WASHINGTON — Mel Gibson’s new movie about the Revolutionary War,
“The Patriot,” opened this week in advance of Independence Day. Not a
bad marketing strategy, I’d say.
The film finished in the number one spot for the past week, earning
$5 million its first day. Press estimates peg the film as drawing $30
million worth of business before the end of this year’s five-day window
for Fourth of July movie-watching.
|
What’s most interesting about the film is the strong reactions it
provokes from so many different quarters.
Gun-control advocates — which means practically all of Hollywood —
were aghast at one of the movie’s more publicized scenes in which
Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin, gives guns to his two adolescent
sons who use them to ambush and kill about a dozen British soldiers.
This from an industry that routinely glorifies violence and death and
displays murders like the rest of us show baby pictures.
Several members of Fleet Street were also apoplectic at the treatment
of the British military. A Reuters dispatch waxed eloquently about the
City Council of Liverpool’s demand of an apology for the portrayal of
that city’s local hero, Banastre Tarleton.
Tarleton, who is Col. William Tavington in the movie, was considered
an outstanding British officer of the Revolutionary War, although one
with a reputation for, as one American academic put it, “barbaric
cruelty.” The movie portrayal of the Tarleton character, critics say,
is not subtle.
In his defense, Tarleton commanded mainly exiled Loyalists who were
probably more eager to kill patriots than follow his orders, so his
reputation may not be entirely deserved.
But James Riley of
Riley’s Farm has posted some interesting excerpts from contemporary accounts of the Redcoats’ Revolutionary War behavior on his website. After reading a few, one could surmise apologies will not be necessary after all.
Historians will probably have a few quibbles about the film’s accuracy but, by and large, they should be ecstatic about a big budget movie’s attempt to interest a contemporary audience in the Revolutionary War.
“The American Revolution’s got so much natural drama in it,” film critic Leonard Maltin told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s puzzling why it hasn’t been used more.”
“Maybe it strikes people as being too school-bookish,” said Robert Rosen, Dean of UCLA’s School of Theatre in the Times article. “For all of its importance, the Revolution has always been evoked in popular culture in cliched ways. It doesn’t profoundly resonate with the nation, though it should.”
That’s because in today’s “relevant” educational system, the founding of our nation — and the sacrifices made to achieve it — are toned down in favor of braying aloud the litany of our supposed national sins. After all, a Gallup Poll taken in May of this year showed that only one teen in four could say that 1776 was the year the nation was born. More than half, 53 percent, said they didn’t know and a disappointing 19 percent answered some other year.
Additionally, only 40 percent of Americans aged 18-29 reported that they have a “strong” sense of patriotism. Yet, a Roper poll noted that just last year, 69 percent of Americans planned to celebrate the Fourth of July and a staggering 85 percent said that the United States is the best place to live in the world. What gives?
What gives is that we are still a patriotic nation and are looking desperately for outlets to express it. Every now and then in the popular culture, something sprouts up through the muck like “Saving Private Ryan” or The Learning Channel’s “Revolution” series that satisfies this demand like the long-awaited scratch of an irritating itch.
Personally, I’m glad that “The Patriot” is stirring-up so much interest and controversy. The fireworks associated with this film could overtake the more traditional kinds used on July 4, and could … just could … have a longer-lasting effect. If that’s the case, we can celebrate a little louder and a little longer this year.
Neal Lavon covers political and social issues for the Voice of America in Washington, D.C.