Change Your Image
pethelpers
Reviews
John Paul Jones (1959)
Interesting directing
I was delighted to see this film as I am a voracious consumer of anything about the American Revolution. Aside from any possible historical flaws mentioned by others I found some of the directing touches quite interesting. Most novel was the way George Washington was portrayed when Jones went to visit him at Valley Forge. He was filmed only from the back as would be seen by some observer (e.g. news reporter ) in the room. The effect was quite powerful. It saved us worrying about things like if the actor playing Washington looked enough like him etc. and simply gave us a ghostly impression of the Washington we read about in the history books - namely, a giant of a man both physically and morally and probably the greatest man in history. It occurred to me that Director John Farrow was portraying not the man but rather alluding to the LEGEND on screen. If that was the aim he certainly succeeded.
The 'living presence' of the legend was enhanced by the fact that the image spoke in that arcane English of the time.
The net result was that a huge cinematic impression was provided of a very great man. Nice directing twist innovation !
The Patriot (2000)
Decent film attempt
Being a huge historical buff, particularly concerning the American Revolution, I will watch any movie about that topic. There are far too few considering that it was the greatest event in history giving birth as it did to contemporary modes of popular democratic government. I was therefore interested to see that many reviews discuss the issue of its historical authenticity. Having read mountains on the history, I pronounce the movie interesting in that respect because it tried to incorporate important historical issues. The final battle scene, for example, is a rough allusion to the Battle of Guilford Courthouse which the Brits technically won (the Americans left the field first) but which in effect was a strategic disaster for the British who lost half their army. The British Whig leader James Fox said in the house of commons that 'another victory like that would spell the end of the British army. The movie version makes reference to important facts from that battle - like the militia leading the Brits into charging an line of Continental regulars hidden over a hill + Cornwallis, who wasn't at that battle, ordering artillery to fire into his own centre (which included his own troops). So even if historically inaccurate in detail, it gave some important information about how Cornwallis managed to lose the war. Regarding the much maligned image of the brutal Brit who burned people in the church - there really was such a monster - Colonel Banistre Tarleton ('bloody ban') of the British Legion. The atrocities he actually committed were even worse than those shown in the movie.
For these, and many other reasons, I pronounce the movie a credible piece of fiction but what I really wish is that someone would make a comprehensive film history of the American Revolution along the line of HBOs 'Band of Brothers' and 'Pacific'. It was an event of the greatest importance in history, crammed with heroes, villains, great events etc. Giants like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton are nowhere to be found in the world these day.