I've got a few things to say about 'Braveheart' and not all of them good...
Braveheart (1995)
Director: Mel Gibson
Country: United States
Length: 178 minutes
Type: Epic, War, Drama, "Historical"
I really enjoyed
'Braveheart' when it first came out, when I was a child but as I've grown older it's looked increasingly silly, perhaps offensively stupid and certainly straight-up offensive. The English are portrayed as diseased, degenerate, sadistic, "sodomite", impotent, rapists. The portrayal of Prince Edward and his implied male lover is deeply homophobic. Edward is shown having trouble conceiving with his new wife, probably because he was about 12 during the events of the movie and not in his early 30s. In fact Edward II fathered five children, including at least one "bastard" from his many affairs with women. In the film, the resolutely heterosexual Wallace is shown to bed a French princess who was 3-years old at the time and he is said to have fathered her son (the future King of England), even though he was born 7-years after Wallace died... so that was quite the labour! 'Braveheart' was basically Hollywood's attempt to see if the techniques of
D. W. Griffith's notorious
'The Birth of a Nation' would still work for a 90s audience.
I remember one family trip over to Scotland some time in the late 90s when we went to a small museum, where they had the sword and armour from the film (presumably replicas) displayed right next to genuine historical weapons as if they were comparable artefacts. A jaw-droppingly awful sandstone statue of
Mel Gibson as Wallace (not of the historical figure) with the name of the film on his shield was erected near Stirling. Gibson's Wallace is a humble but educated peasant, who desires nothing but peace, when he was actually a minor nobleman, landowner and possible mercenary fighter for England. 'Braveheart' can't even keep up with it's own bullsh*t. The opening monologue describes "Longshanks" as a "Pagan King" (by which they mean satanic) and Wallace and Co. as good Christians, then immediately contradicts that by showing "Longshanks" in a Christian wedding ceremony. Writer
Randall Wallace's (no relation) spoken introduction begins with the audacious get-out clause
"Historians from England will say I am a liar". It's been quipped that 'Braveheart' couldn't be more historically accurate if it was called
"William Wallace and Gromit".
'Braveheart' is so laughably a-historical, that it's basically a fantasy movie, like others of the genre which have no pretence of fact, like
'Conan the Barbarian',
'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves', or
'The Lord of the Rings'. Viewed in that context, it's a rollicking good adventure, full of heroic battles, romance and a voluminously overacting
Patrick McGoohan as the villain, channelling Ming the Merciless, Emperor Palpatine and the voice of Davros from
Doctor Who. The way Wallace and Robert the Bruce are setup as the mirror of each other is dramatically interesting. One is too politically cynical, one is too politically naive, so each have something to learn from the other.
David O'Hara's loopy and fearless Irish character is a lot of fun and provides much comic relief along with
Brendan Gleeson's Obelix-like 'Hamish'. Director
Mel Gibson throws Christ imagery around in every direction, like he's only playing to the cheap seats. He highlights the piercing blue of his eyes to the point that he sometimes looks like he was born on Arrakis. "Subtlety" is not in Gibson's lexicon. The shot of Wallace's awesome looking, historically inaccurate, cruciform sword arcing through the air in slow-motion to
James Horner's incredible score never fails to give me goosebumps... maybe even a tear in the eye. So if you can switch off your troublesome brain for 3-hours, 'Braveheart' remains a terrifically entertaining fantasy epic.
History Buffs did a good video about 'Braveheart', he sounds fairly angry
: