Sons of Liberty (1939)

You won't be disappointed!

So much average

Redundant and unnecessary.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Of all the major Hollywood studios of the 30's, Warners Bros were the most engaged with the threat posed in Europe by Hitler and entrusted the great Michael Curtiz with the direction of this Oscar winning short which lavished the blandishments of Technicolor and the charismatic presence of Claude Rains flanked by a classy supporting cast - including Montague Love as George Washington - on this reminder of the role played in the Revolution by a super-patriotic Jew who according to this account even died reciting the US Constitution on his deathbed.Given the current situation in Europe, 'Sons of Liberty' avoids overtly identifying the British by name as the bad guys, and most of the film's accents - including Rains' - are impeccably British, one notable exception being the 'March of Time' style narrator who occasionally interjects to clarify or speed things up.

It was great that they honored the story of Haym Solomon, an under credited hero of the American Revolution. However, Claude Rains plays Solomon with a very British accent. Haym Solomon immigrated from Poland. There is nothing about Rains portrayal that indicates that he is of either European extraction or Jewish descent. Given that this short was made by Jewish Warner Bros and Jewish Michael Curtiz, it raises many questions as to what they were thinking and what were their motivations? Could it have been, as implied by some of the other reviewers, that Hollywood wanted to remind Americans, given the situation in 1939, that Jews were instrumental in the Amercian Revolution that led to our Freedom and that we should be prepared for a possible threat to our freedom? But, as was often of the mind set of pre-WWII Hollywood, they wouldn't want to make our Jewish protagonist too Jewish in fear of an American anti-semitic back lash. This walks a hypocritical tight rope. Oy Vey!

In 1939, as the world perched on the brink of World War, "Sons of Liberty" served to remind the American public of the sacrifices necessary to preserve our freedoms, particularly freedom of religion. And its focus a Jewish patriot might be seen as an appeal to recognize the contributions of Jewish Americans during the American Revolution and to sympathize with Jews who were undergoing religious persecution in Germany and elsewhere.One has to wonder how much of the story of "Sons of Liberty" is true. It feels like a fabrication with only the most basic facts being true. The use of the breathless voice-over, sounding like an episode of Zorro, only serves to heighten the feeling that "facts" were embellished and even created.As a young student in the public school systems, I was familiar with the dramatized and sterilized versions of history--where the motives were so pure and the lines of conflict so clear. Such colorful but biased reconstructions of history only served as impediments in my later search for historical truth."Sons of Liberty" is so overly dramatized that its value as a revolutionary recounting is practically nil. It is understandable that Hollywood might produce such a piece in 1939 given the world situation. But now, its super-stylized, bombastic approach to story telling--with chronological events so condensed and orchestral flourishes for every scene--makes it only an interesting remnant of the run up to WWII.

Back in the days when a night at the movies meant a whole package of entertainment, the studios cranked out dozens of so-called "short subjects" as light filler material. They generally purported to be educational and many of them gave a potted history of some historical figure or process, with an emphasis on wholesome pop facts and just a cursory nod towards accuracy. They were usually rather cheap and cheerful affairs too. Sons of Liberty is an exception – a short subject which, despite its brevity, has been produced with all the lavishness of an A-grade feature.For its cast, Sons of Liberty does not utilize the front rank of Warner Brothers stars, but certainly picks from the cream of character players. The lead role is given great weight and dignity by Claude Rains, whose charisma stems not from forcefulness but from a calm, thoughtful composure. It's also nice to see this stock baddie in a heroic role for once. In this respect, it almost seems like a cheeky in-joke that perennial female villain Gale Sondergaard is cast as his wife, especially since her part is so small and doesn't really use her talents much. There are also brief appearances by Donald Crisp and Montagu Love, which like Sondergaard's are so short they seem to be more to add class than actual quality.The director is Michael Curtiz, at the time one of the most highly regarded of Warner's team. Curtiz always packed a lot of information into the frame in order to quickly establish meaning and context, so in many ways he is ideal for the whistle-stop pace of the short subject. There's a bit of typical Curtiz arty symbolism going on here with the Claude Rains character being repeatedly associated with flames. A bit superfluous perhaps, but the linking motif at least allows for a bit of smooth flow as Curtiz works a candle or a lantern into the beginning or end of a shot, which is often the only bit of vibrant colour in the scene.Ultimately however, Sons of Liberty cannot rise above its short subject roots. Its prime function is to inform rather than entertain, and so like all short subjects it crams in info rather than allowing scenes to play for drama or excitement. Just as one scene begins to build, we get a bit of voice-over narration skipping us on to something else. Pretty as it looks, and finely acted as it is, Sons of Liberty really looks a bit like a twenty-minute trailer for a full-length feature, which in no way makes it a substitute for the real thing.