Is Mel Gibson Trying to be John Wayne?

Cheyenne said:
Please. You expect us to believe that you want only historically accurate movies? There is a difference between fiction and non-fiction. If a movie is fiction, I don't assume historical accuracy that isn't meant to be there. It isn't the entertainment industry's responsibility to "teach" the masses.

It's not possible to re-create anything moment by moment and put it on-screen. Not even documentaries are capable of this.

The better question one should ask one's self is found in a movie like "The Patriot." If the setting, costumes, accents (maybe not?), and war are as authentic as possible, why shouldn't one assume the tactics used were as well?

They weren't. They fudged. Big time. Most of what was shown was a continuation in the Grand Myth of Hollywood that has America winning the war as self-styled Indian fighters, hiding behind trees and rocks and picking off the stupid Brits who marched in line. This is a lie. The film-makers knew this but liked it better because it gave them a chance to showcase Mel Gibson running and shooting and taking revenge (a big mottif in his movie career).


Did you know this? Be honest.

Does it matter that they fudged? Maybe. Maybe not. But if 3/4 of a film are dead on perfect, who's to tell the ignorant what's what?
 
mig said:
Mel Gibson

as John Wayne,nah never work.

JW about 6'12", MG about 4'2"
4'2" ?? Well no WONDER Colonel Tavendish missed MG's head with the sword in "The Patriot" :D
 
Marxist said:


It's not possible to re-create anything moment by moment and put it on-screen. Not even documentaries are capable of this.


>>>True Enough!<<<



The better question one should ask one's self is found in a movie like "The Patriot." If the setting, costumes, accents (maybe not?), and war are as authentic as possible, why shouldn't one assume the tactics used were as well?

They weren't. They fudged. Big time. Most of what was shown was a continuation in the Grand Myth of Hollywood that has America winning the war as self-styled Indian fighters, hiding behind trees and rocks and picking off the stupid Brits who marched in line. This is a lie. The film-makers knew this but liked it better because it gave them a chance to showcase Mel Gibson running and shooting and taking revenge (a big mottif in his movie career).



>>>Not sure if I'm missing your point here but there WAS a real life Revolutionary War Hero that Colonel Martin's character is loosely based on. And he WAS referred to as the "ghost". They DID fight Cornwallis' force using guerilla warfare tactics to harass the brits long enough to give Washington time to regroup from the ass-whippings he was being handed by the brits up north.

The mode of fighting the brits used was the commonly accepted style of fighting at the time. They were well trained and battle hardened and had it down like clock work. If you tried to take them on head to head with smaller or lesser trained force (militia, for example), the brits would kick your ass from here to Sunday.

The south carolina rebels knew this and employed tactics they learned fighting in the French and Indian wars for the brits. <<<




Did you know this? Be honest.

Does it matter that they fudged? Maybe. Maybe not. But if 3/4 of a film are dead on perfect, who's to tell the ignorant what's what?



>>> I DO agree that the scene where Colonel Martin, along with his two very small sons wipe out 20 regular British troops was pretty ludicrous. Showcasing for sure.

Did it matter? Nah. It was a movie and not presented as a documentary film. <<< :)
 
Back
Top