El patriota

Whenever I see a film that is supposed to have historical basis, I am always a bit surprised to find out how much people complain about historical inaccuracies. I admit that I have done so in a few cases myself (Thin Red Line). However, in this case, I feel I must point out a few things.

All such films come with a disclaimer saying something to the effect that the characters portrayed aren't real and the story is just that, a story. For entertainment. Martin and Tavington did not actually exist, they are merely characters, possibly based (as has been suggested) on actual historical figures. I often wonder if such films as Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Rio Grande, or just about any western flick was judged so harshly when it came out as we judge 'historical' pictures today? Or any pirate film? Zorro? Any film with knights in it? It seems to me that unless you are making a documentary, the historical accuracy doesn't truly matter in detail. Certainly, I enjoy films better when they seem to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of a time (costumes, technologies), but I don't carp about whether some person existed. Even if they did, I expect the film to be untrue so I can be entertained. For example, most wars are not constant fighting. Certainly some battles went on for days at a time, but there is a lot of waiting and a lot of marching. Yet most war films seem to be battle after battle after battle, with no real respite except for the wounded. Not so. How about some facts? Fact: Americans fought against themselves during the war. Many Americans served with the British forces. Fact: There were in fact many atrocities committed by the British forces, rapes, property burning, etc. Don't believe me? Check out the history of what happened to the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, their families and their properties. That's actual history, not just entertainment history. Of course, this wasn't only limited to the British forces. According to Massachusetts history, the Revolutionary forces (not necessarily the armed forces even) were, um, not kind to people who sympathized with the British. The tavern recruitment scene suggests this quite well. Were churches actually burned with a town's population inside. Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly was dramatic, wasn't it? Fact: Literacy was not as common at that time as it is today. Many people, especially the lower classes, and slaves could not read.

Did Cornwallis have a pair of great danes that were 'captured' by the enemy? I doubt it, but possibly. Were slaves that served in either army freed after a certain term of service? Again, I don't know. (I am not even certain that slavery was allowed in Britain at the time. Indentured servants, I think yes (though the difference is slight, I grant you), but actual slavery, hmm. I'll have to check on that.) The colonies typically did form their own militias for local use. The americans did, as a general rule, fight using more guerilla tactics (especially early on, the american forces were composed largely of more militia than regulars, see below for comments on militia), check the accounts of the battle of Concord, and what happened to the British forces as they withdrew.

War is brutal and ugly. People die. Many of the soldiers don't want to be there. Militia, being less well trained and thus disciplined, does have a tendency to fight very poorly in set piece battles (check current and past arguments for keeping a 'standing' 'professional' army).

Ignoring the historical accuracies or lack thereof (and btw, Braveheart was not 100% accurate either, though the main characters , Wallace, Robert the Bruce, King Edward, did all exist, but again, I don't seem to recall people complaining so loudly about that) I found Mel's character to be believable and well portrayed. Yes, there were elements of Hollywood happiness in the film (the beach town, he workers attitudes, the romances) and Hollywood sadness' in the film (the massacre, the child's death), but it was very entertaining. I found many of the battles to be very realistic (okay, pistols WERE NOT that accurate and never have been) and sufficiently entertaining for my needs.

Overall, a very good film. Hollywood, certainly, but entertaining.

I was hesitant to see this movie due to the violence I had heard about. Yes, the movie is violent. But it is also fantastic.

I love Mel Gibson as a family man. He's always a great hero, but he displayed a warm, compassionate side too. His scene crying over his son will break your heart.

I cannot recommend this film enough. My only regret is that a PG version is not also put out, so that younger viewers can also see it.

I'm very surprised at the lower ratings here. This is a successful example of a movie which balances having fictional characters/situations take place in a historical setting while still maintaining some accuracy. Aside from that, the acting is solid and the effects and quality for a movie made in 2000 are top notch.

I have been a Mel Gibson fan since his very good Mad Max and his horrible Summer City. I loved this movie and it is in my top ten favorites of all time. Mel is very believable as Benjamin Martin who fights only after he looses one son to death and one son to the army. Heath Ledger plays Gabriel Martin who goes to fight for his country despite his father's protests. I know that not all of the facts are historically correct but this is a movie and did not claim to be a history lesson. The period is portrayed very well and the battle scenes are so well done that you almost feel you are there. This movie is very graphic in the battles and if you do not like the sight of blood and other realistic battle scenes then this might not be the movie for you. I watched the entire movie and did not realize the length. I was so engrossed in the plots.

Until the early 2000s, Mel Gibson's name was on the rise and synonymous with the box office. A fact driven by several successes with the public and even critics, such as "Braveheart", which earned him several awards, including the main one from the Academy at that time. Well, this title directed by Roland Emmerich directly evokes Gibson's feature, only changing the dominated people, from the Scottish to the American.

"The Patriot" takes place in 1776 and we begin to follow the story of Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), a war veteran, a widower, who fought against France and against the natives of the land, and understands the horrors of a battle. Traumatized, Martin seems to raise his family within universal anti-war values. With a gigantic family to raise, and young children to look after, Benjamin opposes the opening of an armed conflict with the British, for the independence of the nation, precisely to avoid yet another tragedy. And the character's motives are absolutely believable. However, the figure of his eldest son, Gabriel (Heath Ledger), appears as an obstacle to a more peaceful life. Gabriel Martin is a patriot and wants to fight for the nation, going against his father's wishes. And he will. It turns out that in the middle of the conflict he needs to return, injured. On this return, the British surround the city where Benjamin and his family live, and it is there that the British commit barbarities against his family, even killing one of his children. From there, driven by the feeling of revenge, Benjamin abandons pacifism and joins Gabriel in an attempt to build an army strong enough to destroy the British presence in the colony.

As a war film, The Patriot brings an important difference: unlike works such as Saving Private Ryan, Platoon or The Cannons of Navarone, which narrate battles that took place in lands far from the residences of their protagonists, this film shows a bloody dispute that , as Gibson's character observes right at the beginning of the narrative, was fought in the backyards of the Americans themselves - something that allowed their enemies to attack their opponents' families in order to lower their morale (it is curious to see the Yankees suffering the same types of abuses that would come to inflict on the Vietnamese about two hundred years later). The scene in which one of the rebels discovers his wife and child dead, for example, is dramatic and shocking, causing a strong impact on the viewer.

Incidentally, The Patriot is full of scenes like this - and there is nothing sadder than seeing a father handing guns to his children, still children, after instructing them to shoot at the enemy. Unfortunately, this is the reality of war, the most stupid and irrational way to resolve a basically commercial issue (in the end, it's always the money that counts). In any case, Roland Emmerich makes a beautiful historical reconstruction, being well advised by the excellent costumes of Deborah Lynn Scott (already a strong contender for the Oscar) and by the realistic art direction of Barry Chusid. The battle scenes are also strong and intense and - although they pale in comparison to the sequences of "Saving Private Ryan" - they end up shocking the viewer by their brutality.

The film demonstrates what happened in the first act, with the death of the youngest son of Mel Gibson's character. Which is shocking for its realism and its meanness to a child. What follows next is already known. The direction does not abuse violence, but uses strategic moments to use it, as in the great war scenes, in which the characters' heads and legs are cut off, but with some caution so that it does not become just blood and carnage. Brutal in the right measure, the film feeds, for two and a half hours, a powerful climax, which is the moment when Benjamin comes face to face with his son's tormentor, Colonel William Tavington (Jason Isaacs). By the way, Jason Isaacs is insufferable in this film, a worthy executioner.

The script, written by the same Robert Rodat of "Saving Private Ryan", is interesting and well structured, in addition to offering several moments that clearly work as comic relief - something practically non-existent in Spielberg's masterpiece. With that, Emmerich creates a film that, despite being "easier" to watch, causes less impact and has its drama diluted by the jokes. A good example resides in the scene in which Martin negotiates a prisoner exchange with General Cornwallis: amusing, the sequence makes the public relax momentarily. On the other hand, the naivety attributed to Cornwallis makes us take him less seriously, reducing the threat posed by his impeccable war strategies (besides, it's hard to believe that an experienced military man like him would accept Martin's conditions without even sending a messenger to ascertain the conditions of the officer's held hostage by the rebels). Another negative aspect of The Patriot can be found in director Roland Emmerich's constant attempts to manipulate the viewer's emotions in a Manichaean and unjustified way (proof of his lack of skill in the dramatic field): the sequence in which young Anne makes a passionate speech (but contrived) in a Church becomes embarrassing, clearly bearing the label of a "Hollywood moment": the music rises, the characters stand up one by one and everyone looks at each other with emotion. The result is ineffective and falsely ringing.

However, the big problem with Rodat's script is the villain played by Jason Isaacs, a certain Captain William Tavington: stereotyped and poorly constructed, the character is the personification of the "British evil" portrayed by Emmerich. Sadistic and arrogant, he takes pleasure in coldly killing his opponents and their families. To top it off, he ends up taking on some typical characteristics of Hollywood bandits, including indestructibility - only the hero will have the power to defeat him, of course. Unfortunately, by summarizing the American Revolution to the figure of a villain, the script loses its main focus: instead of following the development of a war for the independence of a nation, we are led to summarize our expectations of the dispute between two men, who end up personifying the "good" and "bad" sides of the dispute. Thus, when the two finally confront each other, The Patriot loses momentum and concludes with a rushed narrative about the outcome of the war.

Another curious aspect of Robert Rodat's screenplay is the neglect of the issue of slavery: the fact is that several important members of the American Revolution (including the man on whom Gibson's character was based) owned slaves, something that was completely ignored by the film (the only slave in the story serves only as an excuse for Emmerich to show how his militia colleagues come to respect his bravery). It would have been much more interesting if O Patriota addressed this curious paradox: the same men who fought for the nation's freedom denied this right to their slaves. Certainly, the film would only benefit from this new approach, which could perfectly replace any scene related to the love affair between Gabriel and Anne (Lisa Brenner) or Benjamin and Charlotte (Joely Richardson).

Despite everything, this new work by Roland Emmerich is quite effective, even if it forces us to swallow the exaggerated American patriotism (but what could we expect with this title?). In any case, I regret to see that the film could have taken even more ambitious flights, being able to repeat the feat of works like "Glory" and "Platoon", which definitely serve as excellent studies on the insanity of war and on the very attraction that Americans feel for everything involving gunfire and battlefields. If the plot is not innovative, it is very well filmed. Directed by Roland Emmerich (Godzilla and Independence Day), with photography by Caleb Deschanel (Anna and the King) and soundtrack by master John Williams (Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones).

The war scenes, despite the flying legs and heads, can't match the opening half hour of Private Ryan, both by the same screenwriter, Robert Rodat, and the hand-to-hand battles aren't as good as those that Ridley Scott either. Filmed with Russell Crowe in The Gladiator, but the film manages to excite, despite the excess of patriotism, as the title itself already shows. Mel Gibson's performance undeniably guarantees the film's heroic vibe, acting now with gallantry, now with violence. "The Patriot" is yet another epic that reaffirms all of its genre characteristics applied to Hollywood's vision of the history of conflict between nations, but which, on the other hand, delivers everything a war film needs.