'Braveheart'
Mel Gibson's love letter to Scotland is an absolute load of bunkum. A Heavily - with a capital H - fictionalised account of William Wallace's uprising against the English at the end of the 13th century. Gibson's Wallace bears absolutely no resemblance to the real figure in any way at all. Wallace, a man of minor Scottish nobility who was - more than likely - well travelled, (probably) the son of a landowner, geared for the priesthood and had prior military experience is, in the movie, depicted as a low commoner of simple farming stock, who disappears to Europe after his father is killed in an early uprising against English soldiers.
Although, an actual detailed history of Wallace is non-existent and there are more than enough legendary stories from both the Scots and the English which picture him as a hero and a villain, it's certain that Gibson's portrait is entirely a fantasy, with even the people and events the character knows and takes part in being painted with a liberal daub of made up "creativity". Robert the Bruce, for instance, comes in for some serious rewriting as a kind of mentally and morally tourtured Quisling, the battle of Stirling bridge, has no bridge and the battle of Falkirk is portrayed as a malicious betrayal.
On the English side, Edward I is a tyrant and his son Edward II, an effeminate "puff" caricature. While there's definite evidence of Edward I's tyranical tendencies - he was a rampant expansionist, who had invaded Ireland and Wales, was prone to the odd massacre and was known as the "Hammer of the Scots" - Gibson has Patrick McGoohan play him as a semi-Machiavellian Hitler figure, who is casual in his lust for power and violation of other nations. Edward II, his "sodomite son", is played largely for a kind of comic relief and while there are hints that the real life Edward II had a "close" relationship with a man in the Royal Court, actual evidence of a homosexual relationship is nowhere to be found. Into the bargain, Edward II would have been in his early teens when Wallace was campaigning against his father.
Probably the most egrigious retelling of an historical character is that of Isabella of France, as played by the fantastic looking Sophie Marceau. Isabella is a forlorn woman in a loveless, sham, marriage, who has a sexual relationship with William Wallace and gets pregnant by him, in a absurdly scripted section of the film. All of this dubiously forced drama would have been completely impossible, as Isabella was about 3 years old when the battle of Stirling bridge happened!
There little or nothing in Mel Gibson's film that can be said to have happened or remotely transpired and it's a litany of historical sins. Even the title of the film, 'Braveheart' has nothing to do with Wallace. The moniker was actually attributed to Robert the Bruce after his death, who's "brave heart" was carried into battle by the Scots in a ceremonial box.
And yet, it remains a very good and entertaining movie, who's entirely fictional characters are quite compelling. McGoohan makes a great villain, Gibson a great hero and Marceau a great romantic. Elsewhere, there's excellent support from the likes of Brendan Gleeson, David O'Hara, Peter Hanly, James Cosmo and a whole host of English, Irish and Scottish non-stars. The story itself is fine, once the viewer is divorced from the historical record (as it stands) and is very enjoyable, albeit on a very shallow level.
But, where the film shines is in its battle sequences. The two large pitched conflicts are superbly handled and are exciting and horrifying in equal measure. Men are hacked and slashed, battered and smashed in a bloody mess. Everyone gets covered in gore of some sort and it's all excellently done. Horses, too suffer and are shown as battle casualties like never before and the terrifying prospect of a heavy cavalry charge is wonderfully staged, as is the Scots defensive use of improvised spears, hacked from into shape from trees. Flakirk, too, has its "charms" and the twist of betrayal adds an extra layer, which serves as a (clumsy) comment on the fracture of internal Scottish politics of the time.
As an historical film, 'Braveheart' is absolutely worthless. But as a drama, it's an entertaining, oscar winning movie that's as enjoyable as one could expect from such an outing.
7/10
|
Posting Permissions
Originally Posted by shootemindehead
Reply With Quote
but the intention was clearly there, whether he was successful at addressing his ideas on-screen is another thing, but the intention was certainly there as he himself stated) ... ... but anyway, in Zombie Flesh Eaters there are some ideas relating back to Voodoo, as Fulci has always intended from the start, to take it back to those roots, and there's even some nods and winks to colonialism what with the zombies rising from the graves being Spanish Conquistadors. Some of these ideas just pop up and then almost immediately disappear, but there's some stuff going on there amongst it all.
. It's a junk movie. Take from it what you want.
Bookmarks