Customer Reviews

Rebels & Redcoats - How Britain Lost America

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

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

Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America provides the British perspective vis-à-vis the American Revolution. Professor Richard Holmes does an excellent job of shedding light on little known aspects of the American War of Independence thus providing a more pragmatic, realistic, and in effect a more truthful account of events during the 1775-1783 conflict than what has been generally shown to-date. The documentary is divided into four parts dealing with as many aspects of and visiting as many geographic regions of the conflict as possible. Subsequently, the documentary provides valuable insight into a very important period of English (American and British) History.
Specifically: We get a taste of the different attitudes and mentality of English North American colonists during the war along with their wavering support for one side and the other (the Loyalist American English and the Continental American English respectively).
Moreover, the documentary presents the clash within the British side (i.e. the personality clashes-Clinton vs. Cornwallis, the admirals, etc.).
In addition, one truly recognizes and appreciates the involvement of French King Louis XVI (beginning in 1778) and the French contribution (who along with the Spaniards in 1779 and Dutch in 1780 entered the war in opposition to Great Britain, and tipped the scales against King George III.
Furthermore, there is special mention of the 100,000 American Loyalists that were forced into exile as well the Continentals' treatment (or mistreatment) of slaves and Indians alike.
As a result, Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America is a daring documentary, which shatters more than a few misconceptions, deliberate and not, surrounding attitudes towards the American War of Independence, and provides for accurate, valid and often unpleasant or painful historical truths.
In short, Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America is a documentary definitely worth watching, and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection, along with films such as Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor (Aidan Quinn and Kelsey Grammer), The Crossing (Jeff Daniels), and Revolution (Al Pacino). 5 Stars

Richard Holmes does a nice job attempting to show the British perspective of the Rev War. Perhaps one of the surprising views expressed is the notion that he believes the Revolution was more a Civil War. This is a view somewhat debated now by some newer historians. The verdict is out on that one still in my opinion.

The documentry provides a contempory look at many of the Rev War sites which gives it a nice contrast to other similer works. One suspects that the intent was to give a different, almost travelogue quality to the production. At times it seems like we are on a road trip across the North East of America!

This is a small scale production, so those looking for something like LIBEERTY or THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION documentries will not find that here. Ample use is made of re-enactors, even though some could have looked the part better. Some of the local Park Rangers and weapons experts provide a folksy addition to the discussion.

Despite being almost 4 hrs long, there are still notably gaps in the coverage of the topic. Not much is said about the Hessians, and after Trenton, the battle of Princeton is completely over-looked. The same pretty much for Valley Forge and Monmouth battle in 1778. Richard Holmes tries to show that the British worked against many odds to fight the war as they did. Still, he could have emphisized more how well they did adapt to fighting in North America. No other power of the day could have sustained such an effort acorss the Atlantic. The constant Viet Nam comparisons worked part of the time, but a little too much was made of this. Some of the discussions with Americans in the South was intended as humor more than anything else. One wonders if this production was shown in the UK!

Over all a decent production, with some different opinions which might be new to some viewers. Richard Holmes is engaging and pleasant, and the whole production comes off almost like a road trip across the Eastern Coast to track down the Rev War battle sites. It rates four stars because it was not as comprehensive as I would have liked. Still, a worthwhile production.

Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America provides the British perspective vis-à-vis the American Revolution. Professor Richard Holmes does an excellent job of shedding light on little known aspects of the American War of Independence thus providing a more pragmatic, realistic, and in effect a more truthful account of events during the 1775-1783 conflict than what has been generally shown to-date. The documentary is divided into four parts dealing with as many aspects of and visiting as many geographic regions of the conflict as possible. Subsequently, the documentary provides valuable insight into a very important period of English (American and British) History.
Specifically: We get a taste of the different attitudes and mentality of English North American colonists during the war along with their wavering support for one side and the other (the Loyalist American English and the Continental American English respectively).
Moreover, the documentary presents the clash within the British side (i.e. the personality clashes-Clinton vs. Cornwallis, the admirals, etc.).
In addition, one truly recognizes and appreciates the involvement of French King Louis XVI (beginning in 1778) and the French contribution (who along with the Spaniards in 1779 and Dutch in 1780 entered the war in opposition to Great Britain, and tipped the scales against King George III.
Furthermore, there is special mention of the 100,000 American Loyalists that were forced into exile as well the Continentals' treatment (or mistreatment) of slaves and Indians alike.
As a result, Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America is a daring documentary, which shatters more than a few misconceptions, deliberate and not, surrounding attitudes towards the American War of Independence, and provides for accurate, valid and often unpleasant or painful historical truths.
In short, Rebels and Redcoats: How Britain Lost America is a documentary definitely worth watching, and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection, along with films such as Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor (Aidan Quinn and Kelsey Grammer), The Crossing (Jeff Daniels), and Revolution (Al Pacino). 5 Stars

I rented this from my local library because I thought it would provide a British perspective on the American Revolution. Apparently the British perspective includes historical falsehoods and absence of key information, but that's not all that's wrong.

First, let's start with the technical issues. This is a documentary, and maybe I've grown accustomed to the Ken Burns style, but I have a hard time taking seriously a documentary that just has one commentator (albeit one with a British accent). Are the views in this documentary just his? Did they not want dissenting or collaborating views? Is he a mouthpiece? Why not have other historians involved?

Second, if they were going to talk Britain ... how about talking Britain? Parliamentary debates. Burke. Chatham. North. George III. What's happening in London? What's happening in New York City? You won't find out here, I'll tell you that much.

Third, there are some serious historical issues herein. The Royal Governor of Virginia issues a proclamation freeing slaves that join him to fight (oh the irony! those preaching liberty are upset he does this! -- more on this below) ... yet fails to mention he shortly thereafter sold them back into slavery.

Then, there's the issue with the American style of fighting, especially in the Carolinas. Yes, the Americans are better at sniper fire and fringe attacks. But the British developed their own light infantry after they encountered a similar situation in the French & Indian War -- this wasn't new to them. If you go by the documentary, you'd think the British were incapable of responding to military innovation. What's worse is that the three battles that immediately follow this discussion: King's Mountain, Cowpens, and Guilford Courthouse, contradict what he just said! King's Mountain was largely a battle between two militia groups, and thus both were capable of fighting under cover. In Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse, the Americans used traditional lines to fight the British regulars. So what was the point of the previous digression?

In the same sequence, you have a complete falsehood: if you believe the narrator, the British fought Greene in Guilford Courthouse after a forced march through Carolina with a minimum of food and equipment. Well, yes and no: Cornwallis chased Greene through North Carolina, but after Greene got across the Dan River, Cornwallis retired to Hillsborough to resupply! Obviously the writers of this documentary thought it'd sound better if the battle happened while the British troops were dead on their feet ... who needs historical accuracy when a tailor-made excuse for a substandard showing can be made?

Another fun sequence is when Tarleton's massacre at the Waxhaws is glossed over (who cares about the hundred of accounts of the massacre -- including Tarleton's -- the documentarians find room for doubt anyway), and then discuss the Loyalist militia massacre in North Carolina. Now, is it possible this massacre was an unnecessary retaliation? Yes. Did General Henry Lee order the massacre? Hmmm ... well, historically there's no proof either way. Lee in his memoirs says that he tries to get the militia to surrender and that his men (South Carolina men, related to victims at the Waxhaws) fired on them. You won't find that information in this documentary, though, because they want to make Lee look worse than Tarleton. Granted, Lee could've been trying to make himself look better ... but that doesn't explain why he would've put himself in the line of fire when the massacre happened. Regardless, good history allows for possibilities; it doesn't force its own decision on its readers/viewers.

Now, to the crux of the issue: it's obvious what the intended goal of this documentary was: to point out the hypocrisies and ironies of the American Revolution. And this is not a bad subject to tackle; the issue is that this material is out there already. The founding fathers debated the slavery issue during the war; there were atrocities committed against Loyalists; and Abigail Adams even wrote her husband John a nice letter about the rights of women. There's a good opportunity for these issues to be addressed intelligently and with proper respect for history. But not here. This is just blind agendizing with no real historical merit ... except for maybe documentary historians who are interested in the 'defeats' of their genre.

After wading through a few predictably bristling reviews from those who prefer their American history a la Patriot it was heartening to read the re-enactor's balanced review of this balanced documentary. I suppose like many soldiers who have seen actual battle, he is less inclined to swallow the propaganda that so often passes as history written, as it were, by the victors.

Yes, the narrator is a wee bit irritating and the necessarily broad brush strokes inevitably provide ground for criticism, but I think this is a welcome balance to the overwhelming amount of material written from the American perspective.

The documentary makes the point that the war was a close run thing and regarded by most at the time as not between two nations but within one. Yes, there was the issue of taxation, but the underlying causes that led to the conflict were both more profound and would lead to future conflict - ie, economics, lust for land, and the rights of slaves/ native Americans. Only on this occasion, the British could argue that the "equivalent" of the South won...

It was genuinely ironic that the rebel third who were actively against the state (ie the British) were fighting the most liberal, free and representative society of its time. Doubly so because in their fight they were aided by a monarchical dictatorship. The result - freedom for some, yes, but slavery or near-genocide for others.

One reviewer wondered what the British perspective was. Well as a Brit I am glad the rebels won - the US has become a beacon for freedom and democracy and were it not for its economic strength we might not have defeated Nazism and Communism. On the other hand I think it is healthy for Americans to be exposed to the less savoury aspects of their founding "myth". Perhaps doing so might help curb their more hegemonic impulses...

Though not perfect by any strech of the imagination, Rebels and Red Coats cuts through much of the mythological marlaky about the American rebellion that has been concocted by our self-serving, narcisistic culture. And it does it in an entertaining and non-preachy sort of way. It just tells the story in a more objective way -- even if Brits do the telling (they have gotten over the loss!)

A few points R & R gets dead right: 1) English rule of its American colonies was NOT oppressive, 2) the improbable American military victory depended on French interference and English ineptitude more so than upon General Washington's admittedly resolute, resourceful, tenacious, daring, and at times ingenious conduct of the war, and 3) the long-term value of the rebellion for Americans is quite debatable to say the least -- indeed, have we not evolved into the proud, parochial, pseudo-imperialistic nation of "Blue-Eyed Tartars" that Edmund Burke predicted? Have we gained, in the bargain, any material rights, privileges, or immunities not enjoyed by Brits, Canadians, Australians, etc, which we would presumably now enjoy had we not rebelled? (R & R does not dwell on this point, it just subtly implies it at the end for the consideration of open minded viewers).

In any event, R & R and enjoyable and accurate, proportional account of the American Revolution without a bunch of jingoistic nonsense.

This is a well done historical documentary. The other reviewer obviously didn't see the whole documentary and was perhaps not listening. Yes he describes the Rebels in terms of the Viet Cong and Mujuhadeen... but only in terms of explaining how a small band of rebels could defeat such a large emperical army such as the Brits. Yes, he calls the rebels militants... um... they were. They were a militia, there was no government to be an army of.

I learned a good deal of the Revolutionary War that I did not know before. The recreations are well done, and the host is engaging and well spoken. Well done.

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.