Readers Doing Battle Over ‘The Patriot’ and History

David Gritten is delusional, poor boy (“Need a Villain? Any Brit Will Do,” July 12).

If he thinks that the Yanks are out to get him and his countrymen, he should take a look at home-grown English literature. Neither Shakespeare nor Dickens had to venture very far to find a blackguard in their midst. And English behavior in “the colonies”--whether in America or India or any other “outpost of progress”--has a more than modest sampling of historically documented scurrilous acts.

In Gritten’s myopic view, one would think that the establishment of the Irish Republic and the fight for home rule in Scotland (or Wales, for that matter) were brought about by England’s good manners in local affairs. I’d guess, even if the makers of “Michael Collins” or “Braveheart” were a wee bit overzealous on film, that residents of Dublin and Glasgow would lean toward the Hollywood version of life under English domination.

PETER ALTSCHULER

Santa Monica

While it’s true that Hollywood and history don’t generally mix, they did get the villain right in the historical epics Gritten gripes about. After all, we didn’t fight Communist Russia during the Revolutionary War, we fought the British. William Wallace wasn’t battling Nazis in “Braveheart,” it was the invading English. And it wasn’t the South Africans who managed to sink the unsinkable Titanic. Her British crew did that all by themselves.

Gritten makes valid points (including America’s lack of introspection about the skeletons in our own historical closet), but he’s too busy whining about how the Russians are never the bad guys anymore and slamming some very fine British actors for their career choices. In truth, what he really seems irked about is not the negative portrayal of British in the current cinema, but that the films in question, fictionalized as they are, dredge up the uncomfortable fact that the lives of the subjugated in the glorious British Empire weren’t so jolly good after all. The colonials are acting up again, Hollywood-style.

Sorry, mate. If you ever get another crack at empire building, don’t be such a bully, and hire a publicist.

LAURIE KRISTINAT

Fullerton

Although I agree with Gritten’s argument and certainly sympathize with his sentiment, I think there are so many more legitimate reasons to bash “The Patriot.”

It is Roland Emmerich, Dean Devlin and Robert Rodat who should be locked in a church, the windows boarded up, and forced to watch their pathetic slop, including “Independence Day,” on a continuous reel until they either atone for their sins against the movie-watching public, or until an asteroid, hurled down by an alien-vampire race (with British accents, of course), crashes into Earth, ending bad Hollywood movies as we know them.

“The Patriot” is an affront to Gritten’s heritage, but it is much more an offense against our intelligence.

CRAIG A. WILLIAMS

Santa Monica

The Col. Tavington character in “The Patriot” was based upon a British officer named Banastre Tarleton, who commanded a regiment of Dragoons in the Carolinas campaigns. He came to embody the cruel nature of the British Army during the Revolutionary War. He did order the execution of POWs. This practice came to be known as “Tarleton’s Quarter,” or no mercy to captured soldiers.

An excellent article about Col. Tarleton is available at https://www.nps.gov/cowp/tarleton.htm.

Tell Gritten that not all British officers believed in “fair play, old boy.”

HAROLD W. SCHIEVE

Whittier

If Gritten can stay awake through another viewing of “Titanic,” he might notice the villains are slimy rich Americans as much as they are slimy rich Brits. Maybe he might notice that Alan Rickman’s character in “Die Hard” was German, not British. And who should the bad guys be in “Michael Collins” if not British? French, perhaps?

But the one point in his diatribe that really gets my Irish up is his slam against “Saving Private Ryan” because it “gave the impression that U.S. forces were solely responsible for the . . . D-day landings.” The film was about a single American platoon at Omaha Beach. There were no British units there. If the movie had been set at Sword, Gold or Juno beaches, there would have been no Americans. British and American troops rarely, if ever, fought in the same immediate area.

PAUL McELLIGOTT

Lake Forest

To me, the clear reason that British actors are chosen, often, to play villains is because they make interesting, articulate, intelligent, complex, charming and erudite villains, and not out-and-out boring thugs. This plays on the contrast, which I find stimulating, between the evil they represent on the one hand as villains and the enchanting personality that they bring to the roles. Besides, someone has to play the bad guy.

BRIAN LEE CORBER

North Hollywood

The truth is people tend to mistake a British accent for great acting. Therefore, in a filmmaker’s attempt to create a strong villain, often British actors are tapped for the roles. This to me is more flattery than insult.

Gritten should ask Latinos and African Americans about unfair portrayals in the movies.

JOE GOYETTE

Los Angeles

Gritten forgets that no other group of actors in our cinema has more opportunity to portray kings, queens, princesses, princes, dukes, duchesses, aristocrats or intelligentsia as well as the common man and villains. The other ethnic groups he mentions fight daily to simply be represented in films.

VINCE OGLETREE

Los Angeles

I suspect that after picking on Germans, Russians and Arabs so long and so often, Hollywood decided to single out the one nation/ethnic group that was most likely to show a stiff upper lip and simply ignore all the insults. That Gritten feels so aggrieved about these recent films that he felt it necessary to complain so noisily about them seems totally out of character for a Brit. His public whining suggests, sadly enough, that the sun has truly set on whatever is left of the British Empire.

JAMES NICHOLS

Santa Barbara

All properly brought up Britons are supremely indifferent to how foreigners regard us--Gritten has let the side down badly.

R.F. JACKSON

Arroyo Grande

In his need to make what is properly historical fiction mesh with his own perception of historical fact, Kevin Phillips does a great disservice to Robert Rodat’s screenplay (“ ‘Patriot’s’ Skirmish With Truth,” July 7). The film is not a documentary but a drama. As such, Rodat has carefully crafted a story that is true to the spirit of the American Revolution. He skillfully creates composite characters with fictional names and places them in dramatic situations that approximate real events. His purpose is not to re-create history, but to viscerally examine on a personal level the essential conflict (emotional as well as physical) and enormous personal sacrifice of those who challenged the divine right of kings.

Taken on its own terms, it is a powerful cinematic experience that dares to make us think and feel.

GARNER SIMMONS

Westlake Village

Instead of telling “The Patriot’s” writer which story he should have told, maybe Phillips should have elucidated how the public was totally misled as to the nature of war in that period. In the movie, people were being shot constantly--more often than not, right in the chest (including at least twice by two astonishingly accurate young boys). This is unrealistic to the point of ludicrousness with guns that were smooth-bore (thus extremely inaccurate). They were fired while the gunman was looking away to avoid the gunpowder exploding in his face, took at least 30 seconds to reload, and misfired one out of 20 times anyway (which, miraculously, not once occurred in the movie).

We’re talking about an era in which there was no “aim” command. In these conditions, Gibson’s character’s snide comment regarding the standard army procedure of shooting at each other in straight, open lines had to be a joke. It was the only way two armies could inflict any damage at all and remained in wide use for an entire century more. But the director, Roland Emmerich, wanted more blood than history provided, so he combined 20th century technology with 18th century strategy, misleading his audiences into being convinced of the martial stupidity of their forefathers.

CARRICK BARTLE

Lake Balboa

As a qualified historian, Kevin Phillips is possibly right in the various flaws he notes in “The Patriot.” I found it a very fine film. There are three wars in American history that we had to win: the American Revolution, the Civil War and World War II. Mel Gibson’s film on our war for independence made that point tellingly.

I’ve made more than my share of historical films; I know how hard it is to find the truth of history and the hearts of your audience while dealing with bad weather, a ballooning budget and the occasional troublesome actor.

Which brings me to Spike Lee, who tends to loosen his tongue before he has his mind in gear (Morning Report, July 7). Last year, Spike said I should be shot through the head. I remind him that I was marching with Dr. King before Spike could tie his own shoes. Now he savages “The Patriot” because (if I understand him) there are not enough black actors in the film. I point out that one of the best performances in the film is given by Jay Arlen Jones as a black farmer who fights with the rebels.

Dr. King would be pleased. Spike Lee may try to shoot me yet.

CHARLTON HESTON

Beverly Hills

Re Spike Lee’s criticism that “The Patriot” was “a complete whitewashing of history, revisionist history,” and “dodged around, skirted about or completely ignored slavery.”

Why must Lee see everything through the filter of racism? “The Patriot” didn’t confront the issue of slavery because it was not about slavery. It was about the American Revolution. What’s truly sad is that someone who speaks as freely as Spike Lee has such a narrow vision of history that he can’t appreciate the fact that some men and women who died to give him his freedom of speech happened to be white.

RON WILKERSON

Los Angeles

I can understand how Spike Lee felt, since I, as a Jewish American, sat through the entire movie “Gladiator” without hearing or seeing a single reference to the source of funding for construction of the Colosseum, the ancient edifice in which much of the exciting bouts of the film took place. In fact, that money came from the Jewish wars in AD 70, when the Roman monolith put down rebellions in Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple and used the resulting booty to build the grand stadium.

Spike, when you make your film of the American Revolution, I will be the first in line to see you tie the whole business together!

DAVID GOLDENBERG

Laguna Beach

It seems that “The Patriot” has miraculously turned Spike Lee into a stickler for historical accuracy. I don’t remember hearing him whine about the numerous factual distortions contained in “The Hurricane.”

DOUG BALDING

Los Angeles

I work in a local junior high school and would love to be able to take every single kid from our school to this flick, all 1,070 of them!

Too many kids know the cost of everything but the value of nothing! “The Patriot” not only can teach them about love of country and sacrifice, but also to understand how we got where we are. Too many kids today think their world starts and ends with them. Kids today desperately need heroes, and this movie is full of them.

PATRICIA HOGAN

Canyon Country