Talk:The Patriot (2000 film)

Bold text

There are some glaring grammar and spelling errors in this article. You did a good job capturing all of the critics' different views, but the errors are just plain blatant. Also, please lengthen the detail of each movie to close to the detail of the 2000 Patriot. At least add one of those information boxes with the movie cover and main actors. Use www.imdb.com to fill in the missing producer information and such. As a last suggestion, please organize the character analysis section and make it flow better. At times it seems like a 7th grade essay.

I added some details about the characters and what role they play in the movie --Tnguyen3 20:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added in more of the public reception and the movie info box--Lillysn

I edit a portion of the movie info box, and add new information into the public reception column.--Lillysn I rearrange the content, and edit the character analysis body, condensing the individual characters under the heading of character analysis.--Lillysn

I did a series of revision to the site. I added heading such as awards, actors' site, rearrange the orders of the page under the heading of Character analysis, added information into the controversial issues, and also trivia.Lillysn 03:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Addition of Themes and Character analysis

I did the character analysis and added themes and I will be adding movie bloopers I added some quotes and bloopers from the movie --Tnguyen3 06:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the character analysis to the discussion page until it can be cleaned up. It is unencyclopedic and very poorly written. When it is cleaned up, it should be restored to the article page. 155.84.57.253 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Crazy

I added a site directed to where the viewers could listen to samples from teh soundtrack, or to purchase the Cd, and i fixed the soundtrack section a little.Lillysn 14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I did some some enhancement and additions on the Plot summary area, hopefully this describes a little more detail into what happened. User: Romanom Edited: Tuesday 24 July 2007

Character Analysis

• Benjamin Martin

Benjamin Martin plays a centralized character in the movie. The film main focus is on the Martin family. Benjamin is spiritually scarred from his French and Indian war experiences, and is opposed to going into war. Benjamin has no desire to particpate in the war because he has a large family to care for since his wife died. In the end, Benjamin joins the fight so that he can keep his family together.

• Gabriel Martin

Gabriel Martin is considered "The Patriot." He is very patriotic about his country and freedom. By April 1776, he is eighteen and has impatiently waited for his father's consent to join the fighting. He shows defiance to his father by enlisting against his father's wishes.

Gabriel spends some time fighting in the North. He goes home as the fighting has moved to the South. He returns to his home as the fighting has come to the South. As an officer under Col. Burwel,he gets wounded near home and gets arrested by Colonel Tavington for spying because he bears dispatches.

• Charlotte Selton

Charlotte Selton is an independent urban women who supports the Patriots through various home-based efforts.although Charlotte is the the aunt of Benjamin's children. Charlotte acts as a surrogate parent to her nieces and nephews in Benjamin's absence. There is an attraction between Benjamin and Charlotte, but it is restrained

• Colonel William Tavington

Col. Tavington has a need for the approval of Genral Cornwallis in his actions. Tavington stives to gain Cornwallis approval. He known for using brutal tactics in war. Tavington is the chief nemesis of the Martin family sinces he kills most of Benjamn's family.

• Colonel Harry Burwell

Burwell served alongside with Benjamin Martin and John Billings in the French and Indian War. He is the leader of the continental congress and the continental army. He is friends with Martin and has a lot of respects for him, he also defends him even when he opposes him in dabate over Burwells plea for support for the South Carolina Assembly.

• Anne Howard

Anne is Gabriel Martin's love interest. Her family helps viewers see the perspectives of the people who remained at their homes and businesses. Anne's presence helps keep hope alive for a relatively happy ending for the Martin family. That is, until she is killed when the entire population of Pembroke is locked in the church, which is then ordered burned by Colonel William Tavington. In an earlier version of the script, she was with child, which would have heightened the emotion for Gabriel even more in his quest for revenge.

• General Charles Cornwallis

Cornwallis was born into new British nobility and spent all his younger years in noble circles. He purchased a commission in the British Army and then actually studied for it. He proved to be a successful and competent officer.

• John Billings

John Billings is an Indian fighter who fought fought along side Benjamin Martin in the French and Indian War. John Billings is rought and uncivilized and he personifies a savage brand of fighting.John Billings lost his wife and son by one of Col. Tavington's patrols and so him and Benjamin faces similiar circumstances. Billings has lost everything and eventually gives up by taking his own life.

• Thomas Martin

Thomas Martin is Benjamin Martin's second oldest son. He is a few years younger than his brother Gabriel and is unable to join his older brother in enlisting to fight because he is underage. He hates the face that he has to remain on the farm and not figh tin the war. He is like his brother Gabriel in the sense that he wants to fight in the war.

Historical Inaccuracies

The two biggest criticisms of the film were the portrayal of the British, and the complete ducking of the slavery issue by making the Martins unrealistically open-minded. As a tobacco farmer in South Carolina, the idea that all of the blacks working on Martin's farm were free and not slaves is ridiculous. The only explanation for that is that the filmmakers didn't want to introduce shades of grey by admitting that yes, the hero was still a slaveowner, and that the "bad guys"--the British--actually did free slaves who fought for the Crown.nmw 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's ok to pretend that the blokes who got the enigma from u571 were Americans, but don't mess with the revolution :) --203.206.64.106 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazed there is no section regarding the British. Church burning? Thats a line too far to take. Not to tar the americans with the same brush but I don't like the idea of people watching this a thinking British people are like that. Marcbaldwin27 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a serious omission. The film caused a furore when it was released and the section discussing the criticism appears to have been suppressed and removed. For the article to be balanced it ought to be restored. Lachrie 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

no mention either in this article of the likes of spike lee callikng for a black boycott.--Gothicform 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's because Spike Lee doesn't really matter. He boycotts anything that doesn't have a starring black actor.Zchris87v

I agree that pistols are depicted too accurate in the movie, but the muskets (not rifels!, rifles weren't used in this war) are not. Simply because the fighting distances are much shorter than they had been in reality. In the movie the lines progress until they are 40-50 yards close to the enemy and then they open fire, in reality they opened fire at 300 yards or so. Ther common ranges for muskets were 100 - 300 yards. At such short ranges as shown in the movie, muskets were highly accurate!! PS: And usually the British didn't let the rebels fire one volley, before self opening fire. .Kai-Arne Actually, the ranges used for musket volleys were between 40-50 yards. The musket was smoothbore and lacked any accuracy beyond that point. Rifles, having rifled barrels which spin stabilize the bullet were accurate to approximately 300 yards at that time. I will be removing the section on this in the article --216.6.189.132 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC) on this

-Well, you are mistaken, sir. I do know that muskets are smoothbore, I know almost everything about muskets and I have shot with them myself and I know people who have shot regularly. Have you ever used a musket, sir? I guess not, because you only repeat what most authors pretend. I agree that muskets are much less accurate than rifles like the Baker Rifle or even modern guns, but 40-50 yards for volley-fire?? That's like an execution. A good shooter is able to hit a single man from approximately 80 yards, he might even hit at 100 yards, but beyond 110 yards it's next to impossible. BUT, that does NOT count for volley-fire, shot at big infantry-formation!

Have a look at the musketry-trials at this page: http://www.irons-assoc.com/larry/musketry.htm

In very short (200 men firing at a 30 metres long and 1,80 m high aim):

75m – 60% hits, 150m – 40% hits, 225m – 25% hits, 300m – 20% hits,

Similar tests were done by Scharnhorst in 1810, results were quite the same.

So, you see: in theory 300 yards is a dangerous range, when 2 whole formations are confronted to each other. Of course these results are not to be achieved in a battle. Various factors like nervousness, lack of training, smoke, moving aims etc... would heavily reduce the muskets efficients, but we are talking about THEORY here. Therefore your statement: "Actually, the ranges used for musket volleys were between 40-50 yards. The musket was smoothbore and lacked any accuracy beyond that point." is not true, you see?

If 40-50 yards would have been the common range for volleys, the casualties would have been MUCH worse! In fact, they weren't THAT high in most battles. The reason is, that most volleys were shot from long ranges, 300 yards and even more! Not many muskets hit from a that long, at least not in battle. I have even read about the Prussian 18th century-army, that there officers sometimes ordered the men to shoot when the enemy was still 600(!) metres (not yards) away. But I have absolutely no idea what these "Officiere seiner königlichen Majestät" expected! :D

I would like to put my part back into the article but unfortunately the whole part about historical mistakes is missing now. :( What a pity, as the battles shown in "The Patriot" have nothing to do with real 18th cenutry-battles. - Kai-Arne

"The film has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies, including the alleged invention or exaggeration of British atrocities. Most criticized was a scene depicting the torching of a church containing a town's inhabitants." Shouldn't the word "alleged" be removed from the sentence, unless someone can present some evidence that the scene was based on real events? -86.133.247.156 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The events were fiction and invented by the film makers, alleged suggests that this is in doubt. There should probably also be some mention of how, in Britain, this was seen as a comparisson to similar nazi war crimes. There were stories in the newspapers in Britain at the time attacking Mel Gibson and the moving over this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.144.57 (talk) 19:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Although not as controversial as some of the mistakes, it should also be noted that Tavington's "Green Dragoons" do not fight as dragoons. Dragoons were mounted infantry, riding to the site of the battle, or a place on the battlefield where they were needed, would then dismount and fight as footsoldiers. The dragoons in this film seem much more like regular or light cavalry. (sidenote: rifles were indeed used in the Revolutionary War, but not as standard issue weapons. Guns like the Kentucky rifle had been around for some time prior.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varlet16 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti Semitic?

Is there any proof that some people see this movei as antisemitic??? By my knowledge there are no Jewish people in the movie nor are they mentioned. Or is this why? Jorgenpfhartogs 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please go see the film and decide for yourself. By the way, FYI, it's about the "American Revolution", and there are no Jews to be seen in it. ResurgamII 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sentence about "underlying themes of anti-semitism" removed. No citation or proof given. Zchris87v 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Themes?

Can anyone give a link or source for this? I'm no fan of the guy, but somehow i don't think he blame the Revolutionary War on the Jews.

Also, Mel Gibson didn't direct the movie, nor did he write the script. Why should he be held accountable for it?

First, be sure to sign your name. Second, I don't know how this film would be anti-semetic considering it has nothing to do with Jews or the Jewish religion/culture.ResurgamII 21:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition of South Carolina to categories

South Carolina films was added to the categories, because if you look it up [1] you can see that this movie, in its entirety, was filmed in South Carolina.Zchris87v 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Martin based on Thomas Sumter?

Does anybody know if Mel Gibson's character Benjamin Martin is inspired on the life of Thomas Sumter? (Caracas1830 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Mostly he is based mostly on "Swamp Fox" (Francis Marion). If you read about Francis Marion and then note the similarities in the movies, they are quite similar characters. Zchris87v 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie title?

I do have to wonder if there was any conflict with the movie title, as there was another movie called The Patriot released just two years before, and the movie had an entirely unrelated plot.--71.156.60.219 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism tag

I don't know who put the tag on, but I don't think the suggestions on it are quite what the article needs. The tag may be the best thing we have to describe the problem, though (which doesn't seem like it would be too hard to fix). If we kept the section limited only to describing historical inaccuracies, rather than railing on the movie or getting unencyclopedic in tone, it wouldn't really be a criticism, and would be alright (maybe an unencyclopedic tone tag would be better). Wrad 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the controversy section should be considered a joke and maybe removed:

1. Any movie that depicts any people being evil except the Nazi's will of course upset the people who are depectied in such a manner. 2. The move is set in the 1700's. Some actions that are now considered crimes against humanity were not considered serious crimes on the battlefield in those times. Being a traitor was still considered worth a summary execution in the battlefield. Also it was war. As we all know many things happen in war that are illegal and should not happen but do. I am sure that if there was a movie which depectied not the heroes of Bravo company in the movie Platoon but rather the soldiers of the Vietnam war who raped and decapitataed some of the japense people some of my fellow americans would be offended. The mideval times were coming to an end and the Third Reich was still ~150 years away. The people of that era did not hold the same moral value of todays society. They had a primitive moral structure and a primitive sense of justice. Attrocities happen and have happened in every war, by every side. 3. The movie does not claim to be an accurate documentary. 4. If you really want to write about all the controversy that the british press had made over the film, you might want to be accurate yourself and refer to the war in the controversy section nto only as "The Revolutionary War" but also as "The Insurrection" which is how that perticular war is known to the british. I will totally agree with Spike Lee's assement of slavery as well as others comments, however the movie did exactly what some of you commenting are doing: Applying todays values, comedy bits and feel good story to events that happened 2 centuries ago. All in all it is a story that is loosely based around events that happend in that war. Welcome to what sells in the 21st century, American, British, French and any other country that makes entertainment movies. I also see that this article is part of the wiki military history project. I suggest for accuracy and perception sake, that articles about movies be classified in the article header as fiction, non-fiction, documentary, documdrama (Which is what this movie really was), etc. This film was not factual history but a documdrama based on real events and should only loosely be a refrenced in wiki military history as a movie and not a historical document. --Richnep Feb 9 2008

If a film generated controversy, and it is noted in many citations and referrences, then it should be included regardless of your personal feelings which to be fair don't have any reason for being here. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Richnep, I dont know where to start with your post! Asside from the fact no one in Britain calls the war "the Insurrection" (a term for it I have never even heard before!), your arguement that "all sides do lots of bad things in war" does not hold water. The atrocities in The Patriot did not happen during the American Revolution. To claim they did is lieing. You say that people back then had a different moral code to people today, which is true, but how does that make made up war crimes any more true? You seem to be using generalities to cover for the fact that the movie makes claims for which there is no evidance. You are obviously okay with a movies that are historically inaccurate (and in this case poorly acted, predictible and too long), which is fine. But numerous other people responded badly to this movie and it did indeed cause controversy. To pretend otherwise is to be as historically inaccurate as this crappy movie!217.44.185.177 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Richnep

1. "Any movie that depicts any people being evil except the Nazi's will of course upset the people" ……..well the key point here is that the evil deeds were made up for the film, they didn’t happen.

2."The move is set in the 1700's. Some actions that are now considered crimes against humanity were not considered serious crimes on the battlefield in those times. Being a traitor was still considered worth a summary execution in the battlefield" well what’s your point, this happened in some countries during WW2, so what, just because you say times have changed doesn’t justify a made up story pretending to be grounded in reality, if this is a docudrama it should be based on truth.

4. "write about all the controversy that the british press had made over the film" ……critics from both side of the pond make comments about the inaccurate nature of the film, read the article to see the quotes from the US press. hang on lets just look at this whole sentence

"If you really want to write about all the controversy that the british press had made over the film, you might want to be accurate yourself and refer to the war in the controversy section nto only as "The Revolutionary War" but also as "The Insurrection" which is how that perticular war is known to the british."

Let me see, first off , how do I "accurate" myself? Secondly what does this sentence mean? if i really want to write about the controversy over the film then accurate myself over how different countries label the war of independence? Why? How will that help anything. I concur with the user above that this war of independence is now called the war of independence by all involved. How is or are any of the comments in this talk applying modern day values to the film, what users are saying is that the film is very biased and inaccurate in a way which is offensive to many people, including anyone effected by America's slavery and by the British. The film is meant to be about America's history but is insulting to many, as the hero of the film was of questionable character and a reputed slave owner. None of the above complaints against the film are based on anything other then fact therefore your strange defense of the film and idea to rubbish the controversy section baffles belief. Please consider the structure of your comments, make your points clearer and use a spell-check. Sams37 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)