Harrison Ford's view of this film - The Patriot (2000) Discussion

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Well not all of Ford's movies were about sunshine and rainbows either. I'm disappointed if that's his opinion since the movie wasn't intended to be a documentary. It was pure drama, a story set in the revolutionary war not a story about it.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Lyndhen 11 years ago

I think Ford's point is that if you are going to use the revolutionary war as a backdrop (and a selling point) of your movie then it should actually be about the revolutionary war in some way - which it isn't, as you've said.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Well a matter of opinion I suppose. I have no problem with a movie being set against the backdrop of the war but not about it. As I said it's the difference between drama and documentary.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Lyndhen 11 years ago

As I said it's the difference between drama and documentary.

Actually, there is a declared emphasis on 'history'. The producer and writer evidently took pains to address historical accuracy to the extent that the characters were based on real people or were composites of real people. Jason Isaacs, at least at the time, seemed to argue that Tavington's depiction was historically fair.

Thus they do claim historical legitimacy for what is essentially just a typical revenge-porn flick.

Ford correctly recognised that such a significant event in American history should not be treated so superficially.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Well I'm not American or British so my opinion isn't based on sentimentality. I don't agree that it's revenge-porn though. Throughout the movie Ben Martin is focussed mainly on the formation and deployment of a militia force. That's his driving force. I'm sure many a continental yearned for revenge on the Brit that killed a family member except in this case he got his chance.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Lyndhen 11 years ago

I'm sure many a continental yearned for revenge on the Brit that killed a family member except in this case he got his chance.

There you go. As with many people who defend historical inaccuracy in a film because it is not a "documentary", you then go on to assume that what is (mis)represented in the film is true or reasonably likely to have occurred.

We know from the historical record that the plight of civilians was not such that many a continental had a family member killed by the Brits - though obviously I understand that the film gives this impression.

Incidentally, my opinion is not based on sentimentality. I'm just interested in history. How history is dealt with in film is also an interesting topic.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Firstly I'm not defending historical accuracy, I'm merely saying it's not an issue for me, there's a difference, a difference you would have spotted if you weren't so quick to jump down my neck.

Secondly I'm from the Republic of Ireland so if you want to open up the can of worms that was the brutality of the British Empire you will have a very informed debate on your hands.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Lyndhen 11 years ago

Firstly I'm not defending historical accuracy

No, you're defending a film's right to be historically inaccurate by saying it's not 'a documentary' . If it's not an issue for you then perhaps you shouldn't be disappointed because Harrison Ford has criticisms of the film.

Secondly I'm from the Republic of Ireland so if you want to open up the can of worms that was the brutality of the British Empire you will have a very informed debate on your hands.

You're welcome to get the tin opener out, though I doubt there's much we'd disagree on. Unfortunately, I can't recall many British films that falsify the record in order to unjustly glorify Britain at the expense of others - though there are some.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

No, you're defending a film's right to be historically inaccurate by saying it's not 'a documentary'.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm defending a film's right to be a film, that's all. Harrison Ford has starred in two IRA films that couldn't be further from the reality. OK Patriot Games was based on a book by Tom Clancy but he still took the part. What I'm disappointed in is that he feels he can criticise The Patriot yet has free reign to take part in other movies that use real life as a mere backdrop.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Lyndhen 11 years ago

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm defending a film's right to be a film, that's all.

And I'm just pointing out that the film sold itself as a 'historical' drama - AWOI wasn't just a backdrop. As such the film had an obligation to get the history right.

Certainly a film has a 'right to be a film' - no one is criticising 'dirty dozen' or 'Kelly's heroes' or 'Pirates of the Caribbean' for historical inaccuracy. They use history as a backdrop and these types of films aren't trying to pass themselves off as 'historical'.

Harrison Ford has starred in two IRA films that couldn't be further from the reality. OK Patriot Games was based on a book by Tom Clancy but he still took the part. What I'm disappointed in is that he feels he can criticise The Patriot yet has free reign to take part in other movies that use real life as a mere backdrop.

As stated, the Patriot doesn't use the revolutionary war as a mere backdrop. At least the Devil's Own and Patriot Games don't claim to be anything more than action thrillers.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

As stated, the Patriot doesn't use the revolutionary war as a mere backdrop.

As stated by you and HF. That doesn't make it so. I've never seen any evidence to suggest that TP was intended to be anything but a story set against a backdrop. And in any case a movie is down to individual interpretation, that's why they say art is subjective.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Lyndhen 11 years ago

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that TP was intended to be anything but a story set against a backdrop.

As I have said above - there is a declared emphasis on 'history'. The producer and writer evidently took pains to address historical accuracy to the extent that the characters were based on real people or were composites of real people. Jason Isaacs, at least at the time, seemed to argue that Tavington's depiction was historically fair.

They sold the film as 'historical' - noted as such on imdb and wikipedia.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 11 years ago

Secondly I'm from the Republic of Ireland so if you want to open up the can of worms that was the brutality of the British Empire

Which Ireland played a major role in and which many Irish people got rich/profited from.

And if it wasn't for the 'British' Empire then Irish emigrants over the centuries would have ended up having to settle in Spanish or French or Portuguese or Belgian colonies/ex colonies because places like the USA, Canada and Australia (British colonies/ex colonies) wouldn't have existed as they did and wouldn't have been destinations of desire for millions of Irish people.

Good luck with THAT. I don't recall too many Irish emigrants choosing Columbia or French Indochina as preferred desirable destinations.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Which Ireland under British rule played a part in through subscription or punitive action. Secondly for the most part mass Irish immigration resulted from Cromwell's seizing of catholic lands resulting in Irish catholic's having no property nor allowed to own businesses leaving them at the mercy of landlord's. And thirdly so what if Irish immigrants would have had to settle in Europe? Many did emigrate to Spain and France, so get your facts right.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 11 years ago

Which Ireland under British rule played a part in through subscription or punitive action.

Many Irish got rich through the British Empire and Dublin and Belfast grew and prospered, as did Glasgow in Scotland.

Don't act as if the Irish got nothing of benefit from the British Empire.

Secondly for the most part mass Irish immigration resulted from Cromwell's seizing of catholic lands resulting in Irish catholic's having no property nor allowed to own businesses leaving them at the mercy of landlord's.

A sweeping load of codswallop. The Irish are STILL emigrating to this day. It's got nothing to do with Cromwell anymore so stop with the chip on the shoulder self pity living in the past nonsesne. The Irish were mass emigrating to the USA, Canada and Australia in the 20th century....even after they got Independence.

And thirdly so what if Irish immigrants would have had to settle in Europe? Many did emigrate to Spain and France,

Oh sure coz Paris and Madrid are just like Boston, aren't they? LOL. France, Germany or Italy or Spain wouldn't have taken kindly to millions of Irish coming in.

so get your facts right.

My facts ARE right. If not for the British Empire then they wouldn't have had the nice desirable places to emigrate to that they still emigrate to today. Good luck with emigrating en mass to Spanish or Portuguese colonies/ex colonies in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Oh and by the way, my Irish ancestors emigrated to.................England.

reply

[–] Hotrodder 11 years ago

Aye, Dublin was known as the British Empire's Second City and it was very properous. Too many Americans seem to think all of Ireland was (and still is!) like that stupid "Irish" village created for Star Trek Voyager, full of cliched characters saying "Top of der mornin' to yer" and drinking Guinness out of pewter mugs. Dublin actually was effectively built by the British- most of it's architects were British- so next time you visit say a thanks to them for the nice city they built.
It had a thriving Irish middle class- look how many writers lived in Ireland in the 19th Century, as well as artists, engineers and all manner of other middle class jobs. They weren't all bog trotting farmers and navvies.
Of course one place the Irish did emigrate in their thousands was to, um, Great Britain. If you're trying to escape an oppressor it's seems to me a bit daft to go to his very home and live there, but still. I don't think many Americans realise how many English people have Irish names- I know a Gallagher, a McConnell, a Brogan and many others personally. Look at the shops and names on vans and lorries passing by and just count the Irish names.
If the English were so bad why did so many Irish come and live amongst them? And more to the point become English/British themselves?

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 11 years ago

Aye, Dublin was known as the British Empire's Second City and it was very properous.

Yep it truly was.

Too many Americans seem to think all of Ireland was (and still is!) like that stupid "Irish" village created for Star Trek Voyager, full of cliched characters saying "Top of der mornin' to yer" and drinking Guinness out of pewter mugs.

Don't ya just love Plastic Paddies and their dream world?

Dublin actually was effectively built by the British- most of it's architects were British- so next time you visit say a thanks to them for the nice city they built.

What? How dare you state................the truth? Shame on you Hotrodder.

It had a thriving Irish middle class- look how many writers lived in Ireland in the 19th Century, as well as artists, engineers and all manner of other middle class jobs.

Nah, only Protestants thrived. Mikey says so.

Of course one place the Irish did emigrate in their thousands was to, um, Great Britain.

Yes. My Irish ancestors did exactly that.

If you're trying to escape an oppressor it's seems to me a bit daft to go to his very home and live there, but still.

It amuses me when some people claim the famine was an English genocide of the Irish. They haven't got a clue what the word genocide means. The Irish were practically given Liverpool, England in the mid 19th century.

I don't think many Americans realise how many English people have Irish names- I know a Gallagher, a McConnell, a Brogan and many others personally. Look at the shops and names on vans and lorries passing by and just count the Irish names.

Well you'll find these ignorant Plastic Paddies in America have this warped idea that the Irish only ever emigrated to the USA. They have no idea that many of them also emigrated to England.

I have Irish ancestors. My sister's first husband is of second generation Irish descent by the name of Doyle. Catholics. His mum and dad emigrated to England in the swinging 60s. I suspect Mikey blames Oliver Cromwell for that.

If the English were so bad why did so many Irish come and live amongst them? And more to the point become English/British themselves?

Well the answer to that is the English weren't so bad. A comparatively small number of English well to dos in power does not and will not represent the English in general.

reply

[–] madseavets 10 years ago

Dublin was known as the British Empire's Second City and it was very properous

I thought that was Liverpool, so I checked up and Dublin was indeed the 2nd largest City in the UK in the early 19th century. I always thought mass Irish emmigration started with the Famine. The dependance on potatoes can't be blamed on the English! The landowners in the rest of the UK were just as bad and the same thing could have happened there. Cromwell could be held responsible indirectly because of the changes in agriculture follwing the intoduction of "foreign" landowners.

Even so, Liverpool does have a claim to being the "Second City of the British Empire" in the 19th century due to its relative wealth at the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool#Second_city_of_Empire

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

Many Irish got rich through the British Empire and Dublin and Belfast grew and prospered, as did Glasgow in Scotland.

Don't act as if the Irish got nothing of benefit from the British Empire.

Yes Irish protestants you uneducated simpleton.

A sweeping load of codswallop. The Irish are STILL emigrating to this day. It's got nothing to do with Cromwell anymore so stop with the chip on the shoulder self pity living in the past nonsesne. The Irish were mass emigrating to the USA, Canada and Australia in the 20th century....even after they got Independence.

Yes because they were struggling to pick up the pieces British rule left behind. Do you think it's easy to build a country after independence? Next you're going to tell me that immigration isn't a problem in Britain?

Oh sure coz Paris and Madrid are just like Boston, aren't they? LOL. France, Germany or Italy or Spain wouldn't have taken kindly to millions of Irish coming in

Excuse me when you made the comment about immigration to Europe Boston didn't exist remember? You proposed a hypothetical situation as to what the Irish would have done if The US hadn't been colonised. And since you're so interested in facts The US is what it is today because of American colonials who were sick of putting up with Britains shít too.

By the way Hotrodder you are still and always will be on my ignore list.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Hotrodder 11 years ago

By the way Hotrodder you are still and always will be on my ignore list.

Really breaks my heart that! You really are the most insecure bloke in the world aren't you? You just can't take any criticism at all. It's all right, you don't need to read my thoughts on your posts, the rest of the world can easily realise that you're a bit of a knob.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 11 years ago

Yes Irish protestants you uneducated simpleton.

Catholics by and large are lazy dumb buggers. That's why South America is still a basket case and that's why Catholic Europe is light years behind non Catholic Europe.

But if your myth tells you that none of the Irish Catholics grew rich and prospered under the British Empire then you just carry on living in your warped fantasy world.

Yes because they were struggling to pick up the pieces British rule left behind.

If it wasn't for the British subsiding the Irish today then Ireland would sink into the ocean. Stop blaming everything on what happened before a hundred and fifty years ago.

Excuse me when you made the comment about immigration to Europe Boston didn't exist remember? You proposed a hypothetical situation as to what the Irish would have done if The US hadn't been colonised.

Millions of Irish would not have been made welcome in France, Germany or Italy, so it looks like the Irish would have had to end up in Spanish and Portuguese etc colonies/ex colonies and not the much more desirable USA, Canada, Australia etc.

Again, good luck with that.

And since you're so interested in facts The US is what it is today because of American colonials who were sick of putting up with Britains shít too.

They WERE British. The USA is as it is toady precisely BECAUSE of it's British start and British heritage Founding Fathers. The USA basically carried on with it's ideals that the British bequeathed them in the 17th and 18th centuries. Even the US Bill of Rights was based on the English Bill of Rights.

Canada didn't rebel by the way. Nor did Australia and New Zealand. In fact the vast majority of Britain's colonies saw no reason to rebel and in fact that's why the Commonwealth is so strong....because Britain was NOT akin to a Nazi or Soviet Bloc Empire. Britain's was far and away the best of all the world's Empires and easily the one that was more beneficial than it was detrimental. You should be proud of that. You Irish helped to build it and got rich off it.

And American Colonials were sick of putting up with Britain's sh-t? What, you mean like saving them from the French, giving them good trade and prosperity, a higher standard of living than those in Britain had? Things like that?

reply

[–] Hotrodder 11 years ago

Catholics hardly were treated the same in the 19th Century as in Cromwell's time anyway. Many of the laws against them had been repealed. Yes, the Protestants were the most powerful people but they were the aristocracy after all.
The treatment of Catholics hadn't been fair at all in the past but remember that Catholicism was considered an enemy of Britain, hell, the Pope himself had encouraged Catholic countries to war against England and the Catholic church persecuted Protestants everywhere. Hardly surprising therefore that Cromwell and most men of his time had a rather jaundiced view of them.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 11 years ago

the Pope himself had encouraged Catholic countries to war against England and the Catholic church persecuted Protestants everywhere.

Yes and 'conveniently' left out of certain historical discussions.

reply

[–] rlt-4 9 years ago

I think Harrison Ford should be commended for his consistent insistence that all films be strictly historically accurate.
For example, he would have turned down "Raiders of the Lost Ark" had it not accurately depicted the events of 1936, including the presence of a large Nazi force in Egypt and the Ark of the Covenant. Ford refused to make a film using those alleged events and subject matters as backdrop unless no dramatic liberties with the facts were taken.
Ford also insisted that that his World War II films "Force Ten From Navarone" and "Hanover Street" were strictly accurate, as the Second World War is too important to use as a mere backdrop.
More impressively, Ford demanded that no liberties with history be taken when he starred as Han Solo in the various Star Wars films. More recently, Ford required that no dramatic license be used in the quasi-documentary "Cowboys and Aliens."

reply

[–] jmillerdp 10 years ago

Even though Mel Gibson has some real personal problems, he is truly a great actor in an intense film like this.

His performance is piercing in "The Patriot."

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

reply

[–] ElMaruecan82 9 years ago

I think Ford's point is ridiculous.

Ever since cinema existed, war movies have been boiled down to many individual stories and no one ever complained about it, we need to root for one character or a limited group to better embrace the cause they fight for, that's what any good movie is about : a simple story that speaks more general, even universal statements, as the movie progresses.

It doesn't say anything about Gibson's view of the world, it says something about filmmakers' views of how to engage the viewer. And what's that ever got to do with Gibson's views ... he didn't write or direct the film.

Seems like a gratuituous occasion to bash Gibson.

Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather

reply