The wife and I just got out last night to see The Patriot, and I have a question.
WARNING - The thread will probably spoil the movie - WARNING
OK - Here’s my question:
From the perspective of plot, it makes a lot of sense that Colonel Tavington is such a schmuck. I mean, Benjamin Martin needed a motivation to prod him into joining the battle against the British, and Tavington’s putzery was just the prod Martin’s character required.
But, from the perspective of history, how accurate is this portrayal? It seems to me that the manner of behavior exhibited by General Cornwallis and his other officers is more in line with what I learned about in History class: the Gentleman Soldier.
When my mother saw this flick, her first comment was, “Boy! They sure made the British look bad.” After seeing the picture, I concur.
I’ve got to believe that Gibson and company were spurred on to do this movie by memories of watching Disney’s The Swamp Fox, “only this time, we get to do it with real blod and guts, plus sex!”
A historical drama by the same people who brought you Independance Day and Godzilla. I’m willing to guess that it’s exagerated. Even the best historical dramas tend to demonize the designated “bad guys.” I wouldn’t trust these jokers to get the ending right.
What’s next, a historical drama by Luc Bessner? Nah, even holywood wouldn’t be that stupid . . .
–
“We can’t do nothing without a sword. That’s why they call us kenshi.”
Remember, this was the same Mel Gibson who gave us Braveheart, in which King Edward the First (“King Longshanks”) was portrayed as a brutal pagan baby-sacrificing Nazi communist devil-worshipper who instituted the jus primae noctis.
tomndebb, when The Patriot came out, I read that Gibson’s character was a composite of several different Colonials - including Francis Marion. Too bad they didn’t give Leslie Nielsen a cameo role.
Interesting hijack to my own thread: My sister-in-law’s family is mixed - Scottish and English. You know that whole bit at the end where Robert the Bruce turns traitor? Those are her direct ancestors (Bruce and Wallace).
She sat in the theater, embarassed, because her family’s sordid history, about which they’ve been fighting for hundreds of years, was played out on the screen in front of her.
Hijack continued: well my Fiance is very scots, but I am of mixed ancestry, including welsh, and I could just see my ancestors, the Davies (who fought as Longbowmen) saying “Faith, Blaith, they are showing their bums to us! - Yep, and I’m going to shoot one right in the ass!”.
Forgive the continued hijack, but I HAVE to respond to this. I’ve studied English history, and, unless I’m grossly mistaken there is NO evidence that Bruce ever betrayed Wallace. I believe they did meet, but weren’t close allies. IIRC, Wallace backed Bruce’s rival for the throne of Scotland, the Baliol clan (this is actually addressed very briefly in the movie, in the scene where the Scottish nobles are feuding right before Wallace announces his plan to invade England).
If I’m not mistaken, Wallace was betrayed by a man named “Monteith” or some such. Bruce had NOTHING to do with it. (I am also not sure that Bruce fought on the English side at the battle of Falkirk.)
It IS true that Bruce was a time server who switched alliances between the English and the Scots. It’s also true that King Edward I WAS known as Longshanks. There are hints that his son was homosexual or bisexual. That’s also TRUE.
HOWEVER, there is NO reason to believe that Edward II’s queen Isabeau and William Wallace ever met (She might not have come to England until after he was already dead).
Edward I did NOT die at the same time as Wallace–he outlived him for several years (he died marching to put down an insurrection led by Robert the Bruce).
At the end of the movie, the future queen tells Longshanks that his son shall not sit long on the throne. In real life, he reigned for 20 years.
Finally, the battle that Wallace won was called “The Battle at Sterling Bridge”. There was no calvalry charge, nor innovative use of spears. Instead, Wallace waited for exactly the right moment to ambush the English (of course, this makes for far less drama).
Braveheart was an excellent and entertaining movie. But as far as realistically depicting history goes, it’s right up there with 1941.
Whoops, another example of the dangers of late-night posting. Sorry.
BTW, The Patriot went down over here in the UK like a lead balloon. Amazingly, enough people watched it during its first week of release to put it in the top 10 movies. What were they thinking?
