CONSENSUS #34. Braveheart (1995)

 

SYNOPSIS: "Braveheart" is the story of William Wallace, the Scottish patriot. It covers from his reluctant warrior stage through his death at the hands of King Edward I of England. In between their is romance with a Princess and the Battles of Sterling and Falkirk. The film also includes political intrigue involving Robert the Bruce.

BACK-STORY: “Braveheart” is a war movie that was released in 1995. It stars Mel Gibson as the Scottish patriot William Wallace. Gibson did not want to act in the movie (he felt he was too old for the part), but the studio refused to finance it without the superstar appearing. Gibson also directed the movie. It was a critical and box office success. It won the Best Picture Oscar and Gibson was awarded Best Director. It captured a total of five Oscars. The movie was filmed in Scotland, although most of the extras for the battle scenes were from the Irish territorial army. The screenplay was written by Randall Wallace who also did Gibson’s “We Were Soldiers” script. He based the story on a medieval poem about Wallace by Blind Henry. Wallace claims to be a descendant of the hero. The movie was going to be rated NC-17 due to graphic violence, but Gibson made some cuts of the gorier shots.

TRIVIA:  Wikipedia, imdb

 

1.  It was set in the First War for Scottish Independence.

 

2.  Screenwriter Randall Wallace was inspired by a statue of William Wallace at Edinburgh Castle in Scotland.  He used as his source the epic medieval poem by Blind Harry entitled “The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Capioun Schir William Wallace”.

 

3.  It won Oscars for Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Make-up, and Sound Editing.  It was nominated for Original Screenplay, Costume Design, Sound, Film Editing, and Original Score (James Horner).

 

 4.  It was filmed mainly in Scotland, but the battle scenes were done in Ireland with the help of extras from the Irish Army Reserve.

 

5.  The battle violence had to be toned down to avoid an NC-17 rating .

 

6.  The music was by the London Symphony Orchestra.

 

7.  Mel Gibson felt he was too old to portray Wallace, but Paramount insisted on it for box office purposes.

 

8.  Gibson used some mechanical horses which were propelled by nitrogen cylinders and could reach 30 MPH on tracks.

 

9.  The disembowelment of Wallace was filmed in gory detail, but the negative reaction of a test audience consigned it to off camera.

 

10.  The movie was criticized for Anglophobia in its depiction of the British and homophobia for its depiction of Prince Edward and his boyfriend.

 

Belle and Blade  =  N/A

Brassey’s              =  4.0

Video Hound       =  3.1

War Movies         =  N/A

Military History  =  #67

Channel 4             =  #13

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  no

Rotten Tomatoes  =  #93 

ACCURACY:  You could make a case for “Braveheart” being the most historically inaccurate major war movie ever made.  You know you are in trouble when even the title of the movie is inaccurate. The name “Braveheart” was actually applied to Robert Bruce. You get a preview of what is to come when the lies start flowing in the introductory narration. I do not want to beat a dead horse, but this movie is pure garbage! It could not have been more inaccurate than it is. Virtually everything is a mockery of the actual people and events. To make matters worse, Randall Wallace and Gibson had the nerve to defend its historical accuracy. Wallace is, of course, more to blame. He bases the story on the very dubious Blind Henry poem. This could justify taking liberties with Wallace’s early life (of which we have little knowledge), but not the pillaging of well documented events like the two battles. To have the Battle of Stirling Bridge depicted with no bridge in sight is infuriating. But in spite of the total disregard for history, many critics praised the film for its entertainment value. Have we reached the point where laughable cliches and ridiculous occurrences pass for entertainment? I could not help breaking out in laughter when the Irish switched sides in the middle of a charge or when Wallace and the Princess have a tryst between enemy lines and she got pregnant with the heir to the British throne.  

OPINION: The movie is not terrible, as a piece of pure entertainment. It fits firmly in the modern brainless epic category. As the movie-going public is increasingly distracted by baubles, it satisfies most people's desire for mindless escapism. The musical score by James Horner perfectly sets the mood throughout the film. The scenery is awesome. The environment is appropriately medievally grotty. The acting is very good. Gibson is more than competent. McGoohan makes Edward I as slimy a villain as you could imagine. Marceau is lovely and feisty. Macfayden is good as the conflicted Bruce. The supporting cast is above average (although I found the insane Irishman aggravating).

The two battles, although inaccurate, are rousing. Especially the Battle of Stirling. The mechanical horses that get impaled are so lifelike that the ASPCA supposedly complained. As far as I know, no humans actually had any limbs hacked off, but there is so much hacking a mistake could have happened. However, it is obvious Gibson was ripping off films like “Spartacus”. But then again, several movies have done that. Speaking of “Spartacus”, you can’t beat the original and “Braveheart” does not even come close.

You can see the future of Gibson (e.g. “The Patriot” and “Passion of the Christ”) as a film maker here. All the elements are there – over the top villains, getting tortured, unbelievable atrocities, Rambo-like heroics, and disregard for history or realism.

 I’ll be truthful. I have passionately hated this movie since I first saw it in a theater. I tried watching it several years later thinking I was being overly harsh, but I could not get a third of the way through. Having to watch it all the way through for this project was the biggest chore I have encountered since I began.  I strongly dispute its inclusion on any list of great war movies.  I have no problem with historical license for entertainment sake, but this movie crosses the line and does damage to history.  I cannot abide that.