In the movies in question the English were the villains. It is quite traditional in movies to make the villains as bad as possible. I believe it is something to do with dramatic effect.
Although the herding of civilians into a church and then burning it down in The Patriot was a tad over the top.
Tarleton was not averse to the odd atrocity, but nothing like that is recorded, which it would have been.
Tarleton was not averse to the odd atrocity, but nothing like that is recorded, which it would have been."
That certainly was a memorable scene. I think your point is right, if indeed there was no record of such an atrocity. But it did make the point about what the "no holds barred" person would actually be capable of. That and the execution of the young son of the Gibson character. Cinematically the point was profound. I dont know about the historical one. I do imagine that when you are trying to maintain an empire that is slipping from your hands, the truly ruthless men are called forth to do their worst. I liked the way Gibson imaged for us the British General who was actually responsible forhte horrors even while keeping his hands clean by use of the Tarleton type.---Indeed, is Cornwallis a Pontius Pilate figure? And is this the real hidden truth of the film concerning those whose skepticism has poisoned them and disabled their moral sense? This is why I did not feel that Gibson's film was merely blaming the Jews for the crime of the Passion.
Why does Hitchens get so lurid over this skilled filmcraft? There is a truth in it and Hitchens professes deep hurt and scandal about the Patriot. Yeah, Gibson may hold a colonist's disdain for the British, so what? Is that the worst sin imaginable?
I think Hitchens is on stronger ground regarding Hitchens' anti-semitism. At the time, I had thought the Frank Rich crowd were just indulging their favorite whipping boy to smear a powerful Christian portrayal. I did not see the Passsion as so over the top, though my female companion felt compelled to go to the lobby due to the merciless flogging of Jesus. The scene jarred me to the core, but I still felt that it was truth [about the capacity of human evil] and about suffering, that is passion-- truth that today's culture does not want to face.
I think that the blather about "homoerotic" and "spank" film, says more about the one using such characterizations than about Gibson. What mental universes these people must inhabit!
However, if the reports about Gibson's Jew comments to the cops are true, then Hitchens is right and Gibson does have a Jewish problem. It reveals a very small mind to feel and say things like the Jews cause all the wars ... or all the anything. I guess it is another reminder of that other very old truth: the artist's genius does not indicate his soul. Hitchens is simply unbalanced in his megolmania in condemning everything about Mel Gibson's life and work. Jumping on such an incident to shout "hey, this proves everything bad about my foe" is very poor form, indeed.