I have been excited about this project since the very first hints about it were released, so in full disclosure I have to admit that I approached this with high hopes. I also have to disclose that – despite being a huge military history nerd and a fan of reading source material before adaptions are made – I have not had a chance to read The Liberator: One World War II Soldier's 500-Day Odyssey from the Beaches of Sicily to the Gates of Dachau by Alex Kershaw, so I cannot speak to how accurate anything is, nor can I comment on the quality of the original material either. Here are my thoughts on the visual choices, the characterizations and narrative structure, and the approach to diversity and representation.
The hybrid-animated style is something that I was a bit surprised by because even after watching the trailers that were released my poor grad-school-addled brain processed it as a marketing choice just for promo. Everything looked like a comic page done by an awesome colourist and it I was :O but also :D Since I love comics, especially those that use muted palettes and a realistic style, I think I adapted to watching something that didn’t look like every other war drama out there a lot faster than my parents, who were watching with me. Comics and war (and WWII in particular) have a fascinating and interconnected history, so although it is a unique way of styling the show it also fits it so well! At times I did find myself wanting to see the characters faces in a bit more detail but, in fact, closeups were better than farther shots. Facial ticks and micro expressions came through well in most scenes and I was impressed all over again with the work the animations teams must have done as well as by the voice work and performances by the actors. I’m so familiar with Bradley James’ face and movements that I was never worried about missing something in his performance because of the show’s visual aesthetics and I feel like all the other cast members were just as transparent to me despite having never had the pleasure of watching them before. Overall, the visual style of the series gave it a certain charm and I imagine it helped to mitigate effects costs on what I don’t THINK was a project with a big budget.
The story itself is one that I really enjoyed. The character Felix Sparks is such a central hero, and I can certainly see how he could come off as too good to be true. The same can be said for most of the characters, from Sergeant Sam Coldfoot’s tenacity and escape from death to the German soldiers who show mercy and do not shoot Sparks while collecting his dead and wounded men from the mountain. **[This in particular seemed odd to me since they were from an SS unit and those dudes were generally some of the nastiest Nazis to ever serve but maybe its from the book, idk. It also underlines the “ugh, officers, ammirite? Except you Sparks, you’re an okay guy” vibe that is so common for military dramas by showing that on both sides there are men who are just soldiers being soldiers. Similar to the events in Aschaffenburg and at Dachau, we are purposefully reminded that there are good and bad people on both sides]. I think that the heroic portrayals of the characters (while a tiny bit one-dimensional) mostly speak to what the real men must have been like. Or, perhaps more relevantly, to how they have been remembered. This is where I think the source material and how it is used becomes a big factor. Kershaw’s book uses historical research and interviews with Sparks, some of his men, and even some German soldiers. As I said, I have not read it but knowing his style a lot of the elements in the show that feel quite ‘all hail the conquering heroes’, or that are so focussed on the brotherhood of the unit, likely come from his narrative choices. I’m willing to believe that the members of the Thunderbirds were brave and caring men who did what was best for the outcome of the war and for each other, regardless of the personal cost or the expectations of the American military/society at large. We see some of their ‘faults’ in the series – something that is often only possible when it comes to accounts of small-unit fighting – and they are not actually perfect; it just happens to be that those faults have favourable outcomes or are mediated in the particular context of WWII, especially when we are looking back on them decades later. If the character’s representation largely reflects how they have been remembered it seems simplistic to forsake stories expressing awe and hope for daring to do so when the limitations or biases inherent to memory are also at fault. I believe it will always be important to tell the stories of individuals who inspire us to be better, which I think The Liberator does in a few different ways. All the same, having more time to dig deeper into the characters would have made them much more dynamic and would have been amazing.
On that note, it is important to be critical of how the ethnic/racial differences were addressed. The focus of the series narrows quite a bit by the end of the first episode to follow Sparks. I believe that the Kershaw book uses him as a primary interviewee, so that plays into it, but this is also where having the series be longer would have made a difference. Following a central character is a model of historical narrative that works and has worked for quite some time. It is essentially a safe bet for a project like this that I’m sure did not have the luxury of taking chances, but it didn’t allow for us to really dive into the other characters beyond what see of them through Sparks’ eyes. As the 2ndLt and later Captain of the battalion I think it’s fair to have a significant portion of the story told from his perspective or with him as a focal point because his position affords him the most information to share, but adding more variation of voices could have been so good! Instances of other characters talking about him in the series are great moments that give the other characters more ‘screen-time’ and also nicely back up the claims of brotherhood and togetherness that the overall story is making about the men. Having them speak about themselves too would have been even more awesome. The elements of simplification or Nationalism that can be felt when Sparks whips the men into shape and they become a fine fighting unit made up of usually segregated Native American/Indigenous, Mexican American, and white cowboy soldiers would be mediated by this more equal sharing of perspective. I have little doubt that the real men came together in an unexpected but inspirational way that discarded (most) of the prejudices that existed outside of their little bubble in order to fight a common enemy – at the very least their strategic accomplishments and survival would suggest as much. The portrayal of their coming-together would benefit from being a tad less contrived or solely laid on Sparks’ shoulders.
Overall, I really enjoyed the series and I hope more people watch it. It’s not perfect by any means but it does do a nice job of making a small but important chunk of history more accessible and it attempts to provide a realistic representation of events that border the unimaginable.
I would love to hear what anyone else thought of it.
Screener Squad: The Liberator THE LIBERATOR MINISERIES REVIEW Some say it was our greatest war, exemplifying one of the shining moments in the history of the United States. Others say World War II was a complex conflict unlike any other: with valor and cowardice, heroes and villains. Could the truth be encompassed in one man’s singular wartime experience? Join… Read More »Screener Squad: The Liberator read more on One of Us
