This is an old revision of the document!
Table of Contents
- You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations each week. You do not need to post to all areas. – Dr. McClurken
- Write your post elsewhere and copy to here, hit save. – Dr. McClurken
- DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS – Please be careful as you add your posts that you are not deleting anyone else's work. – Dr. McClurken
How does this movie work as a secondary source about the past? What does the movie get right about history?
The Patriot (2000) generally functions as a supportive, monumental secondary source, much like Mann's The Last of the Mohicans, despite its romanticization of the French and Indian War, by portraying colorful yet brutal imagery of the Revolutionary conflict within the southern theater, particularly with regard to the Battle of Camden—although it is equally a mere blip in the grand scheme of the war effort and the film. The dual factions, headed by General Gates and Cornwallis (both significant military figures in their own right), marching upon each other, all with the relatively unaltered intention of showcasing the true extent of the British and Continental infantry engaging in a swift and gruesome skirmish. As well as to be, accurately, followed by the Americans' even swifter defeat as Cornwallis' forces “devastated the poorly prepared (Continental) army.” -Bailee Eberenz
For some of the flaws in The Patriot’s historical accuracy, it gets the bigger picture of the Revolutionary War correct. It accurately focuses on the British campaign in South Carolina as being particularly brutal in the context of the war. Many films about the Revolutionary War focus on the early war in New England, or on Washington’s army, but rarely on the war in the South, possibly because of the level of violence it experienced. While the film’s main antagonist is largely fictionalized, General Cornwallis is portrayed rather accurately, in terms of his path through the South, goals in defeating the Americans, and his eventual defeat at the end of the film. These are both fairly accurate historical points as covered in the film. Unfortunately, they are a minority among the details The Patriot gets wrong. - Hunter M.
Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?
How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?
How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?
The 2000s are rather famously known for their major displays of American Exceptionalism in the lead-up to the Post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan, aptly dubbed the “War on Terror”; films catered to that foundational cultural pride and related martial agenda. This is ably reflected in Roland Emmerich's The Patriot (2000), as it depicts the very genesis of the United States of America, its formation, and the correlated militaristic forces American citizens coveted in the 2000s period. It practically functions as a love letter to the American people's national pride. -Bailee Eberenz