Movie Review

Liberty!, the last in a series of documentaries about the Revolution, is also the most ambitious in scale and goals, offering a sense of the broader sweep of the American battle for independence in six lavishly produced one-hour episodes. "The Reluctant Revolutionaries" sets the scene, discussing how colonists were "proud to be British" yet suffered from a provincial inferiority complex, then taking us from the Stamp Act through the arrival of the British fleet in Boston. "Blows Must Decide" takes us to the point of revolution, introducing the Continental Congress and army, then progressing from Lexington and Concord to independence. "The Times That Try Men's Souls" highlights the war's rocky start, discussing the army's shortcomings, strategy, and poor track record and concluding with the turning of the tide at Trenton. "Oh Fatal Ambition!" leads us to Gen. John Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga, emphasizing his army's hardships and touching on Franco-American relations. "The World Turned Upside Down" focuses on the war in the South, revealing its brutality on both sides and concluding with the arrival of the French fleet and the defeat of Gen. Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown. "Are We to Be a Nation?" discusses the postwar struggle for nationhood, taking us through the interstate confusion of the 1780s, the Constitutional Convention, and ratification.	1
As suggested by the documentary's brisk pace, compressing the narrative of the Revolution into six hours is a challenge—and herein lies a central problem. How can a complex tale of revolutionary ideology, popular politicking, foreign relations, cultural clashes, and military maneuvers be wedged into that small span of time? An hour of airtime—the length of each episode—is equivalent to roughly twenty double-spaced typewritten pages. Within those twenty pages, historians must pontificate, historical figures comment, and the events of the Revolution unfold, forming an account that touches on key events and personalities as well as broader cultural and political themes. And all this must take place at a pace leisurely enough to allow viewers to absorb and process information, both verbal and visual. One begins to get a sense of the challenge of documentary filmmaking.	2
Compressing the Revolution into 120 double-spaced pages requires editorial choices; not surprisingly, it is here that Liberty! invites the most criticism. Scholars have charged that the program shortchanged diplomatic history, limited itself largely to elite white males, and neglected such central topics as the problem of slavery among liberty-loving revolutionaries, the importance of commerce as an impetus to war, the contributions of women, and the mixed outcome of a war that did not achieve liberty for all. Indeed, those criticisms are correct on all counts. Diplomacy is reduced to little more than Benjamin Franklin in England and France; elite white males predominate, many episodes centering on one or two men in an attempt to humanize complex themes; discussion of slavery is extremely limited; commercial motives are entirely neglected; women figure as little more than commentators and camp followers; and the documentary as a whole has an exceedingly celebratory tone. Certainly, Liberty! could have been more balanced.	3
Yet, before we brand Liberty! a failure, we must acknowledge the limitations and peculiarities of its medium. Because viewers have no control over pace, television programs must tell stories in a crystal clear and deliberate way. Particularly in a public-minded documentary addressing a complex topic, comprehensive coverage is impossible, and scholarly subtleties are difficult to achieve. A documentary filmmaker must assume that audience members are entirely uninformed about the topic at hand. Viewers must be enticed into the narrative by touching on its human, emotional, individualistic aspects, and they must be encouraged to follow the narrative thread. They must perceive the broad themes that structure this human story—and be entertained as well. Good public history allows accessibility without sacrificing substance—a delicate balance indeed.	. . .