Perez

The movie worked as a good primary source in my opinion because it portrayed both sides lining up to shoot each other, the discrimination but also incentives for African Americans to fight in the war, the brutality of the war, and the reasons for the Neutrals to turn to Patriots. I also feel that the movie properly shared perspectives of civilians and colonists towards the British during this time period. The biggest historical inaccuracy that I can think of is the fact that the movie did not portray the importance of African Americans during this time, for both sides of the war but also it did not show the abuse towards them during this time. I think the movie works as a good secondary source because it portrays how in the time period the movie was created, there was not much awareness of the importance of African Americans during this time period and even if there was, it was “sugar coated” as we see when the African Americans say that they are “free” throughout most the fim (rather than the director showing the brutal honesty of how many were enslaved). Overall, I did enjoy the film and found it to be the most historically accurate film from what I have seen in this class so far. Erika Lambert.

This has definitely been said before, but the portrayal of slavery was terrible. It felt as if the writers wanted the main character to be seen as a morally upright patriotic man. Therefore, they made it seem like the enslaved people wanted to be working there rather than being forced. Obviously, that is not at all how slavery worked. - Neonya

I have to agree with Neonya, the portrayal of slavery was off. First, all of the Black people living on the main plantation were "free"... in South Carolina... during the civil war. It was most definitely a ploy/plot hole made by the writers, just like the heartfelt scene at the end where the newly freed slave stayed to fight and the farmer who had been harassing him the whole movie got emotional. Also, I do not know how legal it would have been for the Aunt to own her own plantation. That seems like something that would have to be owned by a husband. I did however appreciate the little historical realism when after Anne was married she wore a wedding hairpiece to signify she was taken. -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

Edit summary

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