Year: 1995
Filming: Color
Length: 177 minutes
Genre: Biography/Drama/Epic/Inspirational/War
Maturity: R (for language, sexuality, and graphic
battle violence)
Cast: Mel Gibson (William Wallace), Catherine McCormick (Murron), Sophie
Marceau (Princess Isabelle), Angus Macfadyen (Robert de Bruce), Patrick
McGoohan (King Edward I), Peter Hanly (Prince Edward), Brendan
Gleeson (Hamish), Liam Carney (Sean)
Director: Mel Gibson
Personal
Rating: 3 Stars
***
There is much to
like and much to dislike about this sprawling “new-fashioned epic”. As much as
I feel it cannot be dismissed because of its beautiful visuals and moving story-line,
I also feel it cannot be endorsed due to goriness, vulgarity, sexual
sensationalism, and blatant meddling with historical facts. In other words, it’s
worth the viewing if you have a changer in your hand and are willing to take it
all with a grain of salt.
The story opens
with young William Wallace, a common Scottish lad whose father and brother are
killed because of their opposition to King Edward “Longshanks” of England, who
is trying to wrest control of Scotland. William is adopted by his learned
uncle, who teaches takes him traveling and teaches him to use his mind as his
primary weapon.
After receiving a
good education and traveling to mainland Europe, the fully-grown Wallace, now
played by Mel Gibson, returns to his native land to find that “Longshanks” has
resurrected Prima Nocta, an old rule
giving English lords sexual rights to the brides of Scottish commoners on their
wedding night. Needless to say, this isn’t all that popular, and when Wallace
woos and wins his childhood sweetheart, Murron, played by Catherin McCormick,
he weds her in a secret ceremony to prevent her from being misused. Still
determined to be a man of peace in the midst of conflict, he tries his best to
stay clear of the trouble – until Murron is assaulted by a group of English
soldiers and, in the ensuing fight, killed.
Heart-broken and
infuriated, Wallace launches a popular rebellion against English rule, and ordinary
Scotsman rally to his charismatic leadership. Meanwhile, the Scottish nobles,
including a young Robert de Bruce, play it safe and bide their time to see
whether or not the rebellion will be able to get off the ground. But even after
Wallace and his troops defeat English forces at the Battle of Stirling Bridge,
the Scottish nobles decide they would rather negotiate with King Edward than
continue fighting an uphill struggle for independence.
Wallace will have none of their back-stepping,
and marches south into England, bringing fire and sword to the city of York.
King Edward decides to send his daughter-in-law, the French Princess Isabella,
to negotiate with Wallace and try to buy him off with gold from his treasury.
But instead of getting rid of the bold Scotsman, Isabella is impressed by his
dedication to the cause of freedom for his countrymen. Already locked in an
unhappy marriage with the heir to the throne of England, Prince Edward, who
prefers male lovers to his wife, she soon becomes embroiled in an affair with William
Wallace.
Going back to Scotland, Wallace tries
to encourage Robert de Bruce to unite the nobles and commoners in opposition to
Edward’s tyranny. But instead of fulfilling his promise to do so, Bruce allows
himself to be influenced by his power-hungry father and winds up fighting
alongside the other nobles on King Edward’s side instead. The result is
disaster for Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk, and he just manages to escape
with his life.
After living as an
outlaw in the hills and wreaking vengeance on the nobles in night raids, Wallace
is lured into another meeting with Robert de Bruce (yes, by now, the guy should
be avoided as a jinx!) who has all the best intentions, but fails to realize
that he is once again being manipulated by his dear papa, who has the rebel
leader captured and handed over the English.
Wallace is hauled down to London and ordered
to recognize Edward as his liege-lord. He adamantly refuses and is condemned to
death by a new method: being hanged, drawn, and quartered. But even though
Wallace’s days are numbered, Robert de Bruce is about to cut ties with his
father and find the courage to become the new champion of Scottish liberty.
Braveheart is an epic, and not an
entirely worthless one at that. Unlike some big-budget extravaganzas, it never
loses track of the human element while at the same time maintaining high
standards of visual spectacle. The shots of the lush countryside and soaring
mountains of Scotland (and Ireland, in reality!) are breath-taking, and the use
of light and shadow is excellent. The music score by James Horn was top-notch,
especially the tracks “Outlawed Tunes” and “For the Love of a Princess”. Plus,
the sheer scale and organization of the battles must be complimented, even if I
hold back from a round of applause for the reasons outlined below.
My longstanding
belief that we don’t need to see and hear everything in order to “get the
picture” is stronger than ever after viewing this flick. Graphic brutality and
foul-mouthed expletives are fairly common throughout the film (which I used the
fast-forward button on repeatedly!), particularly during the battle scenes. In
addition, there is a highly disgusting “additive” in which the Scottish soldiers
reveal there “lack of underwear” by lifting their kilts at the approaching the
English troops! I frankly don’t care if guys did do things like this in the
midst of battle frenzy; the civilian audience certainly doesn’t have to share
in the experience!
With regards to
costuming, some of it is absolutely exquisite, while some of it rankles because
of its glaring inaccuracy. But this just fits in with the general 2-dimensional
angle at which the film focuses on Wallace and his fellow rebels. In reality,
the real Wallace was not a dirt-poor commoner dressed in slovenly Highland
attire, but instead came from the Lowland gentry and would have probably worn
styles similar to other knights in the south of Scotland and in England. The
most famous bit of Hollywood improvising was the use of blue woad paint smeared
on Mel’s face during the Battle of Stirling Bridge, something hijacked from the
Dark Ages and applied to the Middle Ages to further press the “Celtic” appeal
of the picture. This just goes to show how hypocritical it was of Gibson to
insist on “realism” when it came to blood spilling and heads flying, even when
he abandoned it everywhere else!
The whole Prima Nocta premise is based on no
historical grounds, but was interjected to sensationalize the plot with
shocking sexual misdemeanors. The real Edward “Longshanks” was certainly no
angel, acting ruthlessly in his bid for power over all Britain and brutally
crushing any resistance to his authority. But he also had a more attractive
side. He could be quite pious, a generous benefactor of the poor, a talented
musician, and a devoted husband to his wife, Queen Eleanor of Castille. None of
this is even hinted at in Braveheart.
As for his son, the future King Edward II,
although he certainly could not match his father’s warrior prowess, he was not
the simpering milksop portrayed, nor was he exclusively homosexual. While it
does seem likely he had male lovers, he also had quite a few mistresses and definitely
seems to have consummated his marriage, resulting the in the birth of the
future King Edward III – who, by the way, could not have been Wallace’s son
because the real Princess Isabella was not brought over to England to marry
Prince Edward until almost seven years after William Wallace’s death!
The relationship
between Wallace and Bruce is, for the most part, fictionalized. Bruce did
indeed hold back from joining the rebellion and seemed willing to play “all
ends against the middle” to assure his own family’s dynastic ambitions. But he
did not directly fight for the English against Wallace, at Falkirk or anywhere
else. Also, while there may indeed have been an element of “carrying the torch”
from Wallace to Bruce, it was not quite so straightforward as depicted. But I
can manage to take this in stride, since it does fit the general flow of
history and the continuity of the popular imagination. Besides, it’s hard to
believe Bruce would not have found inspiration in Wallace, even if their
interaction was not as muddled as depicted.
As I mentioned
above, the “Celtic vs. Saxon” perspective is played up to the hilt in this
film. An Irishman is even brought over to join the Scottish rebels in a fight
against the common “Sassenach” enemy. This simplification of complex
demographics, political realities, and personal motives typifies why Braveheart added fuel to the fire in creating
a romantic notion of present-day Scottish independence and undermining the
unity of The United Kingdom. For that, I
can never quite forgive this production, although as a Christian, I must
forgive the living, breathing producers and proponents, as odious as they
sometimes are!
But in spite of
all this, for dramatic appeal and potent dialogue, you really can’t beat some of
the scenes in this film. In the early part of the movie, when the anonymous
Scottish bride is about to be taken away to assure the English lord’s Prima Nocta rights, everything is put
into slow motion as she calmly prevents her husband from putting up a futile
struggle by kissing him tenderly, longingly. The expressions on their faces
speak volumes in the way of indignation, grief, and ultimate resignation.
A similarly
powerful instance is after the disastrous Battle of Falkirk, when Wallace meets
Bruce on the field and realizes that he fought for the English. The look of
increasing horror and disillusionment on Wallace’s face matches the look of
increasing guilt on Bruce’s. The nobleman’s last minute decision to rescue the
commoner is symbolic of the general complexity and tension played out in their
relationship.
The romance
between Wallace and Murron is, in my opinion, the high point of the plot Murron
is portrayed throughout the movie as a type of spiritual connection and
guardian for Wallace. From the time she gives him a blooming thistle at his
father’s funeral when they are both little children, we get a pretty good idea
there is going to be more between them in the future. Their rustic courtship in
later years is irresistibly playful and charming, making her brutal murder all
the more disturbing and painful later on. But even after her death, she
continues to embody the Sprit of Scotland for which Wallace fights, and her
apparitions to him are a constant motif.
When one of Wallace’s
comrades scoffs that his heroics are done only because he thinks Murron is
watching him, Wallace replies, “I know she
is.” At his execution, he holds her mantle and sees her moving towards him
among the throng of spectators, coming, it seems, to “take him home.” In the
final scene, her mantle is carried by Robert de Bruce as he takes command of
the fight for Scotland’s freedom and Wallace’s sword is hurled forward at the
enemy. It is an undeniably powerful moment.
Exactly why this
deeply moving romance wasn’t enough for the screen writers boggles my brain,
but stead of being contented with it, they decided to manufacture a liaison
between William Wallace and Princess Isabella, riddled with inaccuracy and bad
taste, creating probably the lowest point in the film. Even if it wasn’t so obviously
fabricated, the whole plot twist just made me lose respect for Wallace as a
character, especially since his wife was still a very present force in the film
and it almost felt like he was cheating on her as well as committing adultery
with another man’s wife!
There are a few
randomly redeemable aspects of this, such as the parley between Wallace and
Isabella in a tent outside York. When she tries to offer him gold, saying
“Peace is made with such things,” he quickly retorts “Slaves are made with such
things!”
Also, just before
Wallace’s execution, she brings him a vial containing a pain-killing drug,
reminiscent of the numbing wine offered to Christ on Cavalry. He pretends to
drink it for her sake, but then spits it out after she leaves to make sure he
is able to retain the full capacity of his senses, just as Christ rejected the
wine-soaked sponge after tasting it. Also in keeping with the Passion
narrative, Wallace asks for God to give him the strength to “die well” before
being led out onto the scaffold.
There is one final
point I have to mention before finishing up, and it has to do with the name of
the film. Although the movie is a fictionalized biopic of William Wallace, the
epithet “Braveheart” was actually used for Robert de Bruce, who requested that
his heart be cut out and taken on crusade after he died. However, in the spirit
of understanding, it can be said that both Bruce and Wallace were “brave
hearts” in the purest sense of the word and have been remembered as such for
generations. The lasting truth is that both of them were heroes in their own
way, and Scotland rightly remembers them as her favorite sons.
In conclusion, I
must reiterate my mixed emotions towards the film in general. Some aspects of
it were truly worthwhile, raising the mind to high ideals and stirring the
blood. I could truly enter in to the struggle of many of the characters, their
loves, hates, passions, betrayals, defeats, and triumphs. However, I think Mel
Gibson and his crew let the picture’s potential greatness slip away when they
decided to rely on crudeness, sensationalism, fictionalization, and an
undergirding Nationalist agenda to bolster their retelling of William Wallace
and The Scottish Wars of Independence.
 |
| William Wallace (Mel Gibson) courts his childhood sweetheart, Murron (Catherine McCormick) |
