Critical response to The Patriot (2000)

The Patriot was a film that was interesting to watch, but the history of the movie just doesn't add up. The protagonist of this film is a farmer in his 40's named Benjamin Martin. He had 2 sons, who were in the military. One of them died early up in the movie and the other was also killed, but almost at the end of the film. Benjamin was known as the “Ghost”, because of his attack on the British in the woods. In this movie, the Americans were visualized as the better and the British as the cruel, which if you don’t know the history, should add up. That was the case for Benjamin, as he lost his 2 sons in a war that he didn’t want to fight, but he had to since he wanted to be free from the British and as did the rest of the colonists. He was known as the hero or should I say as the ghost of the film. He fought for his nation and led his people to victory, but at a considerable cost. On the other side of the war, there were Brits. They didn’t play by the rules and that was made clear as possible. They burned down villages, killed Benjamin’s sons and also murdered innocent civilians, but the Americans did everything by the rules. Of course, this was all predictable looking at the fact that this is a Hollywood film, but this should definitely not be called a historical film. As Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle has said that the battle scenes may look authentic, but the movie doesn't deal with the issues of the war, and it only touches on its history. The movie itself was interesting to watch, which was not a surprise since it was a Hollywood film. The actors like Mel Gibson were great at playing their role. Like Elvis Mitchell from the New York Times has said that Gibson was an astonishing actor for someone whose technique all seems to come from the outside. He was great at relating to the performers playing his children, but at one scene the camera had to fade out since Gibson’s acting was so terrible, it almost made us laugh while Gibson weeps over the body of a dead child. The other major downside was the length of the movie. There were moments that even if watching at 2 times the normal speed, it felt like it was still in slow motion. The film could’ve been cut to 2 hours, maybe even 1.5 hours without overexaggerating some of the scenes and definitely could’ve cramped in more of the actual history, not just Hollywood’s fantasies. Going back to the fact that it was interesting to watch, it definitely might be because of Hollywood’s fantasies and that’s why this film came out likewise. If the writer Robert Rodat had filled this movie with only historical facts, then I would be sure that this would have not been that interesting to watch. In conclusion, The Patriot was an amazing production, but the film should not be generalized as a historical movie. While it was set in the past and it did glimpse over the history of the Revolutionary war, that’s not enough to be called a historical film.

SOURCES

LaSalle, Mick. “He's Just Begun to Fight / Mel Gibson Blasts His Way through a Bloody, Bloated `Patriot'.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 6 Aug. 2012, www.sfgate.com/movies/article/He-s-Just-Begun-to-Fight-Mel-Gibson-blasts-his-2715482.php.

Mitchell, Elvis. “A Gentle Farmer Who's Good at Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2000, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/film/062800patriot-film-review.html.