The American Revolution and the Screen

 I might be in a...phase because of Battle Ground, which is intense. That, and my guts are still arguing with me.

Also I just finished rewatching The Patriot on Netflix (over the course of four days, in about 45 minute chunks)

---

The American Revolution and the Screen

Why isn’t there more mainstream fiction for the screen set during the American Revolution? You’d think, with The Discourse that it’d come  up a lot more, but it doesn’t? Look, after The Patriot, can you think of any big screen film that was about the American Revolution? Can you think of any mainstream pieces of fictional screen media that are about the American Revolution? The only examples that come to my mind are Turn: Washington’s Spies and Hamilton. And to be clear, Hamilton was a stage play that got recorded, so I’m not quite sure that counts. I suppose there was also the Sons of Liberty miniseries starring Ben Barnes, but that was three episodes, so I’m not sure if even that one counts.

Sleepy Hollow I guess? I may have forgotten it though, as after the first season it’s just… bad.

And I’m wondering why? Why aren’t there more movies about the American Revolution? In interviews about Hamilton, Ron Chernow (the historian who wrote the biography that inspired the play) mentioned that he was surprised the book didn’t get more serious consideration from Hollywood. After all, it had basically everything in a solid drama. TV Tropes, on its Useful Notes page on the American Revolution* posits the theory that there aren’t any of the sweeping wilderness landscapes in the United States to film these sorts of stories anymore, so they can’t. But that’s… demonstrably false. Maybe that’s true of New England, where a lot of Revolutionary drama and documentaries focus, but I’m not sure I even believe that. Anyone in the US who has been to battle reenactments, or national parks, or ever been on a road trip and looked out the window could tell you that. So we’ll throw that suggestion right out.

My sister suggested an alternate explanation: that Hollywood doesn’t want to grapple with the moral ambiguity of a story featuring protagonists that are slave owners. And while I don’t know if this is entirely true, I don’t think this argument is devoid of merit. The Patriot, very noticeably, sidesteps the issue by having the lead character Benjamin Martin not be a slave owner, despite his massive plantation house--all the black men working in the field are paid freemen! In fact, he hates slavery! And that’s… nice, I guess, but feels like it’s more dodging the issue than really addressing slavery and the way the Southern economy was built on it at the time. Mel Gibson himself thought it was a bit too convenient, but I get that maybe asking for introspection on the American Revolution is a bit much to expect from this movie. Or Roland Emmerich.

Side note: I do admire (and admittedly, maybe this is because of where I’m from) that for once, The Patriot is a story from the American Revolution that isn’t set in the New England colonies, but in the South. There was a lot going on in the South during the war! Especially in South Carolina: there were over 200 battles fought in this state in this war alone, more than in any other state! And yeah, I get that the big names are Washington, and Adams, and Hamilton, and all of that, but we don’t have to tell the same old stories when we talk about the Revolution, do we?

--but slavery is kind of that awkward… thing that’s there. Honestly, no piece of media I’ve seen has really handled slavery in the Revolution that well. Turn takes a stab at it, and does… okay, I guess? Assassin’s Creed III makes some references. Hamilton does some work with it, but in some ways sidesteps it by making the title character a hardcore abolitionist (which I get that Ron Chernow knows more on the topic than I ever will, but it is debated) and making some pointed references to it.

Given that there were abolitionists at the time (and one, surprisingly, from South Carolina!)though I don’t think that it’s that big of a stumbling block to making a movie or television series as some people seem to think. But here’s the thing: the movie or television show doesn’t actually have to be a woke white man in the lead role. You can totally have a drama set in the American Revolution about a black man! Or a black woman (hello, Someone Knows My Name!)! Or about a Native American (hello Assassin’s Creed III)! Granted, I think it would be very difficult to tell this kind of story and have a happy ending, and make it remotely like history; Someone Knows My Name accomplished it by having the lead character’s story end in the UK. But things like Assassin’s Creed III end by not having a happy ending at all, with Connor realizing that despite his efforts, and the winning of the war for the Patriots, his people aren’t safe from white colonialism.

But those stories are there! They’re right there! You can totally tell a story about the American Revolution, and not have to write loops around a white guy and why he’s not a slave owner--just don’t write a white guy! It’s that simple!

But no, no one does that. I’m not against the idea of a white man leading an American Revolution movie, but I do want to see more diverse stories, and if the reason that Hollywood isn’t trying to make more movies on the Revolution is because they feel awkward making a story about a white guy when slavery was an accepted part of society, they could just Not Do That and still keep the setting. It’s not difficult.

Or maybe I’m whining because I just want my fix of guys fighting with muskets and swords on the American frontier.

---

*I should note that Useful Notes pages on TV Tropes are good starters, they should probably never ever be used as a source in and of themselves, as there are rarely any citations and they’re subject to opinions/ignorance, as I’m about to demonstrate.