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.

Movie Monday: "The Patriot," a film by Roland Emmerich

“The Patriot” is one of those films that might spark interest in American History for some, but eventually turn those same historians off for its portrayal of the American Revolution. At its core, “The Patriot” is both a war film and a historical drama about a war veteran who is once again called to sacrifice his peace for a greater cause. His response to the casualties of war sets up the tension that builds and releases throughout the film. The production values are rather good, something that is expected for a mainstream film with a leading actor like Mel Gibson. While not on the same level as Gibson’s earlier “Braveheart” in popularity, “The Patriot” does showcase Gibson’s ability to play a tortured and sacrificial character who gives up much for a greater purpose. While Gibson is inevitably the star of the show, Heath Ledger puts in a strong performance as Gibson’s son, Gabriel Martin. Gabriel is eager to join the Continental Army and fight for “the Cause,” while his father is much more tempered against jumping back into war. Jason Isaacs provides a convincing performance as the “bad guy” British Colonel William Tavington, who embodies much of what a man will do during war. Tom Wilkinson is Lieutenant General Charles, Lord Cornwallis, a military genius and tactician who nonetheless falls victim to his preconceived notions against militia and their capabilities. There are a few understated performances by both supporting actors Donal Logue and Joely Richardson as militiaman Dan Scott and Martin’s sister-in-law Charlotte Selton, as well.

When the film opens, Benjamin Martin (Gibson) lives an idyllic life on his farm in 1776 South Carolina, working diligently in his workshop, attempting to make a working rocking chair (a task he’s obviously failed at several times, judging from the pile of scrap). He is a widower, but he capably raises his children with the help of African American servants and laborers. This peace is shattered when an Assembly in Charles Town is called to debate the cause of Revolution. There are Loyalists among the Assembly, but the majority supports fighting against the British, much to the apprehension of Martin, who saw action in the North American theater of the Seven Year’s War. His two elder sons, particularly Gabriel Martin (Ledger), are eager to support the fight, feeling it is a man’s duty to fight for his home and principles. The first show of British brutality involves an interaction between Martin’s second eldest son, Thomas, and the British Colonel Tavington (Isaacs), and sets up the goal for Martin throughout the film.

Viewers are inevitably going to be entertained by this film’s classic hero’s journey model, which follows the formula of heroic hardship and resolution through growth to a T. The biggest issue history buffs will have is the rather simplistic representation of the Americans as “good” and the British as “bad,” a dichotomy which almost never exists as cleanly as is portrayed. When portraying a nation-state’s founding myth, however, it is often popular to show the founders as heroic patriots. Another interesting aspect is the portrayal of African American participation in the Revolutionary War, particularly in a fighting context. It may surprise some viewers to know that African Americans were promised the opportunity of freedom, as well as bounties in some cases, for participation in the Revolution, both on the Loyalist and the Patriot sides. Often these African American soldiers were also integrated into existing units, either regular Continental Army units or state militia units. While not portrayed in the film, African Americans also participated heavily into naval operations on both sides of the war.

Overall, this film does successfully portray one narrative that will entertain and, for some, build emotional response to the battle for the United States. The history is very thin here, as Martin is a composite character with no direct analog in history. The simplistic characterization of Americans as good and British as bad will put some off, particularly historians and history buffs familiar with the complexities of the historical narrative. The production itself is obviously well-funded, and the performances of the lead and many supporting actors was strong and capable, leading to a rather successful film, overall.

Final verdict: 3.5/5 for strong lead performances, good production values, but a lack of serious scholarship and a simplistic portrayal of the two combatant sides.

Purchase or stream "The Patriot" on Amazon.

History Notes:

The true motivations of both Patriot and British combatants
Ethnic relationships: African Americans in War
Military tactics and acceptable responses to captured soldiers on both sides
Idyllic portrayal of 1776 South Carolina, tied to ethnic relationships