Braveheart

[darko]

I watched Braveheart yesterday for the first time in many years. I remember liking it a lot, but rewatching it after many years, I realized that this movie is terribly, terribly flawed. I mean, I can totally understand why the English were completely offended by it; it is complete fiction. Virtually nothing in that movie is even remotely true historically, yet (unlike historical fiction like Gladiator, etc) it purports to be a real look at William Wallace....

 

moreover, the movie starts with this line about how the English would call the movie's narrator a "liar"...well, um, rightfully so.

[Ryan44]

FREEEEEEEDOM!!!! such a good movie. i dont care what anyone says.

[darko]

It was a good movie, but I was really bothered by how ridiculously innacurate it was....especially since it insists at the beginning that it is all true.

[Ryan44]

it is all true. do your history homework sir.

[darko]

Um, actually it's almost entirely untrue. The only true things about the movie are the battle names and the fact that Robert the Bruce, Edward I, Edward II, Isabella and William Wallace were living people. Everything else is completely false.

[Hyphnip]

Dragonheart > Braveheart > Lionheart (the carebear)

[darko]

sweeeeet

[Sparq]

Was it on Spike by any chance, and horrifically censored?

 

I do not understand the motivation behind that.

[darko]

No I bought the DVD, which I now regret, because I swore I'd never have anything to do with Gibson again.

[Crusader]

Lionheart was the worst carebear, sorry.

 

But really, MACE IN TEH FACE! Best scene.

[Sparq]

It's no Lethal Weapon.

[Ryan44]

Lionheart was the worst carebear, sorry.

 

But really, MACE IN TEH FACE! Best scene.

10000000% with u in eerything u said here anton. high five brother.

[Lucmeister]

It was a good movie, not the best. But Mel Gibsons accent made me angry throughout the entire movie, I don't know why.

[darko]

I didnt mind his accent. I was more bothered by the ridiculous ending that implies Edward III was Wallace's son, despite the fact Isabella had never even met Wallace. That was one of a million poor plot choices....

 

but yes, the mace in the face is excellent, mostly because it rhymes.

[Sparq]

I suspect a historically accurate movie would be boring and terrible.

[darko]

Well, it doesnt have to be 100% accurate. Everyone takes liberties. I think to 100% insult the English bloodline is a little silly, and Gibson has a tendency to make Scots 100% right, English 100% wrong. Which is frankly, not at all how it was, and Edward I was actually a very passionate king, not a madman as they portray him......Like I said, historical inaccuracy is one thing, but to flat out villainize and patronize history is unnecessary. It would have been equally interesting if it had been done that way.

[Lucmeister]

I don't see why it has to be accurate at all. As long as it's entertaining then no one should care. If you want accurate information go read a book.

[darko]

Its not about the accuracy so much as it is about insulting a people's entire history......I have no problem with historical fiction, I hate unnecessary liberties that add nothing to a plot, but insult history.

 

Don't get me wrong, I didnt 'hate' the movie. It's rather good. But it kind of seemed silly to make the creative choices he did. Especially since any uneducated person or naive person watching it might have a really skewed view of English history.......anyway, thats just my annoyance with cliched story-telling.

Edited September 6, 2006 by darko

[garsk]

just watched this ending, i like it better then the movie ending

 

How Braveheart Should Have Ended

[heyrabbit]

It's true that this movie is very loosely based on history, but there really isn't enough information available to make a factual movie based in 13th and 14th century Scotland.

 

In spite of all the false information in the movie I found it to still be a very genuine portrayal of Scottish culture. The plot was invented and worked around certain undisputed truths about the history of that time period. Scotland was occupied by the English who did rape, pilliage and murder Scots for generations. And a rebellion was lead by William Wallace at Stirling, Falkirk and Bannockburn which resulted in Scotland's freedom and and his execution.

 

Most of the rest of the movie was Hollywoodized to make the movie interesting. Isabella didn't have a scandalous affair with Wallace. Bruce's role was misportayed. Who cares? The movie still works. The attire, living conditions and battle is all true to the time period. The courage, pride and ingenuity of the Scots seems to be more exaggerated than anyting else but it's probably the most true aspect of the movie. So when people bash this movie for being false, that's not really what pisses them off. People don't dislike the movie because Wallace slept with Isabella and there for "misinformed" the public. Who's going to take it seriously when someone bases their entire knowledge of Scottish history on Braveheart? It's one of the best movies of all time, so why would someone hate it? People dislike the movie because they're either insecure or jealous of the Scots,as they should be.

 

The movie insults the bloodline. Absolutely. It's meant to be a show of Scottish pride at the expense of the English.

 

Also, the reason why you probably hate Gibsons accent in the movie is because it's a REAL Scottish accent, unlike the nonsense you hear on every commercial or T.V. show.

Edited September 8, 2006 by heyrabbit

[darko]

Yeah I agree with most of what you said. And I have no problem with liberties like the ones you mention. However, I just think that making Edward III Wallace's son served absolutely no purpose except to say "Fuck you!" to the English. I mean, for me, I like historical fiction that doesnt turn history into "good" and "bad" oppositions. He could have done ALL the same things and made it just as well if he had humanized (instead of animalized) the English. It just becomes utterly formulaic at that point.

 

Not that this bothered me in particular, but I had heard a lot of people were annoyed that Edward II was portrayed as stereotypically homosexual. He blatanly was, any thoughts on that?

 

PS: As well, you say there isn't enough info to make a 'factual' movie. Completely true (to an extent, at least; its not even clear why Wallace began his crusade).

Edited September 9, 2006 by darko

[heyrabbit]

Yeah I read that around the time that she was pregnant in the movie, the real Isabella would have been 9 years old. Apparently something like this happened in a play that inspired this in Wallaces writing.

 

When I first saw the movie when I was younger I didn't pay much attention to how blatantly homosexual edward II was. I rewatched it recently aswell and I just laughed at it. During their wedding he stares at Philip - his secret boyfriend - and he looks repulsed at the thought of kissing Isabella. He also orders a servant to hold a mirror so he can check his outfit as he walks. It might seem over-done, but you have to remember that in 1995 homosexuality in movies was still pretty rare. It wasn't yet considered taboo to make a character too gay. Also, Edward II's sexuality was the only source of conflict in the English camp besides the troubles with Scotland. That was the entire path they chose for the English storyling.

 

Wallace was supposed to be fighting to avenge the death of his wife and family. So it seemed unnecessary for Wallace to sleep with Isabella, but it was a conclusion to the conflict surrounding Edward's sexuality.Edward II and Isabella didn't talk about it throughout the entire movie, neither did the father and son.

Also, it was the only display of empathy from the English camp.But she was sort of disassociated from the English throughout the entire movie, so I understand what you mean when you say they didn't "humanize" them.

[darko]

The other thing that was obviously an unconscious (or conscious) Gibson moment: Edward I kills Edward II's fictitious gay lover. In reality, homosexuality was actually very well tolerated in England until the 18th century. This felt like GIbson's own prejudices.

 

ALso, anyone here a fan of Marlowe? I was surprised that Gaveston wasn't the gay lover Edward II had. It was the likely choice if anyone has read Edward II the play.