"Should Jason Isaacs and Tom Wilkinson be tried for treason?" Topic

Both stared in The Patriot. A massive anti british propaganda movie. Had the US and Britian been at war in 2000 they would have been shot For making enemy propaganda.

They are Brtish yet sold out their country for money.

Not Only that but Wilkinson has played Benjamin Franklin and Isaacs has played sevral american military figures.
Again showing their treasonous ways.

So Shot? hanged, drawn and quartared?

What are you talking about???

Did one of them play Tarleton/Tavington?
Hang him higher than Haman!

Yes, Isaacs was Tarleton/Tavington

Well, then the British would think he was a Good Guy. No harm done by their lights.

The whole movie was a crime against humanity.

Yes, and a casebook example of Hollywood's typical idiot alterations of what started out as a fact-based character.

Because fiction is always better than truth, especially if it's trite and hackneyed.

Sorry didn't hear a legend about Nazi war crimes in the awi until that movie came out.

But this isn't about the movie but the traitors.

So i ask again. Shoot. Hanged drawn and quartered? Boiled or skinned alive.

Or be merciful and simply banish them to the hell hole they love so much. America?

was a good romp, liked the battle field scenarios/re-enactments, it tried to grasp the point of civil war but forgot to show all but one loyalist and lots of rebels, when the part of the war shown was a civil war with the territories and Americans at each others throats, but you cant blame the actors for the ability of Hollywood to re write history, after all why let history and a more interesting story get in the way of a story written by an over paid writer

I think the major crime was the melting of soldiers for bullets

The battles are bad. No time in history did battles look like that. And especially not during the awi.

If anybody has watched sovereigns servant. The battles are more or less the same as the patriot. But with swedes and Russians. They even used the same totally wrong sounds for the muskets.

There has to be an actual bad guy (evil guy) or it would not be a movie! Have we forgotten the purpose of a MOVIE?
There really are no vampires, King Kongs, werewolves, Godzilla's, Darth Vader's -- no one in the wild west really looked like the cast in Tombstone with perfectly white collars, its pretend -- for fun -- make believe -- none of the exhibits at a museum have ever actually come to life at night -- have they?
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Vampireistan doesn't exist.

Great Britain not only existed. But still existed.

Cornwallis was a real person. Dracula wasn't

No but Martin Sheen should be drawn and quartered for his Robert E Lee.

yep I agree Russ the basic premise to entertain and it does that, when haven't you sat at a film and said what is that, now that's wrong but enjoyed the film -the exception being Alexander which I found tedious

Dracula was real Vald the Impaler Dracula means Dragon. but not a vampire (or so we have been told)

If we are counting on Movies to teach History we all all &*^% (*&%$

Wilkinson should get a medal. I remind you: he did the full Monty.

This was the last movie I remember walking out of. It was bad and only got worse.

They're just mercenaries, like all soldiers, we all start out full of good intentions and pride in our country, but in the end it just turns into a job. Actors are no different, they all want to work for the Royal Shakespeare company, but they settle for HBO.

For all its many faults, the movie "The Patriot" probably did more for historical miniature tabletop gaming than did "war" movies that followed: "Troy" "Alexander" "Fury" "Blackhawk Down" "Zero Dark Thirty" "The Hurt Locker" "Lone Survivor" "American Sniper" and others.

Once again, they are MOVIES -- the reality--- not DOCUMENTARIES ?
You mean all this money and time I have spent on putting garlic and crucifixes aound my home every night for year was just a waste !!!??? All because Years ago I watched captain Kronos the vampire slayer -- I so thought that was true ??
I loved the following
Tombstone =favorite
Quigly down under=favorite also
Brave heart
Gettysburg
God's and generals
The patriot =I really hated "Tavington" even though he was fictional.
Alexander the great =got to see a pretty neat phalanx
Tarus Bulba
War and peace -- all three versions I have viewed = warning = do not drink liquids during the Russian version!
Current TV Vikings series = it really reminds me of some of my Marx and swoppets toys when I was but a youngster.
Drums along the Mohawk with Fonda.
This is just a few that I really like, There are many more – to many to mention.
Now for a really bad one = sometime in the 70s I do believe,
Lee Majors in " The Vikings" ? Now that was BAD if you want BAD !!!!!
Regards
Russ Dunaway

PS. I am so glad I named my company OLD GLORY !!!

When you have the choice between the truth and the legend, print the legend…

Cornball slow-motion melodrama and pandering to the dullest moviegoer does not qualify as 'legend'.

Go Russ Dunaway!

If I attend three movies a year it is a high return year so when I attend I want to be entertained.

For reality I go to work at my day job in the Intel Community (would be a downer if I was not already cynical.)

Gunfreak,

But still existed

is both past tense and probably bad grammar. I think you wanted present tense, still exists. And more the pity about it still existing in some minds.

Both stared in The Patriot

I put that down to astigmatism.

"Or be merciful and simply banish them to the hell hole they love so much. America?"

Seriously man, you need to chill a bit.

Actually I like the movie, I also realize it is a MOVIE and not a documentary (although some of the History channel documentaries are fairly fantasy) so I don't get worked up and advocate murder of the actors.

It's not a movie its and anti British propaganda movie.

It's not like the awi isn't political already.

But I'm guessing it's fine if Germany makes a movie about an American platoon leader that burns down a church full of German civilians. Not only that but he got the go ahead from Eisenhover to do it. Perfectly fine to say Eisenhover condoned war crimes. After all just a movie. No reason to worry about german youths thinking American really did that.

I agree with Russ! It's entertainment. We are lucky to get any war epics at all. Otherwise we get Gods and Generals which I loved just because it was historical but it was so slow that the average person had difficulty with it and if that happens it fails to make money.

Embellishment is fine to a degree and we all have different limits. "Inglorious Bastards" was fun but killing Hitler? "Zulu" was great despite all the best parts never happened such as the counting of the guns, the sing-off and the farewell tribute.

i love the argument that they are "just movies", as in, even though they are the most relevant art form of the 20th and 21st century, they have no reason to be held to any standards. by that logic, all movies should be marvel super hero romps. they need not be thought provoking, challenging or inspiring. the entire study of cinema should be disregarded, since many great films just aren't enough fun.

but I was a film major, so am bias. the patriot was pretty bad, like most mel Gibson movies. and if you need to be convinced that truthful war movies can be fantastic, just re watch Band of Brothers. I know some grognards probably have picked it apart, but most reasonable people would agree that it was very realistic and very moving, exciting, and awesome. I watch it every year.

and as an American, I take no offence to this place being called a hell hole. it sure can be. but Britain has its problems too. at least both our countries have made some great films to think about.

If you are depending on movies for some form of enlightenment you may be in trouble? I never said that they could not be -- however -- I think in general that this is not there intended purpose? I find TV – for the most part a cess pool of muck -- is that film? Of course we can always depend on Fox news and MSNBC who will gladly give you the "unbiased" reporting one would already have a desire to hear because it strokes their own " unbiased" opinions that have been formed by only Noble aspirations?
Regards
Russ Dunaway

When is that German-made film about General Eisenhover coming out? That sounds pretty interesting.

the nice thing about the film medium is that it can be used for many purposes. certainly there are times when a film is meant to just be enjoyed. escapism has a place, for sure. but film has also always been a means to express more. its the new form of literature. the truly great filmmakers can even layer enlightening and thought provoking subtext beneath a very entertaining film (my personal favorite being Terry Gilliam, whose movies have a lot to say, and are a lot of fun to watch)

for me though, a historical drama has at least some responsibility to its subject. especially in modern times when its ok to deconstruct historical myths. I agree that a movie is free to take some liberties for plot purposes, though id love it if they didn't. but for the patriot specifically, it oversimplified these British men into more horrific villains than they were for the sake of an easy to identify "bad guy". I feel like we're past that as an audience, and we can accept a story where military enemies aren't "good" and "bad".

plus, it was a propaganda piece for a dead issue! the US and Britain aren't enemies anymore. I think, here in the US, the revolution is horribly understood and poorly taught. I cant believe, for example, that in this age of social justice and historical deconstruction, that we Americans haven't discussed that fact that the slaves and the natives might have fared better under British rule than the colonists. the Patriot was just another rehashing of a tired story, where the true story would have been far more interesting. but then again, Mel Gibson has proven his simple mind over and over agian

The other thing is that the title character was not even actually a Patriot. When his country men asked for his help he would not help them, as a real patriot should have done. Instead, he waits until his own personal ox gets gored to do something. It should have been called The Guy Who Gets Angry.

Shouldn't it have been called "The Insurgent" or "The Terrorist" or even "The Traitor fighting his rightful King and government" Oh the fun I had when I was attached to the USMC for a year, we had some great arguments but it was never taken seriously.

I do love that our whole nation was founded on treason. you British folks have no clue how woefully ignorant we are about our own revolution. Of course, I live in Virginia, where the American Civil war is still alive and well in the hearts and minds of people here. but even that subject is taught in its simplest terms, and any questioning is met with heated debate. I know that northern states teach the revolution a little better, but not much.

Dear Russ,

The truly Gawd-Offal movie with Lee Majors (and clearly slumming stars former Olympic Sabre champion, Cornell Wilde, and Mel Ferrer) was "The Norsemen."

This howling turkey, miles long waste of celluloid should have featured on MST3K before being cut-up into a worldwide supply of guitar picks.

Otherwise, while I agree with you to the extent that films should not be taken too seriously, and enjoyed as entertainment only, there is no escaping the fact that our younger generations are learning their history on and social media and movies, certainly not in School. What is being "taught" there curls my toes when I think of what I've seen and heard for sheer bias, ignorance, and the subtext that it's of no importance, anyway.

But in theaters and on TV, when they hear--and most effectively SEE--outright falsehoods, uncommented on, presented as fact, that's what they take away as their basic impressions of history, and commonly their country, their world, and humanity in general.

Hollywood's cynicism, tainted with Marxist world views of history, cause and effect, generally low opinion of religion, etc, certainly don't present a balanced picture of history--and as you said, isn't intended to.

But with no other real counterbalancing source of historical images and characters that can make equal impressions on minds that no longer read books, those Hollywood images matter and have impact far beyond what we are willing to see only as "entertainment."

You and I are not the only people in sitting in that audience.

TVAG

If one wants to see atrocities look to the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and its immediate aftermath.

As I recall Gibson is of Irish descent and based his portrayal of the British in 'The Patriot' on their actions in Ireland (if one wishes to see what would have happened in America had the rebels lost look to Ireland, although British conduct in Ireland and previously in Scotland may have been more severe due to the history of rebellion in both).

Don't agree that 'there has to be a bad guy' in a war movie.

Exhibit A: "Zulu".
Simply sets out to tell its story, without demonizing either side.

>Hollywood's cynicism, tainted with Marxist world views of history

You mean Hollywoods role in maintaining the capitalist-imperialist hegemony right?

Easy mistake to make though. The words are pretty similar. :)

WHAT !!!! No BAD GUYS !!!!! You must not have watched Hopalong Cassidy, Gene Autry,and ROY ROGERS = KING OF THE COWBOYS !!!
I will now assume that some people put way more trust in Hollywood, Actors, government, organizationsns, schools, politicians, or even the church then I tend to???
If you expect to get much more from this sort then entertainment, if you expect them to provide for you, teach your children, or care for you -- you may be expecting far to much?
Regards
Russ Dunaway

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Winston Churchill

In the movie Wimbeldon the American tennis player was the bad guy while the British tennis player was a good guy.In the Rock the hero is an ex British SAS and the bad Guys are former US Marine Corps.

The Hero can be from anywhere --same with the bad guy.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

The purpose of a movie is to return on investment.
This means putting asses in the seats.
This is accomplished when a guy takes his girlfriend to the movies, hoping to get laid later.
Plot and historical accuracy are irrelevant.

You want history? Read a book.

" that in this age of social justice and historical deconstruction, that we Americans haven't discussed that fact that the slaves and the natives might have fared better under British rule than the colonists."

Ha ha ha. Oh wait, you're serious. You do know what happened to those slaves that were taken in by the British army, right? They were sold into slavery in the Caribbean.

"I do love that our whole nation was founded on treason."

Aren't all countries to one extent or another? How many times have the Brits deposed the king and started over?

While he never burned a church full of civilian Tarleton was noted for killing those trying to surrender, 'Tarleton's Quarter' which may have been a kindness considering conditions on the prison hulks.

It never ceases to amaze me the vitriol directed at Gibson on this site. In two of his movies the Brits are the bad guys and some people just can't get past that. He's also made movies where South Africans, Turks, Romans, and post apocapalise nutters were the bad guys. Does he hate them too?

Nothing to do with any supposed anti-British bias on Mel's part.

TMP = wargaming site.

Military history = large component of wargaming.

People who produce material with a military history theme get noticed here, and receive whatever feedback the readership feels that material merits.

(Or, y'know, there's an aggrieved-Brit anti-Mel agenda at work. One of the two.)

I have no problem with Brits being portrayed as movie villains for the simple reason that we make the BEST MOVIE VILLAINS IN THE WORLD, bar none.
And at least while Mel's busy berating us, the Jews get a break.

And let's not dance around the subject: "Tarleton may not have burned a church full of civilians"?
More like "Any and all reputable historians agree that he absolutely did not".
And " noted for killing men trying to surrender"?
See, I'd phrase that as "lying wounded and helpless under his horse after being shot down during a truce, unable to play any further part in the engagement, during which his men decided not to trust any more rebel "surrender" attempts".

Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.

However, the Patriot's 'Not-Tarlington' is not half as much a travesty as its 'Not-Marion'.
The idea that the Swamp Fox had to be sanitised, made "African-American friendly" given a fictitious family-murder as his motivation and shoe-horned into some extra battles as if his own exploits weren't film-worthy enough is as insulting to his achievements as it is to the audiences intelligence.

Jason Isaacs and Tom Wilkinson should not be tried for treason -- they've suffered enough already!

I love Bond and Robin Hood and that the Bismark got sank to the bottom of the sea.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Why don' t you critics make a profitable entertaing historically accurate movie to show Hollywood how it is done?

Drip, drip, drip of sarcasm in the background.