<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The French did win the battle of Yorktown
Review: Despite the previous reviewer's statement, the British attempted to surrender to the French at Yorktown for two good reasons - 1.) the battle was largely won by the French (French naval blockade and Rochambeau's sizable troop and seige material contribution) and 2.) it was part of the larger war between the French and British at the time.
Since the French suffered twice the deaths and provided the major effort for the siege, it would only be natural to call this a French victory - or at least a joint Franco-American victory. But in the revisionist view of American history, this French contribution must be downplayed.
"Freedom Fries" anyone?
Rating: 
Summary: Fair & Balanced, Educational and Interesting
Review: I am a Revolutionary Reenactor. This film is a "British perspective" on why they lost. As such it often refers to the "American patriots" as "rebels." It brings forth a number of ironies regarding the Revolution such as the proslavery attitude of Southern patriots. It equally notes atrocities committed by both sides. But despite the fact this movie is focused on the mistakes of the British, it also offers praise to the ingenuity, perseverance, and motivation of the patriots.Judging from some of the comments in the review section, there are a number of people who do not like the fact that this film is pretty balanced for a movie presenting the British perspective. The assertions that this film highlights American atrocities and ignores British atrocities is simply inaccurate. It portrays British brutality and American brutality on an equal basis. It shows not only how blacks fled to the British in large numbers, but also how many of them were betrayed by Cornwaillis in the end. This film is the perfect complement to most of the American documentaries filmed so far. If you want a fantasy film where the patriots are always the good guys, go watch "the Patriot." If you want to learn the good, the bad and the ugly about the American Revolution and have an expanded knowledge about it, see this film. On the down side, the uniforms and equipment were a mixed bag. A crisp line of redcoats is sort of ruined when there is a guy with a goofy bicorn hat and long sideburns in the middle. There is a lot for reenactors to criticize in the recreated scenes. My advice is simple, resist criticizing the trees and enjoy the woods. This film does an incredible job at reproducing the flavor of the battles and experiences of the troops from the brutal storming of Breeds Hill to redcoats slogging through southern swamps in waist deep waters. This documentary shows British troops with uniforms adapted for regional campaigns and does an excellent job of recreating battles on what appears to be (through what I suspect are computer effects and clever editing) the actual battle sites. It's just too bad, they didn't go a little further on keeping the uniforms and gear accurate. A final criticism is that the narrator makes some bizarre political comments at the very end of the program which I am sure will inflame some. Also inflaming are some comments by a goofy American who claims America would have been better off in the long run under British rule. But these comments are offset by others, especially George Neuman talking about the American spirit. I think Americans can judge for themselves how successful or unsuccessful the Revolution was in obtaining its goal of liberty. I think we did pretty good considering the imperfect world we live in.
Rating:
Summary: Fair & Balanced, Educational and Interesting
Review: I am a Revolutionary Reenactor. This film is a "British perspective" on why they lost. As such it often refers to the "American patriots" as "rebels." It brings forth a number of ironies regarding the Revolution such as the proslavery attitude of Southern patriots. It equally notes atrocities committed by both sides. But despite the fact this movie is focused on the mistakes of the British, it also offers praise to the ingenuity, perseverance, and motivation of the patriots. Judging from some of the comments in the review section, there are a number of people who do not like the fact that this film is pretty balanced for a movie presenting the British perspective. The assertions that this film highlights American atrocities and ignores British atrocities is simply inaccurate. It portrays British brutality and American brutality on an equal basis. It shows not only how blacks fled to the British in large numbers, but also how many of them were betrayed by Cornwaillis in the end. This film is the perfect complement to most of the American documentaries filmed so far. If you want a fantasy film where the patriots are always the good guys, go watch "the Patriot." If you want to learn the good, the bad and the ugly about the American Revolution and have an expanded knowledge about it, see this film. On the down side, the uniforms and equipment were a mixed bag. A crisp line of redcoats is sort of ruined when there is a guy with a goofy bicorn hat and long sideburns in the middle. There is a lot for reenactors to criticize in the recreated scenes. My advice is simple, resist criticizing the trees and enjoy the woods. This film does an incredible job at reproducing the flavor of the battles and experiences of the troops from the brutal storming of Breeds Hill to redcoats slogging through southern swamps in waist deep waters. This documentary shows British troops with uniforms adapted for regional campaigns and does an excellent job of recreating battles on what appears to be (through what I suspect are computer effects and clever editing) the actual battle sites. It's just too bad, they didn't go a little further on keeping the uniforms and gear accurate. A final criticism is that the narrator makes some bizarre political comments at the very end of the program which I am sure will inflame some. Also inflaming are some comments by a goofy American who claims America would have been better off in the long run under British rule. But these comments are offset by others, especially George Neuman talking about the American spirit. I think Americans can judge for themselves how successful or unsuccessful the Revolution was in obtaining its goal of liberty. I think we did pretty good considering the imperfect world we live in.
Rating:
Summary: They Don't Tell the Whole Truth
Review: I disliked the slant of this video and hated the lackluster attempt of interviewing non-historians on what it was about. The only value I did see was of showing the hardships of the battles during the American Revolution from a re-enactment perspective They do not tell the whole truth, of course. They do show all the attrocities that occured, but only what the Rebels did, not what the British were doing. Some folks need to research the history from both sides. Tarleton's book, for example, doesn't mention Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox" outwitting him time after time and destroying British supply lines; it doesn't tell of British officers shooting his 15 yr old nephew point blank in the chest; or what was done to Mrs. Richardson and her family in SC after her husband was already dead (eating dinner with them and the next day whipping her, burning the house, barn with livestock in it, and fields leaving widow and children destitute. This movie is less than half right. Better go to your library and find "The Fate of a Nation" by Cumming and Rankin and "Swamp Fox" by either Rankin or Bass. See where the truth leads you.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I have mixed feelings about this DVD on the American Revolution. On the positive side, the use of reenactors was good. Generally, PBS does uses reenactors much less than A&E (and its sister companies)and Discovery. This DVD was quite refreshing in that respect. I also very much enjoyed certain characters talking to the audience. I like this technique in historical documentaries. It cuts up the monotony of listening to a narrator and makes history come alive. Great job here. However, the battle scenes were small--only a handful of reenactors showed up on filming day, so we see the same few guys again and again. Also, the use of guys with beards seemed odd. Nevertheless, you work with what you have.
As far as the presentation goes, the narrator is the star of the show. He is on screen way too much. It's 'interesting and valuable to see how some of the old sites, e.g. Breed's/Bunker Hills, Old North Church, etc. look today, but I really don't care to see the narrator traveling around in his car, playing with his radio. I felt that the film crew just followed this guy around on his vacation with a camera. And I cared even less to see MODERN New Yorkers (I think they were) going about their business. At least show me some painting from the 18th century.
On to the content. This DVD is supposed to be from the British perspective. This is a welcome idea. I felt that it was very balanced, but too much so! I didn't get any sense of what the British, in 1776 or now, thought/think about the American Revolution (of course, there is the usual "loudest yelps of freedom from slavedrivers" quote, but so what? That really doesn't tell us much). I also didn't care for the narrator interviewing random people on a bus. That looked more like something from Leno's "Jaywalking" segment.
Well, why did the British lose the war? The only thing that came through was that they "didn't win the hearts and minds of the people." Well blow me over with a feather!! I want to know what policies and practices, both from the generals and in London, led the British to defeat. What could they have done differently? Who was making the policy in London? What forces influenced his decisions? Could we have spent a few minutes watching a reenactment of a debate or council or the Prime Minister even working out things in his own mind? That would have been made this a great presentation.
Quite honestly, there's not much new here. I would recommend A&E's or Discovery's Revolution sets (not PBS's Liberty, though). They go into much more detail. This set could be cut by half and we wouldn't miss anything. I've criticized a lot, and my criticisms are valid. However, the show gives good information, but it could have been a whole lot better.
Fritz Juengling PhD
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining but biased
Review: I have really enjoyed Professor Holmes work on the History Channel, so I was looking forward to this series. It turned out to be a mixed bag. Professor Holmes style is always entertaining, and I like the way he tours the modern ground while explaining the action. However, he is VERY biased in his viewpoint. I wouldn't mind this so much if it were a BBC production, but as it was produced by an American company that receives US public funds, I would have hoped for a more balanced picture. The bias is less pronounced in the first two installments (out of four), but it is there. Holmes understates the American reasons for going to war and instead plays up the provocative actions of Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. He does not, however, mention how the Coercive or "Intolerable" Acts passed by Parliament in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party illegally revoked the Massachusetts charter, placed the colony under martial law, and closed the port of Boston for a relatively minor offense. This united the colonies against Britain NOT because, as Holmes implies, there were a lot of young Americans who wanted to expand their trade, but because of the fear and outrage the remaining colonies had of the now completely arbitrary rule being exercised by England over the colonies. Holmes also characterized the battles of Lexington/Concord/Battle Road that began the Revolutionary War as an "aggressive" American action. He paints a picture of British generals who hoped to "avoid war" by taking the colonists' gunpowder away. He again does not mention that the colonists had every right at that time to stockpile weapons and ammunition under the colony's militia laws, and that once again the British were exercising arbitrary rule by attempting to take the arms away. Indeed, it is should be self evident that the British troops marching into the countryside burning towns were the aggressors who provoked the confrontation. Holmes says the battle of Bunker Hill "is often characterized as an American moral victory" but it was really "a British tactical victory won at great cost." While he is correct that the battle was a British tactical victory, it was also UNQUESTIONABLY an American morale victory. The Americans lost the field, but only barely, and they inflicted far more casualties on the British than they received. Even a cursory reading of literature of the era quickly reveals how the battle inflated American morale and correspondingly depressed British spirits. Holmes made several outright factual errors when discussing the role of the British and the cruel and inhuman institution of southern slavery. Holmes made it sound as if slavery was purely an American institution and that the British were going to liberate the slaves if they won. This was not true. I don't have the space to go into rebut all of Holmes statements in detail, but it needs to be noted that American slavery existed because of British laws that permitted and encouraged it. Of course slavery was exercised in other British colonies like Jamaica, but the British did nothing to end the practice where they had power to do so. In fact, southern Loyalists and some British officers sold many of the slaves "liberated" from southern Patriots to other British colonies in the Caribbean. Holmes also makes it sound as if the Americans were completely incapable of battling the British with regular troops on open fields of battle. He instead mischaracterizes Americans conflict as guerrilla war comparable to Vietnam. While this view is not completely without validity, it is a vast oversimplification that completely ignores the fact that Washington and the leadership of the American cause fought hard to create a regular army that could face the British on equal terms. It was not a guerrilla army that fought the British to a draw at Monmouth Court House, a battle that was a strategic victory for the Americans that essentially ended the war in the North. Partisan actions had their place and were important to winning the war, but partisan actions by themselves would and could not have won the war had there not been a regular army that was able to take on the British on equal terms on the field of battle. The Americans won two huge victories at Saratoga and Yorktown, where they captured large British armies; and the Americans managed to chase the British from Boston and essentially bottle the British up in New York for most of the war. The North Vietnamese never won comparable victories to these against the Americans. So, to sum up, the series is entertaining, but biased. Those who are not very familiar with the war would not be served well by viewing this because of the lack of balance and some of the factual errors. For those who are familiar with the war, Holmes provides a interesting, if sometimes flawed, perspective.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch it when its on PBS, don't bother buying it
Review: This can be an interesting show to watch for the re-enactors and views of the various revolutionary battlefields, as well as many unique comments from Washington's (and other prominent characters) diaries. However Richard Holmes can be hard to listen to when used as a cameo in other historical documentaries, seeing him give his usual Pythonesk monotone for over half of the documentary's runtime got to be seriously annoying. Then for him to be constantly buzzing around in his mustang gives you the feeling he was on holiday and the film was just a tax write-off. Supposedly this was going to show the American Revolution from the British perspective, but as another reviewer already noted, he gave almost nothing to explain what was going on in Britain. Calling this a "civil war" ignores the fact that the Americas were colonies, that was one of the primary reasons for unrest, the colonists had all the responsibilities of being British with none of the advantages in rights such as tax representation.
Its easy to see how so much of "real" English history disappeared, if this really is the British view (and I don't believe it is) since Holmes leaves out so many pertinent facts. He explains how Washington "brilliantly" fakes the British into thinking they will invade New York, Then marches on Yorktown and, with vital French help, defeats the British. Then goes on to describe the French commander's "embarrassing" refusal of Cornwallis' sword, since after all, it WAS a French victory. How could anyone think it was a french victory? If Cornwallis had won, do you think he would want the French sword? Cornwallis sent his second in command to give his sword to the French as an insult to Washington, whom he hated. The French commander knew this and deferred the sword to Washington, who then directed the British officer to HIS second in command. Holmes describes none of this and ignores many other vital facts, which perhaps may give the viewer a good idea of what the "official" history would look like if the colonists had lost their revolution.
I still like to watch it when PBS shows it from time to time. A musician enjoys all types of music, but will appreciate some types more than others. As an historian, I enjoy everything relating to history, I just appreciate some things more than others, and unfortunately this rates somewhere near the bottom.
<< 1 >>
|
