Special to TLE
'The Patriot' is well worth seeing and easy to enjoy. I am heartened
that it was made and pleased by the movie, overall. But I must admit
that I walked away from the theater a good deal less enthusiastic
about it than I hoped I would be.
Why was I so much more moved by 'Braveheart'? It is ironic that a
film about a fight which was victorious in establishing a monarchy
and maintaining an aristocracy should bear more relevance to the
struggle for liberty than a film about the American fight for
Independence. More than ironic, it is sharply unsatisfying.
In both movies there is an emotional "hook" whereby the protagonist
changes attitude and the audience follows along in empathy. In both
flicks this hook is a matter of atrocity and suffering. A loved one
dies a terrible, gratuitous death and the central character,
previously unwilling to become involved, takes up arms against those
who have done such wrong. Considered as a technique within the art of
the screenplay we might as well admit its effectiveness. It would be
missing the realities of cinema to imagine that these compelling
structures of human drama would be skipped when they work so well.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with being reminded that the lives
of our loved ones are in the balance in conflicts such as these.
In 'Braveheart' the atrocity provokes a change of mind in William
Wallace, and from there on out the film dwells on his struggle toward
Scottish independence. Most especially the plot turns on the
conflicts faced within and among the Scots themselves, the tendency
of politics to foster betrayal, and the tension between rulers and
the people at large. Without losing touch with the basic structure of
an action film, 'Braveheart' dwells on the tragedies of political
strife. Every act of greatness or vileness is given a human face.
What of 'The Patriot'? Here the shock of atrocity is repeated through
the entire film, each ugly act surpassing the last. What we have here
is not a hook. It is not used to provide the turning point for
Benjamin Martin's character, it is the abiding focus of interest. It
is a theme. It represents what the conflict is all about.
There are passing mentions of political independence, self-rule, and
so on, but the film never takes us to the point where the motivations
of the characters are a burning desire for liberty. Yes, the black
militiaman is seeking the freedom from slavery that his term of
service offers, and he goes further to stand by his comrades after he
is a freed man. I would not disparage a soldier's willingess to fight
for his friends. Indeed, that has arguably been the great inspiration
in most fine military units. But that is comraderie, not a yearning
for independence. It is silent on the cause of liberty.
In this plot Tavington commits an ongoing stream of atrocities. This
makes it easy to maintain the sense of motivation, both for the
on-screen characters and the viewing audience, that these
abominations must be stopped. As a result there is no need, and
little room, for script that would deal with matters other than the
horrors of war and the ever-present temptations, under the pressures
of combat, of abandoning civil decency, laws of war, and basic human
dignity. Those are worthy themes, of course, but I for one was hoping
to see a film about the American gambit for Independence. What we
got, instead, was a film about the American dislike of war-crimes and
the lingering American turmoil over the realities of waging guerilla
As treatments of those topics go, I have no real complaint. There is
real depth of character in many instances, especially in the central
character of Martin. The film provides enough tragedy and ambiguity
to be genuinely thought-provoking, yet forges enough unmitigated
heroism and triumph to satisfy and succeed both as entertainment and
What I do complain about is that this was the heart of the film.
Though not nearly so dismal as A&E's recent film on George
Washington's winter offensive, 'The Crossing', it shares an absense
of attention to the central political issues of the time. 'The
Crossing' depicts the rebellious American colonists as driven by
selfish avarice because they wanted to avoid paying taxes. According
to 'The Patriot' they were striving to rid their counties of monsters
who shot and burned defenseless citizens without end. In neither case
are Americans portrayed as intent upon liberty. 'The Patriot' leaves
the viewer with the impression that if the Brits had just played
fair then Americans could have continued to have gotten along
under the rule of Parliament well enough, thank you. In this sense
'The Patriot' is virtually a Royalist flick. It does not show how the
hearts of Americans burned for independence, nor how that vision
contrasted with the aristocratic notions of the mother country.
To omit this is a betrayal of the central theme of the struggle.
Where is the *patriotism* here, in the American sense of the word?
Where are the ideas and ideals that kindled the Sons of Liberty and
the Committees of Correspondence? If that story had been told to
death, perhaps a focus elsewhere would be refreshing, but of course
the situation is nothing like that. The fact is that the values of
these Americans are so alien to the modern screen that the focus of
attention has rested on the involvement of children in combat. Nice
as it is to see somebody ruffle the feathers of the gun-shy
mainstream press, nice as it is to see somebody face the fact that
American children were competent with firearms and capable of aiding
an armed struggle, these are not enough. Impressive as it is to be
haunted by the specter of authorities burning scores of Americans to
death in their church, that by itself is not enough.
What would be enough is a script where we hear voiced the
values of political autonomy, local sovereignty, and the cessation of
aristocracy. We should encounter men and women who insist on a
political order that assures rights in personal property,
communication, self defense, community defense, and discretion in
worship. We need to hear the demand for freedom from taxes imposed by
distant assemblies. These matters were foremost in the minds of the
Americans of that day. They were significant issues even for those
Americans who chose to remain loyal to the Crown.
By exaggerating the existence of atrocities 'The Patriot' leaves a
faulty impression as to what inspired Americans to take up arms
against the nation within which they long saw themselves as subjects.
Why did the colonists cease to accept subjection of that sort?
Wherein arose the sense of an American identity strong enough
to displace loyalties to the Crown? It most certainly did not spring
primarily from a revulsion at the murder of civilians or wounded
soldiers! That sort of thing is, however, a perfect motivation for
modern American audiences. Does it leave them with a sense of pride
in America? Yes. Does it provide justification for a big fight?
Definitely. Yet another victory to cheer where rough and scruffy
Americans rally around the flag.
Does that have anything to do with the major issues at stake in that
conflict, the ideals which converged in the symbolism of the Stars
and Stripes? No, not really. Another battle well fought. Another
stunning sequence of action scenes. Another paean to the love of
family. Another bucket of popcorn and a large drink, thank you. Then
everybody can go back home to pay their taxes, surrender their
firearms, and submit to the occasional warrantless search and seizure
-- just like good Americans?
No, that is not the American way. But if you're looking for
articulation as to why these things are antithetical to what America
is about, 'The Patriot' is largely silent. Which is a shame. It's a
good movie. I enjoyed it. But it did not speak to the cause of
liberty as it could have. I am perplexed as to why not. Perhaps in
this day many who desire to champion liberty are simply ignorant of
its nature. Whatever theanswer, it indicates an American tragedy, but
that is not the end of the story. Let us strive for enough heroism to
live happily ever after. See you in the movies ...