329-2012--Week 4 Questions/Comments

Discussion of revolution
In one of the very first scenes in the film,'''the important townspeople are having a discussion about whether to join the war effort, and on which side. I think this scene did a decent job of offering the varying perspectives of the colonists'''. Only one Loyalist was present, but he did have a speaking part. Benjamin Martin offers the neutral perspective, at least initially. He describes his reluctance to go (back) to war, his desire for peace and calm, and also expresses a rejection of both a tyrant far away/many tyrants here. '''The script may have been a little hammy, but the sentiment seems realistic to me. '''Many "neutral" colonists must have felt that the conflict was a lose-lose situation. --Stef L.

Take a good look around andignore the accents that float in and out of the film from time to time and we discover that the colonists were arguing over why and how they should get involved in the war. One man mentioned that the fight did not concern his "colony," while others argued that it did indeed concern their new nation. There was even more conversation that appeared whenMel (who know's his name in the film) decided to help treat those who were sick. King Georges minions decided to burn down the farm and then kill a boy and then do amazingly "un-American" stuff. This really relates to what we spoke about in class about the loyalists and those who decided to remain neutral. What I do not understand however, is why women still had the opportunity to speak and convince an entire church to fight. That's rather unrealistic... then again, she's American ya? She has guts. And one more thing. '''Mel goes from Badass Brit Slaying MotherF***** into this plush Pillsbury doughboy in a matter of seconds. He needs a psychologist to deal with his mood swings'''.--JST

I agree with Stef. I thought that was a very well done scene. It conveyed the idea that not all colonists were on the side of the patriots. The film all did a good showing that one event can turn the colonists views of who to support. (In the case of Mel Gibson's character's...his son being killed and his home being burned) I felt that while it may have been a little Hollywood that overall it was well done. ~Kayle P

Benjamin Martin's reasons/reluctance to join & other tales of recruiting
Mel Gibson. I mean, can you say Braveheart? Clearly he can be a badass and a softie.'''Historically, I think this movie did what it needed to to tell the story. We need to sympathize and see ourselves in the protagonist, Martin.''' So they portray him as having a moral code higher than that of regular men. At least, in this aspect, they at least bring up how most people felt and acted at this time even if it is in contrast to Martin. Despite the everso-Mel-Gibson scene of Martin asking Occam to put his own mark down if he willing, people really did use slaves as substitutes. The most accurate thing I find about the movie is how Martin feels about joining the revolution. His boys want war, but he’s seen the death and destruction of the Seven Years War, and he doesn’t see why he should join in another one. He just wants to be left alone. It’s only after the British get on his lands, threaten his entire family, and kill his second eldest son that he decides that he won’t stand for it. But mostly, he’s just after Tavington. The movie probably got some of the hostilities to African Americans in militias right—but I doubt they would see the light and become an abolitionist by the end of the war. The guerrilla warfare was there as well as the local militia joining in on the Battle of Cowpens. The French eventually came, so that’s swell; at least the most skilled badass of the French army came first to help. -- Brooke

The fact that when they were in Charlestown the towns people mentioned the French and Indian War and the taxes the Colonists faced.'''I also liked when the men went to recruit for the militia they went to a very seedy tavern. The men in the tavern seemed to represent the type of men that Dr. McClurken described on Tuesday, as outsiders'''. Another aspect of recruiting that was accurately portrayed was the fact that one man had his slave fight in his place. This last one may be a stretch but Benjamin Martin making his own goods like the rocking chair may have been an attempt to represent the Colonists boycott of British goods. - Jason Milton

The movie mentioned the British appeal to slaves to enlist with the Red Coats in exchange for freedom and some money. Though the film avoided racist language and attitudes in general, it at least reminded audiences that it existed through Dan Scott (the redhead guy who was on "Grounded For Life") and his early treatment of the one slave in the militia, who was enlisted by his master which was also a common practice. -WD

Local militias were farmers and outcasts. Fighting away from home and leaving you property open to British attack didn't seem worth it. Many realized that they had nothing to lose after brutal attacks started. There was also a white man who had a slave fight in his stead. - Hannah Laughlin

Treatment of Civilians
In the film, the British soldiers burn the home of Benjamin Martin because they saw him as supporting the Patriots after he treated Continental soldiers. It did not matter that he also treated British soldiers. This shows how neutral parties were impacted by the war, always seen as lying about their position and then punished for this. '''Then, because his son is killed, Martin fights back, becoming a Patriot. '''This is historically correct as many neutral people chose a side after being attacked. Overall, the portrayal of the treatment of neutrals was accurate in this scene. -Amanda

I though the movie portrayed how the brutality of the British turned neutrals against the British by showing Cornwallis; anger at Col. Tavington for his brutality and turning those who might have been neutral towards the Patriots' side. It also showed the need for vengeance that the two sides felt when one would take action against the other especially when their families and homes were attacked. -Kendall

Bad redcoats, bad. They burned houses and killed with no thought of how it would come back at them. I guess they didn’t want to make friends.- Hannah Laughlin

This is perhaps a really simplified representation, thought Samuel's (I think? One of the two younger boys) line to his sisters about how the British "would probably kill us men...and do Lord knows what to you women" i'''s consistent with the sense of fear that civilians experienced alongside the conflict. '''I think the line is maybe played as an attempt to lighten the mood (for the audience) but with a grain of truth.--Mary Quinn

My real question concerning the treatment of civilians though is about the accuracy of the burning of full church buildings. We certainly heard in class that civilians and women in particular were the victims of violence, and also that there was a tremendous amount of property damage, so is the horror of that scene accurate?---Mary Quinn

Material Culture
 Most of the material culture seemed adequate from what I could see in the movie. At least everyone had the correct undergarments that gave people the right shape, although I doubt Aunt Charlotte would have worn her panniers while she was living in the slave community. I also liked how during the meeting in Charleston, there was a wide array of opinions included, not everyone was gung hoe for a revolution. Mel Gibson’s character could also be seen as a good example of how he was neutral but then the British destroyed his farm and mistreated him and his family as proper British soldiers should have and  that swayed him into joining the Revolution. –Paige

The clothing in this movie was pretty accurate, and it was nice to see the attention to details such as large floral prints being used for the women’s dresses. Like Paige, I appreciated the foundational undergarments being present, and although Aunt Charlotte probably wouldn’t have worn her panniers in the slave community, she would have had to pin or tie her petticoats up without the underlying support they were designed for. My guess is the filmmakers didn’t want to deal with that, and viewers wouldn’t understand why her skirts looked so bunched and lumpy over her hips. The way the militia fought (hiding, sniping, and using diversions) and the stern conformism of the British army were well portrayed. I was pleased that instead of having a gratuitous, unsupervised love scene like in LotM,'''the filmmakers included an awkward scene of bundling. This practice really doesn’t get much screen time in period films, probably because it involves more coverings rather than less, but it’s an interesting and important part of colonial courting'''. ~ Laura-Michal

The film does a good job of building a fictional story off of a historically accurate foundation. Like many of you have said, the material culture was pretty spot on, the clothing, the homes, and towns, and the weapons for the most part minus the exploding projectiles were accurate. The characters and events were primarily based off of real life people and events but with creative liberties taken, stray away from complete historical accuracy. --Mary O.

In the iconic final scene of the movie,'''Mel Gibson (in slow motion, of course) raises the Patriot flag and runs. I looked up to see whether or not that flag was accurate (circle of 13 stars and 13 stripes) and I think it was (1777 was the supposed date of the flag first being sewn). Anyone find anything different?''' --Ellen S.

It also seemed that the filmmakers tried to use as many period settings as they could, even if that abandoned Spanish mission was a little too convenient. But the house General Cornwallis uses as his headquarters is actually Stratford Hall in Westmoreland County, which belonged to Richard Henry Lee at the time. It was also cool that the final battle in the movie is pretty closely based on the Battle of Cowpens in 1781, led by Daniel Morgan, who was one of the figures Mel Gibson's character was based on.I liked that they also showed a Gullah/maroon community, even if the setting was a little off (also, does anybody else think a bunch of white people moving into a slave/former slave community might have attracted some attention?) -Carrie

'''The film's props and costumes appear accurate, due in no large part to the ease of accessing the real thing through the Smithsonian. For films that don't use that resource it just comes across as pure laziness.''' Better job on the French uniforms, however, the primary color of French colonial uniforms during the 18th century was grey (so I've read). --NJenn

'''I thought the inclusion of bundling bags was clever. That’s a little-seen detail of the period, though apparently, it was very rare to actually sew a suitor into bed''', they did use physical barriers to separate courting couples, while allowing them to still spend time together. The physical barriers were more of a visual reminder of propriety to the couples, as opposed to any actual restraint.'''I wanted to complain about the geography. I have NEVER seen any land around Charleston that is as hilly and rolling as the land we see around Benjamin Martin’s plantation, but apparently, the entire movie was filmed on location in South Carolina. There may have been some geographic conflation, but at least, it was all really South Carolina!''' - Sara G.

Realities of War
'''The violence and ugliness of war is portrayed really well in this film, an aspect that is overlooked in many others. The film is unapologetic about portraying war as it actually is. '''There is talk of "gentlemen like behavior" but this seems to be disregarded by both sides when the desire to defeat the enemy and survive come into play. The scene where Benjamin Martin goes to make a trade agreement with Cornwallis shows how little rules mattered in war. When Cornwallis asks Martin to stop targeting his officers and Martin replies with a demand to stop killing and violating civilians; Cornwallis retorts that he does not see civilians falling under the rules of protection during war.Although, hard to watch at some points the film does a really good job of putting the viewer into this ruthless part of American history. --Rachel T.

“Do lord knows what to you women” I thought that this quote was pretty accurate. We discussed in class how it was not uncommon for sexual assaults of women to take place during the war. I thought that it was interesting that one of the younger boys said it, showing how common that it was, since even a young child would know. ~ Kayle P.

The flag shown was the right one for the year 1777. It showed how the acts of the British troops could turn neutrals into patriots. Alsoit showed the patriots using guerrilla attacks on the British. --Olivia H.

I agree with Rachel. '''There was definitely a clear difference between the TNT version and the real un-edited version. '''The battle scenes allowed for the audience to really understand the intensity and harshness of war. But, these depictions of fighting were accurate. --Aqsa Z.

Gender roles
I thoughtthe role of women seemed to be accurately portrayed in the film. As a side note I thought the contrast between the loyalist women and those calling themselves Patriots was comical. The character of Anne and her speech earlier on rallying troops compared to the woman at the Cornwallis being entertained by the 'fireworks' - Pmccloy

I'm pretty sure I saw a woman nurse, but there were so many pony tails it was hard tell. If what I thought I saw was accurate that would have been an accurate depiction of what women might have done during the war. -Kendall

Um, slavery?
Slavery was cleverly avoided in this movie. While the movie did show some of the points we talked about, like the promises of freedom for joining, getting pay, etc, the movie clearly wanted to dodge the subject. We can’t sympathize with Martin if we believe he is a slaveholder who treats his slaves like historical slaveholders did, so the writers came up with an creative way to have African Americans present but make them willing “freedmen” who work for Martin. We see Martin working hard in the fields along side his African-American workers—he’s a hardworking man who plows the field! On top of this,'''I find it bizarre that Charlotte owned a plantation and had many African-American men working for her. While I understand there are ways in which women gained possession of property, the movie does a poor job of explaining how Charlotte came into her money. '''I know we’re supposed to suspend belief because these people are supposed to be special, supposed to be above the rest of society and tradition, but this irked me. Back to the slavery issue:the only African-American people we see are scattered about. We see one in the Patriot militia—okay I’ll give the writers that one in my discussion of what the movie got right; we see the “freedmen” (and woman) with the Martin family and with Charlotte; then we see the people living in a Gullah community (by the way, I thought they lived inland?). Despite the overdone romanticization of slavery and white people’s connection to it in this movie, the people of the Gullah community would not have just welcome in a bunch of white people with guns like it’s completely normal, like, hey, no big deal.I can’t believe The Help showed this uncomfortable interaction better than The Patriot. One last point: why didn't the kids age? The movie didn't make it incredibly clear with years, but I expect it was a few years? The "What have you been feeding them?" thing must have tried to convince us that indeed, they had changed by the end of the movie. -- Brooke

The slavery issue was not displayed realistically. The Martins would never have freed their slaves and payed them to work the land. The entire economy was based on slave labor, so Benjamin would not have used free blacks. He may have freed the slaves after he died, but only maybe. Another thing is when Gabriel talks with Occam about being free after the war is not accurate. As a Southerner, Gabriel would not have thought of it lthat way. He and Benjamin would have been a lot more like Dan Scott, the racist member of the militia. The film just used this idea of the progressive Martins to try and make them seem better and more patriotic than everyone else so we would like them the best. -Amanda

I agree with my classmates about the depiction of slavery being not accurate at all. It definitely seemed as if the movie wanted to skirt the issue. Maybe for the sake of simplicity they chose to not depict it accurately; however, omitting those details give the audience a glorified look at these white plantation owners--who, in reality, were slaveholders. --Ellen S.

Although it was a nice attempt to show how slaves could be signed over as substitutes for their owners, I don't think the movie really handled the issue of integrated units well. There's no way somebody who is as racist at that one guy (the one who reads the broadside) would come to accept an African American and "be proud to serve with him" in under 5 months. '''Also, just a random aside, I wasn't sure that the Martins had actually freed their slaves and were paying them; it seemed like it was something the slave said to try to avoid serving with the British. In either case, totally unlikely'''. --Carrie

In the movie Mel Gibson's character is very respectful to his labors and does not own slaves. In real life they probably would have been slaves and he would of made it clear that he was above them and basically owned them. --Olivia H.

Pretty sure there was only 1 slave in the whole movie, the others were free blacks. I suppose they could've been freed by southerners to make them seem more appealing in the movie. The maroon camp could also have been runaways. - Hannah Laughlin

'''Downplaying slavery in a period movie because it is still a sensitive issue is one thing. Nearly avoiding the issue entirely is a cop out'''. However, an interesting note is that there were freed slaves living and owning property in the South before the Emancipation Proclamation. This never gets represented in any form because people only view the issue in (pardon the bad pun) black and white terms, never in shades of gray. You would think that in the 21st century we would be able to openly discuss this part of our past. This was a poor decision by the director/producers/writers and one that Columbia Pictures should have addressed before the movie's release. --NJenn

Military problems -- also, um, slavery?
First of all, I like how a wealthy plantation owner in South Carolina did not own his workers, they were free men who worked the land…yeah right, way to skirt the slavery issue. Also Colonel Tavington, who is based on Banastre Tarleton was not a butcher as portrayed in the film, he also did not die in the film and returned to England after the War (not Ohio) and was received as a war hero until his death in the 1830s. Also the last battle scene, which was based after the Battle of Cowpens, began before sunrise and the British, when they were tricked by the retreating Continentals, pretty much dropped to the ground and gave up. There really was no period were the British were winning and Mel Gibson roused their spirits by waving the Betsy Ross flag and screaming at the top of his lungs. Although it does make for a good battle scene. –Paige

I would like to point out that surrounding a british caravan is never a good idea. While I have faith that your bullets might go where you want them too, but odds are they are more likely to kill each other than the RedCoats. "A dog is a fine meal" Anyway, you can avoid the Slavery issue all you want, but let's be honest. I strongly doubt that these dark men were working as free men on Mel's plantation of happiness. There was no optimism about slavery or that Slaves would be free after the way... impossible bolluks. Let's just say it. SLAVERY WAS SOMETHING THAT HELPED THE ECONOMY... HECK IT WAS BASED OFF OF IT. Brits have no hearts, no souls.'''I want to point out this film does a great job of portraying the ideal American Hero. The man who has lost everything rises above the fray to defeat the villains that haunt and try and quell the American dream'''. -JST

In the film, the Continental Congress creates an order for the slaves stating that if they signed up and served 12 months in the Colonial Army, they would be granted freedom and paid something along the lines of 5 schillings a month. To the best of my knowledge the Continental Congress never created such an order. Also, the use of grenade type weapons and exploding projectiles, like the cannon balls that blew up, is not accurate. Those sort of weapons were not used until the early 1900s. Not to mention a gigantic movie screw up, if you go back and watch the movie again, you'll notice that when Mel Gibson's character is paying the store clerk he pays him with a current $5 dollar bill with Lincoln's face on it...I didn't know "future money" existed, if so where can I get some? --Mary O.

Oversimplification/stereotyping -- also, hey, what about slavery?
The length. Other than that,'''the characterizations of the two sides were fairly static and almost cartoonish. '''On the one hand, you have the British officers, either heartless killers or vain, selfish men who are more interested in dressing for balls than winning a war (cue image of Disney’s Governor Ratcliffe, dogs included). On the other hand, you have Mel Gibson’s character- peaceful, hard working, respects everyone, somehow farms successfully without owning slaves, and dogs love him. But when pushed by injustice, he becomes a killing machine. Contrasted to Cornwallis, it’s obvious that one of these characters is a man, and the other only thinks he is. ~ Laura-Michal

'''General Cornwallis was not correctly cast. In the film he was portrayed as an older gentleman when in reality General Cornwallis was in his early forties. Also, Cornwallis was not present at the Battle of the Cowpens'''. During the battles the Continental troops would not be able to load their guns fast enough to keep up with the British forces. – Emily General Cornwallis was not correctly cast. In the film he was portrayed as an older gentleman when in reality General Cornwallis was in his early forties. Also, Cornwallis was not present at the Battle of the Cowpens. During the battles the Continental troops would not be able to load their guns fast enough to keep up with the British forces. – Emily

I biggest issue that I had with the film was the overall characterization of the two sides.Martin as a hard working landowner who not only had free men working his fields, but that he worked among them in comparison to the brutality and compliant nature to the rule and commands of those above them no matter what was being asked of them. pmccloy

'''The Revolution really was the perfect setting for a drama like this. It's an amazing underdog story, the kind Hollywood wasn't able to fully realize until this film. The film portrayed how royally (pun intended) the British progressively screwed themselves'''. Films have figured out that politics and economics don't work so well in action films (The Phantom Menace didn't figure this out). So, yes, the film portrayed the division in the colonies between the wigs, tories, and Mel Gibson. However, it dropped inconvenient facts (like VA mainly wanted out because they were in debt), and kept to a strictly emotional story where mostly everyone -- even those undecided in the beginning (whether for loyalty, profession, or Mel Gibsonism) -- seems pushed toward patriotism. It works for drama's sake, but doesn't match up with reality. -- Sam R.

Maroon community and other questions of race relations
I thought it was pretty magical how (ugh characters' names sorry) the racist man and the enslaved man in the militia got to be such good friends after a few months at war. And also pretty magical how Martin and friends didn't own slaves. At all. In South Carolina. '''When the children were dropped off at the Gullah community (how did they even find this?), Abigail welcomes them like her own, even though that family brought her more than her share of misery. The kids and Charlotte contributed exactly zero to this community, and expected to be welcomed.''One thing I THOUGHT the movie got wrong was the use of the Gadsden flag in the opening scenes. I thought, "No way, that flag came out at least a couple years later." Well, I was wr-wr-wr--I was wr-wr-wr ---the flag was ok.'--Stef L.

In the movie, Benjamin Martin takes his children and Charlotte to a village of runaway slaves located on a beach. In reality,runaway slaves were more likely to settle in swamps which are hard to access and make for good hiding spots. Also thought it was weird how welcoming and happy the runaway slaves were to take them in. -WD

'''Purely within the context of the movie, I could see the family being welcomed by their former employees, if they had not been enslaved previously and had a good relationship with the children and worked alongside Benjamin Martin, etc. But that was purely within the little scenario which the movie sets up. '''The whole development of having the Martin family escape to the Maroon Community is rather dependent I think on their not actually owning slaves and instead employing free African Americans, the accuracy of which I believe we have already questioned. ---Mary Quinn

Also, where are the loyalists or Native Americans (or slaves)?
There were several things that I noticed while watching the movie that did not correlate with the lecture from Tuesday. The movie only depicted one Loyalist Colonist that was fighting for the British army despite the fact that about half of the troops fighting in the south were Colonists. I also did not see one Native American in the entire movie who were also fighting on the side of the British. Also in class we learned that militias were usually only local fighting forces that stayed near their home why is a South Carolina militia fighting all the way up in Virginia? - Jason Milton

Along with everyone else I had an issue with the sugar coated portrayal of slavery'''. I also had a problem with how the movie did not portray more of the neighbor against neighbor aspect of the war that seemed to be a pretty big deal.''' There was a bit of it with Wilkins when he says his neighbors deserve to die traitors deaths for renouncing the king but that was pretty much it. The movie put a lot of the brutality and heartlessness on the side of the British, even though it portrayed both sides committing pretty brutal acts.'''I also had a problem with Anne's character. She seemed pretty ahead of her time. Were women active in promoting the war through speeches and such?''' -Kendall

Perhaps I remembered the map we saw in class wrong, but '''wasn't Charleston a port city and so predominantly loyalist? '''I liked how they definitely showed resistence to the Patriot cause in the beginning, though as someone else already said, Wilkins was the only real loyalist who appears in the film. --Mary Quinn

Why was there only one Loyalist in the film? I guess they didn't want to make more bad guys than they had to. However, there weren't southerners fighting against each other. In the movie Charleston was a patriot town..? - Hannah Laughlin

An interdisciplinary catalog of concerns
I was intrigued by the use of dialect and regional accents to separate the city people (Charleston) and the more back country people (like John Billings) from the British. We’ve seen this before in several movies, so'''I decided to try and understand when American English accents diverged from British English accents and I was quite surprised by what I learned. Though there is no audio record to document the divergence of the accents, this web site and this other web site do a very good job of explaining how the accents we now recognize as “BBC English” (Cornwallis/Tavington) did not emerge until several decades after the revolution. In reality, the British would have had an accent much more like what we now recognize as a “American General” accent. '''The regional accents we now recognize as southern (John Billings) and New England have evolved from Americans’ efforts to sound more refined and ‘posh’ by mimicking BBC English, which as I have noted, did not appear until the turn of the century. Still, it is helpful for the audience to be able to distinguish people by their accents.Also, while the ‘Betsy Ross’ flag was period-appropriate, it is unlikely that they would have appeared as prominently because most units (not just the local militia) used non-standardized flags, so there would have been a hodge-podge of representative standards. Once again, we see that weird conflation of American geography. I also wondered if we would have seen Abigail riding in the front of the carriage next to Benjamin. This seems like more of a current courtesy that today’s society extends to the adults. (You know – the adults ride in the front seat.) I feel like it would have been more likely that one of the older boys would have gotten the “shotgun” position and Abigail would have been relegated to the back of the bus.'''And again, we have my pet peeve: I don’t understand why they use real geographic names that are wrong instead of just using actual geographic names. For example, there is no Pembroke in SC, but there is one in Georgia and in North Carolina. There is an Asheulot River in New Hampshire, but the Ashley and the Cooper are the two rivers that flow prominently through South Carolina. '''And I can’t imagine that Benjamin would have sent his very young daughter alone with her even younger siblings on a wagon trip of over 60 miles to their Aunt Charlotte’s plantation, but that’s the real distance between Santee and Charleston. Finally, while the movie did do a good job at showing realistic battle damage, explosive projectiles were not used during that time. At best, we would have seen use of “hot shots”. - Sara G.

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
'The top grossing movies that came out right around The Patriot: Saving Private Ryan, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Black Hawk Down, Behind Enemy Lines''. It seems like the ‘Murica! or patriotic theme is pretty popular during this time.''' -- Brooke

I think the film places modern perceptions of family values, freedom, integrity, self making, and equal rights into the time period because these are values we want to hold onto as Americans and feel we can trace back to the Revolutionary Period . This movie idealizes the Revolutionary War, even though it does show many historical accuracies, so that people can be reminded of modern American values we wish to uphold. -Amanda

It seemed pretty far-fetched that Mel Gibson would have asked Occam "to make his mark anyway" just to be sure after his master had signed him over to the Continentals. There's fighting for your white "freedom" in 1780, and then there's trying to convince audiences that you're fighting for EVERYBODY'S freedom in 2000.-- Carrie

I remember the year 2000 because every war film known to mankind came out at that time. '''They all of similar themes of overcoming the odds and fighting for American ideals. Americans love war films (irony would have it... we generally hate war) because it tells us the story we want to see about ourselves.Americans don't like watching films that show us in a bad light, instead we like to see movies that show us overcoming the odds to achieve the impossible. This film helps for... err... White Guilt?? it rewrites slavery reminding us that we were not all that bad (just that one guy who's not related to me... ever hear someone say... My grandparents never owned slaves?). One thing I thought was interesting was the director made it a point to over exaggerate certain things to glorify the American Revolution as a struggle we all believe in.I think this film is one of many that tries to paint an idea of American realism. You know, the films that were not overly false, but the ones that paint things in a light that is not necsissarly positive'''. ---JST

I agree with Amanda. But not only that I thought the movie worked well towards rewriting a version of history. The role, treatment, and general feeling towards slaves/slavery. The values and perceptions of all the different parties involved. The villainization/disregard of the British, and hardworking nature of the soon to be Patriot "Americans" that places them in the role of heros. pmccloy

When the militia is about to be hanged the British are testing the nooses with sandbags and a trap door.This technique was not used until after the war and in the DVD commentary the director said they did it because it looked cool. The black powder also had a mix of magnesium in order to make a bigger flash, causing the actors to turn away after each shot which soldiers did not necessarily do. So the director admits to doing things for entertainment purposes. – Emily

I'm pretty certain that the reason they had Benjamin Martin not be a slave-owner (rather, an employer of freed African Americans) was purely because a modern audience would find it next to impossible to stand behind a hero who did own slaves. It came across as being kind of an clumsy way of dealing with a serious subject which needed to be addressed somehow. ---Mary Quinn

'''Even with the French as key allies, the movie took a lot of pot shots at them. The French are untrustworthy, effeminate, late to the battle and don't accept hugs. The patriot is good example of Franco-phobia in the US that gets coupled with patriotism a lot'''. On another subject, '''its hilarious to me to imagine George W. Bush watching The Patriot over and over again to convince himself to "stay the course." Is this phrase representative of larger scale American foreign policy blinders in the early 2000s? That's a stretch but worth mentioning.''' --Zhen Chen

Comments on the reading versus the movie
'''The primary sources we read for this week surprised me how some of the cruelties that soldiers had to undergo during the war were portrayed in the film. '''It seems that both in the movie and the primary sources, both the British and the Patriots were portrayed as men who do not follow the etiquette of war because they are both giving unnecessary injuries and treating captured men poorly, and sometimes even killing wounded men. It’s just that The Patriot dramatizes, or in a sense glorifies this violence. –Paige

Going along with what Paige said, both the film and the readings depict the ugly side of war. War is always accompanied with violence but the kinds of hateful acts committed by both sides portrays both sides as just heartless murderers. Killing for the sake of it seemed to make no difference, however it is interesting that the side being subjected to the unnecessary violence is quick to call out the others actions even if they partake in the same unjust behavior. The scene in the movie where the militia shoot the british troops trying to surrender portrays the same heartless behavior as the killing of wounded continentals being treated at the Martin house. --Rachel T.

As we learned from the reading and the movie the Revolutionary War was a very brutal war. '''After watching the movie I had a question about the brutality of the British forces. Was it common for British forces to kill women, children, and slaves and destroy entire towns or was this used to enhance the audiences hatred for the villain?'''- Jason Milton

The Partisan Warfare piece also mentioned how “quarter” was usually given, but not in guerrilla warfare, which is pretty much what the movie portrayed. -- Brooke

'''The partisan reading has the same archtype of the single enemy with a conscience. The one british officer who saved the horribly maimed man's life is similar to the British soldier who looked ashamed when Tavington committed his atrocities. They are mostly scum, but there are a few decent ones.''' - Zhen Chen