my 2 cents on the patriot

[Cory]

First of all, I'd like to mention that many people go to see these more "realistic" like Saving Private Ryan and The patriot not because they want to be entertained but because they are under the impression that these movies are historically accurate. My dad didn't go to see SPR because he wanted to be entertained or else he would've watch a movie that was actually "pleasant" to watch. He probably would've chose someting that didn't make cringe every 5 minutes because someone just got a limb shot off. He went to see SPR simply because he thought it would be historically accurate. I think it is a travesty that many people who will watch "the patriot" will feel the same way. I wanna point out that i don't feel that movie producers should be reguated in any way whatsoever, because to do so, would hurt our freedom of speech.

I do think.however, that it is the movie critics and historians RESPONSIBILTY to make a point of telling the people of the untruthfulness in these films. I also think educaters have a responsibilty to give students more than an overview of historical events.

Last year in my junior year of high school, i was required to take 2 semesters of US history. However, all i got was a very very weak overview of what happened. This is because the class is required to graduate ;therefore, it had to be easy enough for the "lowest common denominators". Needless to say, i learned very little from this class.

Today, i'm under the impression that people are taking more technical,computer related courses in college and fewer history, liberal arts, and humanities sorts of classes. Therefore this overview of history might be all they'll ever learn.

My point is that our education system needs to get good enough that people will be able to spot the biasedness and warped nature of movies like the patriot. They'd be able to do this because they have at least a jist of the way thing were during the time period, it would be obvious that the English weren't so nazi-like like they were portrayed in the patriot.

Thanx for reading

Cory

[NCrawler]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cory:

They'd be able to do this because they have at least a jist of the way thing were during the time period, it would be obvious that the English weren't so nazi-like like they were portrayed in the patriot.

Thanx for reading

Cory

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the English were such great humanitarians, then why did the colonies revolt? You can ask the Irish or the Scottish peoples how nice and pleasant the English were back in those days. I think that most people know that almost all movies are going to have a Hollywood slant to them, if nothing else, just to generate more money. Coming in here and saying that the English were not criminal in their behaviour towards their colonies is like saying that the Spanish conquistadors didn't really wipe out entire civilizations of people.

My opinion only...

[Doug Beman]

I think that college students are actually taking fewer technical courses and more liberal arts courses. The reason? Speaking as a history BA holder, it's because liberal arts courses are, on average, easier than technical courses. In liberal arts, much of the time your OPINION, providing you can defend it, is just as important as the correct date or name. In technical courses, it doesn't matter what you THINK about the answer, what matters is the ANSWER and you have to know it. No BS, no 10 page paper rambling about the intermingling of architecture and society in the 10th century Muslim world.

That's one of the reasons the US is giving visas to qualified engineers from literally anywhere in the world: American-born, raised-on-TV kids don't want to take hard classes, they want to take easy courses, get their piece of paper, and remember the parties and the stunts longer than the education.

DjB

[paullus]

Though I liked the Patriot, it was definitely heavy-handed. Everything the Americans did was justified by the absolute villiany of the English. There wasn't any grey, it was all black and white.

They could have lost an hour of screen time and not effected the story one bit.

[Bastables]

One of the interesting edicts by the ‘Mad King’ before he lost the colonies was a little ruling concerning Indian land. This edict essentially outlawed all future land speculations between subjects of the crown in the America and the natives. In essence it froze the live hood of several people such as your Famous General Washington, treaties with the natives be dammed eh? You chaps afterwards had a manifest destiny thing going on.

Perhaps you should also look to Singapore or Malaysia and see how they feel in remaining in the commonwealth or the success story of Hong Kong vs. the rest of china. Or why an Irish MP has voiced a thought that perhaps its time to rejoin the common wealth (I think it’ll be a negative the Euro will prove to be much bigger). I think you are Misinformed about the role of the Scottish in empire. Some would say that the Scots were more English than the English, remember all those jokes about penny-pinching Scots? Extreme Calvinism found a hold in Scotland that never existed in England. Just look to Adam Smiths work and his assorted contemporys during the Scottish enlightenment: The rise of Eugenics, many argue that without the strong Protestant worldview, racisms scientific expression eugenic would never have come about.

But perhaps that’s too complex. After all baddies and goodies make a better story for poor hack writers, well easier to formulate at least. History is never about goodies and baddies mate. But maybe if it’s easier for you to understand, well more power to you.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 07-04-2000).]

[MERC]

I think one needs to remember that hollywood has an agendas that will drive the content ($$) and message (political).

If you one is really interested in learning about history they should pick up a book. You can also supplement that with the history channel - though one must also watch out for the propaganda in some shows.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the English were such great humanitarians, then why did the colonies revolt? You can ask the Irish or the Scottish peoples how nice and pleasant the English were back in those days. I think that most people know that almost all movies are going to have a Hollywood slant to them, if nothing else, just to generate more money. Coming in here and saying that the English were not criminal in their behaviour towards their colonies is like saying that the Spanish conquistadors didn't really wipe out entire civilizations of people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

British violence towards the colonies was very limited, and very unusual. The famous "Boston Massacre" was often portrayed by the colonists as an intentional act of violence (the British are shown in battle lines, etc.), but was in reality a very chaotic few minutes that started when a few colonists began throwing rocks and ice at British regulars. No one is sure who fired the first shot.

Lexington and Concord are similarly blurry. General Gates had made the decision to march on Concord to seize a militia cache of gunpowder and ammunition, but was met by a few dozen minutemen (which, IIRC, he dispatched easily at both Lexington and Concord, where he proceded to burn what remained of the ammunition cache). Again, no one is sure who fired the first shot. But think of it this way: if the FBI learned that a militia was building a large fertilizer bomb somewhere in Minnesota, you'd be sure they'd do something about it.

The Colonies' chief reason for revolting was economic. In fact, the British really did not understand what all the fuss was about. The Colonies had been governed under their colonial assemblies (which provided direct, real representation) but, after Britain began a series of heavy taxes and other initiatives, ending in the "Intolerable Acts" of 1774, the Colonies finally revolted. The cause of the American Revolution was mainly the difference between the colonies sense of representation and the British sense of "virtual" representation, in which no geographical area had a specific representative. The idea was the Parliament represented the entire Empire, not specific areas.

The causes of the American revolution are much the same as that of Shays' Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion of the early American Republic under the Articles of Confederation.

-Andrew

[patboivin]

Well, at least the Americans managed to decide what to do with their country.

Here in Canada (and parts of what was to become the U.S.), the foppish French king just sold his colonies to the British to end a war with England, and French colonists had nothing to say in the matter.

[patboivin]

Oh, I forgot to add:

And then the British decided to exterminate and deport the French colonists of Nouvelle-France to Louisiana, or ship them back to France.

double

[ironcross]

you also forgot the americans importing slaves thus wiping out african tribes,the treatment of the french during their religous and revolutionary periods,the treatment towards the aborigines in austrailia,the treatment of the tibetans,what is the point of this thread?? ALL Bloody countries are guilty of wrong doing

[IntelWeenie]

For those of you serious about learning history-

Any Americans out there that want a non-Hollywood verion of WWII? Go to any VA hospital and spend some time with the vets who were there. They will appreciate the visit more than you can imagine and you will get to hear things you can't anywhere else. Especially fitting during this 4th of July holiday, I think.

[penubly]

As far as History goes, there are plenty of bad characters and acts to go around. ironcross is absolutely correct. Britain has plenty to hang its head about (India, Africa, etc), but the U.S. has just as many incidents and policies that would today be unthinkable (American Indians, Slavery, etc.) I never go to a movie expecting anything like objectivity and reality. I would love to see what Custer and his contemporaries would think of the way he is portrayed and thought of today. I would also like the British commanders from the Boer war watch "Breaker Morant."

History is mostly written by the winners, and is almost always slanted to the authors point-of-view.

As far as Education and Liberal Arts:

I have a B.A in History and taught in public high school for 3 years. Any class that is not an "Honors/AP" course is basically set up to meet the very minimum requirements. And I do stress minimum. I taught in the same school that I had graduated from 7 years previously, and it was a different world academically.

I left education for may reasons: low income and low top income, very low levels of competency among students and staff. There are just so many things that seem to be more important than education. I completely agree with what Doug states below:

<That's one of the reasons the US is giving visas to qualified engineers from literally anywhere in the world: American-born, raised-on-TV kids don't want to take hard classes, they want to take easy courses, get their piece of paper, and remember the parties and the stunts longer than the education.>

Once I decided to find a better calling, I quit, went back to school, got a low paying job to get me through, and now barely 3 years later I work for I.B.M, making more than what would have been my top possible salary after THIRTY years in public education. The classes were harder, but definitley worth the effort.

I would encourage anyone to go visit the VA. It is definitely worth the effort, and I think no one will disagree with the fact that veterans deserve our thanks.

------------------

Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.

[TieSolo]

I am a student at New York University, and an American history major. I plan on getting my doctorate so I can teach at a university level, but I would like to teach high school for a few years. The problem with American History in our public schools is that it is too focused on names and dates. We have to remember that most American History students are NOT going to be professional historians. Hell, when I was in high school I didn't know I wanted to be a historian. What is the point of drilling dates and names into a child's head when they are not going to come into use? It is much more important to give them ideas and have open discussions. The person that really knows history is not the one who can give you the date of every battle of the Revlolution, but can tell you why they occured, what the effects were. I hope I can bring some of this into my classroom.

Also, regarding the Patriot. I am actually going to go see it tonight, and I'm keeping an open mind. Listen, it may seem as though it is completely "Hollywood", but maybe less than you think. There were people with no slaves in the south, there were more people in the south against the institution. True, they often also had slaves, but it was a very hypocritical time. In terms of Mel Gibson's character, I've heard he is against fighting in the movie. This is the more realistic depiction. When the revolution began, only 1/3 of the people supported it. It was NOT a people's war! People often joined up when something personal happened to them, not because they were interested in this idea of Liberty. It didn't matter if men in wigs ruled them from home or across the seas. Case in point, Mel's character states, "Why should I trade one tyrant 300 miles away for 30 tyrants one mile away".

In terms of the depiction of the British, this is a way of looking at things. You'd look at them like devils if you're family was a victim of the Wyoming Valley Massacre, during which British troops led by Butler slaughtered 360 defenseless men, women, and children. But compared to the slaugher of Indians by Americans, this seems like a moot point.

History is great because it is so open to discussion and rival opinions. Sure, Patriot may not be the best historical lesson--but when was the last movie about the Revolution made? Besides, if more Americans picked up a damn book and learned a little about history, it wouldn't really matter if a movie was inaccurate. That's the problem, we're depending on a movie to teach us! We have to let people know that the whole point of tomorrow is not fireworks!

[Cuchulainn]

See the last but one posting in the http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005337.html thread for today's Salon.com article about The Patriot and it's historical inaccuracies.

The original article is at http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2000/07/03/patriot/index.html.

I guess we have to live with it, but as someone with not a drop of English blood in him (in fact half-Irish, so my forbears bore the English no great love), I feel it sad that it seems to be necessary to distort history so to get a movie made.

Is there NO WAY that an historically accurate movie can be attractive to a wide audience and big stars?

[penubly]

Originally posted by TieSolo:

The problem with American History in our public schools is that it is too focused on names and dates. We have to remember that most American History students are NOT going to be professional historians.

I feel EXACTLY the same way. My experience was that students expected dates and names, and were very relunctant to discuss themes and and cause/effect. My last year, I moved to a new school and also coached soccer to help out the athletic staff. I had students telling me that I was too hard for a coach!! They wanted to know why I didn't make them read chapters and answer the questions at the end of each chapter!! In a whole year I only asked them to memorize 15 dates, covering the period from Reconstruction to the present day!!

[patboivin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by penubly:

Originally posted by TieSolo:

They, for the most part, did not want to think, because it was too much work. They wanted me to tell them what History WAS, and then they were supposed to spit it back to me verbatim. When I asked their opinion, it was too much to ask!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My wife just graduated as a teacher (B.Ed.) here in Canada, and she says the same thing about teaching kids.

She discovered too that sometimes, the "brightest" students (those with the highest marks in other classes) were the ones most reistant to thinking for themselves, to having opinions. Sometimes she discovered that the "troublemakers" had no problems analyzing the context, coming up with their own opinion on a topic, and being able to back it up properly.

When she mentioned it I thought it was really interesting. Makes me wonder sometimes if the right kids are graduating with honours, whether we are sending the right kids to university.

[Seanachai]

I went and saw "the Patriot" with my sister, because even before seeing it, we figured her English husband probably wasn't going to want to go with her. (Not after their previous experience of seeing "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" together in the same week)

As entertainment, it was alright, as history, it was a farce, and in general it was so heavy handed that a boric acid enema would have seemed subtle, by comparison. The movie starts out with some real promise, seems like it might be thoughtful, but by the mid-point it is so strident that it starts to become embarassing, and by the end I don't think they could have loaded in one more 'patriotic' or emotionally manipulative device without having to carry them over into a sequel.

As far as treatment of the British: if there was even a chance of war with them, this film could be used as a recruiting movie. The nicest portrayal of the Brits in the entire movie is when a juniour officer is depicted as an apologetic but useless lackey, resigned to carrying out murder and repression. For the English in this film, that's their high-point. To find villains more horrifying than their low-point, you'll have to wait for the Nuremburg Trials. Seriously, when this is released in England, we're going to see some serious unhappiness. To be fair, if the Brits had made a movie like this about some aspect of 'American' history, and then sent it over here, there'd probably be riots and summary execution of British tourists.

What can I say about Hollywood? Blockbuster movies are based on formulas, and the biggest formula is 'conflict'. The second step for a sell-out is that conflict involve Good Guys and Bad Guys, and the final step is that the Bad Guys be REALLY, REALLY BAD. Therefore, you really want to see them carved up with tomahawks and such. Blockbuster movies, by which I mean big money makers, depend for their success on excess and emotional manipulation. You hate the bad guys, you love the good guys. Violence is used to fill you with excitement or fear, sex is used to fill you with lust, and conflict is used to jerk the audience back and forth from anger to joy, depending on whether 'your' side is winning or losing.

And, right now, England's on the receiving end. Their turn to be the villains. The Russians have lost their appeal, and the Germans and Japanese have been done to death (although they can always be brought back on stage for one more rousing appearance). Maybe the Brits will luck out, and Hollywood will suddenly develop a burning need to chronicle Queen Anne's War, and we can all have a go at bashing the French for a while (Of course, in "The Last of The Mohicans" we still managed to treat the French more sympathetically than we did the Brits, even though we were at war with the French, and allied to the Brits). I guess we'll just have to wait for the tide to turn...

So, my final word: "the Patriot" is visually well done, nicely shot with flashy visuals and historical details. Some good performances here and there, a fair amount of humour, and quite a lot of action, although it drags seriously about 2/3s of the way through so we can have a few idyllic moments. Of course, their only purpose is to set the stage to jack up the violence and evil to an even higher level. In the end, the film is emotionally manipulative, simple minded, and strident. It spends a lot of time trying to capitalize on and then trump the violence and villainy it uses as the only means of carrying the story forward. I would have vastly preferred something more even-handed and thoughtful. Still, many will enjoy as it doesn't step on their toes with its message. I'm sure many Brits will probably want to judge for themselves, but if I were English, I wouldn't bother with this one. There's plenty of things in history to slam or fault the British for, as there is for every single nation or people I can think of, but you won't find them here. The English in "The Patriot" are cartoon villains, not real people. For that matter, the good guys are comic book heroes, with little more depth than the bad guys.

The very first casualty of this movie is any sense of the fact that you're watching a people break away from the nation that founded them, out of which could have come a lot of good and thoughtful drama. There's exactly one 'Loyalist' in this movie, a toadying Quisling of an officer who isn't even respected by the Brits. Nothing is made of the fact that, especially in the early stages of the war, it was for all intents and purposes a Civil conflict. There were 'Americans' fighting against Britain who had been born and raised in England, but had settled in America, just as there were those born and raised in the colony who supported and served with the English. But by the end, it might as well be a remake of "Independence Day", with the Brits standing in for the aliens(and from the same director, I might add), which is appropriate, for the motivations of the British in the movie are as unknown as if they'd come from another planet. You get the distinct impression that their whole purpose for being in America is because repression is some kind of English hobby, like golf, and America was just a very nice course.

Sorry for this rather rambling post, it's late, and it's been much to 'holiday' a weekend!

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 07-04-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

Thanks for confirming my fear and making up my mind. Looks like it's Chicken Run for me

[Blackhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Thanks for confirming my fear and making up my mind. Looks like it's Chicken Run for me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn straight!

Nick Park is a genius and he's British too.

It's a real pity The Patriot has turned out the way it did. It smacks of some of the propoganda war flicks made in the 40s, and that is NOT a good thing.

Hollywood, and Mel Gibson in particualr, should be ashamed for putting out a piece of crap like this.

[Magnus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe the Brits will luck out, and Hollywood will suddenly develop a burning need to chronicle Queen Anne's War, and we can all have a go at bashing the French for a while (Of course, in "The Last of The Mohicans" we still managed to treat the French more sympathetically than we did the Brits, even though we were at war with the French, and allied to the Brits).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(....)

------------------

Venez visiter le seul site consacré à Combat Mission en français : Appui-feu http://appui-feu.panzershark.com

[This message has been edited by Magnus (edited 07-04-2000).]