Scott:"You didn't get it"

Jens: "Music badly scored on the technical standpoint and music that doesn't fit the film. TPM was both. Duel of the Fates, for example, doesn't fit the film at all."

Scott:"Do you know Royal S. Brown? He is one of the most respected classical critic alive. He has a column in Fanfare. He is very critical and I don't agree with him about a lot of issues, yet the man knows his stuff. He praised the complexity and maturity of TPM. By the way he hated the Star Wars score.
You know, in '77 people said that Star Wars didn't fit the film, my brother who lives in Sanweier/Badan-Baden was one of 'em.
Duel of the Fates is a masterpiece and the way it was used in the film is sheer genius. Well, i guess we will just disagree here"

Jens: "There IS a scale determining what constitutes Star Wars music: The original trilogy!"

Scott:" The Empire strikes back was a more complex and mature score than Star Wars and Return of the Jedi was sheer bubble gum (albeit good bubble gum) compared to the middle score. I can hear the difference between all three scores. None are composed in the exact style and manner. So if this is the scale you are using, than TPM should fit right in for it continues Williams' practice of changing certain things about the scores and yet linking them together. I mean Anakin's theme is amazing. the genius of the man. "

Jens: "It's not a direct rip off, but it is certainly the same ballpark."

Scott:"That's a huge ballpark."

Jens: "You are obviously trying to be funny, but you don't succeed. It didn't say the score should be understated, I just said that it was waaaaay overblown."

Scott:"Not trying to be funny...leave that up to you."

Jens: "Obviously."

Scott:" Exactly."

Jens: "If a score is bad I call it bad. It's that simple."

Scott:"Fair enough, but how do you determine this? Just by your taste? Every person I know who has a deep knowledge of music will admit that TPM is great craftsmanship, very complex and well played. I understand you may not like the score but to call it bad is pretentious to know degree."

Jens: "I never take such things personal. But if you were trying to be sarcastic you failed."

Scott:" Well Jens, obviously I can't hand you a glass of water."

Jens: "Really? I wish McNeely would have scored Episode One!"

Scott:"Cool. I don't"

Jens: "Yes, indeed. Shadows of the Empire is far superior to Episode One."

Scott:"YOu are comparing a score for a book where the composer has almost unlimited opportunities to a score for a film which has to fit the action, mood etc. Wow.

Jens: "Yes, I still think it's bad - both in the film and as a stand alone listening experience. And I am cool, indeed."

Scott:"Yep, you are cool. I agree. I like your cool picture at the profile site as well. At least you don't look like you are from outta space as I do."

Jens, I don't mind you not liking TPM. It's only that you call it bad and don't back it up by specifics.

Anyway, my buddy Jeron who has been alluding me for the past days is on the phone. Gotta talk to him.

OUt

Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJH:

Unnecessary music doesn't necessarily equal bad music.

---

Yes, it does. At least if it is used simply as filler music which has nothing important to say thematically and musically.
__________________________________
In response to Scott's recent post:

Scott:"You didn't get it"

Jens: "Oh yes, I did."

Scott:"Do you know Royal S. Brown? He is one of the most respected classical critic alive."

Jens: "So what? Leonard Maltin is one of the most respected film critics alive and yet he couldn't accurately rate a film to save his worthless, pathetic, tragically prolonged life."

Scott: "By the way he hated the Star Wars score."

Jens: "Which proves he's a moron."

Scott: "Duel of the Fates is a masterpiece and the way it was used in the film is sheer genius. Well, i guess we will just disagree here"

Jens: "Ok. Let's agree to disagree. I still dislike it."

Scott:"None are composed in the exact style and manner."

Jens: "Yes, but they are nevertheless all composed in the style and manner of a Star Wars score. That's what they have in common. Hell, even Shadows of the Empire does sound much more like Star Wars music than Episode One!"

Scott:"That's a huge ballpark."

Jens: "Ok."

Scott:"Not trying to be funny...leave that up to you."

Jens: "I am not trying to be funny at all."

Scott:" Well Jens, obviously I can't hand you a glass of water."

Jens: "Oh, you can. I would really appreciate a glass of nice, cold water."

Scott:"You are comparing a score for a book where the composer has almost unlimited opportunities to a score for a film which has to fit the action, mood etc. Wow."

Jens: "That's not the point."

Scott:"Yep, you are cool. I agree. I like your cool picture at the profile site as well."

Jens: "Oh, thank you very much."

Scott: "Jens, I don't mind you not liking TPM. It's only that you call it bad and don't back it up by specifics."

Jens: "Scott, I really have to admit that one of the main reasons why I dislike this score is because I can't listen to it without being reminded of the awful film. In fact, I am just mad at Williams because IMHO everyone who was involved in the making of this film should be punished (of course Williams shouldn't be punished as hard as Lucas, but still). And I mean everyone! Lucas, ILM, Williams, Liam Neeson (who is one of my favorite actors, BTW), Ewan McGregor and even Natalie Portman (who is still delicious).

I would rather hear Williams score something than not...

(Anyone follow?)

"Bad" Williams beats "good" Christina Aguilera/Puff Daddy/Backstreet Boys anyday.

I'd not argue merits of "The Phantom Menace" (film or score) with anyone who suggests punishment as a consequence of pursuing an art. Which (consequently) invites the infitely debatable question, "Is it art?", and will certainly cause a feeding frenzy with those vehemently deny it....

But pardon the "new age" sentiments when I bow out of that arguement as well, thinking that less energy should be spent criticizing the art than supporting it. And if nothing can be found to support, then find another to support, but waste no excessive (key word) time and effort with the negativity.

But if I listened to it 10 times more I don't think I would change that evaluation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

Maybe it's time for you to change your nick to JENS2, the obnoxious...

---

You insult could not have been more terrible, André. You know how much I dislike that guy.

Jens

ps. No more discussion about TPM, please. Let leave it to that.
pps. Patriot is still one of the greatest Williams scores ever - I can't stop listening to it!

NP: The Patriot (of course)

THE PATRIOT's music certainly functioned well in the movie--the MOST IMPORTANT thing, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT--in a few ways. It lacked in a few ways too.

The music in general supported the drama and gave the movie greater emotional resonance. An average expectation of a score.

I still think that Williams' attempts at creating rousing musical statements in crucial points (particularly the climax) fell short. His "rousing, upbeat" theme was hardly able to be described by such words. Perhaps it was the orchestration. I just thought that the sound was too sophisticated--too much like a concert hall. I listened to some other scores and found the music there to be much more inspiring (notably AIR FORCE ONE). This score is being compared to JURASSIC PARK (which musically speaking is a compliment I suppose), yet it doesn't have close to the rush that that score did...not to say that it--JP--compares, itself, to some really rousing stuff in Williams' filmography or others'.

Whatever it was that left the music feeling a bit limp, the music as Martin joins up with the soldiers for the climactic battle wasn't rousing enough and the result is a musical accompaniment that sounds insincere and forced.

There were other instances in which the music was a little too dramatic for the moment, also causing an insincere or forced interpretation of the scene. I think of the scene in which Anne helps Gabriel recruit the militia in the church.

There is'nt a great deal of difference here in the "rousing" theme's rendition than in the climax. There certainly needed to be.

There was more in the way of musical relationships here than in the usual Williams score, but still there were unrelated cues to be found. I wish Williams would consider coherence more in his scores. It shows that he went to Juliard and not USC or something in the way that he neglects this.

The music in its own right, aside from the ways in which I have talked about so far, was O-K, but not superb. Although I did like the pastoral theme, usually played by violins. (Reminded me a lot of another composer's style though; initials JH....)

It's here that I must say, sorry Mr. Collins, that I disagree strongly that Williams is the master of variation. I have to point to his cues in his scores that are entirely out of place with the bulk of music in his scores.

I hope I really don't have to make a list.

You know what I'm gonna say, but I think Goldsmith by the very nature in which he writes his scores, is the true master here.

I'll quote him, if you don't mind:
Goldsmith believes that his score is "a total piece of music and not just a series of sequences....Everything is developed from one piece of material....ALL MY SCORES WORK THAT WAY (Emphasis mine)."

Goldsmith said this a while ago, before for storytelling purposes, writing a few (two or three really) scores that are not that way.

Even in these though, Goldsmith's variation is unbelievable. I can't find unrelated material in Goldsmith's scores the way I can in Williams' ones.

And, of course, I have to assume that by variation you mean dynamic emotional response of one piece of music, applied to entirely different dramatic scenes.

I guess that the easiest way to do this is to compare the scores both wrote to similarly-themed movies. STAR WARS and STAR TREK; SUPERGIRL and SUPERMAN; NIGHT CROSSING and E.T., RAIDERS and KING SOLOMON'S MINES.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jens Dietrich:
You insult could not have been more terrible, André. You know how much I dislike that guy.

---

Yeah. You got the point after all.

Good.

Was fun having the exchange though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by H Rocco:
But hell, Mr. Lux, you and I disagree about Elfman (I am starting to agree about the MV crew, though.) (And you are starting to break down about Elfman -- you admitted to liking INSTINCT, and before that, didn't you mention having a relatively soft spot for NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS?)

---

See? I knew I was right about the Music Vaporeizers since the begining. Well, I've ears after all...

Yes, I really like NIGHTMARE songs. It's Elfman doing what he knows best.

And Rocco, my buddy, don't take things personaly. I know Jens from a long time. He knows he deserved that.
And, well, I just hope you do the same for me when I get "banned" or "suspended" and even when some angry zimmerities start calling me names just because I expressed my (not so) humble opinion again...

Cheers!

I'm just not good in the PCness way of life I guess...

Well, no one is perfect...

Be good!

And how can I be good when I'm mostly so damn bad? I'll try, though.

quote:

---

When I associate with professors or major symphony orchestras, they rave about John Williams.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

See? I knew I was right about the Music Vaporeizers since the begining. Well, I've ears after all...

And Rocco, my buddy, don't take things personaly. I know Jens from a long time. He knows he deserved that.

---

You are right about that, André. I am really spending too much unnecessary time complaining about that film/score which should not be named. So I definitely deserved that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boris:
Quote By Aaron Collins:
That's interesting.
When I associate with professors and major symphony orchestra CONDUCTORS, they ALWAYS look down their loooong snouts when any film music composer's name (including John Williams) is mentioned.
Their response: "Does he ever compose any SERIOUS music?"

---

That's a very believable scenerio. But if any film composer has achieved even relative success on the concert stage it would have yo be John Williams who's concert hall contributions are beginning to outweigh his film music by volume.

That gets him props in the classical world but I think it is having an adverse effect on his film music. No artist need tread old, worn ground but I sense that a certain concert hall stuffiness has begun to assert itself in much of Williams later work. The Patriot seems to be afflicted as well which is why it comes across as somewhat stiff to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boris:
"Does he ever compose any SERIOUS music?"[/B]

---

Well if these people knew anything they would know that he indeed has composed quite an amount of SERIOUS music.

A lot of this sound like jealousy to me...

NP: Seven Years in Tibet (****/*****)

It concerned a classical music critic praising EPISODE ONE's score (primarily for its complexity).

Okay, everyone.

Let me make an analogy. Something goes wrong with my jalopy (I actually have a nice car, but stay with me here, gents). My father says what he thought is wrong with it; I consult a good mechanic, and he disagrees with my pop's analysis.

Who has more credibility?

Classical music aficionados don't have but half a clue when it comes to what makes a good *score* and what doesn't. (Heck, ashamed to say it, but a lot of film music critics on the web that I've come across don't have a clue either.)

I mean, you wouldn't find me proclaiming what makes good classical music or whatnot. I am not a student of good classical music, nor have I ever been. It would be really arrogant for me to assume such a position.

Now if we're strictly talking about musical preferences then it's different. But if the critic praises TPM as a good score because, among other things, it's complex, he neglects that the score is incoherent and doesn't really add anything new to the picture. It mimics the visual image and little else. I'm impressed--NOT!

TPM is a very average score, although the music is rather enjoyable for the most part.

outch!

Lol, just kidding.

I see your point, although the score was judged as exactly that, a score. Royal S. Brown usually writes about the picture first, then about the soundtrack and its relationship and effectiveness to the picture and lastly dissects the score in a more technical, scholarship kind of way.

I usually don't care about critics, I merely tried to make a point. I guess people do hate this movie. It's just amazing to me. Oh well,...

Scott

Laurence, we are definitely on the same 'page'.

Anyway, the film was entertaining and had several things to recommend, but I have to agree with Dave's and others' assessments, for there was also much to offend. The folks at Smithsonian were technical advisors and their influence could probably be seen in many ways, battle scenes in particular--accenting the then-innovate use of guerilla warfare. But the idea of a General Milosevic complete with ethnic cleansing was beyond belief. My goodness, I know It's Just A Movie but it seems we're going beyond park-your-brains and getting more into the spinal chord with historic liberties/modern sensibilities like this.

Np: Phantom Menace-- weak album for a complex, beautiful composition that was the most coherent thing about the film besides the choreography by Ray Park and Nick Gillard. Probably doesn't stand up as well to some of the great scores for children's films (Thief of Bagdad, 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Return to Oz, Empire Strikes Back) , but it's a resplendant piece of work nonetheless. Is it true Williams liked the experience of doing the pic, disliked the edit decisions? Blame the CGI.

I am sorry that you have such negative feelings about me and would like to say that I feel NO such ill will towards yourself. Indeed, your enthusiastic appreciation of movie music is very refreshing.

The British Empire was not built only by red-coated British armies marching in a straight line....guerrilla tactics were a vital part of British global success long before Virginia was colonized by the English...indeed, guerrilla warfare is as old as time. North America was just one of many hostile environments that British colonists pioneered and their attendant colonial militia patrolled and subsequently the well-drilled British army defended.

I concede that Francis ‘Swamp Fox’ Marion's ragtag band of South Carolina irregulars relied heavily on terrorist tactics to play a minor role in pushing Cornwallis from the Carolinas to Yorktown, but the British army and their many thousands of colonial Loyalists were well-versed in guerrilla tactics themselves.

It’s a big world out there Howard L, it stretches well beyond the civilized boundaries of the USA, and during the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries the British people, more than any other single nation, pioneered, cultivated and civilized just about every corner of the globe.

Guerrilla warfare and British pioneers were around long before the independence of the fledgling USA was recognized by Great Britain in 1783.

In fact, the word guerrilla stems from the great hero of the British Empire, the Englishman the Duke of Wellington, and his campaigns during the Peninsula War (1808-14) fought in South West Europe, in which Spanish and Portuguese irregulars under the guidance of British guerrilla tacticians, helped the British Army to drive the French from Iberia.

The wilderness of North America was a benign paradise compared with other areas of the globe that the British were already colonizing…..the blistering heat of the Sahara, the fearsomely savage tribesmen of the Sudan, the hell-bent Zulu forces of South Africa, the menace of the native forces in Afghanistan, the vicious rebels of Kenya, the numerous and devious tribes of the Indian subcontinent, the deceptively welcoming environment of many of the newly discovered Pacific islands, and the brutal slayings of the New Zealand natives, and so on and on. North America was tough, for British and French colonists alike, but don’t think for a minute that it was the first or even the most stern test of British pioneering resolve.

From what I have read, THE PATRIOT (like LAST OF THE MOHICANS) over-emphasizes to the nth degree the differences between the colonial militia with their cunning wilderness skills, and the British army and its lemming-like toy soldiers. Yes, the British army was strictly disciplined…..but that was just one of its many qualities.

The turning point of the fourth French and Indian War was the Battle of Quebec (1759), in which the British, under the fantastic leadership of General James Wolfe, brilliantly defeated the French stronghold at Quebec…..and not by marching in a straight line. Mortally ill with tuberculosis, Wolfe endured great pain and anxiety while the siege of Quebec dragged on. At the end of August 1759, he and his brigadiers agreed on a plan to land troops across the St Lawrence river a short distance upstream of Quebec. The resulting attack, which involved scaling the precipitous and towering cliffs only one mile from the city, was carried out on September 12 and surprised the French on the scrubland of the Plains of Abraham. On September 13, after a battle lasting less than an hour, the French fled. Wolfe, wounded twice early in the battle, died of a third wound, but not before he knew Quebec had fallen to the British. The French commander the Marquis de Montcalm survived him by only a few hours. Quebec surrendered on September 18, and in 1760 the British Major General Sir Jeffrey Amherst received the surrender of Montreal and the rest of Canada.

The Battle of Quebec was the single most important moment that ensured North America would become an English-speaking continent, based on British tradition, institutions and law. The USA may have gained independence in 1783, but it retained its essential British-ness. If it hadn’t been for General Wolfe, you might be speaking French today Howard L….just think we may never have had the pleasure of conversing on the internet. The great Englishman Robert Clive (Baron Clive), was doing similar things in India at the time…..Clive was a master of guerrilla warfare, and often defeated French and Indian (Asia this time) armies ten or twenty times his numbers. The British also employed guerrilla tactics during the lengthy Opium Wars with China in the 19th century……and then there are the 120 British officers and men who successfully defended Rorke’s Drift during the Zulu Wars in South Africa in 1879, against 15,000 Zulu warriors. The British suffered very few casualties. What better example is there of a disciplined fighting force who has the skill and courage to adapt to the situation……than the 120 mainly Welsh Guards who defended Rorke’s Drift?

Even before the fourth French and Indian War, the British army and New England and New York British colonists fought three other separate wars against the murderous French colonists and their Indian allies in North America. These earlier French and Indian Wars relied heavily on British guerrilla tactics….the first of the French and Indian Wars was known as King William of England’s War, and took place nearly 100 years before the American War of Independence.

And even before that, during the 16th century, Sir Francis Drake carried out countless stinging naval assaults on Spanish ships, often outnumbered ten to one, and he also battled the Spanish, using guerrilla tactics on mainland South America. Indeed, most of the famous pirates of history were British, and many of them worked with the tacit approval of the British monarchy and government. For instance, the great Welsh buccaneer, Captain Sir Henry Morgan, most famous of the adventurers who plundered Spain's Caribbean colonies during the late 17th century. Operating with the unofficial support of the English government, he destroyed Spanish authority in the West Indies. He was a member of the British expedition that in 1655 seized Jamaica from the Spanish and converted it into an English colony. He also participated in the British defeat of Cuba in 1662 and during the second Anglo-Dutch War (1665-67), he was second in command of the British buccaneers plundering and conquering the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean. Made commander of the British buccaneers in 1668, Morgan quickly captured Puerto Príncipe (now Camagüey), Cuba, and in an extraordinarily daring and world-renowned tactic move stormed and sacked the well-fortified city of Portobelo on the Isthmus of Panama. In 1669 he made a successful raid on wealthy Spanish settlements around Lake Maracaibo on the coast of Venezuela. Finally, in August 1670 Morgan, with 36 ships and nearly 2,000 British buccaneers, set out to capture Panama one of the chief cities of Spain's American empire. Crossing the Isthmus of Panama, he defeated an enormous Spanish force (1671) and entered the city, which he then looted and destroyed. In 1674 King Charles II knighted Morgan and sent him out again as deputy governor of Jamaica, where he lived as a wealthy and respected planter until his death. Morgan has a popular reputation as a bloodthirsty pirate….that he was, but most notably he was a courageous, loyal and brilliant servant of the British Empire…..and he didn’t sail his ships, or march his armies in straight lines……Morgan was a master of guerrilla tactics over one hundred years before the outbreak of hostilities in New England.

But, at the end of the day, it was the disciplined nature of the British army that gave Britain its great advantage over the indigenous peoples of America, Africa, Australia and Asia…..whatever the environment and whoever the foe. The British ‘lost’ the American War of Independence because its land forces met determined colonial opposition backed by significant French ground forces, and the combined fleets of France and Spain that blockaded the British troops in America, as well as blockading the British fleet in Europe and India, thus the British were unable to maintain vital supplies of goods and reinforcements to its armies stationed in America. Not only that, the Dutch, Russia, Sweden, Denmark and others all actively assisted the Americans by blockading the British fleet in Europe and in the Caribbean and by engaging in hostilities around Britain’s coasts.

And never forget…..the French, Spanish and Dutch were not pro-American, they were anti-British.

all I can say is, WE WON, THE BRITISH LOST.

That's all folks

But, the rebellious colonists were British.

Anyhow, whether the 13 British colonies gained independence or had remained within the British Empire…..it is largely academic now. King Charles II of England’s dream of colonizing the Atlantic coast of North America with Englishmen was realized and completed firstly with the Duke of York’s conquering of the Dutch in New York in 1664 and then with the placement of the English visionary William Penn who founded the colony of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia. The Battle of Quebec of 1759, in which the British finally defeated the French to take control of North America, ensured that North America was destined to remain a primarily British part of the world, whether the USA was part of the British Empire or independent of it.

The seeds of a great nation (the USA) were sown by the British, and the pre-revolution American colonies were nurtured and protected by the British. Think of the USA today as a mighty oak. There once was a another mighty oak with many strong branches (Great Britain) that produced a single acorn (Captain Smith, the Mayflower, Lord Baltimore, etc and their colonies), and it was the British people and the British army who protected the emerging sapling from the elements and marauding herbivores (the French and the native Indian), and just when the flourishing oak was strong enough to survive the gales and tall enough to escape the attentions of the grazing sheep and mature enough to bear its own fruit, it no longer needed external care and attention to survive (the British Crown was no longer required). And today? The once feeble and vulnerable sapling now dwarfs all other trees in the forest (the USA is the strongest and greatest nation in the history of the world). And what of the original great oak that shed that single acorn…..what of mother England, what of the British Empire now? The original great oak (Britain) that spawned that little acorn (the USA) is now an ancient giant, no longer growing, its once lustrous branches are decaying, its massive hulking trunk is splintered and rotting, the spread of its leaves and branches is receding …..and yet its essence lives on in its seed, in today’s great oak of the forest (the USA)…..the essence of the British way of life continues and evolves in all of the English-speaking nations. And, in recent decades it has been the people of the USA who have protected and tended the ancient and decaying oak that was once the British Empire, by pruning and coppicing and warding off disease and predator (by saving the free nations of the world in World War II from the Nazi and the Japanese…..and for continuing to protect the rights and freedoms of an Englishman throughout the world to this day).

And which great oak did the seed of England come from? Certainly, history did not begin with the English. I am not disproving anything you've said, just volunteering something more to think about.

PeterK

quote:

---

Yes, it does. At least if it is used simply as filler music which has nothing important to say thematically and musically.

---

Jens2: you're still not getting the point.
Go take a music theory course or two, why don't you? Learn what MUSIC actually IS and how it works, and the kind of effort that goes into music?
Maybe then your opinions will have more substance and weight.

Music is atmospheric as well as thematic.
LISTEN to the music. When you finally discover what I mean by LISTENing get back to me. Perhaps then you will know what constitutes "bad" music and "good" music.
Even Williams atmospheric music goes someplace. You can hear it in the score. Maybe it's not interesting, maybe it is. But to call it "bad" is DAMN ignorant.

BTW --
don't bother with burning/ sending the CDs. It's more than obvious you won't do it.
Tired of your excuses.
Mr High and Mighty to me about CD trade ethics (if they exist where trading bootlegs is concerned) won't complete our trade deal.

**Warning: DO NOT TRADE CDs WITH JENS DIETRICH. THIS PERSON WON'T COMPLETE A TRADE.***

Your point is well taken. However, many historians refer to the British victory in the Seven Years War over France, Spain and Holland in 1763, as the beginning of modern history. Therefore, I base most of my historical observations here on that pivotal point in history. It was at that time that the British Empire truly began to flourish and the British people began colonizing the world, whilst the other European powers….France, Spain, Holland and Portugal continued to decline. Not only that, the great nations of the English-speaking developed and free world were properly formed after that time…..Australia, the USA, Canada etc, and Europe, led by Britain, then enjoyed the Industrial Revolution and the development of many of the democratic institutions and customs that we recognize today.

Anyhow, to answer your question Peter, Great Britain is a mixture of many different races. The Celts (2nd millennia BC Indo-Europeans) originated in southern England before the Romans arrived around about 500BC. The Romans certainly impacted on Britain with great importance, there is much Roman blood flowing through British veins. The Cornish, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are all Celtic and are descendants of the original English Celts. The Irish Celts settled Scotland during the first millennia, the Scots and the English then colonized Ireland and merged with the Irish Celts during the early part of the second millennia, and most Scottish and English Irishman moved to Northern Ireland when the Republic of Ireland was formed last century. After the Romans, the Saxons invaded England from Germany and merged with the existing Celtic/Roman population. Then in the first century of the second millennia the Normans (Scandinavians) invaded England from France and merged with the existing Saxon/Roman/Celtic population to form the modern Englishman. The Norman invasion of the 11th century was the last time English soil was successfully invaded by a foreign people.

Therefore, the modern Englishman, or Anglo-Saxon, is a mixture of German/Celtic/Roman/Scandinavian. The modern Scotsman is a mixture of English (the mixture described above) and Irish Celtic. The modern Welshman is a mixture of English (the mixture described above) and original English Celtic. The modern Irishman is a mixture of English (the mixture described above) and original English Celtic.

As to the future. Well, all of the four British home nations are now very much intermingled, you’ll find Scotsmen in Cornwall and Lancastrians in Bangor. Not only that, many people have emigrated to Great Britain from the old British Empire. Not only have many British nationals returned, but so have many West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalese, Guaynese, Chinese, Australia and New Zealand aborigine, North American Indian, Inuit, St Helenians, Argentinians, Israelis, Iraquis, Kenyans, Egyptians, and so on and on and on. Additionally, many Americans have emigrated to Ireland and England, and Great Britain as a whole, has seen many non-former British Empire peoples emigrating to its shores…..Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, Germans, Spaniards and so and on. So, these days, the United Kingdom is as much a cultural and racial mixture as anywhere else on Earth…..and Britain is benefiting tremendously from this.

By the way, an excellent dissection of the ‘hilariously politically-correct distortion of history’ THE PATRIOT appeared in one of today’s British Sunday papers.

Sebastian Faulks gave THE PATRIOT ** out of *****, and had this to say.

THE PATRIOT is the story of how one plucky and sportsmanlike American, played by Mel Gibson, won the War of Independence against a bunch of British red-coated war criminals fighting in the name of George III. The King’s soldiers slash and burn, shoot the children, incinerate the women and hold cocktail parties on the lawn where they simper and whinny in supercilious cruelty.
Plucky Mel, on the other hand, kills 20 of the murdering ‘English’ bastards with the help of only two children. In the decisive infantry engagement that forms the climax of the film, Gibson grabs the new American flag and shoulder-charges through the ranks of sissy British perverts as if playing rugby.
America is born, America is free….with the help of the trusty French (sic).
How many English crypto-homosexual war criminals has Gibson now killed on screen? If you tot up BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT if must come to….Ooh, easily enough to fill an entire public school with googly-bowling, hypocritical, duplicitous, milksop sadists.
Should British (or English as the film mistakenly calls them) people be upset about this? I think not.
Popular history is written by the victors: control of the facts is the greatest spoil of the battle.
Most French children are still taught that television, telephones, the circulation of the blood, penicillin, the steam engine and so on were all discovered or invented by Frenchmen. Compared to all of these untruths, the case of THE PATRIOT is insignificant.
One amusing moment has the evil Colonel Tavington shooting Gibson’s child before his eyes and uttering ‘Stupid Boy’….the echo of Captain Mainwaring talking to Private Pike from DAD’S ARMY is rather unfortunate.
THE PATRIOT’S attempts to depict idealism are cliched and superficial, the women are irrelevant, and much of the dialogue (by Robert Rodat, whose SAVING PRIVATE RYAN script was also pretty rank) was greeted with hilarious derision at the showing I saw. ”Your reputation precedes you” says a French officer to Gibson in a ‘Ferrero Rocher’ gurgle.
This is a film of stereotypes, of handsome, happy slaves who nobly win round the doubting white racists, of comic-opera Frenchmen and perfidious Britishers.
There is a small attempt at real life…..Cornwallis tries to behave well, before his vile Englishness gets the better of him.
Whatever its bias, THE PATRIOT seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate, if unsuccessful, stab at popular entertainment.
There is one scene however, which is seriously problematic. This comes when Colonel Tavington goes to a village, rounds up the inhabitants, mostly women and children, locks them in a church and burns it down.
This appears to be a lift from history: to be precise, from the actions of the SS Panzer Division, Das Reich, at Oradour-sur-Glane, near Limoges, in June 1944. Since there is no evidence that such an atrocity took place in revolutionary wartime North Carolina, the writers of THE PATRIOT have a serious problem with the dead of Oradour and their surviving families. Your call, Mr Rodat.

That was from the cinema review in today’s Mail on Sunday.