Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it) |
(→Questions asked in class) |
||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT) | Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | We spoke in class about the representation of the Loyalist in the film and going into it, I expected very little. While I know they played a fairly large role in the war, I think they did a halfway decent job of expressing that there were, indeed, colonist that sided with England and offered help to them during the war. While I think they could have sacraficed some of Mel Gibson's bloody beatings for more action by the Loyalist, I appreciate that the movie made some attempt to recognize the Loyalists. After all, it wouldn't have surprised me if they left them out completely and acted as if every colonist was whole-hearted patriotic to the liberation from the English crown. - Victoria Y. | ||
