The Patriot

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.

"The Patriot", the story of an American farmer who fights in the War of Independence, is sometimes used, together with "Braveheart", as evidence of a supposed anti-British prejudice on the part of Mel Gibson. This is perhaps unfair to Gibson, who has gone on record as supporting the ties between Australia and the British monarchy (hardly the stance of a Brit-hating bigot). Although "Braveheart", which he produced and directed, was very much Gibson's own pet project, he was neither the producer, director or scriptwriter of "The Patriot". Indeed, he was not even first choice to play the lead. The producers originally wanted Harrison Ford who turned the part down, reportedly because he felt that the script turned the American Revolution into the story of one man's quest for revenge.

Because of its anti-British stance, the film was badly received in Britain. One newspaper accused it of blackening the character of the British officer Banastre Tarleton who served as the inspiration for the villainous Colonel Tavington. One commentator went so far as to say that it was the sort of film that the Nazis might have made about the American Revolution had they won World War II. Unlike some of my fellow-countrymen, I was not too worried about this aspect of the film. The total death toll in the American War of Independence was remarkably low, not only by modern standards but even by the standards of other wars of this era, such as the Napoleonic War. Nevertheless, in every war ever fought there have been crimes on both sides, and the War of Independence was no exception. (The rebels could be as ruthless as the British, but none of their atrocities are shown in this film). Some of the deeds attributed to Tavington may be fictitious, such as the church-burning scene, but in real life Tarleton had a well-deserved reputation for brutality, and was not only loathed by the American colonists but also distrusted by his own side. In the film the British commander Lord Cornwallis is shown as outwardly gentlemanly and honourable, but prepared secretly to countenance Tavington's methods. In reality, Cornwallis wanted to have Tarleton court-martialled; Tarleton was only saved by his influential connections.

I did, however, have some reservations about the way these events were portrayed. It was originally intended to make the film about Francis Marion, a real-life figure. Unfortunately Marion, although undoubtedly courageous and a skilled guerrilla leader, was also a slave-owner (as any landowner of substance in 1770s South Carolina would have been) and was therefore deemed unworthy to be the hero of a modern blockbuster (even though a TV series about him was made in the fifties). His exploits, therefore, are credited to a fictitious "Benjamin Martin". The slavery issue could have been avoided by moving the action to, say, New England, but instead the film gives us a wholly unrealistic picture of race relations in the period. The black workers on Martin's land are all free men, and black and white live together in harmony, with black soldiers willingly fighting alongside whites in the Continental Army. This sort of dishonest, idealised portrayal of slavery was at one time common in films like "Gone with the Wind", but I thought that it had died out with the growth of the Civil Rights movement.

(Incidentally, a reason why so many Southerners supported the revolutionaries was that slavery had been declared illegal in Britain itself in 1771 and they feared that the British Parliament would eventually legislate to ban it in the colonies. Needless to say, there is no mention of this attitude in the film. In later life Tarleton became MP for Liverpool, and a vehement defender of slavery. In this, if in nothing else, he and Marion had something in common).

My other reservation about the film's political stance is similar to Ford's. The film probably concentrated so heavily on British brutality because it is difficult to interest a modern audience, even an American audience, in the actual reasons why the war was fought. It is easy to make out an intellectual case for the principle of "no taxation without representation", which had been part of British constitutional thought since at least the Civil War in the 1640s. It is much less easy to justify the spilling of blood in defence of that principle, and Martin, scarred by his experiences in the French and Indian Wars, is originally shown as a pacifist, unwilling to fight or to support the Declaration of Independence which he believes will lead to war. His son Gabriel, however, joins the Continental Army, but is wrongly accused of being a spy and threatened with execution. Tavington, believing Martin to be a rebel sympathiser, burns down his home and murders another son, Thomas. Martin is forced to take up arms to defend his family and then forms a guerrilla band which he leads against the British. Despite the title of the film, however, Martin is not really motivated by patriotism; he seems less a patriot than a pacifist who has abandoned his principles in order to seek revenge.

The film is attractively photographed, although I felt that it sometimes showed a sanitised, prettified version of eighteenth-century life. In some ways it reminded me of "The Last Samurai", another visually attractive epic flawed by a dishonest approach to history and by excessive length, although I would rate it slightly higher, largely because Gibson makes a more commanding and impressive epic hero than does Tom Cruise. From the viewpoint of anyone without patriotic preconceptions, it can be seen simply as an exciting (if overlong) adventure film- my wife, who is not British by birth, was cheering on Martin and booing Tavington. Nevertheless, its approach to history never gets beyond a simplified story of heroes and villains. 6/10

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'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.

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.