History and Film: The Patriot

Please respond to this initial prompt first. Then reply to 2 other posts students wrote on our discussion board that I will provide below.

There is a reading and a film required to complete this assignment. The reading I have attached to this order. The film is available on multiple streaming services. If you do not own one of these services I will provide you with a netflix account that you may use to view the film.

Here is the initial prompt:

Read the Review of The Patriot by academic historian William Ross St. George Jr., Journal of American History 87, no. 3 (Dec. 2000): 1146-1148.

DEBATE #3 TOPIC:

The film The Patriot is riddled with historical inaccuracies, some seemingly inconsequential, others that relate directly to important questions, issues, and events at the core of the American Revolution. The film review by historian William Ross St. George Jr. gives a good overview of these. There are also issues of historical accuracy related to how filmmakers told the story of the Revolution, many of those related to the themes and “rules” of this particular genre of film (which you detailed in Essay #3). Filmmakers typically read widely on the subjects about which they are making their films. They also routinely hire academic historians as consultants. So the inclusion of such historical inaccuracies and heavy handed shading of the story appear to be a definitive choice rather than the product of historical ignorance. Why do you think filmmakers include these particular inaccuracies and shadings? Are they done for purposes of simplifying plots, speeding the narrative, or plugging continuity holes so the story flows better? Or are they done to shape how we understand the event or how we feel about it or how we feel about the characters? How do those inaccuracies and shadings shape the story and message? What is gained and lost in the process? Is this a problem? Or something we shouldn’t worry about since “it’s just a movie” and no one really expects it to be accurate anyway?

USE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF HISTORICAL INACCURACIES FROM THE REVIEW AND SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FROM THE PATRIOT TO PROVE YOUR POINTS!

Here is the first post to reply to:

“There’s a rather simple reason filmmakers include these inaccuracies overall, in the sense of broad terms. To best explain it we can just look at the quote from Mel Gibson in this review: “If one were to adhere to historical accuracy all the way, you’d probably have the most boring two hours on earth” (1146). The unfortunate truth is that a perfect depiction of a history book isn’t very appealing to an audience, a truth made even more cutting when you consider they’d be paying for it. Since they’re trying to entertain and in the process make money, it’s not entirely surprising we lose accuracy for dramatic value.

As for the particular inaccuracies included within the film, it’s also easy to see why they were included. Having Benjamin not own slaves is a great way to avoid unnecessary criticism towards our hero, and makes him seem more likable–despite the fact no one in South Carolina would have had an arrangement like that. We also have the pointedly evil acts by Colonel Tavington, after all, “The atrocities committed by Colonel Tavington and his troops are highly exaggerated” (1147). The British are the enemy and we are meant to know that by how much chaos and destruction this one man causes, even if it isn’t historically accurate. The plot is meant to be good vs. evil and there must be no room for speculation that they are just other people, they are shown to be monsters. Both of these are obvious choices when considering entertainment value.

One interesting point is the lack of Loyalists, something I didn’t even realize until reading this review for myself. Ross states, “A significant sèment of the populadon of the Carolinas and Georgia remained loyal, and much of the fi^dng there was a dvil war between Tories and Whigs” (1147). Yet we only see one loyalist, captain Wilkins. I have a theory about this, and it has to do with the likely audience of the film. How many people today, in America, would sympathize with that? We are so far removed from a world where loyalty to the crown would seem reasonable and desirable that the inclusion of those characters would be confusing. In a film about our revolution why would we want to see Americans fighting Americans? (save that for civil war films) No, the loyalists complicate the narrative and they can be removed to the betterment of the desired narrative.

We of course lose some of what made this era real, but we also gain the ability to glimpse into a world we could not in a way we find pleasing. It’s a strange compromise, and honestly I’m not too worried about it. Film for entertainment is film, and the facts ARE known by the virtue of this very review. As long as the line between entertainment and education is made clear, then is it really a problem?”

Here is the second post to respond to:

“In addition to William Ross’ review of the film, I also found this quote from Roger Ebert’s review of the film interesting: ” It is rousing and entertaining, and you get your money’s worth, but there isn’t an idea in it that will stand up to thoughtful scrutiny.” The Patriot is an entertaining film, and it is certainly a good looking film, however multiple viewings of it lead to questions that inevitably pull it apart. William Ross brings up many issues with the film, from the central character to the portrayal of the British, to the lack of Loyalist representation, and they can all be succinctly answered by star Mel Gibson who stated: “If one were to adhere to historical accuracy all the way, you’d probably have the most boring two hours on earth, but first it’s entertainment and we’ve taken license with history to make it more compelling.”

I believe Mel is both right, and wrong. Trying to be completely accurate to the history would be tedious, and probably boring. However, when it comes to the inaccuracies of the film through the storytelling, and how the film presents itself as entertainment, I think there is nowhere better to look than at the director himself. If you are not familiar with Roland Emmerich by name, you are probably familiar with his filmography, which includes the likes of Independence Day, Godzilla (1998), 2012, and most recently Midway (2019). Emmerich is not a subtle or nuanced filmmaker and, for as rousing and spectacular as his films may be, they quickly fall apart under any sort of scrutiny. The ways in which The Patriot simplifies and dramatizes real history are part of Emmerich’s style, because he is a master when it comes to busting your local block.

In this particular notion, Emmerich does not make cheap films. The Patriot had a budget of roughly $110 million, and unless you are someone like Christopher Nolan, taking a risk in storytelling is going to be a big no-no to Hollywood executives. The decision to simplify the American Revolution in The Patriot was as much a financial decision as it was a stylistic one by Emmerich. Having good American veteran guy Mel Gibson give the hatchet beat down to bad British calvary guy Jason Isaacs who killed not just the men, but the women and children too, makes for thrilling and easy entertainment with a little bit of historical splash. I don’t think this is the sort of film you should go into expecting any sort of meaningful commentary on the revolution, or war for that matter. There are a lot of problems with the film, and there is certainly a lot lost with the way the film was created, however it is a beautiful and well made picture to experience. I think this is one of those cases in which it is “just a movie,” and nothing more. ”

Remember that you need to work source material into your responses. That means either evidence from readings or specific examples from the films we watched. You do not need to comment on grammar. Just comment on the content of other student postings.