Sons of Liberty: A Review

Americans for a Free Republic ^ | January 30, 2015 | Nelson Hultberg

[Nelson Hultberg]

“Sons of Liberty” does not claim to be immaculately factual. It is a TV blockbuster, done with sophisticated production values, made to draw huge ratings and excite the viewing audiences of Western culture. Its discrepancies in the details are justified because it very clearly portrays what is important – that America was a “new philosophical vision of government instituted to protect men’s rights rather than manipulate men’s lives.”

[miss marmelstein]

Fat, childish actors playing our strong, raw-boned ancestors. We last 10 minutes with it...

[Gamecock]

I have seen the first two installments, probably will watch the third tonight.

My 0.02 cents:

1. Of course the is a lot of literacy license. So what? The movie “The Ten Commandments” did the same and most people think that was wonderful.

2. There is enough factual material to make it worthwhile. I wouldn’t use it to study for a US history test, but that is not the purpose.

3. Love the portrayal of the Colonialists being against taxes and an oppressive government. That is enough to make it a great conversation starter with others.

[PapaNew]

Have I missed it already or is it scheduled on the History Channel sometime in February?

[skeeter]

I guess I'm a prude.

I think something claiming to be based upon historical fact should in some way resemble the history it claims as its base.

[Gamecock]

Streaming here now.

[jjsheridan5]

The only thing worse than “Sons of Liberty”, was this review. The show was a garbage strewn wreck of a cheesy hipsterian morality play, with visions not of liberty and freedom, but rather visions of aspiring to be counted as a worthy parallel to Pirates of the Caribbean. This doesn’t make me a “purist”. It merely makes me capable of seeing that making a show that panders to the lowest common denominator audience doesn’t elevate that audience, but rather debases the show, and whatever ideas may have inspired that show, to the gutter as well.

This wasn’t a platform which showcases the ideas that made this country great. It was a platform that showcased 5-day old beard growth, snappy meaningless dialogue, cartoonish villainry, and video-game action sequencing. Anyone who wasn’t appalled by this dreck should be ashamed of themselves.

[wardaddy]

It will find a way to gratuitously overemphasize blacks women homosexuals and any other minority

I’d bet

Just like Torn

Rare is a period piece today that doesn’t

Directors and producers and writers do it on their own or at the behest of studios chiefs or network honchos

I miss just old fashioned gratuitous violence and sec

[PapaNew]

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

[bunkerhill7]

The Real Sons of Liberty

“The Montresor Journals”, Volume 14 By John Montrésor, James Gabriel Montrésor, [edit. Scull]

“Allicock, Head of the Sons of Liberty, is the son of a mulattoe woman, p 368

1766 “’29th Seventeen hundred of the The Levelers with firearms are collected at Poughkeepsie. p376

1766 “11th A considerable mob asssembled on the Common, cosisting of 2 or 3000 Sons of Liberty
..the Tree of Liberty...when the mob drew instantly out of their pockets a case of pistols
each.

“The Sons of Liberty assembled at night in the fields...
To such a pass are matters come too, that at Philadelphia
in a Stationers Shop was found wrote in a blank Book
G____ by the C__se of G_d, us_per of G___t B__t__n,
and Dest_r_y of the Faith. Great Enquiries were made,
but unfortunately to no purpose.”
p.347”Montresor`s Journals” 1766. 19 Jan. [Scull]

March 1766 “This night the Sons of Liberty assembled and insolently sent Mr. Allecocke [son of a mulatto woman] and Seares, two of their Representatives on board the Garland Ship of War to demand the Lieut of His majesty`s Ship
for having said that the Printer of the Thursday`s Gazette, was he in England, would be hanged for the licentiousness of his Paper.” p.353

“This day a Seditious paper was published [nothing uncommon] by Mr. Holt, Printer, signed Philalethes, as per paper.” May 8, 1766. p.365

“The Sons of Liberty make no scruple of publickly [sic] declaring that they will fight to their knees in blood
rather than suffer the Stamp Act to be enforced...” p.365. 12 May 1766

“No advices received from Connecticut —the Inhabitants have deposed their governor and chosen another, turned out the members of the Assembly and have formed themselves into a committee of 500 men to oppose the present Stamp Act to be enforced...” May 19, 1766 p.367

Stamp Act Repealed- “All the bells set ringing again as soon as daylight appeared.
...Two large bonfires were constructed one for the Sons of Liberty...
Night ended in drunkeness, throwing of Squibbs, Crackers [firecrackers], firing of muskets and pistols, breaking some windows and forcing off the Knockers off the doors.” 21 May 1766. p.367 “Montresor`s Journals” Vol. 14, Scull

[SQUIBB 1. A pipe or tube, or ball of paper filled with powder, to be fired so as to burn and often to explode with a crack.

“A proclamation issued this day for apprehending 7 of the principal country Levelers [Sons of Liberty] for High Treason...” June 20, 1766 p.374

“Pendergast is indited [sic][leader of the Sons of Liberty was captured] for High Treason.”
6 Aug. 1766 p.380

“Wm. Pendergast, who was tried at Poughkeepsie and found guilty of High Treason and received Sentence of Death...” Aug. 19 1766 p.384

[Repeal The 17th]

I enjoyed the series.
It as never touted as being a documentary.

[Batman11]

Wait, so Dr. Joseph Warren wasn’t really schtupping Mrs. Gage? ...and General Gage did not really personally kill Dr. Warren at Breed’s Hill and bring his blood back to Mrs. Gage? Bahaha! Look, I’m happy for any American history to be shown on American television, but was that BS really necessary? What, the original story is not good enough for the mindless morons in this country to watch? Give me a break!

[jjsheridan5]

Look, I’m happy for any American history to be shown on American television, but was that BS really necessary?

Well, look at the bright side, we did get to learn that Paul Revere was America's first ninja.

[gusty]

This type of garbage just burns my rear. It is why we live in a society of illiterate morons. Unfortunately, this type of comic book history will displace the well researched history book as we plod on into Idiocracy.

[aumrl]

“I enjoyed the series.
It as never touted as being a documentary.”

YES put me in your camp Rt17

[DoodleDawg]

Sons of Liberty: A Review

Here's my review: it sucked. Hunky actors spouting poorly written dialoge that was very loosly based on a true story. I should have suspected as much when they used the Stones "Paint It Black" in the commercials.

[Adder]

I totally agree.

This show was a travesty. The ONLY thing familiar about it was the names of the participants. They managed to mash together events in a morass of out of place occurances, broken timelines and melodramatic nonsense.
“Sam Adams” was portrayed more as a Son of Anarchy, rather than a Son of Liberty.

I found it all confusing and in the end disgustingly cloying.

For those many who don’t know Sam Adams from a beer, I can only imagine the total misinformation they might have absorbed. I KNOW they said it wasn’t a documentary but dang!: they might well have had Paul Revere driving a red mustang on his ride and being chased by Sheriff Roscoe B. Coltrane.

[SMARTY]

It's history for people who don't know anything ABOUT history.

For THEM it's exciting and ‘cool’ to see a ‘story’ about the American Revolution.

THEY probably think it's fiction!

The characters seem to have NO gravitas and are completely ignoble... as if ALL of America in all its development was populated with badly behaved and ill bred creeps.

That's just me I guess. I think a little more effort could have been put into the dialog and presentation and STILL appeal to the least educated viewers, who have the least discernment.

[Batman11]

“I KNOW they said it wasn’t a documentary but dang!: they might well have had Paul Revere driving a red mustang on his ride and being chased by Sheriff Roscoe B. Coltrane.”

Ha! Don’t give them any ideas....

[jjsheridan5]

That is the problem that I have with the "it wasn't pretending to be a documentary" crowd, as well as the original poster who claimed that it highlighted the principles behind the countries founding. It did no such thing, and actually works to subvert those principles.

Turning John Adams from a portly, thoughtful, mature man, into a 20-something hipster who didn't even take any money from his capitalistic enterprises (great, the country was founded by a hipster d-bag working for a non-profit), it turns the whole revolution from a principle-driven movement against the existence of oppression, to an emotionally-driven movement against the severity of that oppression.

This is not highlighting the principles of this country. It is, subtly, subverting them. In order to do this, they had to turn the English into something they weren't: monsters. The English didn't scream for vengeance, as in the movie, they did everything to avoid escalation. Gage wasn't some kind of monster; he was driven by a sense of law and order, and was fully committed to the colonies. His subordinates thought he did far too little, not to much, even to the point of allowing the militias to continue training in plain view. They didn't butcher our soldiers. IIRC, the only such butchering occured on our side. The military didn't flog civilians (or even involve themselves in civilian justice). But the writers, wanting to turn this from a conflict based on principle, into one based on what looks suspiciously like left-wing emotionalism, needed to have the English as the boogieman.

The worst part, though, is that so many who should know better, think: "well, it's just a show" or "it highlighted what this country was founded on". When they should be appalled at how the principles are being turned from the thoughtful output of men of reason, into the 200 year old equivalent of "hope and change".