"Worst American Revolution Movie?" Topic

I know Mel's star is pretty low at the moment, and though I liked "Braveheart" in my youth I see it now for the historical travesty that it is, it would not be fair to hold him primarily responsible for "The Patriot", though presumably he didn't disagree with its approach.

That charge can better be leveled at Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, the producers/directors, and even more so at Robert Rodat, the screenwriter. While no better might have been expected of those responsible for "Independence Day" and "Godzilla", the man who wrote "Saving Private Ryan" should be embarrassed by "The Patriot".

Sorry Early morning writer but after watching several decades worth of "historical" movies where the writers/directors drastically departed from the historical text, even though it wasn't necessary to do so, I can say from my perspective it appears most directors and writers don't care much at all about history. For them history is simply an excuse to dress up the actors in different costumes.

This isn't just a problem for us history buffs. A great many book fans I know will not go see movies about books they like because they know it will be butchered in production. OTOH when the movie producers actually care enough about the story to produce a movie that stays as true to the book as possible for a commercial movie, they can quite often do well.

All of them. The Bad guys win.

<<Go to the movies to be entertained!>>

That's the problem. I wasn't entertained by The Patriot. Its portrayal of the British as Nazis in red coats killed all my ability of being entertained by the story. And what lame story it was too! Even the scene where the whole people of the town is burned alive in the church left me cold. Mind that I am one of those viewers with easy tears! Every time I watch Toy Story 3 I can't avoid crying like a child… but I disgress! Point is that to enjoy a movie you should care for the destiny of the main characters and his/her loved ones (Gibson did a pretty good job at Apocalypto in that sense, for example). With The Patriot it didn't happen to me. The only thing I could remember when I left the theater was that I had spend my money wasting two hours of my life being bored to death.

Yeah, The Patriot used the violence and angst so casually, that half-way through the movie I quit caring for anybody in the movie. I blame "The Patriot" for why we haven't seen more American Revolution movies since then. It makes you care so little for the war by the end.

…and for the record I still love Braveheart despite the historical travesty it is. While similar to Patriot, The Patriot does wrong everything that Braveheart did right.

1776 is actually my favorite movie of the period. I love the songs.

"And to the British who don't like how they were portrayed – the point of villains in movies is to make them as nasty as possible to give the "hero" something to overcome. If you felt personally assaulted, I strongly recommend you forego any further watching of movies – any movies – in the future because you are not properly equipped emotionally to deal with what you might see. It ain't Freaking reality!"

This is the nub. Were a British filmmaker to turn out a movie about American troops – let's say in Iraq or Afghanistan – murdering, raping and looting indescriminately, the howls of protest from the USA would be audible in London. Yet when Hollywood does this kind of thing to Britons, some Americans scratch their heads in astonishment that some Britons are offended.

Here's the thing: not only Americans resent their national honour being insulted.

Bill N,

WIth the older movies, I'm right there with you, but in todays movie making environment you'd be surprised how many people care about getting it as right as possible. And you might also be surprised how many – and how big named – screenwriters consider what makes it to the screen from their work a travesty. Of course, when you look at the list of "writers" credited on a script you can get a sense of the problem. When one writer has a solid vision you can get a good story but when some wet nose, highly paid junior producer has to justify his or her existence they send out a really good script and proceed to have it massacred, sometimes several times, before it actually gets turned into a movie.

So, for all concerned, I hear your pain but you've got to realize there is a massive difference between history and entertainment. And, frankly, history is nothing more than a body of opinions unless you are reading original source documents which only a few are in a position to do to any significant extent.

And for the British who take such offense to their portrayal in Braveheart, yeah Hollywood makes some movies that even the people making it hold they're noses at. And to Redcoats argument immediately above, if you made a movie that didn't libel or slander anyone and stuck to the facts as they were known (within the limits of making a movie) I don't think you'd get as much "noise" as you think. We ain't perfect but I think we are a pretty tolerant lot most of the time as long as you can shut up the lunatic fringe in the media and politics, anyway. Unfortunately they get most of the air time.

But, again, movies are not history; they are stories, usually about people and their relationships that are sometimes set against the background of history.

History is nothing but stories! They are precisely the same thing. That is what most of Hollywood doesn't get. I know because I write the stories for a living. I am a curator of a national museum and I curate history exhibits and I can tell you that there are no better stories to be told, than from history. There is absolutely no excuse for not being more accurate and the real story is always more entertaining. But on the whole the film business just doesn't get it.

David McCullough was interviewed by Charlie Rose and McCullough was asked why he allowed Tom Hanks to bring his book "John Adams" to film. I am paraphrasing, but he had many offers from producers, directors, various studios to make a movie from his book and he turned every one of them down. Often times he could tell they hadn't bothered to read the book.

Then Tom Hanks meets with McCullough and Hanks pulls out a copy of the book which was full of post it notes and with notes written in the margins. The book had been used to the point of the pages falling out. He started asking specific questions about Adams and how he could make his book come to life. McCullough said that right then he knew this was the man to make the film. This link is not the Rose interveiw but it gets the point across.

link

History is about "people and their relationships." It is about the relationship between John and Abigail Adams, between Adams and Franklin, between Adams and Jefferson. That is what history is all about.

It is just as easy to get it right as it is to get it wrong. I know Hollywood can get it mostly right. I know because I have seen the movies where they have. For example the movie Gettysburg, (ironically based on a work of historical fiction.) While we can all find faults, the movie gets it mostly right.

It was entertaining and as close to correct as I have ever seen on the big screen. Heck they recreated Winslow Homer works! The 14th Brooklyn was in the correct uniform. The Irish Brigade had the correct flag. But most of all they got the story right. You can tell a good story and be accurate. Other examples "ZULU" "Das Boot" "Waterloo" "Glory" "Tora Tora Tora" (I don't care what Gordon Prange or any of the other authors say) etc.

Heck I had problems with "Saving Private Ryan" but the scene at Omaha Beach alone is worth the price of admission. "Midway" sure it created characters and added some back stories, but the film was mostly correct and entertaining. Yes, you do need a good story to go with the history, more accurately you need good script writing, direction and editing if not you end up with "Gods and Generals" but you can be accurate and tell a good story.

Would it have been that much trouble in "The Patriot" to have the British in the correct uniform? Use real historical figures and events? Not doing so IMHO is just being lazy or worst underestimating your audience. You have the reenactors, the story is there, just tell it!

In the "Patriot" the director or whoever did not want to use the small cannons that were historically used. So they acquired at great expense big 24lb cannons because they looked better. I don't believe the "oh we can't afford to be accurate" argument.

In the most recent film version of the "Four Feathers" the director put the British in all red and scarlet uniforms, this most did not wear in that campaign. Why, because the director did not want to confuse the audience. In other words they would be too stupid to figure it out.

The reason we get so worked up about Hollywood getting the history wrong is because Hollywood reaches a much larger audience than a documentary or a book. It has a budget and the porduction value a documentary can ever dream of having. So this makes it all the more important that the film industry gets it right. Hollywoods version of events is the one people are going to remmber.

Sorry about the rant, Early Morning Writer but when you say that telling history is different than telling stories and not about people and their relationships, that really set me off. That is how for centuries history was passed down from generation to generation, through stories.

English doesn't equate to being British. No British in braveheart. English Scots Irish and a couple of Frenchies.

The British are usually quite well represented. It's the English that get shafted. That bs in the the middle of braveheart with the Irish and scots getting all lovey? When has THAT ever happened. They've been kicking lumps out of each other for eons. Even running to help the English just to have another crack at each other. No I didn't enjoy the patriot but I dont think it was any worse than braveheart. About the same. Last of the Mohicans. Now that takes liberties but is still a good film.

Braveheart and the patriot are little better than ww2 propaganda movies.

Well folks, I finally got to see The Patriot all in one piece last night. That's my biggest complaint. Too long! But you know it's not as bad as some of you would have it. The costuming is flawed but pretty good. The story is not too one sided, good Brit and bad Brit…. Not Mel's best effort, but then who can direct, produce and act in a movie and give their best effort. Now Bravehear, That I Cannot Abide. Patrick McGoohan as Edward I? Where was Brian Blessed?

"The Patriot" for the win. I mean, really, this isn't even close.
>>
Bingo!!

Bob

"Johnny Tremaine" is pretty good for what it is. I haven't seen anything else even bearable. Don't understand why American filmmakers can't or won't make a compelling movie or series on the AWI.