The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:24:23 -0400, Stephen Harding

The fact that these policies did not change, and in fact grew more
dominating is what eventually led to the change in attitude about
being part of the British Empire. Not a small group of bandito
types manipulating the public for their own financial gain.

the vote. There really was a sizeable amount of political cant and
hypocrisy involved in the guld between the revolutionaries claimed
ideals and how many of them behaved.

We don't have a true to ideals, working democracy in this country yet
either. Doesn't mean everyone in government is hypocritical in their
promotion of democratic values. It just means imperfect people are
implementing a pure ideal.

"The Patriot" was actually based on a lot of historical fact in the
fighting in the southern states during the later stages of the war.

"The Patriot" was an inaccurate load of xenophobic crap, and can only
be considered appropriate if Hollywood is required to make
propagandistic war movies for the home front more than two centuries
after that war actually ended. I strongly doubt any other historical
conflict in American history could be displayed with such prejudicial
demonology in any movie, but the British are a safe target.
Especially when regurgitating "Braveheart" with different costumes. I
doubt anybody could get away with such an offensively one-dimensional
and inaccurate portrayal of blacks or American indians in a
contemporary American movie: the howls of outrage from the domestic
pressure groups would, quite rightfully, hinder such a project.

It was a *movie* not a documentary.

No such problems when you want to peddle offensive myths and
distortions about the British, however. All Americans are familiar
with their satanic position as puppets in the pantomime they've known
as the war of independence since childhood.

It wasn't "offensive myths". It represented a composite character in a
war with a full range of good/bad elements.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

Of course liberties were taken as is typical in Hollywood.

But what is the sum of those "liberties": an All-American hero who
uniquely refuses to own slaves on a Carolinan estate*, British forces

Not so unique, or even if it was, so what?

It was unique but not unheard of for Blacks to own slaves as well. Again,
so what? I suspect a movie about such individuals would not be well
received by the political Black community here, although I think it would
be an interesting study.

performing atrocities like the Waffen SS under a leader modelled more
on Heydrich than Tarleton, the invincible American woodsman slaying
the redcoats with impunity, etc, etc.

IT WAS A MOVIE!!!

Road runners don't blow up coyotes. Police don't regularly flip and
flame automobiles in chases. Most cops don't even draw their guns on
the job through most of their entire careers, CIA agents largely don't
kill people, and even during the height of abuse by J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI, agents were not regularly breaking in to peoples homes or
politically harassing them, investigative reporters usually don't break
Presidents and corporate executives, etc., etc., etc.

Not so on TV or movies.

What these "liberties" amount to is a distinct and discernable agenda,
and is just as ideologically driven as a Communist-controlled film
about revolts in the Imperial Russian Navy.

So I take it you're giving the movie a three thumbs down?

[* The slaves issue is a prime example. There is no way a
contemporary American film can offend the African-American audience as
cavalierly as it can the British, so the historical role of the hero
in regard to them and their role in the period is distorted so
blatantly as to make it comic. Nonetheless, compare his positioning
towards the blacks on his estate and their role and contrast it to the
British. So much for historical accuracy.]

Contemporary films do their share of simplification of issues in the other
direction as well. Although there aren't many projects involving Indian
characters, is there any such thing as a "bad" Indian in a movie any more?

Instead
of the British Army doing all the "war crimes" depicted in the movie,
it would actually have been loyalist bands doing the deeds.

It would be a mixture of _all_ combatants committing war crimes,
including "patriot" guerilla bands and state and continental troops if
historical reality was actually a matter of concern. This immunity
from looting, rape and crime allocated according to uniform colour is
infantile.

It was a *MOVIE*!!!

But in fairness to the movie, it did show that British soldiers under
the ruthless antagonist didn't like his vicious orders, and the high
command didn't like it either.

That's a transparent fig-leave of consideration in the torrent of
national prejudice being poured out in that movie.

You're not going to give it any points whatsoever are you.

Thus the need to be given Ohio
territory after the war, since he could never return to Britain with
honor.

Given that this would contravene Royal Proclaimations on colonial
expansion, this is just another neo-feudalistic fantasy, impugning
feudal motives to senior aristorcratic and class-ridden British
officers. This has nothing to do with the historical reality and
everything to do with American self-image and national stereotyping.

Oh dear. Mel missed the Royal Proclamations against westward expansion
in the colonies. There goes any shred of believability anyone would have
had!

I'd have to wonder if you've ever found a military aviation movie to your
liking, given the vast majority of them are so blatantly wrong in the
technical depiction of the subject.

There is a very good movie to be made on the reality of the experience
of the American revolution, from corrupt and hypocritical Boston
agitators, to loyal and selfless farmers suffering stoically at Valley
Forge, from colonial milita looting and destroying "traitors" property
on both sides, to colonial militia facing a regular army and beating
them face-to-face after severe fighting at Saratoga, to the mass of
ordinary people seeking to evade the worst consequences of a war being
fought in their locality regardless of their private sympathies.

But that kind of movie will never be made. It just doesn't hit the
right buttons in an audience that has been simply brainwashed on the
subject since their earliest history lessons in school.

There are lots of great subjects, with complex interactions, that
could be made into great movies, that aren't. Doesn't mean there is any
"guarding of myths" political agenda being carried out to suppress such
enterprises.

People go to the movies to be entertained, not educated. If you want
to brush up on the intricacies of Revolutionary War history, even Ken
Burns isn't going to do it fully right. You need to read a lot of books.

If you stay true to your demands on pure historical and technical
accuracy in movie making, you're probably not going to like *any*
movie that makes *any* reference to historical record.

The "Patriot" was simply a *movie*. It wasn't the gumint preparing for
war against the UK by initiating a brainwashing campaign on its citizens,
who will now riot if war is not declared.


SMH