Movie"The Patriot"

[IronMike]

I've just finished watching the movie "The Patriot" again for the fifth or sixth time. Not a bad movie with lots of action and Ms Richardson isn't hard to look at. They've made an attempt at some historical accuracy. One can find vague simulairities with the movie battles and some of the real ones like Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse. Camden is also eluded to. I just think it's a shame that more movies can't be made that are more historicaly accurate. I think the history is interesting in itself and doesn't need to be scrambled and embelished to make it attractive. Morgan, Francis Marion, Green, Tarleton, and other principle characters in the southern campaign are colorful in themselves without the Mel Gibsons. I guess that a movie like that wouldn't be a good "chick flick" and few outside of ourselves would be interested. Of course I understand that the lovely Mrs. Green (Caty) "was attractive and vivacious". Maybe her character played by say Ashley Judd might attract the non history folks. I have also just recently watched the lastest remake of the Alamo again and I thought that it's attempt at what we know of that battle and the story behind it was VERY interesting so maybe it could be done. Billie Bob as Morgan ?? Who knows. I'm just ranting.

 

[geaugan]

I also just finished watching it again with my grandson. He is only eight so there is hope for him, but what I find most troubling is having to sit with him and saying over and over again, "that never happened." Wholesale slaughter of prisoners and sacking and burning of villages. Not much of that happened during the Rev. War since the hope was that we would all be one happy familyafter the war and the British won. Now what happened on the prison ships is a different story but it was 18th century warfare. I only wish that if Gibson wants to keep on doing "historical"movies that he would aleast preface it with a disclaimer that the truth has been changed to sell tickets. Some of our kids today only get their history from movies and TV.

 

[renarts]

Gibson should stick to the post apocolyptic fair that he's best suited for and stay away from history. Although Payback was good....

 

[Pete_H]

I'm curious to see how far over the top his "artistic license" will go with his new history-based epic, "Apocalypto."

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by IronMike@Jan 28 2006, 08:15 PM
They've made an attempt at some historical accuracy.


I just think it's a shame that more movies can't be made that are more historicaly accurate. I think the history is interesting in itself and doesn't need to be scrambled and embelished to make it attractive.

A feeble attempt at that.


The first goal of any movie is to entertain, accuracy/education is a secondary issue at best. The only real positives to come out of films like "The patriot" is to foster an interest in the period by getting viewers to look at books on the subject. It would be great to see a film stick to the subject as closely as possible without having to add some "fantasy history" so the film will have wider appeal.~Gary

 

[IronMike]

Maybe that's why the movie industry isn't doing that well. Maybe people want to be better informed rather than entertained. Who knows. I love good entertainment. Forrest Gump is one of my favorite all time movies. Not a true story but entertaining. Maybe it would be easier to swallow if they prefaced these wanna be entertainment histo-novels ( my own word) with "This ain't true. For entertainment purposes only." I think a good history movie can be entertaining if the real characters are played by good actors and attempt is made to get the feel of the period. The story of the period and the people are interesting why make someone up? My other impression after watching the movie again last night was that they seemed to put a lot of effort into the battle scenes, backgrounds, uniforms and clothing (except of course the fake "Green Dragoons" uniforms or whatever they were called). Maybe someday after I retire from MR Ltd I'll write a script. Hope I live that long. What do you think Gary? How about a remake of "Drums Along the Mohawk?

 

[JBoisson]

One little thing that bugged me throughout that movie (aka Lethal Musket) was Mel's muttonchop side-burns...I'm no expert in 18th Century North American tonsorial grooming but I'm pretty sure sideburns weren't commonplace until the First Empire/Regency/Federalist generation. A little detail like that can portend a lot of compromised accuracy. IRONMIKE--Hear, Hear on a remake of 'Drums Along the Mohawk,' also a remake of the Spencer Tracy Roger's Rangers classic 'The Northwest Passage' would be cool.
John

 

[JBoisson]

One little thing that bugged me throughout that movie (aka Lethal Musket) was Mel's muttonchop side-burns...I'm no expert in 18th Century North American tonsorial grooming but I'm pretty sure sideburns weren't commonplace until the First Empire/Regency/Federalist generation. A little detail like that can portend a lot of compromised accuracy. IRONMIKE--Hear, Hear on a remake of 'Drums Along the Mohawk,' also a remake of the Spencer Tracy Roger's Rangers classic 'The Northwest Passage' would be cool.
John

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by IronMike@Jan 29 2006, 12:18 PM
What do you think Gary? How about a remake of "Drums Along the Mohawk?

Mike, A remake of that could be cool. At least you could get the look of the period right...if you wanted to.

I'd like to see a higher quality (insert accuracy) film with less "big name" actors/actresses. There are a lot of great subjects to choose from and unless their is an independent film maker concerned with such things we'll never see them come to light.~Gary

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by JBOIS@Jan 29 2006, 01:59 PM
One little thing that bugged me throughout that movie (aka Lethal Musket) was Mel's muttonchop side-burns...I'm no expert in 18th Century North American tonsorial grooming but I'm pretty sure sideburns weren't commonplace until the First Empire/Regency/Federalist generation.

John

"Lethal musket" lol :lol:

John, Yeah they looked pretty dumb. In some cases facial hair could be another issue, but there were folks that no doubt had it. Mel's sideburns did not bug me near as much as the French guy's Cap'n Crunch hat he was wearing.~Gary

 

[Manfred]

"The Patriot" was nice as was "The last Mohican".
The one thing I found funny was the lead soldiers - they weren't from the 18th century, that's for sure
I wouldn't have spotted if the gaiter buttons weren't historical but that one was too easy :lol:

"I think a good history movie can be entertaining if the real characters are played by good actors and attempt is made to get the feel of the period. The story of the period and the people are interesting why make someone up?"

Agree 100 %. I think historical movies are "enhanced" because those who do them often don't have any understanding of the period at all. They hire experts and in the end don't listen to them.
Like in "Napola" a recent movie about the third Reich elite schools. They had a former pupil as techical advisor who later demanded to be removed from the credits because there were just too many distortions in the movie.

Maybe they are enhanced that way to get more audience who would rather look something with Stephen Seagal or Vin Diesel.

We get simple farmers discussing like todays doctors, shooting and hitting on horseback from 900 yards with flintlocks, flashing oil explosions for roundshot and other "enhancements"...

And when movies are syncronised for other languages lots of funny things get worked into as well by people who know their job but not the subject.

There was a recent european multi part series on Napoleon on TV. At the battle of Eylau Napoleon orders the guards in. Now in germany we have two words for guard. A guardsman is a Gardist, Gardesoldat someone standing guard is called Wache.
So even a female friend giggled when that Wache-sentence was said.

Sometimes unintentional fun happens as well. In the Jean d' Arc movie with M. Jovowich the german voice is the same as Barts from the Simpsons ( he is spoken by a woman here) and I always had to think about the little boy from Springfield :lol:

Edited for spelling

 

[garyjd]

Originally posted by ManfredL@Jan 29 2006, 03:36 PM
"The Patriot" was nice as was "The last Mohican".
The one thing I found funny was the lead soldiers - they weren't from the 18th century, that's for sure


Agree 100 %. I think historical movies are "enhanced" because those who do them often don't have any understanding of the period at all. They hire experts and in the end don't listen to them.
Like in "Napola" a recent movie about the third Reich elite schools. They had a former pupil as techical advisor who later demanded to be removed from the credits because there were just too many distortions in the movie.

Noticed that about the toy soldiers.

For "The last of the Mohicans" historical artist Lee Teter was initially hired as a visual consultant for the film to help give it that "look". Teter ended up leaving the project before the film was completed because of "differences" and does not appear in the film credits. Teter's paintings have that "gritty" look that fits the period.~Gary

 

[Dan Morton]

My oldest son's mercifully short stint working in the "entertainment industry" in Hollywierd taught me two things -

(1) The people that produce, direct, act, etc. movies regard them as "products", like breakfast cereal, women's hand bags or raw fiberglass sheet. No more, no less. It is all about buying and selling. Almost no exceptions. I'm not saying there are not artists involved. There are. But they suffer the system mostly and appear to influence it very little. And so it has always been. And very likely so it will always be.

The last historical movie I watched and thoroughly enjoyed was Saving Private Ryan, made by a group of already very rich movie stars, directors, and producers (if the spin doctors are to be believed) mostly to commemorate our fathers generation before they pass. God bless them all.

And please don't tell me if you noticed any historical inaccuracies. Allow me to live on in blissful ignorance.

(2) You have to be more than slightly insane to want to be in any part of the entertainment business. For cryin'outloud, it's worse than the restaurant business!!

All the best,
Dan

 

[garyjd]

Amen Dan, well said.~Gary

 

[geaugan]

One last comment and it will be "that's all I've got to say about that." I really don't care if the British dragoons have to wear "red" or it will confuse the audience, or that Springfield Civil War rifles have serial numbers or the freakin jacket had one too many buttons. What I can't abide is locking all the towns folk up in the church and setting it on fire, no "quarter" to "rebels", over-running a fort (Glory) when you never got within spitting distance, re-loading a flint-lock on the run, and similar departures from reality. There's is enough real history and heroism to make movies day in and day out. Just the other day I happened to come across a photo I have a a British Spitfire. Reminded of when I was a kid and one of my friends father's had flown with the RAF. Ever think of what it to took climb into one of those things, day after day and fly out over the Channel to fight off swarms of invaders.

 

[renarts]

For some of us, those wrong jacket colors, serial numbers and wrong flags are just as bad as the locking people up in the church, wrong vehicles etc.
In for a penny, in for a pound, I don't know if its the assumption (or fact) that we are too stupid to recognize that opposing armies may have similar uniforms or that trained dragoons will not throw away a ram rod (since they may have to reload again). Or that we as sheep will continue to feed the hollywood machine our hard earned dollars to pay for them to turn out more drivle that they'll get fat and happy on as they rewrite history. Personaly I'd like to beat Mr. Gibson and the rest of his producer/director/screenwriter buddies with the butt of a musket and sit them down and make them read some history books. But I'll suffice to trash their movies at every opportunity.
History has so much to offer and even some of the facts are good enough to make for some real good entertainment, including humor, irony, love stories, terror, mystery, suspense and action/adventure. They don't have to dabble with it. Helk most of the time you couldn't ask a screen wirter to come up with this stuff.
Take the Advocate. A great historical piece. 15th.c, the infamouos french animal trials. Intrigue, murder, comedy, suspense, love all in one flick and for the most part historicly accurate. Costume wise (except the gypsies from little egypt) on the nose. Its great stuff. Instead we get movies like Braveheart and Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, movies that have about the same accuracy and intelcutual paralells. (although the only saving grace is Sophie Marceau...rowr.)
Bottom line though. We crave mindless, sensory numbing imagery and sound, we want our heroes to be heroic, our villeins satanic and our heroines double D's in a wet chemise. Its all about the Benjamen's baby and the entertainment value. May the force be with you.

 

[garyjd]

Mike, Tell us how you really feel. Though I feel the same way we ALL have to remember that Hollywood is in the MOVIE/ENTERTAINMENT business not the HISTORY business. It is very rarely we see a movie or series that meets or exceeds our expectations. The big positive to come out of these films, both good and bad is the interest that it generates in people. So if that movie with the wrong Roman helmet or flag drums up interest in the period depicted, then it has done more than intertained the viewer..~Gary

 

[PeteC]

"Some of our kids today only get their history from movies and TV. "


That's not Hollywood's fault, that's our fault.

 

[Wlas]

Expectations should never be high when going to the movies. If it has a 'historical' setting and they get something right I'm mildly delighted even if the rest is wrong.
I dont watch a film in order to let my pedantry surface. Unless a film claims 100% accuracy I'm only going for the entertainment value. Gibson's films for the most part give entertainment and that's enough for me.
As for kids getting their 'history' from movies...and whose fault is it!? Well here in the U.S. we offer history by the teaspoon in our public school system. It's abridged, slanted and of little value since the Feds subsidize it and must 'approve' of each book.

 

[AJLaFleche]

Originally posted by Majnun@Feb 6 2006, 05:01 PM
It's abridged, slanted and of little value since the Feds subsidize it and must 'approve' of each book.

School texts are approved on local level, hence, what is used in 8th grade in one school system is high school senior in another. About the only time the feds get involved is when some yahoos decide to teach intelligent design in biology class instead of philosophy 101.
That said, I agree about abridged and slanted to depict US history (on this side of the pond) as the ONLY history and (at least when I was a kid) never correlated European events with events on the left side of the Atlantic.
Students here are not adequately taught that the English were involved with Napoleon in Europe at the same time they were fighting us in 1812, that the the F&I was an extension of the wars in Europe, that WWI was an extension of the territorial wars that plagued Europe for a millenium before and the root cause of the rise of Hitler and Nazism/Fascism was the restrictive Treaty of Versailles, and avoid US neutrality being more neutral to some countries than to others in the late 1930's.
Compared to that, Willliam Wallace in a kilt is pretty small potatoes.