The Patriot, revisisted

G

Golon67212

Inactive
I subscribe to The Federalist (www.federalist.com) and received this: (Forgive me, dear friends, if this was posted elsewhere in these forums.)

"If you love politically incorrect movies...go see The Patriot. It has some
left-wing movie critics in a perfect snit. Everything they hate is in
it."
--Charlie Reese


"This film is about personal freedom --
which many people take for granted today. ... It's a good thing that
historians are going to harangue this and say, 'It's not accurate.'
Good. It'll make somebody pick up a book."

--Mel Gibson :D
 
Did Mel really say that? Can you please cite the source of that quote?
If he did, then I can only say, "Way to go, Mel! You da man!"

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Golon67212:

It's a good thing that
historians are going to harangue this and say, 'It's not accurate.'
Good. It'll make somebody pick up a book."

--Mel Gibson :D[/quote]

Try doing that with the holocaust and see what happens Mel, or portray George Washington as having gay sexual relationships with his men or make a movie showing the Native American Indians as being bloodthirsty savages who deserved to be butchered.

B******t movie
B******t actor
B******t morals
B******t logic

I for one hope the British make a movie showing us all as paedophiles who were deported on the Mayflower, they deserve the right to fight crap with crap.

Mike H
 
MikeH...since you seem to be so in tune with the minds and feelings of the Brits, why don't you give up your weapons and move there?

For myself, I know several Britons personally, and all of them are VERY P.O.'ed about their weapons being taken away.

------------------
Mike
mnealtx@yahoo.com
 
Funny... I hate being played. But I didn't mind it this time. I know my training is taking root. I saw the horor the movie portrayed... and I kept making those same comparisons to our lives today. I saw the abuse... and the reaction to it. Yes it made my blood boil... I watched and saw the sacrifice made for our liberty. And I could NOT understand how so many people today ignore that sacrifice. I saw what was given up to stand for liberty. The issues they fought sound so much like the words we write today. Are we the revolutionaries of the 21st century? I don't know. But I know this movie sturred me. I know I will not treat my liberty so cavalerly in the future. If there was one thing that rang home to me from The Patriot... Freedom isn't FREE.

Aim small.. miss small...

Bubba
 
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/07-22-00/cultural_1.asp had some interesting comments on the movie. Here are some examples:
"As film critic Michael Medved said, the movie depicts "folks that Hollywood would think are 'right-wing Christian gun nuts.'"

But who fought the revolutionary war if not disgruntled, homeschooling, family-values Christian working men with guns?"

"The movie's portrayal of guns might offend Hollywood's current pieties, but it captured the spirit behind the Second Amendment and why so many Americans keep and bear arms: the primal imperative of protecting their families.

The media elite think the essence of freedom is the right to make pornographic movies, but freedom in The Patriot has to do with being liberated from controlling elitists. The cultural left thinks visual images are powerfully symbolic and so should be protected, but it hasn't a clue why the characters in this movie and in the audience would cherish and want to protect the flag."

"Since cultural conservatism is unfamiliar territory, for both moviemakers and audiences, the film might be forgiven its excesses. Conservatives need to realize that it is not necessary to idealize the past to recognize its value. And they should never adopt the liberals' conviction that truth can be reconstructed at will."

"Perhaps The Patriot will spark a new interest in America's history and its ideals, both in schools and in the media. And maybe Hollywood will be inspired to make more movies that resonate with "disgruntled, home-schooling, SUV-buying, family-values working" Americans, the ordinary Christian folks who, despite being scorned by the current cultural elite, were the ones who founded this country in the first place."

From an article by Gene Edward Veith.





------------------
Alexander Solzhenitzyn:
"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
 
I believe movie critics use (at least) two standards:

1) If they DISlike the movie:
- The names were wrong.
- The characters were shalllow and poorly protrayed.
- The film cost too much to create.
- The weather was wrong.
- It is not historically accurate.
- It is one-sided and defames (belittles, insults, whatever): (fill in the blank with the PC "victim of the moment").
- I take offense at: (fill in a series of PC insults).
- And (one of my personal favorites) there wasn't enough parking close to the theatre.
(Note the "re" spelling.... ;) )

2) If they LIKE the movie:
- It is just for pleasure.
- It appeals to many people on many levels.
- Thoughtful people will find much to admire in this wonderful performance.
- It has moral values we should admire.
- The character obviously was a blending of several historical people of great (intelligence, moral character, world importance or whatever PC drivel they haven't used since last Tuesday).
- We should learn from it's analogies and similies, etc.
- It never tried to be a complete and accurate historical account of all events of that period. We must consider what the film was intended to convey.
- (And, that perennial favorite) For viewers with an open mind, this film will make cinematic history!!!

======================

My "favorite" comments usually involve the critic saying, "Well, no, I haven't actually seen the movie because it is so bad I'm sure I just couldn't stand it!"

(To which I reply, "Then sit down and shaddup!")

Forest Grump

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
In my life I've seen many movies that were historical fiction. As a matter of fact, I'd wager that nearly every movie ever made about history will have taken 'liberties' with the truth.

The Patriot was a rousing movie that did take some liberties with the facts. But I think it was no further out of the ball park than most.

And, every comment I've seen by Gibson following this movie has been courageous. He has shown a strong spine throughout this experience, and I believe he certainly deserves the support of those who treasure liberty.

I'm a Gibson customer for life now ... and, we've long needed a fellow like this in the entertainment industry.

Sorry if you didn't like it Mike, but I strongly disagree.

Regards from AZ
 
Mike - I suspect from your Olympian vantage there hasn't been a worthy cinema release since "My Dinner with André."

Mind telling us prols what you do for cheap thrills?

------------------
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. -- Ambrose Bierce
 
I'll bet mike liked the movie Philadelphia!

------------------
"i do believe that where there is a choice between cowardice and violence,I would advise violence" Ghandi
 
Hey Mike H,

The British WHINING is not unlike the pot calling the kettle black.

The British film industry has a LONG and LIVELY history of turning out movies that are JUST as factually inaccurate.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Simon - That's not what I meant with my "Dinner with André" reference. I don't care a whit if Mike H. is gay. I found "Philadelphia" to be a moving drama, and I'm not gay. It's Mike's snootiness that I was poking fun at.
 
Lest we forget this important perspective: it's a movie produced by the entertainment industry and not a historical documentary.
 
If it's "just a movie"..then what's all this anti-British vitriol all about? If you don't have any enemies, then attack your friends?
And BTW...what's all this "WE kicked Brit butt" business all about? Last time I checked, the War of Independance happened over 200 years ago...seems to me that the best "WE" can do TODAY to fight a corrupt government's oppression is vote for a 'Texan' with the IQ of a crushed beer can...gee..wonder if Johnny Horton could write a stirring ballad about that... :D
 
Who said Britain was that good a friend? I wouldn't live in England for a million pounds. They have no real freedom of speech, freedom of the press or obviously any right to keep and bear arms. And if you talk to most of the people there, they seem to like it that way and want to export it abroad.
 
In our previous "Patriot" thread, I stated that I would submit some thoughts on light infantry. I humbly offer this for entertainment purposes only:

"Patriot" raised the issue of why infantry tactics of the 18th Century called for lines of soldiers to face one another at close range and exchange musket fire. Minimally it appears absurd by today's standards. When we consider that light infantry tactics (primary characteristic being extended order skirmishing and use of available cover) were well known in the New world (witness the defeat of Braddock's regulars by a smaller force of French-Indians and the subsequent adoption of light infantry tactics by the British during that war) and also in the Old World (Austrian irregulars forced Frederick the Great to raise formations of chaussers or jagers), the retention of the rigid linear formation deserves examination.

European military thought of that era was largely influenced by the most successful military machine of that time: the Prussian Army and its automaton like soldiers. Under Frederick the Great, Prussia and her army stood alone against Russia, Austro-Hungary, Sweden and France. Though bloodied, Prussia emerged victorious. The Prussian automaton who made it possible was not an innovation of Frederick but rather of his father who himself perfected earlier infantry tactics. What was already rigid became more brutal, incessant and demanding under the Prussian Army. The dividend was mobile infantry which manuevered swiftly into greater concentration for maximum fire and shock effect. Witness Leuthen where the training allowed for an oblique attack by Frederick's smaller army (36k) against a larger host (80k). It comes as no surprise for Seven Year War military thinkers to study, emulate and practice the techniques and tactics of Frederick the Great. And why not? It was proven to win battles.

How did light infantry fit into the Frederickan system? While it was seen as necessary to ward off the opponent's irregulars (skirmishers), light infantry was not the key to victory. Indeed, it was felt by some that soldiers in loose, open ordered formation could not be controlled by their officres and therefore, command and control would be lost during battle, with ensuing panic and flight. Any panic and flight could very well "infect" one's regular line infantryman. Light Infantry was scorned and seen as something lesser than a normal fighting man (Frederick once chastised a wounded jager who, hiding behind a bush and awaiting a chance to exact revenge upon the enemy. The King told the jager, "Stand up and fight like a solider.").

No military thinker of persuavive credibility had come along yet to champion the cause of Light Infantry - nor was it likely that one should emerge so easily. In England, as in many other monarchies, the officers came principally from the noble class. The notorious practice of purchasing commissions did little to ensure the professionalization of the military. Innovation was neither asked for nor welcomed from these officers. They had a comfortable niche in commanding their lessers and were not about to loosen the reigns.

It wasn't until the outbreak of the French Revolution when France, unable to assimilate into the line regiments the sheer number of enthusiastic volunteers, sent them ahead of the line troops to act as skirmishers. Their effectiveness forced other powers to recognize the viability of light infantry and of course, of riflemen.
 
Well, on the subject of tactics, I did think one scene in a field was absurd. Martin's militia arose from either side of an English column as it made its way through a crop field. The militia lines seemed roughly parallel, on either side of the English column ... arranged so the English were in a cross fire. But, that meant the militia were firing at each other as well.

Not having military experience, I assume this is idiotic. Am I missing something here?

If I were to lay such a trap, I'd rather have two lines of militia that connect at a right angle or a bit less, with the English column aimed at the apex. There would still be cross fire, but minimal chance of friendly fire. Better idea? (if my description was clear)

Regards from AZ
 
This was seen in Last of the Mohicans as well. In reality, yes, it would result in horrendous numbers of friendly fire incidents. especially in a world of black powder, where smoke would quickly overwhelm the field and make it impossible to see who you are really shooting at. Such scenes are foolish, and they should know better.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top