Editing The Patriot (2000 film) (section)

==Historical authenticity==
During development, Emmerich and his team consulted experts at the [[Smithsonian Institution]] on set, props, and costumes; advisor Rex Ellis even recommended the [[Gullah]] village as an appropriate place for Martin's family to hide.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Moore |first=Lucinda |title=Capturing America's Fight for Freedom |magazine=[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]] |date=30 June 2000 |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/capturing-americas-fight-for-freedom-65510953/ |access-date=25 June 2018}}</ref> In addition, screenwriter [[Robert Rodat]] read through many journals and letters of colonists as part of his preparation for writing the screenplay.<ref>{{cite news |last=Malanowski |first=Jamie |title=Film: The Revolutionary War is Lost on Hollywood |work=The New York Times |date=July 2, 2000 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq |access-date=July 7, 2012}}</ref>

Producer [[Mark Gordon (film)|Mark Gordon]] said that in making the film, "while we were telling a fictional story, the backdrop was serious history".<ref name=DVD /> Some of the resulting characters and events thus were composites of real characters and events that were designed to serve the fictional narrative without losing the historical flavor. Rodat said of Gibson's character: "Benjamin Martin is a [[composite character]] made up of [[Thomas Sumter]], [[Daniel Morgan]], [[Andrew Pickens (congressman)|Andrew Pickens]], and [[Francis Marion]], and a few bits and pieces from a number of other characters."<ref name=DVD /> Rodat also indicated that the fictional Colonel William Tavington is "loosely based on Colonel [[Banastre Tarleton]], who was particularly known for his brutal acts".<ref name=DVD />{{failed verification|date=December 2023}}

While some events, such as Tarleton's pursuit of Francis Marion and his fellow irregular soldiers who escaped by disappearing into the swamps of South Carolina, were loosely based on history,<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Crawford |first=Amy |title=The Swamp Fox – Elusive and crafty, Francis Marion outwitted British troops during the American Revolution |magazine=[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]] |date=July 1, 2007 |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/biography/fox.html?c=y&page=1 |access-date=June 10, 2012}}</ref> and others were adapted, such as the final battle in the film which combined elements of the [[Battle of Cowpens|Battles of Cowpens]] and [[Battle of Guilford Court House]], most of the plot events in the film are pure fiction.

===Criticism of Benjamin Martin as based on Francis Marion===
The film was harshly criticized in the [[British press]] in part because of its connection to [[Francis Marion]], a militia leader in South Carolina known as the "Swamp Fox".  After the release of ''The Patriot'', the British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'' denounced Marion as "a serial [[Rape|rapist]] who hunted [[Red Indians]] for fun."<ref>{{cite news |title=Spike Lee slams Patriot |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 6, 2000 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jul/06/news.spikelee |access-date=January 2, 2010 |location=London}}</ref> Historian [[Christopher Hibbert]] told the ''[[Daily Express]]'' about Marion:

<blockquote>The truth is that people like Marion committed atrocities as bad, if not worse, than those perpetrated by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain|British]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=15 June 2000 |title=Mel Gibson's latest hero: a rapist who hunted Indians for fun |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jun/15/news.melgibson |access-date= |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref></blockquote>

''The Patriot'' does not depict the American character Benjamin Martin as innocent of atrocities; a key plot point revolves around the character's guilt over acts he engaged in, such as torturing, killing, and mutilating prisoners during the [[French and Indian War]], leading him to repentantly repudiate General Cornwallis for the brutality of his men.

Conservative radio host [[Michael Graham (radio personality)|Michael Graham]] rejected Hibbert's criticism of Marion in a commentary published in ''[[National Review]]'':

<blockquote>Was Francis Marion a slave owner? Was he a determined and dangerous warrior? Did he commit acts in an 18th century war that we would consider atrocious in the current world of peace and [[political correctness]]? As another great American film hero might say: 'You're damn right.'  "That's what made him a hero, 200 years ago and today."<ref name="graham">{{cite news |last=Graham |first=Michael |title=The British Are Crying, the British Are Crying (guest column) |date=June 26, 2000 |work=[[National Review]] |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment062600b.html |access-date=May 31, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090205021141/http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment062600b.html |archive-date=February 5, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref></blockquote>

Graham also refers to what he describes as "the unchallenged work of South Carolina's premier historian" Dr. [[Walter Edgar]], who claimed in his 1998 ''South Carolina: A History'' that Marion's partisans were "a ragged band of both black and white volunteers".<ref name="graham" />

Amy Crawford, in ''[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]]'' magazine, stated that modern historians such as [[William Gilmore Simms]] and [[Hugh Rankin (historian)|Hugh Rankin]] have written accurate biographies of Marion, including Simms' ''The Life of Francis Marion''.<ref name="fox">{{cite magazine |last=Crawford |first=Amy |date=July 1, 2007 |title=The Swamp Fox |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/fox.html |access-date= |magazine=[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]]}}</ref>  The introduction to the 2007 edition of Simms' book was written by [[Sean Busick]], a professor of American history at [[Athens State University]] in [[Alabama]], who wrote:

<blockquote>Marion deserves to be remembered as one of the heroes of the War for Independence....Francis Marion was a man of his times: he owned slaves, and he fought in a brutal campaign against the [[Cherokee Indians]]...Marion's experience in the French and Indian War prepared him for more admirable service.<ref name=fox/></blockquote>

During pre-production, the producers debated on whether Martin would own slaves, ultimately deciding not to make him a slave owner. This decision received criticism from [[Spike Lee]], who in a letter to ''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' accused the film's portrayal of [[slavery]] as being "a complete [[Whitewashing (censorship)|whitewashing]] of history".<ref name="PCOLHolywoodreporter">{{Cite news |date=6 July 2000 |title=Spike Lee slams Patriot |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jul/06/news.spikelee |access-date= |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Lee wrote that after he and his wife went to see the film, "we both came out of the theatre fuming. For three hours ''The Patriot'' dodged around, skirted about or completely ignored slavery." Gibson himself remarked: "I think I would have made him a slave holder. Not to seems kind of a cop-out."<ref>{{cite news|last=Dunkel|first=Tom |title=Mel Gibson Pops an American Myth|date=June 2000|work=[[George (magazine)|George]] }}</ref>

===Criticism of Tavington as based on Tarleton===
After release, several British voices criticized the film for its depiction of the film's villain Tavington and defended the historical character of [[Banastre Tarleton]]. Ben Fenton, commenting in ''The Daily Telegraph'', wrote:

<blockquote>There is no evidence that Tarleton, called 'Bloody Ban' or 'The Butcher' in rebel pamphlets, ever broke the [[Laws of war|rules of war]] and certainly did not ever shoot a child in cold blood.<ref>{{cite news |last=Fenton |first=Ben |date=June 19, 2000 |title=Truth is first casualty in Hollywood's war |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1343851/Truth-is-first-casualty-in-Hollywoods-war.html |access-date= |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |location=London}}</ref></blockquote>

Although Tarleton gained the reputation among Americans as a butcher for his involvement in the [[Battle of Waxhaws]] in South Carolina, he was a hero in the City of Liverpool. [[Liverpool City Council]], led by [[Mayor]] Edwin Clein, called for a public apology for what they viewed as the film's "[[character assassination]]" of Tarleton.<ref>{{Cite news |date=30 June 2000 |title=Patriotic Liverpool up in arms over Gibson's blockbuster |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/jun/30/news.melgibson |access-date= |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

What happened during the Battle of The Waxhaws, known to the Americans as the Buford Massacre or as the Waxhaw massacre, is the subject of debate. According to an American field surgeon named Robert Brownfield who witnessed the events, the Continental Army Col. Buford raised a [[white flag]] of surrender, "expecting the usual treatment sanctioned by civilized warfare". While Buford was calling for quarter, Tarleton's horse was struck by a musket ball and fell. This gave the Loyalist cavalrymen the impression that the Continentals had shot at their commander while asking for mercy. Enraged, the Loyalist troops charged at the Virginians. According to Brownfield, the Loyalists attacked, carrying out "indiscriminate carnage never surpassed by the most ruthless atrocities of the most barbarous savages".

In Tarleton's own account, he stated that his horse had been shot from under him during the initial charge in which he was knocked out for several minutes and that his men, thinking him dead, engaged in "a vindictive asperity not easily restrained".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolution/p/battle-of-waxhaws.htm |title=American Revolution: Battle of Waxhaws |first1=Kennedy |last1=Hickman |publisher=About.com |access-date=December 8, 2012 |archive-date=November 19, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121119004142/http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolution/p/battle-of-waxhaws.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Tarleton's role in the Revolutionary War in the Carolinas is examined by Ben Rubin who shows that historically, while the actual events of the Battle of the Waxhaws were presented differently according to which side was recounting them, the story of Tarleton's atrocities at Waxhaws and on other occasions became a rallying cry, particularly at the [[Battle of King's Mountain]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rubin|first=Ben|title=The Rhetoric of Revenge: Atrocity and Identity in Revolutionary Carolinas|journal=Journal of Backcountry Studies|volume=5 |issue=2 |year=2010|url=http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ojs/index.php/jbc/article/viewFile/102/84|access-date=June 7, 2012}}</ref> The tales of Tarleton's atrocities were a part of standard U.S. accounts of the war and were described by [[Washington Irving]] and by Christopher Ward in his 1952 history, ''The War of the Revolution'', where Tarleton is described as "cold-hearted, vindictive, and utterly ruthless. He wrote his name in letters of blood all across the history of the war in the South."<ref>Rubin, 2010, p. 17</ref> Not until Anthony Scotti's 2002 book, ''Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton'', were Tarleton's actions fully reexamined. Scotti challenged the factual accounts of atrocities and stressed the "propaganda value that such stories held for the Americans both during and after the war".<ref>{{cite book|author=Scotti, Anthony Jr. |title=Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton|location=Boise, MD|publisher=Heritage Books|date=July 2002|isbn=978-0788420993}}</ref> Scotti's book, however, did not come out until two years after ''The Patriot''. Screenwriters consulting American works to build the character Tavington based on Tarleton would have commonly found descriptions of him as barbaric and accounts of his name being used for recruiting and motivation during the Revolutionary War itself.<ref>Rubin, 2010, p. 21.</ref>

Whereas Tavington is depicted as aristocratic but penniless, Tarleton came from a wealthy Liverpool merchant family. Tarleton did not die in battle or from impalement, as Tavington did in the film. Tarleton died on January 16, 1833, in [[Leintwardine]], [[Herefordshire]], England, at the age of 78, nearly 50 years after the war ended. He outlived Col. [[Francis Marion]] who died in 1795, by 38 years. Before his death,  Tarleton had achieved the military rank of [[General]], equal to that held by the overall British commanders during the American Revolution, and became a [[baronet]] and a member of the British [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]].

===Depiction of atrocities in the Revolutionary War===

''The Patriot'' was criticized for misrepresenting atrocities during the [[American Revolutionary War|Revolutionary War]], including the killing of [[Prisoner of war|prisoners of war]] and wounded soldiers and Tavington's burning a church filled with civilians. Although historians have noted that both sides during the conflict committed atrocities, they "generally agree that the rebels probably violated the rules of war more often than the British". According to ''[[Salon.com]]'', the church-burning scene in the film is based on the [[Oradour-sur-Glane massacre]] committed by [[Nazi Germany|German]] forces in 1944, though "[there] is no evidence that a similar event took place during the American Revolution".<ref>{{cite news |title=Did the Brits Burn Churches |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/07/did-the-brits-burn-churches.html |work=Slate |date=July 10, 2000}}</ref> Historian Bill Segars noted that there was no record of the British ever burning a church full of civilians during the Revolutionary War,<ref name="newsandpress.net">Lyle, Samantha, [https://www.newsandpress.net/church-burnings-made-colonists-fight-brits-even-harder 'Church burnings made Colonists fight Brits even harder'], The Darlington County News & Press, November 26, 2019. Retrieved February 8, 2024.</ref> though British and Loyalist forces did burn several empty churches such as the [[St. Philip's Church, Brunswick Town|St. Philip's Church]] in Brunswick Town and [[Indiantown, South Carolina|Indiantown]] Presbyterian Church.<ref name="newsandpress.net"/><ref>Jarvis, Gail, [https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-destruction-of-old-sheldon-church-and-other-ravages-of-war 'The Destruction of Old Sheldon Church and Other Ravages of War'], Abbeville Institute, March 22, 2016. Retrieved February 8, 2024.</ref><ref>Dukes, Josh, [https://www.johnsonvilleschistory.org/exhibits/show/churches/indiantown-presbyterian-church 'Indiantown Presbyterian Church'], Johnsonville SC History. Retrieved February 8, 2024.</ref><ref>Merida, Paul C., [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA603028.pdf 'The British Southern Campaign 1778-1781: The Impact of Strategic Level Assessments and Assumptions on British Decision Making '], USMC Command and Staff College, Marine Corps University, March 5, 2010. Retrieved February 8, 2024.</ref>

The ''[[New York Post]]'' film critic [[Jonathan Foreman (journalist)|Jonathan Foreman]] was one of several focusing on this distortion in the film and wrote the following in an article at [[Salon.com]]:

<blockquote>The most disturbing thing about ''The Patriot'' is not just that German director [[Roland Emmerich]] (director of'' [[Independence Day (1996 film)|Independence Day]])'' and his screenwriter [[Robert Rodat]] (who was criticized for excluding the roles played by [[British Armed Forces|British]] and other [[Allies of World War II|Allied]] troops in the [[Normandy landings]] from his script for ''[[Saving Private Ryan]]'') depicted British troops as committing savage atrocities, but that those atrocities bear such a close resemblance to [[German war crimes|war crimes carried out by German troops]]—particularly the [[Schutzstaffel|SS]] in [[World War II]]. It's hard not to wonder if the filmmakers have some kind of subconscious agenda... They have made a film that will have the effect of inoculating audiences against the unique historical horror of [[Oradour-sur-Glane massacre|Oradour]]—and implicitly rehabilitating the Nazis while making the British seem as evil as history's worst monsters... So it's no wonder that the British press sees this film as a kind of [[blood libel]] against the [[British people]].<ref>Foreman, Jonathan, [http://www.salon.com/2000/07/03/patriot_3/ 'The Nazis, er, the Redcoats are coming!'], Salon.com, July 3, 2000. Retrieved October 2, 2016.</ref></blockquote>

''[[The Washington Post]]'' film critic [[Stephen Hunter]] said: "Any image of the American Revolution which represents you Brits as Nazis and us as gentle folk is almost certainly wrong. It was a very bitter war, a total war, and that is something that I am afraid has been lost to history....[T]he presence of the Loyalists (colonists who did not want to join the fight for independence from Britain) meant that the War of Independence was a conflict of complex loyalties."<ref>{{cite news |last=Fenton |first=Ben |title=Truth is first casualty in Hollywood's war |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |date=June 19, 2000 |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1343851/Truth-is-first-casualty-in-Hollywoods-war.html}}</ref> The historian Richard F. Snow, editor of ''[[American Heritage (magazine)|American Heritage]]'' magazine, said of the church-burning scene: "Of course it never happened—if it had do you think Americans would have forgotten it? It could have kept us out of [[World War I]]."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/jul/22/the-patriot-mel-gibson-reel-history |location=London |work=The Guardian |title=The Patriot: more flag-waving rot with Mel Gibson |date=July 23, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tony+Parsons+Column%3A+Danger+in+Mel%27s+deceit.-a063529045 |title=Tony Parsons Column: Danger in Mel's deceit |work=The Free Library |publisher=Farlex}}</ref>