Movie Monday: "All for Liberty," a film by Chris Weatherhead, 2011.

[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes it is not the most flashy or well-funded films nor, even, the story itself that is significant in a film. Part of the charm, perhaps, of historical dramas are that the filmmakers use creative license to create a coherent narrative, grounded in historical source material. All for Liberty is not a high-budget film, nor does it really stand up to modern Hollywood conventions, despite being released in 2011. This film depicts the struggle for Independence during the Revolutionary War, and centers on little known Henry Felder, a Swiss-German colonist who settled in South Carolina and participated in the war, alongside his family.

Felder is capably acted by descendant Clarence Felder, who brings his obvious passion for the story into his performance. Actor Felder's stage experience is clear as many acting techniques (which look overdone on film) are more suited to the limitations of live stage than film.

The film focuses on several events from Felder's life, including his writing of the Articles of Separation from the English King c. May 1776. There are several scenes of skirmishes with British forces as they advance through the South, and the film closes with the surrender of Cornwallis.

So little, outside the regional histories, is known about Henry Felder, and the fact that the screenplay was penned by a descendant brings some historical aspects of the film into question. As a viewer and a student of history, sources like this film become problematic without supporting evidence. Further, one must question the facts based solely on one point of view. For me, however, this is not the most significant aspect of this film. My favorite part of the film is actually the last ten or so minutes, as the dialogue shifts to a kind of "concluding paragraph" that asks the viewers to seek out information on those who are not celebrated in the historical narrative, and learn about the common men and women of historical events. Unfortunately, this is not always possible because sources often say little about the "little people," those who supported the heroes and folklore legends of history. This, for me, is the strongest lesson from this film. There is never just one man or one battle that created history, but a total narrative that covers the leaders and the followers, the logistical people, the "little people."

This film is not "good" in the traditional sense, and I often found myself looking at how much longer the movie was. It relies heavily on the story of Felder and even the battles, while more dramatic than most of the movie, are not the center of the story. Perhaps that, too, is a strength in disguise. Battles, while having a place in history, cannot be the only picture, so having a film focus on the people is refreshing. The acting quality is sporadic, and some actors seem miscast or caricatures based on a cursory investigation of a "common" 1770s colonist. The narrative also doesn't go much into the complex ethnic relations, mainly between Africans and Anglos. The film also only gives a simplified look at Anglo-Native American interactions, although does recognize that the Anglos were "inevitably" going to take over (of which the Native American character stoically nods). This film is not a documentary, although the longer expository voice-over narration gives that feeling. Nor is this film concerned so much with historicity as it is with telling Felder's story.

This film is a project of love, as Clarence Felder obviously appreciates the role of his ancestor in the Revolutionary War. Some viewers will be intrigued by the story and hopefully will be moved to investigate the lesser known stories lost to history. This is my hope for viewers of this film, that their curiosity will bring them to more interesting historical tales. Others will be deathly bored, and honestly I had my moments. The dubious origin of the screenplay, the romanticized relations between Africans, Native Americans and some Anglos (while existent, was not as equal as the film would have viewers believe), and the focus on a single man make the historical value rather weak. Nevertheless, the call for viewers to investigate the lesser known aspects of history is the single strongest message to come from a film recently, in my opinion. This film doesn't demand that we take one story to be the only story, and "official" version of history, and that, to me, is priceless.

Stream "All for Liberty" on Amazon Prime.