Patriot, The [Extended Cut]

Quote "Years from now historians will look at this film as a relic of the Bush years--full of nationalistic bravado. "


Maybe you have forgotten Mr Plath, you write movie reviews not political commentary. The fact that The patriot was released only 6 months after George Bush took office must mean that the evil Karl Rove set to work first thing making Hollywood push Americanism. Shut your Pie hole unless you know what your talking about.

First, why would you see "nationalistic bravado" as something so entirely negative? Every country enjoys its national pride, and certainly America has promulgated this self-esteem throughout the world for many, many years. Perhaps you took offense at the way the word "Bush" was used, reading more into it than is there.

Second, "The Patriot" is an unashamedly patriotic movie, and it would be unusual for a reviewer not to comment on that fact.

Third, are you suggesting that reviewers should live by your own writing code, eschewing any personal opinion about anything, even when it's clearly related to the movie at hand? Are you suggesting it is possible to write a subjective movie review without injecting subjective commentary into it? Are you, in fact, suggesting that DVDTOWN should censor what its writers can and cannot say?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that writers should only write about things of which you approve?

In any case, just as you are free to read or not read anything you choose, DVDTOWN's writers are free to write anything they choose. You take it or leave it.

John J. Puccio, Senior Review Editor

Whether "nationalist bravado" is a positive thing or not, Bush wasn't President when "The Patriot" came out so that line in the review seems a bit silly.

"The patriot was released only 6 months after George Bush took office." --Cousin Eddie

Apparently, it was a product of the Bush years, like it or not. Which is beside the point. I'm sure Jim was speaking metaphorically, that "The Patriot" reflected a national attitude of the time, which it surely did.

John

"Shut your pie hole" isn't the most convincing argument ever made, but I think it's fair to say that Hollywood has been pushing "nationalistic bravado" since its very earliest days. It's pretty much the coin of the realm for Hollywood - easy message, easy money. Just like Hollywood's other favorite: "Just have faith, and everything will turn out OK." For all the pissing and moaning about "liberal" Hollywood, I can't think of a greater engine of conservative propaganda throughout the 20th century (and into the 21st) than the Hollywood Dream Machine.

It was actually 6 months BEFORE Bush became President in June of 2000.

i can't think of a movie starring mel gibson that espoused an out-and-out "liberal" message, so generally speaking, "the patriot" is a bit of a good-ol', good-ol' chest-thumper. nevertheless, the movie was released in june 2000 as pointed out by bk1714--before the bush vs. gore election even took place(!). in this regard, jim's summation is indeed, entirely wrong.

OK sorry for the pie hole remark, but your comments read like you were saying that bravado was a bad thing. Your movie reviews are strictly opinion (except possibly in the case of PQ and SQ), so it would be silly for me to suggest you keep yours out now wouldn't it. once again:

"Years from now historians will look at this film as a relic of the Bush years--full of nationalistic bravado. "

Tell me that doesn't sound negative.

With regard to your last statement:

Quote "In any case, just as you are free to read or not read anything you choose, DVDTOWN's writers are free to write anything they choose. You take it or leave it. "

I agree, in which case I am also free to disagree with your original statement and call you to task for it.

Cousin Eddie,

I didn't write the review, Jim did. As Jim is away for a few weeks, I was merely interpreting what he was saying, namely that the country in the late 90s and early 2000s experienced a wave of fervent patriotism, and Jim was merely being metaphoric in his description of this whole era (up until the time the Iraq War went sour) as being the "Bush years."

Again, though, I think you're reading much too much into the words.

John

Ummm... The Bush years HAVE been full of nationalistic bravado. Similarly, the Reagan years were full of economic transitions and films of that time mark that similar trait (Wall Street, anyone?). Lots of people consider excesses in film in the 90s as a response to Clinton's terms. Many films of the sixties are marked by their response to political and social oppression.

I guess my point is, what's the difference here?

The past 6 years have been overtly nationalistic, spurred onward by the current administration's canny media presence. Jim simply seems to be justly prescient in predicting what the years since 2000 will be remembered for. Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's not (I personally agree with him), but there is no way to ignore the fact that nationalistic attitudes have certainly dominated the social and political scene in America during Bush's administration.

Now, for the movie, I personally found it enjoyable, but very much lacking in believability considering it comes off as an "historical" epic. It felt very heavy-handed, and struck me as a German's take on American patriotism, and ultimately, nationalism.

Oh, wait, it is a German's take on that...

sean (...mr. emmerich, america has allowed you to define our very ideas of patriotism...)

sean,

i agree with you that the bush years have been filled with nationalistic bravado, but the fact remains that the movie was released before the nov. 2006 election.

eddie

Eddie,

I understand your comment, but certainly the Bush rehtoric was on the stage well before this film was released. His brand of nationalism was on display all throughout the campaign, and while this film may not have actually come out during his presidency, it certainly reflects that nationalistic attitude.

Films are a reflection of their times, and this one came out during a time when that specific mentality was front and center. To say it is a product of that kind of thinking, which, as Jim states, will likely be aligned with the Bush presidency, is to me not that far afield. Certainly the nation didn't change its thinking in five months, and in reflection years from now, as Jim's point asserts, I can certainly see this film being looked upon in that light.

We can split hairs, but from a historical perspective, I can see where Jim's point is reasonable.

sean (...i've tried splitting hairs... very difficult... you need a knife...)

sean,

john has sent me similar comments via e-mail. we could just as well say that "the patriot" reflects the times of gerhard schroeder, rudolf giuliani, or vladimir putin simply because these people were alive and in politics when this movie was released/made.

at any rate, what really bothers me about associating this movie with george w. bush is the fact that it takes YEARS to get a movie made. "the patriot" was in development mostly during the clinton years. it is far more justifiable to argue that the movie reflects the clinton era than to say that it reflects the bush era.

eddie

Oh, I'm certainly not saying it's justified, I just agree that this is likely to be how it is viewed historically. Certainly there were many films that were in production well before, but once 9/11 occurred, they echoed different sentiments en masse when they were released due to the change in America's (and the world's) frame of mind.

I didn't think Jim was saying that the Bush Years helped to fashion The Patriot's narrative, just potentially shape it's perception in the longview in years to come. The film's nationalism just happens to jibe with that of Bush's. Perhaps it's all coincidence, but regardless, I see how the two could easily be associated in years to come.

sean (...not that anyone associates with me...)

sean,

yes, the two can be associated through factual error. :-)

eddie

Gee, a guy leaves the country and all hell breaks loose. My remark was meant simply as an analogy. The Bush years have been filled with patriotic nationalism, and Bush took office the year that the film was released. Yes, it was made prior to the Bush years, but The Patriot doesn't ring of oral sex. The Bush years seemed a better comparison. And by the way, Cousin Eddie, it's tough to review any film by Mel Gibson these days without mentioning something about politics, since Gibson is such an openly political guy--and a complex one, at that.