"The AWI According To Mel Gibson Question" Topic

Recently the IFC Cable network played (and replayed) Mel Gibson's hysterical masterpiece, The Patriot" and I caught something during the firing line shots (Pun intended) that seemed odd. Mel's attention to detail has been discussed on TMP many times before but never seems to run out of "Gotcha" scenes… or 10. As the camera panned along both armies you can clearly see the soldiers/reenactors/extras looking aay as they pulled the trigger. I get the old saying about smooth-bore muskets, that "…the safest man on the battlefield was the one they were aiming at Did the soldiers understand that they only needed to point their weapon in the enemy's general direction and so shielded their eye(s) from the flash in the pan or is it a case of 21st Cent. people firing a musket they aren't familiar with and therefore a little frightened of?. Or maybe both? It happens quite frequently along the lines of both sides and in just about every scene showing massed fire.
Just thought I'd ask.

Thanks all

Karl

It was not really possible to properly aim the common musket, as it had no back sight. The best one could do was look along the top of the barrel, using the bayonet lug as a rudimentary front sight. Consequently it was general practice to merely "present" (point the musket in the general direction of the enemy and bang away). The Prussian Army went so far as to actually prohibit aiming, since it would only slow down the rate of fire.

As to the behavior of the "troops" in the movie, I can only guess that many of them were just extras, not re-enactors, so they may indeed have been somewhat scared of their weapons. There is a safety problem with firing flintlocks, in that bits of flint shear off when it strikes the frizzen, and those bits can strike one in the eye.

The Patriot is an entertaining MOVIE. I don't think the scenes you are describing were meant as anything other than the Hollywood treatment resulting in visual effects trumping historical accuracy:

"Many of the soldiers turn their heads when firing their muskets. Although the musket was an inaccurate weapon and this would have made little difference, by 1776 the practice of turning away when firing had more or less died out. In fact, the reason the soldiers here were turning away was because the director didn't think black powder made enough smoke, and decided to use a mix of black powder and magnesium (evident by a blue color to the smoke). This created more of a flash in the pan and made turning away rather a shrewd move."

Source is link

All assume this one was Mel's fault, but in fairness to him he only acted in it. Blame more fairly lies with the writer Robert Rodat (of Saving Private Ryan fame) and the directing producing team of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin (of Godzilla, Independence Day, 10000 BC and so on). They are why The Patriot is bad.

Mel's got plenty of other things to answer for in life, but this isn't one of them.

Braveheart on the other hand is mostly his fault.

They are why The Patriot is bad.

Who says it's bad? I found it very entertaining, which is what a movies objective is. To entertain. I enjoyed the battles scenes. And I liked it even more when the evil British
villian got his just deserts.

LOL

Who says it's bad?

Well, not you. That's one.

I hated that movie. Not as much as I hated Kingdom of Heaven, but almost. Both are behind Alien 3 and Prometheus in my Hate-o-meter, though.

Wow. I'm two for two. I thought "Kingdom of Heaven" was excellent, as a MOVIE. Tremendous battle scenes.

At least we agree on Aliens. I hate space movies.

I really enjoyed the Patriot and Braveheart. Of course I don't go to the movies to look for faults but to enjoy the "Movie" which I did. So there!

Here's the pertinent portion of the British drill:

Bring the Firelock briskly down to the Present, by extending the left Arm to the full Length with a strong Motion; at the same Time spring up the Butt by the Cock with the right Hand, and raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the Head, the right Cheek to be close to the Butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzle; keep the left Elbow down in an easy Position, and stand as steady as possible, the Thumb of the right Hand to remain in the Position as described in the third Explanation of the Manual.

The "extended version" of Kingdom of Heaven is superb, honestly; but I know of what you speak in regards to the theatre release version.

Mr. Gibson's comment on the Patriot: Its a movie. If you want to know what really happened, read a book.

In Washington's army the command for giving fire were:
Make ready! (cock your firelock)
TAKE AIM!
fire!

The men of the Continental Army were instructed to "aim low" to compensate for the recoil raising the muzzle of the gun. It is said that British troops prayed for rain before a battle as it made the guns worthless and the bayonet more effective.

They must have loved Pennsylvania

I saw Patriot once, and have no desire to see it again. But I really like "Kingdom of Heaven".

"Who says it's bad?"

I do. "Lethal Musket" was a wasted opportunity to do a good AWI movie; instead, we got all the stuff they made fun of in Sweet Liberty but we were supposed to take it seriously.

I like to think The Patriot is the movie they are making in Sweet Liberty.

+1 VT

Did Mel have anything to do with Kingdom of Heaven? If he did, that's news to me.

The Patriot was a movie with historical flavor. Some movies dealing with historical events are more accurate…..but it is hard to condense huge chunks of history into an edited film. People complain about things such as the atrocities committed by the combatants. I see no problem with this. There are documented incidents of both sides committing horrific acts against civilians and fighters trying to surrender. The Patriot showed both sides committing such acts. Seems to have caught the flavor of the conflict there.

I hear people complain about the lack of historical accuracy in Battke of the Bulge. I Found that movie cheesy, but many incidents portrayed in the movie are based on factual events….German commandos in US uniforms, German lack of fuel, the Attack scheduled for inclement weather to ground Allied planes, the desire to split the Allied armies, Hessler's Kampfgruppe mimics the activities of Peiper's KG, including the Malmedy Massacre, American troops defending a thinly held quiet sector believing the war is all but over and so on. Seems to have caught the flavor of a very large battle.

By the way, I found an answer for the OP's question….but that was ignored and the rants continued. How about ranting about that U-boat movie with Bon Jovi again….that never gets old.

But…but…but…
A BETSY ROSS FLAG!!!!!!?!!
My heart…

What gets me is the Patriot could have been just as entertaining if they got the history right. No need to enhance the gun powder or to use siege guns as field artillery with huge explosions. Get the uniforms and flags right and there you go. Why have such a low opinion of your audience? I think audiences would appreciate the authenticity. Why perpetuate myths?

Rallynow, In a country where 95% of the population can't name the third President, I highly doubt that there is a huge calling for accuracy in historical movies.

Check out the guy on Fox, who asks everyday citizens simple
civics/historical questions.
You'll see how much trouble we are in as a country.

For goodness sakes, they don't even teach History in most schools anymore.
And your worried about a movie being accurate?

"The Patriot showed both sides committing such acts. Seems to have caught the flavor of the conflict there."

Pretty sure nobody got burned in a church Oradour-sur-Glane style. That was way over the top and idiotic.

And they never really explained what happened at Fort Wilderness…

"I hear people complain about the lack of historical accuracy in Battke of the Bulge. I Found that movie cheesy, but many incidents portrayed in the movie are based on factual events"

Apart from making the Ardennes look like Fort Ord or Spain or wherever they filmed it. No massed tank battle occurred at the Bulge. Battleground is a much better old film on the subject.

Kessler's melting tank at the end was the limit.

Pretty sure nobody got burned in a church Oradour-sur-Glane style.

Ironically, someone did – Christianised Indians were massacred by Whig NJ militia at Gnadenhutten in Pennsylvania, when the militia got fed up with chasing an Iroquois war party. They were at least beaten unconscious with a wooden mallet before being dumped in the church (which was then set on fire).

I watched an interview with the director of the film, back when it first came out, where he talked about the color of the uniforms being wrong and the use of the BR flag. He claimed they did it because the audience would be confused if the should them correctly.
In other words he thought people would be to stupid to know that the bad guys sometimes wore Green.

"Ironically, someone did – Christianised Indians were massacred by Whig NJ militia at Gnadenhutten in Pennsylvania, when the militia got fed up with chasing an Iroquois war party. They were at least beaten unconscious with a wooden mallet before being dumped in the church (which was then set on fire)."

Forgot about that. Not mentioned much in US AWI histories for obvious reasons.

I was thinking more of the southern campaign and certainly nothing the Crown Forces did.

In other words he thought people would be to stupid to know that the bad guys sometimes wore Green.

They totally mocked this in Sweet Liberty--Michael Caine was playing Tarleton, but he was in a red coat. Alan Alda (the historian whose book they were supposedly using) asked why he wasn't wearing green?

"Because he's British" Bob Hoskins says.

"In a country where 95% of the population can't name the third President, I highly doubt that there is a huge calling for accuracy in historical movies."

Wow, what study are you getting that from? I would like to read it. But just for argument lets say it is 95%. All the more reason to get it right. If Hollywood keeps getting it wrong then how do expect people to know.

I went to see the movie Gettysburg for the first time. During intermission people heard my buddy and I talking about the movie and the battle and started throwing questions at us.

People are hungry for this stuff. No kidding they are. People want authenticity. In the museum field people tell us in survey after survey they want authenticity.

If people weren't interested in history, then they wouldn't go to that kind of movie in the first place.

Until "history" is seen by Hollywood as a nice basis for a script that must be edited to fit what the director feels is what the audience will pay to see, this is what you will get.

How many times do wargamers need to be reminded that they make up 0.002% of a movie's audience?
I went to see Gods and Generals with 2 friends. Guess how many other people were in the auditorium? 3.

Holy carp…Kingdom of Heavne, Battle of the Bulge…Christianized Indians were massacred ??? I was just asking about the head turning…lol.
clibinarium,I mentioned to my wife how Alan Alda argued with the "director" about the red uniforms while we were watching "The Patriot"