Braveheart the movie

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tony987

Guest
I just watched Braveheart again and was wondering if there is anybody out there who knows how much of the story is true and did the movie stir any anti English sediment in the Scotland?
 
I just watched Braveheart again and was wondering if there is anybody out there who knows how much of the story is true and did the movie stir any anti English sediment in the Scotland?
I’m surprised no one has replied to this yet.

It was a while back and I can’t remember any media frenzy particularly - that’s the usual way to tell if something is ‘kicking off’! - to be honest, many Scots are not exactly well disposed towards the English (and in some ways you can’t blame them). This goes for some Welsh as well, although in one-to-one conversation I’ve never been the target of anti-English feeling.
I have to say, though, that the film does make one realise the horrific things that the English have been responsible for over the years (my exact history on this is not great though, you’ll have to talk to a proper historian).

It’s also interesting how this plays out in sport. England versus Scotland is the oldest international football match - to each side the other is known as the “Auld Enemy”.

Also, in Glasgow there are two main football teams - Glasgow Celtic (the ‘Catholic’ side) and Glasgow Rangers (the ‘Protestant’ side) - both, I think, were ‘started’ by immigrants from the north of Ireland, where the religious sectarian devide is most keenly felt in the UK.
Celtic fans (many of whom are Irish Catholic) traditionally oppose British presence in Northern Ireland and would like to see Ireland whole again. Rangers fans (many of whom have Irish Protestant heritage) would class themselves as Unionists, which means they support the political union with the Bristish Isles. At Rangers matches you’ll see a lot of Union Flags - which is ironic in this case because of the historic tensions between Scotland and England.

It’s certainly not as simple as it might first seem! Now, I’ve not dealt with this as well as I could and I’m happy for others to correct me or to clarify things that I’ve said.

Hope this is helpful!
 
That was one of the major flaws of this otherwise entertaining movie. The English were cardboard bad guys as if Mel was directing Lethal Weapon 6: Your Mama’s Ugly.

Gibson freely admits he was going for drama rather than historical accuracy (the *prima nocte *thing was cobblers for instance) which I can forgive him for, but I like my villains with a least a little more depth than Snidley Whiplash. 🙂

Scott
 
That was one of the major flaws of this otherwise entertaining movie. The English were cardboard bad guys as if Mel was directing Lethal Weapon 6: Your Mama’s Ugly.

Gibson freely admits he was going for drama rather than historical accuracy (the *prima nocte *thing was cobblers for instance) which I can forgive him for, but I like my villains with a least a little more depth than Snidley Whiplash. 🙂

Scott
I dunno that it was so awfully exaggerated - Longshanks genuinely did punish a couple of the women in Robert Bruce’s family by suspending them in iron cages from various castle walls, for example.

He certainly didn’t play nice, ever.

And the details of Wallace’s death are pretty accurate. But then it was fairly common to be really gruesome in the punishment of perceived traitors.
 
It’s somewhat more historical true-to fact than Oliver Stone’s JFK 😛

Other than that, its a great testosterone-raising flick for us Sword Geeks out here!
 
I dunno that it was so awfully exaggerated - Longshanks genuinely did punish a couple of the women in Robert Bruce’s family by suspending them in iron cages from various castle walls, for example.

He certainly didn’t play nice, ever.

And the details of Wallace’s death are pretty accurate. But then it was fairly common to be really gruesome in the punishment of perceived traitors.

Accurate nothing 🙂

If the execution had been accurately portrayed, he would have been hanged then taken down, revived, castrated, then disembowelled (while still alive, of course), and decapitated. I think it’s a combo of the two accoounts of the death of Judas Iscariot.

As for barbarity: considering that Wallace burned English monasteries, he can hardly be portrayed as a poor suffering innocent.

Mel Gibson seems not to realise that 13th-century Scots did not wear woad - he’s confusing them with ancient British who fought the Romans 1200 years before. The kilts were also anachronistic. The film was a travesty - typical anti-English rubbish of the kind Gibson does so well. Of course, the more Anglophobic Scots adored it: one of Scotland’s great weaknesses is its harping on “puir wee Scotland” - England is a convenient whipping-boy for its own inadequacies.

Naturally, people in the US can’t be expected to know about the “Lothian Question” - the Scots have their own Parliament, yet they can also be members of the London Parliament. Blair’s Cabinets have been stuffed with Scots - himself included.
 
my second big beef with Mel Gibson movies, after the gratuitious violence, is the seemingly deliberate abuse of history. Braveheart was merely irritating in its anachronisms and failure to illuminate the period and events in any relevant way. Patriots literally brought me to the brink of a stroke. If you want to watch a Mel Gibson historical epic, do it in the same spirit as you would watch lethal weapon, as a gore festival, and don’t look for expect any real history.
 
If the execution had been accurately portrayed, he would have been hanged then taken down, revived, castrated, then disembowelled (while still alive, of course), and decapitated.
I just watched this film myself about two months ago. When Wallace was being torchered that is what I saw… what you just described. They didn’t actually show it, but from what I saw, I understood it that he was being castrated and then disembowelled. He was hung first and then after being castrated he was then beheaded. At least that’s what I understood it to be from watching that portion of the film. Why don’t you watch it again and see if you can see what I’m talking about? 😉
 
Not a historian by any means, but I visited Scotland this past summer and was surprised at how inaccurate the movie was historically.

William Wallace was not orphaned as a boy (although he did study with his uncle I guess). He was not a common peasant but a lower-class landowner/gentry. He was a lowlander (no philemore kilts from the highlands). He was a wanted man because he killed an English soldier who tried to rob him of his fishing catch.

His allegiance was more likely to Bailiol than the Bruce.

Battles: He didn’t wear kilts, didn’t paint faces. At the Battle of Stirling Bridge in the movie, there was no bridge (their biggest asset for winning - the clans slaughtered the English after most had crossed the bridge and were trapped downhill). After his loss at Falkirk he went into hiding for a long time.

The French princess was a little girl at the time of Wallace’s death - no way she could have been pregnant with Wallace’s child.

Most importantly, “brave heart” was a poetic reference to Robert the Bruce whose heart was carried into battle after his death.
 
It’s somewhat more historical true-to fact than Oliver Stone’s JFK 😛

Other than that, its a great testosterone-raising flick for us Sword Geeks out here!
No, for a real sword geek it would have to have better swordfighting.😃

I personally don’t think a film can ever be too anti-English 😉 , but a little historically accurate anti-Englishness would be nice. Edward the Tall was certainly not as bad as he was portrayed, the Scots were not as nice as they were portrayed, and, as others have said, they were Lowlanders. The Irish hated them.

Also, I’m not buying that whole “Edward II was gay” thing. First because they say that about everyone, and second because “gay” only exists now (there have always been homosexuals, but that’s not the same thing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top