Taking Liberties
- Dr. Joseph Warren [hmmm]
- Paul Revere [okay]
- Samuel Adams [snort!]
- John Hancock [come on]
- John Adams [bwahahaha!]
There will be characters in Sons of Liberty with the same names as actual historical figures. Those characters will have some of the very basic attributes as their real-life counterparts: Hancock will be rich, Warren militant, Samuel Adams radical. But we mustn’t expect their histories, costumes, behaviors, personalities, or outlooks to match anything we’ve read. If there is a match, it will be a pleasant “Easter egg” surprise.
11 comments:
When I first looked at the photo I thought they were pirates or maybe highwaymen. Note to producers: they had soap and water in the 18th century.
The producers are definitely going with the "troublemaker" stereotype of Samuel Adams. The real Samuel Adams was significantly older than all the others, holder of a master's degree from Harvard, and afflicted with a hand tremor that would make him the last of these men I'd equip with two pistols.
But I do like that coat he's wearing.
Well, leaving aside the high level of cheesiness overall, you do have to concede that at least the got Hancock into a fancy blue coat a la Copley portrait (and the color of Wilkites, as prior posts have established). Adams looks suitably uptight. But yes, overall a travesty. A phone call to Henry Cooke could have spared them a whole lot of trouble!
Yes, it looks like the show will have John Adams as the peevish, principled one. But having him played by strapping Henry Thomas? Even John Adams might have admitted that's a stretch.
We have Copley portraits for all five of these men, so choosing accurate costumes should be relatively easy. But not if you're going to bend the facts for drama!
What do you expect from the History Channel? It is overrun with liberals who have fallen for the 60's nut case historians,,,, (Known Marxist and Leftists). Plus, you have to remember, the producers don't actually study History like they should.
Seriously, Rick? You look at the mass entertainment produced by a commercial television network that's part of a multinational media conglomerate and say the problems with historical accuracy arise from too much Marxism? I think that says more about your outlook than about the shows.
Good God.
Why the devil would Samuel Adams be walking around Boston with a brace of pistols like he's Blackbeard?
Well, at least they aren't all wearing leather braces like they are using archery at Breed's Hill. Oh, wait: http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2014/11/sonsofliberty_gallery_3.jpg
Going to war under the banner of an editorial cartoon published twenty-one years before in a distant colony!
Don't fire your longbows until you see the whites of their eyes.
Of course, the regulars would hardly put it past the colonists to attack with bows like a bunch o' bloody Indians!
I, too, noticed a few things that were not quite correct.
For instance, while watching the previews I noticed in one scene the colonials were sitting around a table with a futuristic-looking (to them) oil lamp (from the mid-to-late 19th century style) in the center of the table.
Also, during another preview, there is Mr. Revere riding through town shouting "The British are coming!"
Hmmm...
These may be minor to some, but add to that the golden boy Hollywood-types they chose to represent the founding generation and you have the makings of typical History Channel crap.
Why do I get excited only to be let down again and again?
By the way, I, too, wrote a posting about this series and included a photo of said oil lamp:
http://passionforthepast.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-accurate-should-we-be-when.html
In the Sons of Liberty mini-series, General Thomas and Margaret Gage were depicted as having lodged at the John Hancock House during the Siege of Boston when in fact he never lodged there at all. The Gages lodged at the Province House.
At the John Hancock House, Brigadier General Hugh Percy was the first to lodge there, followed by General Henry Clinton, then General James Grant.
It depicted the John Hancock House with an east wing (not constructed until after the Revolutionary War ended) and the front gate shown (made of iron and brick) did not look like that until sometime after 1817, when Beacon Street was widened.
Post a Comment