The Patriot Accuracy

An example being the role of the mute drummer boy. His character definitely pulls on the heart strings of the audience but the examinations for the regiment were very strict, so he most likely would not have been chosen. According to Burchard, “the medical examinations were most rigid and through” (Burchard, pg. 83). Other minor inaccuracies include the timing of events. For example, the movie shows the soldiers having to wait for their uniforms, but the real account shows them receiving the uniforms on the first day (Burchard, pg. 83). Another timing discrepancies is the timing of Shaw’s acceptance of the position, the reality is he rejected the job offer at first and then changed his mind, accepting a couple days later (Burchard, pg.

Have you ever seen “The Patriot”? If you have do you know the truth behind it because some parts really happened and some parts didn’t. Meaning that “The Patriot” is somewhat historically accurate. The Patriot is somewhat historically accurate because the main character Benjamin Martin was not a real person he was based on Francis Marion, the Battle of Cowpens was exactly the same because the colonist had extra help to fight off the British, and the surrender of Colonel Cornwallis was somewhat alike because his army could not get around the French and the colonist in history and in the movie. So “The Patriot” has many differences and similarities to history.

The Patriot The movie, The Patriot, was released in the year 2000. It is a drama/action film that relates to the American Revolutionary War. Although the plot of the movie is fictional there are many aspects that relate to what happened in the war, but some have discrepancies. The Patriot is the story of a South Carolina plantation owner, Benjamin Martin, who is played by Mel Gibson. It is more a story of a family during the war then the war itself.

With award winning actors and screenwriters, the Hollywood version of the revolutionary war must be "kicked up". Much additional and fictional information were added to the movie, just to make the movie more exciting and do well in the box office. Two kids and one man with couple rifles killing a dozen British soldiers seems a little too over the top, but it does add a little excitement. The use of flag waving was just too magical in the movie. Every time something goes wrong for the Continental army, Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibbson) waves the flag and all the soldiers are pumped and ready for war. The Hollywood version of British commanders is very different from the real commanders. In the movie, the commander was cruel and brutal, and the movie version of Cornwallis is gullible and doesn't care about the war. In reality, the commanders obeyed orders and followed the laws of war and Cornwallis was a great

     One reason the film seems like it was a real event is how the producers

Did you know people do not think if the story from history movie is a truly based on real history or filled with fiction? Almost every history movie contains some kind of fiction in it to make it a great story and to keep the audience's entertained. For example, the movie called “The Patriot” which was the American Revolution had happen. The movie has some historical accuracy but there are some historical inaccuracies also.

Although many historical filmmakers alter some events and use fiction as a tool in providing an accurate historical representation, the makers of “The

The movie "The New World" tells the history of the Jamestown settlement in Virginia. The movie goes on to tell the events that took place in the creation and development of Jamestown. The story involves a heavy romance between Pocahontas and John Smith while explaining multiple events that took place. The movie is questioned whether or not it is historically accurate or completely inaccurate. Based on the research of the characters and the events that took place, "The New World" shows more historical accuracy than inaccuracy.

A realist film that shows great accuracy is the war film All Quiet on the Western Front. The storyline incorporates just enough action to inform viewers that it is a war movie and at the same time it also embodies many other aspects such as the politics, emotions and hype involved with the war (Ronald, R. 2013). This gives the viewer a more accurate view as all aspects of the war are covered. Throughout the film we see that real locations have been chosen to enhance the realistic vision and accuracy of the film.

Although the movie did tell the baseline story of the play I don’t think the movie captured what Shakespeare would have liked it to. The story of the play followed the originally play but I think the overall mental image and picture has more to do with the story than the story itself. The movie didn’t capture any of the original settings, or anything in that nature. It kept the story line, but then decided to take its own twist and turn on the vision of the play. The movie version did not in vison what Shakespeare would have wanted or tried to portray in his original

The events that were dramatized were either completely fictional all together or so terribly altered that it no longer even aligns with the historical time-line, however there a few right points that make the movie worth it. First is the depiction of the character rampaging across the Tafas shooting at will. This particular event expresses the crazy nature and leaves the movie on a right and dramatic note. The scene of the sandpit is otherwise completely a myth. This playing into part of the terrain rant, the character visualized dying here left the earth in a completely unrelated matter Even the main characters knowledge of the Skyes-Picot Agreement was abused. These details are what create a character and help the audience understand the characters and why the end results were as followed. It is fair to say that yes this film was made to be based on actual

I think that there was some facts included in the movie, but I do feel that things were changed or dramatized to make it suspenseful for viewers. I believe it gave an accurate description in the sense of the how Americans felt during this period of time, but feel some of the actual facts were exclude to make the

Tom Hanks who is the main character couldn’t believe his eyes. He was shocked that those cruel scenes were happening right in front of his face. Spielberg also stops the music and makes the screen kind of blurry to instill a sense of reality to the atmosphere. This definitely added more reality to the movie. Tim O’Brien said credibility might be threatened by telling an unbelievable story but this unbelievable aspect of the movie adds more credibility. The way he shot the film almost gives us a feeling that we were watching a documentary about war. These are the aspects Tim O’Brien exactly talks about in his text. Spielberg includes unbelievable aspect to his movie but he does not lose the credibility as Tim O’Brien states on his text.

Historic movies are often produced with the premise that they will tell an honest tale about the past, but how accurate are they really? The Patriot is a historical movie the shows the life of an ex-war hero, Benjamin Martin, and his life continuing on through the American Revolution. This includes his interaction with the soldiers and generals, his political stance, and his involvement through the towns. Because the Benjamin Martin is fictional The Patriot cannot be called 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean that other aspects shown were inaccurate. The Patriot demonstrates authentic knowledge of history militarily, socially, and politically.

The characters in this movie were great actors. They acted so realistic that it looked as if it was occurring live from the scene of the action. All of the characters were excellent , especially the women when they got their hair cut off in the concentration camp.