O Patriota

"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

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.

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.

Just watched this movie for about the 20th time (I have it on TiVo) and for the life of me I cannot find the disdain many who have written here have commented on. Last I heard, this was FICTION - NOT a documentary; Ken Burns did not produce not write nor direct nor narrate this piece - Roland Emmerich, a man known for action FICTION did. Yes the depiction of the Revolutionary War was NOT 100% accurate but was never intended to be; just a drama set against the background of a war and it was refreshing to see the war in the background, whereupon American blood is spilled on American soil, was the Revolutionary War and not another Civil War piece; indeed, the Civil War has been played so many times in films over the past quarter century it was just refreshing to see a different war....

Being somewhat of a military historian I will say that the depiction of soldiers going musket to musket in the open field was indeed accurate; many may find it interesting to know that according to the gentlemanly practices of King George's army, both sides would also recess for tea at noon every day and resume the fighting afterwards - guerrilla warfare was not popular during the day which is why Gibson's militia unit was so overtly successful early on. That being said, the comments about the accuracy with the muskets are fairly accurate but I will say that I only see straight barrel musket rifles - none of the bell shape tipped muskets; the longer you keep a projectile on a straight course the more accuracy at longer ranges despite the lack of rifling grooves in the barrels (I spent time on Rifle Teams for 5 years). The prime inaccuracy I noted was when Tavington shot the rider (running away on horseback) in the back with a musket pistol at probably 40 yards or more - so unlikely, it tarnished the whole scene.

My favorite person - Billings; Leon Rippey's cynical, almost giggly snickering laugh completely stole the every scene where it was used and he is a long term favorite actor of mine; Jason Isaacs absolutely best screen villain of this movie (and perhaps in top 10 screen villains of all time).

I guess it boils down to "different strokes for different folks" we all have our opinions on this and I've aired mine.

Terrifically entertaining, if overlong and often inaccurate historical drama about how a warrior, played by Mel Gibson, avenges the loss of someone dear to him and helps win independence for his country, triumphing over a sneering English foe. Oh sorry, that was "Braveheart." Mel's **other** overlong and often inaccurate historical drama about an avenging warrior/patriot with a sneering Brit nemesis is pure Hollywood cheese. Beautifully filmed cheese, but cheese nonetheless. The inaccuracies are not the problem; the predictable plotting and tacky dialogue are. Did our forefathers struggle for American independence just so that their story could one day be told in the most cliched terms possible?