around 99.9% fiction,
2007-08-18 18:10:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
To the extent that there was a Revolution, a struggle between American Colonist and British Soldiers sent by King George to quell the Rebellion. Aside from that - - - is it safe to say anything negative about Mel Gibson? I was once kicked out the Society for Creative Anachronism for criticizing Braveheart. When Braveheart burst upon the scene members of several Scotish Societies changed their histories of Williams Wallace to suit the movie.
That said - - - the basic conflict was epicted well, it was bloody & brutal in the Carolinas, but the whole Kumbayya bit with the 'darkies' was a bit much. And the mood was 'modern,' personally I did not get a sence of 'place,' it was more like watching weekend reenactors having a picnic in the swamp. A way better American Revolution Era Movie is Michael Mann's 'Last of the Mohicans.'
Peace......................
2007-08-19 00:56:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by JVHawai'i 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's probably most accurate to say that it's an alternate history of the Revolutionary War. There are a lot of composites used. For example, Mel Gibson's character, Benjamin Martin, is a composite of four different Revolutionary Commanders. The Jason Isaacs character, William Tavington, is (very) loosely modeled after the real-life Banastre Tarleton. However, unlike Tavington, Tarleton survived the war and was paroled back to England.
Several of the battles are composites as well. For example, the battle in which Martin kills Tavington is a mash-up of the battle of Guilford Court House and the battle of Cowpens.
The massacre at the church was not based on any Revolutionary War incident, and may have been inspired by a Nazi atrocity that took place nearly 200 years later. There were many lesser atrocities on both sides, however, and Tarleton was known as an unusually cruel commander. As an example, he once raided the estate of a dead Revolutionary General, and forced the man's family to dig up his corpse and serve him dinner.
So, it is probably best to say that The Patriot was "similar to" and "inspired by" the facts of the American Revolutionary War, but was hardly a faithful retelling of those events.
2007-08-19 01:06:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by El Jefe 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is a fictional story set in a factual setting. It no more represents actual events than Braveheart does. Mel Gibson was creating entertainment not a factual account.
Incidentally the film caused media uproar in the UK because of the portrayal of the British officer as someone who today would be termed a war criminal.
Personally as a Brit who has seen the film, and as an ex soldier I believe this was jus media sensationalism as is increasingly the case here.
2007-08-19 19:29:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I wondered about the same thing when I started watching it. Then I found it so sentimental that I stopped watching. Movies that play with the public's emotions are biased.
2007-08-19 00:58:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Letizia 6
·
0⤊
0⤋