Difference between revisions of "329--Week 4 Questions/Comments"

From McClurken Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Deprecated: Optional parameter $attribs declared before required parameter $contents is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Xml.php on line 131
(5 Overall)
(1a Right:)
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his "loyalty lies with the King."  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general's tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F
 
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his "loyalty lies with the King."  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general's tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F
 +
 +
At the expense of it being long, I think this movie was very good at portraying sides and events of the Revolution accurately (if not very cheesily at the beginning). The eagerness of youth to fight vs. the reservations and reluctance of an older man who sees what's to loose is fairly timeless. Also, though I don't think the British were portrayed too unfairly, the movie went a bit easy on the militia's tactics and ethics at times. The towns people's reaction to how the swamp tramps fought (killing surrendering soldiers) seems accurate. But then they got all noble of course. As the primary sources point out, militia would shoot wounded enemy soldiers dead, just as Col. Tavington's character had done. Also, in concern to Tavington, though exceptionally evil, I thought he got across some accurate perspectives. His self interest in terms of how British social ladder worked was true and his menacing mention of Ohio was a bit funny, but I like its mention all the same. Of course the racists, close-minded patriot who represented the hypocritical attitudes towards black and slave soldiers learned to respect the black guy in the end (because maybe America wasn't always perfect, but we had heart damn it!).  On the flip side, the British forced blacks (slave or freed) to join the King's Army (over simplification maybe, but also not that inaccurate, cuz it's not like the British actually cared about the Blacks in America who they kidnapped and sold in the first place). I thought it was good that they showed the civilian suffering. They were brutal scenes, but that's what war usually comes to. Cornwallis chastised Tavington for his brutality at first though, acknowledging the honor of war. I also like that the Loyalist, though he was ashamed of the brutality he was pressured to commit, didn't make any last ditch/uncharacteristic acts of nobility like Duncan did in Mohicans, but rather, carried out the burning he was ordered to do. I also liked how you could feel the turning points in the war through the movie, as well as feel the losses on both sides. --Jackie Reed
  
 
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==
 
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==

Revision as of 09:30, 18 September 2008