<<Back Home    <<Back to Movie Reviews

The Patriot

  • Time Period: 1776 - American Revolutionary War
  • Location: South Carolina
  • Released: 2000

Overview

The patriot of the movie is Gabriel Martin, who joins the Continental Army as part of the American Revolutionary struggle based on ideals. Based in South Carolina, the movie focuses on several battles waged by General Cornwallis. The historical siege of Charles Town, and the battles of Camden, Cowpens, and Guilford Courthouse serve as the primary sources for the battles of the movie. The movie ends with reference to Yorktown, where the French played an integral part in supporting the American Revolutionary forces and pinning down Cornwallis, thereby cementing the supremacy of the American cause.

The movie script centers around Benjamin Martin. This man is not a historical figure, he is a composite. The main character is loosely based on Francis Marion (the "Swamp Fox") -- but the real Marion was a non-politically correct character who would not have made a compelling figure by today's standards. He owned slaves and used the female slaves in the way many slave owners did (that is to say, physically). As a result of the unsavory aspects of this character, the script writers combined the best attributes of the swamp fighter with attributes of other historical figures: Elijah Clarke, Andrew Pickens, Thomas Sumter and Daniel Morgan. In order to identify a tension in the movie plot, the elder Martin had to go into battle reluctantly and fight for a different reasons than his son (the patriot). Thus, Martin enters the war only after another of his sons is killed. This is somewhat unfortunate because clearly the war was fought and won because many more men felt strongly about the ideals of the war and had no personal grudge against the enemy, but it is a blockbuster-making formula to have a soldier fight for revenge.

What Was Right:

  1. Numerous cultural history things were correct such as the use of effigies (of King George) and bundling bags, communal sleeping arrangements, etc.
  2. The battle scenes were well choreographed and well executed. It was especially interesting that they took the time to show how cannonballs were actually used in battle. On the battlefield, they served to act as giant bowling balls that cleared a place in the enemy line by taking out body parts. On ships (not shown in the movie) cannonballs put giant holes in the ship - causing sinking. The point here is that cannonballs weren't bombs: they didn't get to their destination then blow up - they were catapult fodder, the explosive charge would catapult the cannonball along it's course and it would just do damage from the force of it.
  3. The costumes were accurate down to the most minute detail. This exquisite detail won Deborah Lynn Scott awards. There were several different uniforms amongst the British and French armies in circulation at the time, depending on the regiment and dress vs. regular uniform. For purposes of continuity, however, I agree with her decision to pare down the uniform options.
  4. The French were shown in a positive light and some deference was paid to the fact that without the French, the Americans would not have won the war. The somewhat sad thing is that this was done in a very circumspect manner. It is unlikely that a historical figure of the era would have been as cynical about the French as is Benjamin Martin. This is an era where grand military campaigns are waged for ideals, to prove valor, and on account of historical axes that were ground on an international front. Such was the case between the French and the British. Thus, Benjamin Franklin was dispatched in 1776 on a diplomatic mission to garner support from Britain's sworn enemy (the French). Colonists of this period would understand the simple maxim: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Such was the case with the French and the American Colonists against the British.

What Was Wrong:

  1. As I mentioned, the costumes were excellent. The only problem is that everyone in the movie is impeccably dressed - even the slaves. The reality is, however, that many people would not have had the money or provisions during wartime to be so impeccably dressed. Many people joined the Continental army in order to get a uniform -- mainly because they were so poorly provisioned and could not afford to outfit themselves so well. A more ragged group of extras would have been more historically accurate.
  2. There were too few black extras in the film. There was a slave majority in South Carolina for most of the 1700s. By the time of the first census in 1790 were about 1:1, with a little less than 150,000 whites and a little over 100,000 blacks. Regardless, they were missing a quite a few blacks among the extras in this movie.
  3. One of the criticisms of the movie is that it whitewashed over issues of slavery. The movie acknowledges the problem of slavery as opposed to the ideals of freedom for which the war was fought, but it downplays the severity of the contrast between the lives of the free and those of the slaves, as well as the sheer numbers of slaves. Moreover, numerous historical accounts of the era indicate that slaves were not so well treated, not so equal as what is represented in the movie. Granted, this is a real problem for the modern filmmaker because it is unsettling to show blacks being treated poorly, but it is inaccurate to show the situation in any other light. I think that what could have been done is to show more slaves laboring in the background. This wouldn't have interfered with the script, but would have been more historically accurate.
  4. When Charlotte's house is burnt down, they go to stay amongst the Sea Island free settlement of blacks (in the Gullah district). The inclusion of the now homeless white family amongst the blacks is more than a little odd, it's a historical stretch. It is much more likely that a white family that had been burned out of their home would have gone to stay with other white friends. I don't see what what was gained in the movie script by portraying them as staying with the blacks as opposed to whites. Nothing would have suffered had they been shown staying with another white family.
  5. The main British atrocity of the movie has no historical counterpart during the Revolution. No churches were reported to have been burned down with the town's inhabitants inside. Although war was brutal, this sort of atrocity wasn't recorded during this war and showing it confuses history and belittles the wars in which this sort of atrocity did occur (such as in WWII by the Nazis.) The use of this atrocity in the screenplay was improper and quite inflammatory. In my opinion, razing and rampaging through the town would have roused the necessary extra sentiment in the screenplay to move toward the climactic ambush of Tavington's men.