User:Arcayne/Braveheart01/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Braveheart sources 2 Medieval Scotland.Org 3 Historical Inaccuracies source 4 The Scotsman "Who is the Real Wallace?" 5 Mr. Cranky Review 6 Cultures clash in cinema history 7 Earlymodernweb.org.uk 8 Pakistan Today 9 J-STOR American Historical Review 10 Tucson Weekly 11 Classic Film Guide 12 Leisure Suit.Net 13 Digitally Obsessed 14 BoxOffice.Com 15 UKOnline: Screen Scene 16 DVD Verdict.com 17 Edinburgh University Film Society 18 DVD Empire 19 Reslife.com 20 Austin Chronicle 21 Deranged Video Dude 22 Washington Post 23 Washington Post (2nd review) 24 ReelViews.Net 25 Beyond Hollywood Online 26 LA Times/CalendarLive.com 27 MIT/TheTech 28 Plugged In Online 29 FilmCritic.Com 30 San Francisco Chronicle 31 Movie Gazette 32 Rolling Stone 33 BBC Online 34 Deseret News 35 Rotten Tomatoes 36 Films in Review

[edit] Braveheart sources

[edit] Medieval Scotland.Org

Scottish Medieval Bibliography - War of Independence (1296-1328) Regarding the Film Braveheart Aka "That Film Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered", or TFWNSNBU by Sharon L. Krossa Last updated 31 Oct 2001b

"Since so many people ask about it, and recently many people's interest in Scottish history has been sparked by it, I feel a few words about the movie Braveheart (staring Mel Gibson) are in order.

Basically, as an historian, my opinion of Braveheart is that it is a work of fantasy, not history. Any resemblance to actual persons or events, in other words to real history, appear to be purely accidental. My best advice, for anyone interested in the real story of William Wallace, Robert Bruce, and the Scottish Wars of Independence, is not to believe anything, whether major or minor, depicted in the film, but instead read some reliable history books about the period. Enjoy the film as a fantasy film, by all means -- just as one enjoys Star Wars or any other work of the imagination -- simply do not mistake it for history. The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate -- in short, just about nothing is accurate.
Admittedly, the film does have a few elements that coincide with real history. However, there isn't one of these elements that I feel I can mention without having to explain all of the many associated elements leading up to and/or inextricably intertwined with it that do not coincide with real history. And once started explaining the inaccuracies, there is no stopping -- they are so very numerous. (See Braveheart Errors: An Illustration of Scale.) And, of course, unless one already knows the details of the true history of William Wallace and the Wars of Independence, there is no way from just watching the film one can determine which aspects of which elements are those few that coincide with real history. It is far safer, and far more efficient, to just ignore the whole film, as regards history, and read a good Scottish history book instead.
For suggestions of good books on Scottish history, see the General Works and War of Independence sections of the Scottish Medieval Bibliography. For medieval literary works on the topic, see the Literature section. For published original sources, see the Published Primary Sources section.
For a review of the film published in an academic journal by a Scottish historian, see

Ewan, Elizabeth. "Braveheart." American Historial Review 100, no. 4 (October 1995): 1219-21.

For a discussion of the trail of inspiration and distortion that led to the film, and a comparison of the screen writer's inspiration (Hamilton's 1722 poem) to Blind Hary's late 15th century poem (itself a century and a half removed from the actual events), see my 23 Aug 2001 posting to Mediev-L.

[edit] Historical Inaccuracies source

[1]

[edit] The Scotsman "Who is the Real Wallace?"

Who is the real Wallace? JIM GILCHRIST

WALK UP A path from a car park above Dryburgh and the meandering Tweed, and you suddenly come face to toe with the Guardian of Scotland, all 31ft of him, counting his plinth. The imposing red sandstone figure of Sir William Wallace has a classical look to him, with his tight-curled beard and winged helmet, as he glares southward towards the Auld Enemy.

That was the early 19th- century take on Wallace. Seven hundred years from the Scottish champion's public disembowelling at Smithfield, London, on 23 August, 1305, he has become so many things to so many people that it is almost impossible to descry the man through the mythology, be it concocted by 15th-century bard or 20th-century Hollywood.

The Dryburgh statue was commissioned by David Stuart Erskine, 11th Earl of Buchan, carved by John Smith of Darnick, just a few miles away. Recently, the ire of locals and visitors alike was provoked by the vandals/kack-handed patriots (take your pick), who daubed the saltire-embossed stone shield with an amateurish blue and white paint job.

The site remains tranquil, despite the attention you'd expect on this 700th anniversary, although a dog-eared guestbook indicates that the past week's visitors have hailed from Italy, Germany and Australia as well as Scotland. The sandstone Titan is reminiscent of one of the stop-frame giants from Jason and the Argonauts or some such screen epic, but Wallace's real brush with Hollywood didn't come until ten years ago, and we're still feeling the aftershock.

Cut to the National Wallace Monument on Abbey Craig, Stirling, where, under the Victorian gothic tower which houses the hero's (alleged) sword, tourists are queuing up to have their photographs taken beside another statue of him, or rather of the ubiquitous Mel Gibson, who irrevocably left his stamp on the popular image of Wallace. His 1995 film Braveheart, suddenly made Scottish history, of a sort, sexy, led to a boom in blue face paint, and induced near-apoplexy among Scots historians for the liberties it took with historical actuality.

The statue, portraying a bellowing, dreadlocked figure even has the words "Braveheart" and, of course, "Freedom" incised below it, echoing the blessed Mel's dying breath in the movie. Historian Fiona Watson winces slightly: "I'm not overwhelmed with the idea that it's Mel Gibson who's up there, but, to be fair, I think Braveheart has done Scotland a lot of good. We may resent any idea that the Americans rediscovered our hero for us, but certainly it highlighted Scottish history as a separate entity from British history for the rest of the world. "It's now up to the Scots to then sell the rest of our culture and, maybe, a slightly more nuanced view of who we are."

The huge popular reception given to the movie distressed Scots historians so much that a group wrote to The Scotsman at the time, complaining that the void left by inadequate or non-existent teaching of Scottish history was being filled by the Gibson version. Watson, director of the AHRB Research Centre for Environmental History, based at Stirling and St Andrews Universities, was not among them but she agrees. "The film was medieval Mad Max," she laughs. "Historians were slagged off for taking it too seriously, but what we were objecting to was not the film, but the fact that so many people who had not been taught their history were taking it as fact."

The cult of Wallaceolatry gives historians serious difficulties in getting to grips with a figure of such mythic, iconic status, she says. She'll be making an attempt, however, on Tuesday, the actual 700th anniversary of Wallace's execution, when she will be among speakers at a memorial service in St Bartholomew's Church in Smithfield, where Edward I - "Longshanks" - made a gory public example of the Scots upstart. "It's not that we as historians have a problem with him belonging to everybody else, it's just that the symbolism has become more important, and to an extent that's where our job ends."

If the saviour of Scotland looms through our history like a sword-wielding colossus, the real man remains in the shadows. We don't even know his date of birth, while, in typically thrawn Scots fashion, Renfrewshire Council and East Ayrshire Council are currently at loggerheads as to whether he was born in Elderslie near Paisley or, as suggested by recent research, in Ellerslie, near Kilmarnock.

Our knowledge of him is largely confined to a year or so, from his slaying of the Sheriff of Lanark in May 1297, through his victory over a far superior English force at Stirling Bridge on 11 September of that year, to his defeat at Falkirk in July 1298, after which he all but disappears, until his betrayal in 1305, when English records record his sham trial, after which he was brutally hung, drawn and quartered.

It was the poet Blind Harry's patriotic epic, The Life and Heroic Actions of the Renowned Sir William Wallace, General and Governor of Scotland, written around 1460, which effectively fuelled the cult of Wallace - right to the present day, for Randall Wallace's Braveheart script owes much to the 15th century makar's account.

To say that everyone wants a piece of Wallace seems in the worst of taste, given what happened to him, yet, like another much disputed and appropriated Scots icon, Robert Burns, Wallace has been adopted by all, unionist and nationalist, modern Scots republican and Victorian North Briton.

In the recent BBC Radio Scotland's series, I Cannot Be A Traitor, Ted Cowan, Professor of Scottish History at the University of Glasgow, showed that even academics aren't immune from Wallace's glamour, and pointed to what he calls "that little iconic exchange" between the Guardian of Scotland and Bruce after the battle of Falkirk. Wallace is supposed to have told the future king that he was prepared to die for his country, whereas the Scottish nobility had been corrupted by luxury.

"This story isn't historical," Cowan commented, with relish. "Fine - I don't care. You have the quisling, treacherous, uncommitted aristocracy confronted by a kind of noble, proletarian ordinary being, and that's what comes out of Wallace, even though I know that it's not historical. There is still enough truth in the vision, in the metaphor, to act as historically representative, in a sense."

Yet as Chris Brown points out in his new book, William Wallace: The True Story of Braveheart (Tempus Publishing), Wallace himself was a noble, although at a lowly level, and this in itself is remarkable: "He was a very minor noble, and it wasn't normal practice in medieval times for people of that stature to take a leading part in politics."

SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS on, Brown believes there is a real need to put Wallace back into his correct historical context: "Only in Scotland could we produce a hero of that calibre, then just ignore him. Also, why is it his death that's being celebrated, rather than his life?"

He is also not alone in his concern that the popular elevation of Wallace has obscured the important roles played by others in the Scottish Wars of Independence, such as Sir Andrew de Moray, Wallace's fellow Guardian of Scotland and, some say, mentor, whose little sung life was celebrated in another Radio Scotland programme, The Forgotten Braveheart. "Generally speaking," says Brown, "Wallace is presented as being the saviour of Scotland when the rest of the aristocracy weren't interested, but that doesn't really hold water. A lot of them were prisoners of war in England at the time. On the other hand, the fact that Wallace and de Moray were able to restore government so quickly suggests they had at least the tacit support of the senior nobility."

Another author who believes we are not doing Wallace's memory justice is David Ross, convener of the William Wallace Society, who, while deriding the Scottish Executive for not making enough of the anniversary, organised the memorial service at St Bartholomew's, as well as making his own personal pilgrimage - "the mourning Wallace never had" - by walking the route which the captured leader would have followed to London. When I spoke to him he had been on the road for 15 days, had overcome blistered feet and was approaching Bedford.

Ask Ross whether a 21st-century Scotland shouldn't be looking forward rather than to the battles of seven centuries ago, and his reply is robust: "Wallace fought against Scotland being ruled from somewhere else, ie, London. Where is Scotland ruled from today? So there's a relevance there right away. Would Wallace have been in favour of the war in Iraq or the Falklands war? I don't think so.

"Is there a cut-off date when these things cease to matter? Why do Jews care about the Holocaust? What would Americans say if you suggested they stop caring about Abraham Lincoln or George Washington?" And he condemns any perception that the Wallace commemoration is somehow xenophobic: "Being pro-Scots shouldn't mean being anti-English."

While Fiona Watson believes that the commemorative service should "complete the circle for Wallace", she is wary of our proclivity for backward-gazing: "I remember the debate last year as to whether Bannockburn should be a holiday, and thinking, 'For goodness sake! Are we just about battles and violence?' Of course it was important, but is that all we are?"

Even our current national poet, Edwin Morgan, clearly felt ambivalent when asked to write a poem for the anniversary: "Is it not better to forget?" his Lines for Wallace ask, but they conclude: "The power of Wallace / Cuts through art / But art calls attention to it / Badly or well..."

Let's shift from the seething heritage industry of Abbey Craig to the more peaceful site above the meandering Tweed, where that awe-inspiring statue gazes across to where the real Wallace led his troops on raids into Northumberland.

A few years ago, I flicked through that dog-eared visitors book, to find one Braveheart- smitten American visitor had scrawled "Freedom!" across the page ...

Seven centuries on from his death, Wallace still casts a long shadow, but for the real man to extract himself from the curse of Mel may take quite some time.

[edit] Mr. Cranky Review

I used to think that the history of Scotland around the end of the thirteenth century was one of those really complicated and messy affairs that could send any historian into a fit of sobbing. So imagine my surprise as I discovered it's really all about a bunch of rowdy guys mooning each other across a battlefield and then playing dodgeball.

"Braveheart" is one of those audacious films that implies that war is "bad" by putting the violence at the forefront, slowing it down and tossing in lots of extra blood, piercings, stabbings, castrations, amputations and assorted mutilations with random insertions of Mel's butt -- just to make sure that the women get into it too. This is all topped off by a really long and protracted moment where the camera lovingly dotes on Mel Gibson as he is taken to a platform to be tortured. It's the kind of moment that makes preschoolers point to the screen and say, "Christ figure! Christ figure!" Either that or: "Look! He's shamelessly grooming himself for the Oscars!" (Oscar committees love Christ figures.)

After three delirious hours the message is clear: Buy an ax, kill a lot of people, wear a kilt, show your butt, screw a princess and (if you have some time left over) repeat this over and over and over and over and over... until you get caught. If ever a movie cried out for a halftime break, this was it.

[edit] Cultures clash in cinema history

Cultures clash in cinema history - Greig Watson, Entertainment reporter, BBC News

image caption: 300 faces charges that it insults Persians

As the blood sprays and body parts are scattered in the sword and sandal blockbuster 300, the first thought on your mind may not be "have they got the armour right?".

But crying foul when Hollywood plays fast and loose with facts is not just for history nerds. The heroic westerner vs tyrannical Persian theme of 300 - based on Frank Miller's graphic novel about the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC - has sparked indignation from some commentators in the US, and brought protests from the Iranian authorities.

And while not every movie provokes an international incident, bending the facts to fit the film is nothing new - as film historian Kevin Brownlow reveals.

"In his 1927 epic Napoleon, director Abel Gance showed his hero at the Club des Cordeliers when the Marseillaise was first sung. He was informed that Napoleon had not been present. 'He is now,' he said."

A particular low point in the relationship between film and fact was 1936's The Charge of the Light Brigade.

Gibson's The Patriot drew criticism from UK government ministers "Instead of being the result of a military blunder during a war in Southern Russia," said Mr Brownlow. "The doomed attack became an act of personal revenge in India. "They got so many things wrong you wonder why they bothered to pretend it was history at all."

Star of The Charge, Errol Flynn, also took the role of General Custer in They Died With Their Boots On, where he died a hero's death with his men. "Some evidence suggests many of the US soldiers were shot in the back and were therefore running away - but who would want to see that?," says Mr Brownlow.

The political power of films was understood by Stalin who, eyeing the growing belligerence of the Nazis ordered a rousing account of 13th century warlord Alexander Nevsky who had defeated invading German knights.

Mr Brownlow said: "Such was the rush it was shot in July heat on artificial snow. But no sooner had it been finished than the 1938 Hitler-Stalin Pact had been signed and the picture had to be put on the shelf.

"It came off the shelf just as quickly when Hitler invaded in 1941." Things got little better in the post-war era. US journalist Lowell Thomas helped create the legend of Lawrence of Arabia with his filmed reports and was even included in David Lean's 1962 epic. "Despite being confronted with perhaps the most brilliant spectacle in talking picture history," recalls Mr Brownlow, "He said 'The only accurate things in Lawrence were the camels and the sand'." While it would be hard to make a film about as volatile region as the Middle East without drawing protests from somewhere, British audiences can be almost as prickly. American War of Independence epic The Patriot, starring Mel Gibson, was condemned for portraying the British soldiers, or Redcoats, as child-murdering criminals.So vocal were the objections that the then Culture Secretary warned there was a difference between "putting a gloss on something and distorting things beyond all recognition".

By then, Gibson had developed a reputation for sticking it to the British.

During (Braveheart), every English death was greeted with a huge cheer. Braveheart is one of the most striking examples of a film influencing the real world. "I went to a screening in Glasgow and the SNP were handing out leaflets. During the film, every English death was greeted with a huge cheer. Just to show it was not a fluke, Gibson has gone on to upset both Jews, with The Passion of the Christ, and Mayan central Americans, with Apocalypto. 'Fundamentally unfair' - Dr Martin Farr, University of Newcastle

Dr Farr emphasised popular films and academic history are different creatures: "The demands of camera is such that you can't be as fair in 90 minutes as you can in 100,000 words.

"But there is a line that moviemakers should not cross. In U571 the audience was told that the US, rather than the British, navy seized Germany's Enigma code machine. "It was one of the most significant moments of the Second World War and to alter it so fundamentally is unfair." Such controversy shows, believes Dr Farr, a basic fact about history. "It's never settled. There is never one view of what happened and why. Just imagine the fuss that is going to be caused when they make a film about Margaret Thatcher."

[edit] Earlymodernweb.org.uk

Historians and Historical Film

Filmed histories - movies, TV dramas, documentaries - have become for many the prime source of knowledge about the past. As such, historians can’t afford to dismiss them. Even if film can’t offer the critical apparatus and analysis insisted on in the scholarly text, even if it subordinates the messiness of the past to the demands of the linear plot and story-telling conventions, even when finer details of historical accuracy are less than rigorously insisted on, film can stimulate the imagination and foster curiosity about the lives of past generations. It can kindle an interest that later leads to the choice of history as a subject of academic study (or, less dramatically, of a specific topic for research). And even if we aren’t all postmodernists yet, we have become as historians increasingly aware of the importance of understanding practices of representation. We cannot simply believe that we are straightforward recorders of fact; historians, too, select, interpret and marshal their materials into narratives designed to persuade, according to certain established conventions.

Sometimes film conventions do simply submerge the history, most of all in the big-budget ‘Hollywood’ movie: The Patriot (surely yet another Mel Gibson revenge movie, with its own history going all the way back to Mad Max?) recently had historians raging (This summer (2001), it’s Pearl Harbour). English/British history certainly seems to be a particular victim of this tendency, in various ways. Braveheart: brave Celts versus nasty English (and Mad Max gets his revenge again…).[1] Elizabeth: a sentimentalized portrayal of a particularly canny political survivor as a romantic innocent.[2] The Madness of King George is one of the more successful from the historians’ point of view, but even so, in its translation from stage play to Hollywood movie, has become as much ‘Heritage’ as history.[3] This doesn’t mean, I think, that they are of no use in teaching history. Besides, they are not the only history films out there. The first challenge, perhaps, is to consider the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ history on film, which may involve some reference to written history, but should not simply be a matter of measuring visual history against written versions.

Film history and written history, undoubtedly, have different strengths; they are experienced in very different ways. ‘The most serious problems the historian has with the past on the screen arise out of the nature and demands of the visual medium itself.’[4] Enthusiasts and critics of historical films alike, tellingly, focus on the same aspects of the medium: the way in which it creates the illusion of an immediate experience of the past. It’s deeply personal and moreover personalised, reflecting the strengths of film in the representation of individuals’ lives. That this illusion is so powerful, so overwhelming to the senses, is at once strength and weakness - depending to a considerable extent on the viewer’s idea of what ‘history’ is, what it’s for.[5]

There are, of course, ways in which a filmmaker can foster audience awareness that this is story-telling, an illusion, without sacrificing audience appeal. For example, Citizen Kane’s mesmerising, dramatic photography draws attention to the medium itself; the ambiguities and unresolved questions allow viewers to draw from it their own meanings; not least, its flashback structure ensures that we cannot forget for long that it is made up of stories told by people with differing perspectives. Citizen Kane encourages multiple, endlessly thought-provoking readings and is a wonderful feast of film entertainment, proving conclusively that these qualities don’t have to be in conflict. Indeed, I feel that commercial filmmakers frequently underestimate their audiences, and in shackling themselves to conventions, frustratingly miss opportunities to tell much richer stories; but, that, after all, is not confined simply to historical film.

The ‘languages’ of ‘historiography’ and ‘historiophoty’ (to use Hayden White’s term) [6] may differ, but the principles behind learning to ‘read’ them are in many ways the same. From the historian and teacher’s point of view, it is crucial to stimulate critical viewing practices: most of all, perhaps, with those films that make the most explicit claims to offer the truth. Such claims, whether made in documentaries or feature films, certainly need to be seen ‘as an invitation for further exploration’; [7] but the same principles should apply to all films. Teaching history, in my view, is only in part learning about ‘the past’; it should also equip students with the mental resources they need to live in the present, teaching them a wider understanding of the familiar and the unfamiliar around us, to watch and listen and question the taken-for-granted. And a vital part of that is the practice of learning to examine and question accounts of the past, whatever form they take.

Critics complain of the poor information load of historical film. Well, that rather depends on what is meant by ‘information’. Are visual and written information even comparable? Robert Rosenstone has consistently argued against this point of view: ‘The historical film must be seen not in terms of how it compares to written history but as a way of recounting the past with its own rules of representation.’[8] David Herlihy, a more sceptical historian, comments: ‘Film, a visual medium, can effectively present the visual aspects of history but not the whole of history.’[9] That is, in essence, simply a more negative version of what Rosenstone is saying. The question that Herlihy does not ask, and Rosenstone does, is: what is missing from written history? There simply is no medium that can present ‘the whole of history’; judged by that standard, all accounts of the past fail.

The sceptics point to the lack of critical apparatus in film and to the related accusation that it demands ’suspension of disbelief’. What they apparently mean, basically, is that a film has no footnotes. Apart from the risk of fetishising a convention that is acknowledged to be imperfect, it is once again attempting to judge historical film by inappropriate standards. It’s also a rather inadequate analysis of how we watch films: does ’suspension of disbelief’ really entail the abandonment of all complex thought? Historians may not like the answers that audiences provide for themselves, but they should certainly beware of thinking of them as passively absorbing what the filmmaker puts on the screen. Insofar as a film does require suspension of disbelief, it is a temporary state. It lasts only as long as the film; the responses that follow - as anyone who has been to the cinema with friends and then spent the rest of the night arguing about the film could testify - can last much longer and may be hotly contested (and if this were not the case, film studies would not exist). Filmed history does not provide a neat set of tags for explanation and reference; rather, what it can do is to incite the viewer to explore further by leaving loose ends, question-marks, pointing beyond the boundaries of the film itself.[10] Why did that happen (did it really happen)? What happened next (what came before)? (One of my personal dislikes is those thundering black-and-white end-titles that attempt to dictate the outcomes of the events portrayed in the film.) And, most of all, how do we know? Too few films attempt to do these things: but it is simply not true that they are incapable of it.

Undoubtedly, the student of history could never rely on films alone; the library is not about to be superseded by the video or cinema in historical study. Only in twentieth-century history can film ever be a primary source for the past. The more important question is: what can we potentially learn from film, as a secondary source, that books cannot tell us? Shouldn’t we be making the most of every resource available to us for learning and teaching? Teaching with historical film and written history in combination is a highly stimulating way of teaching how any historical account is selective: how to recognise the tricks of the narrative trade, how to become more critical of all sources of information. And since we inhabit a world bombarded by visual images, many of which are intended to persuade us to do something or think in a certain way, the critical faculties being fostered are particularly important ones. (Which is why we should not confine ourselves only to ‘good’ historical films.) It doesn’t matter whether the students will become professional historians or not (and, after all, few of them will): they’re learning skills that will stand them in good stead throughout their lives. They might even enjoy it, if that isn’t too heretical a notion.

There are historical films that truly bring history to life, even as they speak to present understandings. As Natalie Davis argues, ‘historical authenticity comes first and foremost from the film’s credible connection with “the spirit of a period” - in its large forms and sometimes in its small details’.[11] If historians can learn what - beyond getting the visual detail, clothing, props, etc - goes into a good historical film, how to create that connection, they will be in a better position to influence future practice on individual films and amongst film-makers, gaining access to far larger and more diverse audiences than they could ever do through textbooks. They can develop new skills in decoding visual images’ propagandic and persuasive dimensions. And they can gain novel, dynamic perspectives onto their subject: historical people as living, moving figures in their social settings and physical environments.

…………………………. Notes [1] Arthur Lindley, ‘The ahistoricism of medieval film’, Screening the Past, 3 (1998) at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fir598/ALfr3a.htm, makes some perceptive comments about Braveheart as ‘nationalist fairy-tale’. It’s hardly difficult to find denunciations of The Patriot, but try Jill Lepore, ‘Talk of the past: playing dress-up’, Common-place: the Interactive Journal of Early American Life 1 (September 2000), at http://www.common-place.org/vol-01/no-01/talk/ for an interesting angle
[2] Carole Levin, ‘Elizabeth: romantic film heroine or sixteenth-century queen?’ Perspectives Online, April 1999, at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1999/9904/9904FIL5.CFM (I know that this film is partly British-made (involving Channel 4), British cast, etc, etc: it’s still essentially ‘Hollywood history’).
[3] See Jonathan Coe, ‘Power mad’, Sight and Sound, April 1995, 30-33
[4] Robert A Rosenstone, ‘History in images/history in words: reflections on the possibility of really putting history onto film’, American Historical Review 93 (1988), 1173
[5] See Rosenstone, ‘History in images’, 1176-77
[6] Hayden White, ‘Historiography and historiophoty’, American Historical Review 93 (1988), 1193-99
[7] Mark C Carnes, ‘Introduction’ to Ted Mico, John Miller-Monzon and David Rubel (eds), Past imperfect: history according to the movies (London, 1996), 10
[8] Robert A Rosenstone, ‘Introduction’ to idem (ed), Revisioning history: film and the construction of a new past (Princeton, 1995), 3
[9] David Herlihy, ‘Am I a camera?’, 1191
[10] See Natalie Z Davis, ‘”Any resemblance to persons living or dead”: film and the challenge of authenticity’, The Yale Review 76 (1986-87), 476-82, on how films have done (and could do) this
[11] Davis, ‘”Any resemblance to persons living or dead”‘, 471

[edit] Pakistan Today

Braveheart II...The Movie Mel Should Have Made - By: Gerald A. Honigman

"They may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom!" Thus, allegedly, spoke William Wallace, a.k.a. Braveheart, via Mel Gibson's vocal cords. No doubt, the blockbuster movie was spectacular and led me to admire the Scots even more than I did already. Questions regarding the historicity of the movie, nonetheless, caused quite a commotion. Ronald Hamowy of the Department of History at the University of Alberta summed it up this way in his June 28, 1995 comments:

"Frankly, this movie has about as much merit historically...as one of the countless dubbed Italian films about Hercules battling the tyrants..."

Regardless, William Wallace was a true 13th century Scottish hero, and Mr. Gibson's passion for the freedom of this people and sympathy for their cause shined through. He is to be commended for this. Now, as we heard the words of Braveheart, we'll soon turn to another quote, this one by a leader of another oppressed people fighting, over a thousand years earlier, the conqueror of much of the known world.

The Roman-sponsored historian, Josephus, hated his fellow Judaean countrymen who took up arms against the Roman Empire. He saw them as fighting a war that could not be won, leading their nation to ruin. He aligned himself with the future Emperor instead. So he wrote what he wrote not out of admiration. Keep this in mind.

Indeed, the situation Josephus feared was the same as if little Latvia had taken on the Soviet Union in the latter's heyday of power. Yet the Judaeans/Jews did just that...and kept the struggle going for about a hundred years. Judaea Capta coins can now be found in museums all over the world and were issued by Rome to commemorate its victory. The Arch of Titus stands tall in Rome to this very day as well and, among other things, displays Romans carrying away spoils of the Temple and Judaean captives. So, the historicity of the Jews' struggle is beyond reasonable doubt and is highlighted by the Romans themselves.

We will look shortly at the speech of Eleazar ben Yair, leader of the last major band of Judaean warriors to hold out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C..E., to his band of fighters and their families atop the fortress of Masada just prior to the final Roman assault. Let's turn first, however, to another brief but telling quote from the contemporary Roman historian, Tacitus, who, like Josephus, also lived during the time of the Jews' struggle and had lots to say about it as well:

"It inflamed Vespasian's resentment that the Jews were the only nation that had not yet submitted (Vol.II, The Works Of Tacitus)."

After Masada fell in 73 C.E., when the Emperor Hadrian decided to turn the Temple Mount into a pagan shrine, it was the grandchildrens' turn to take on their mighty pagan conquerors. And, again, Roman historians, such as Dio Cassius, recorded the second revolt (132-135 C.E.) as well. Among other things, the entire Twelfth Roman Legion was wiped out before the leader of this second major quest for freedom by the Jews, Shimon Bar Kochba, fell at Betar. Detailed letters from him to his troops have been discovered as were the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the latter is the "War Scroll" which speaks of the conflict between..."the Sons of Light vs. the Sons of Darkness," etc.

Let's listen now to Josephus, Book VII, Wars Of The Jews: "Now as he (Eleazar) judged this to be the best thing they could do in their present circumstances, he gathered the most courageous...and encouraged them ....by a speech: 'Since we, long ago...resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than G_d himself...the time is come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice..."

Mr. Gibson, especially, should now listen very carefully...Eleazar: " '.... We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them (see Tacitus' quote above) ;and I cannot but esteem it as a favour that G_d hath granted us that it is still in our power to die bravely, in a state of freedom...' " Masada's defenders committed mass suicide—families and all—rather than fall into Roman hands.

While a few scholars debate the details, practically everything else that has been excavated, etc. testifies to Josephus' trustworthiness...so there is no reason to doubt him here. Masada is an amazing place to visit. The Roman camps, ramp, etc. are all still there. And remember, Josephus was no fan of those atop the fortress. Let's just say, if Braveheart's quote about freedom can be taken as history, there's certainly no problem with Eleazar's. Indeed, William Wallace has nothing over Eleazar ben Yair...Braveheart II, the movie Mel should have made.

To add icing on the cake, the Israeli tank corps takes its pledge atop the fortress yearly, "Masada shall not fall again!" Wow, what a script! ABC actually produced a made-for-television movie about Masada some twenty years ago with the latter as a sort of postscript.. It appears ABC has buried that movie, for whatever reason, ever since....a shame. There's lots of good history and action in it....plus a good cast.

So here's my confusion and the real reason for this article. Mel Gibson has used his millions to recently produce a film, "The Passion of Christ," which deals with a topic which has caused millennia of suffering for Jews. Among other sore points, Gibson has included the verse from Matthew 27:25, "His blood be upon us and our children," whereby the Jews allegedly take blame for the death of Jesus. It has been used to justify Jewish suffering in the minds of millions of Gentiles over the millennia.

The Pope, Reverend Billy Graham, and thousands of other Christian religious figures have applauded the movie and can see no problems. "It is as it was" stated Pope John Paul II...

From a Christian theological perspective, those words are acceptable. But theology isn't necessarily history, and there is now sound historical scholarship—with no theological agenda to promote either way—which puts much of what "it is as it was" in serious doubt. And much of it has been conducted by Christian scholars.

While I have admittedly not seen "The Passion of Christ" yet, I have closely analyzed its topic through a scholar's eyes while doing doctoral studies and later on as well. Let's just say that what Mel claims to know as "historical truth" is, at the very least, debatable. Jews, obviously, have theological differences with their Christian friends. Hopefully these can be discussed without fear of inquisitions, the Auto de Fe, public disputations, forced conversions, and worse which accompanied those differences in the past.

Why is it that events in the Hebrew Bible a.k.a. "Old Testament" can be discussed and debated, but those in the New Testament are apparently off limits to a fair study? I think I know the answer, unfortunately. The disgrace surrounding the deliberate suppression—for decades, until very recently—of information related to the Dead Sea Scrolls by a monopoly of Catholic priests and scholars is another manifestation of this.

Among other things, the version of Jesus' life one reads about today in the New Testament had to get its stamp of approval at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. by Rome itself...Jesus' very executioners and the conquerors of the Jews who paid a big toll themselves for that conquest. Now who do you think Rome was going to allow blame to be assigned to once it became Christian itself and had say over which doctrines were to become officially accepted as Christian doctrine?

There were other accounts of what Jesus did, said, etc. They were declared to be "heresies" and treated accordingly. Among other problems, the issue of the very divinity of Jesus had surfaced. Jews could never deify any man, Messiah or otherwise. Roman historians wrote of this strange people who worship a god no man can see and who refuse to even deify their kings nor the Caesars. But this is a whole other debate.

The issue of the Jews' alleged role as "G_d-killer," which Gibson felt just had to be resurrected at this time yet again, has caused so much pain, suffering, and death to Jews over the centuries, however, that it's hard to believe that this man, so sensitive to the Scots, felt that there was nothing better to spend his wealth on. I regret to say that my own family has certainly contributed to that latter endeavor. We purchased many of his movies on DVD.....after having already paid the price at the cinema.

Regardless of what its attributes may be—and, again, I've not yet seen the movie—I've read enough about the film by others whom I trust and who have seen it to know that the results will be harmful. I don't fear "truth." Jesus had his enemies and supporters like any other leader in an occupied and oppressed nation. Rome sought out, crucified, and killed all would-be such leaders among the Jews. The modern experience of the Vichy French collaborators of the Nazis during World War II comes to mind, and there are many other good examples as well.

But Gibson's "truth" is, at best, debatable for those who are seriously in quest of it. Regardless of what he claims his intent really is for "The Passion," it's pretty much a given what at least one of the film's main impacts will be.

While there are sophisticated ways of interpreting the Gospel of John, for example, when the average person reads him allegedly quoting Jesus calling the Jews (not Pharisees, etc.) "sons of the Devil, doing your father's deeds," what impact can this sort of teaching have?

Is it a surprise that one of the first pictures in Europe of a Jew is entitled, "Aaron, Son of the Devil.?" Even the Renaissance sculptor, Michelangelo, put Devil's horns on Moses' head.. So, is it really any stretch to next learn of untold thousands of Jews being massacred for "poisoning Christian wells" and causing the Bubonic Plague...and countless other tragedies encountered as a result of such "religious" enlightenment?

After the famous "Passion Plays" throughout Europe, it was common for Christians to get drunk and then go after the "G-d Killers." Deadly massacres and pogroms were especially common around Easter time. Is that what Mr. Gibson misses?

I know he claims not to share the Holocaust-denying, etc. anti-Semitism of his father and others, but forgive me if I don't believe it. One could argue that Jews have too long been the Suffering Servant of G_d (see Mr. Gibson, there's more than one way to interpret Biblical passages) to remain silent over this filmed passion play.

Finally, think of the zeal Mel Gibson showed for the struggle of an oppressed people in Braveheart. Now contrast this with his willing ignorance (and one can only guess what else) regarding this subject vis-a-vis the Jews ...a struggle in which Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth, regardless of how one views him, was caught up in and was crucified for—like thousands of Judaeans both before and after him—in his people's fight for freedom against their Roman tormentors.

[edit] J-STOR American Historical Review

Review: [Untitled]

Reviewed Work(s):

Braveheart. by Bruce Davey, Mel Gibson, Alan Ladd, Jr., Randall Wallace

Roy Roy. by Michael Caton-Jones, Peter Broughan, Larry DeWady, Richard Jackson, Peter Proughan, Michael Caton-Jones, Alan Sharp

Review author[s]: Elizabeth Ewan

The American Historical Review, Vol. 100, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 1219-1221

doi:10.2307/2168219

[edit] Tucson Weekly

With Braveheart, The Pretty-Boy Aussie Proves He Can Make A Great Flick. - Tom Danehy (June 1 - June 7, 1995)

IF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE were reviewing Braveheart, he'd likely say something like "Audacity, thy name is Mel." For, quite simply, Braveheart is by a wide margin the best film thus far this year, and the reason is that actor/director Mel Gibson started with a clear, bold vision and carried it through with amazing resolve.

Indeed, The Bard did say it best. Audacity runs wild through this project.

It's audacious in that it runs nearly three hours with very few lags, a serious oddity in this day and age of the cookie-cutter, 100-minute, get-'em-in-and-out-quickly movies.

It's audacious in that Gibson and the studio would buck a written-in-stone law that says summer movies must be mindless fare: zany comedies, action flicks with lots of explosions, plus the perfunctory Disney animated project (which, by coincidence, Gibson also stars in this year). To be sure, there is plenty of action in this film, including some of the best battle scenes ever filmed, but it's hand-to-hand combat, ugly and brutal, not stylized and phony.

And it's mostly audacious that Gibson would take such a bold chance here. Face it, Gibson could have coasted along for the rest of his career, making a Lethal Weapon movie every few years and sprinkling in some romantic comedies along the way, but he didn't. He chose to make a film so unformulaic that it has wags scrambling to find comparisons.

(By the way, if anyone dares to compare it to Kevin Costner's dreadful Robin Hood or even the wildly overrated Dances With Wolves, you slap them hard, then send them to me.)

Gibson, often mistakenly dismissed as God's perfect collection of eyes, smile and butt, has made an epic here, a film that constantly surprises moviegoers with its sweep, depth and dazzling array of visual delights.

Gibson stars as 13th-century Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace, a man who has greatness thrust upon him when his life is touched tragically by the incredibly sadistic English King Edward the Longshanks (played deliciously by Patrick McGoohan). Wallace is a complex character, a widely traveled man who speaks Latin and French, but who would just as soon settle down as a farmer in his home village and marry his childhood sweetheart.

When this hope is torn asunder, Wallace lashes out against the hated English. He rallies to his cause Scottish nobles and peasants alike, many of whom are reluctant to give up even the little they've been doled out by the oppressive monarchy. Wallace is brave and true, but he's also a rousing bundle of passion and savagery, the latter of which, most crucial to the mix, Gibson deftly manages neither to sugarcoat nor glorify.

Wallace begins by organizing his villagers into a loose-knit fighting group ("militia" would be the right word here, but I won't use it lest it provide an impetus to the sorry-ass latter-day proponents thereof). There is a real sense of camaraderie among Wallace and his fellow villagers--Hamish (Brendan Gleeson), Campbell (James Cosmo) and Mornay (Alun Armstrong), as well as with David O'Hara's Stephen, an Irishman who joins the Scots in the battle against the crown.

Where the aforementioned Robin Hood had medieval warriors trading banter straight from a bad cop-buddy movie, Braveheart rings true throughout. These are men who share a common heritage and purpose, who pretty much know their fate, yet fight on for a purpose higher than mere victory.

Furthermore, where Hood was pretty and neat with a well-coifed hero, Braveheart is dirty and dark. Life was hard in the Middle Ages and director Gibson has a sharp eye for detail.

Much has been made of a scene in which Longshanks disposes of his effeminate son's lover. Jeez, lighten up, folks. Political correctness wasn't around in those days. Besides, it shows something that our society has progressed to the point where such a scene would add to our hatred of the evil king, rather than providing a snicker, as it probably would have not that long ago.

Recently on the A&E Network, director David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia) bemoaned the fact that, considering budget constraints (and the play-it-safe mentality of the suits who run Hollywood), the day of the great epic film may well be gone.

Happily, Lean was wrong. Braveheart fits comfortably alongside Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus, another film to which it favorably compares.

Braveheart may well bomb at the box office as the film's length, its downer ending and overall seriousness overwhelm Gibson's star power. But these are things for which Gibson should be applauded, not penalized. Should that happen, the next dreamer of big cinematic dreams could become gun shy. And that would be a shame.

Braveheart is a magnificent film, full of the things that make moviemaking great. Make this your first movie of the summer. Everything after that will be downhill, but you'll at least have been to the mountaintop.

[edit] Classic Film Guide

Braveheart (1995)

Outstanding ... FREEDOM!!! A fictionalized account of William Wallace. Like Costner and Eastwood before him, popular actor Mel Gibson got his turn to take home his only Oscars (Director and Producer for this Best Picture winner) on his only nominations so far. But unlike the other two, Gibson was snubbed, didn't even receive a Best Actor nomination, in this year that Hollywood was obviously on drugs (Nicolas Cage won the Best Actor award for Leaving Las Vegas (1995)). The film did received three other Oscars (and five other nominations including Screenplay Writing). #91 on AFI's 100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies list. #62 on AFI's 100 Most Inspiring Movies list.

[edit] Leisure Suit.Net

Guy Movie of the Week: Braveheart - Kerry Douglas Dye (2/15/99)

Valentine's Day is a day of romance--a day when even the most jaded among us have to take a moment to step back and appreciate the love and romance inherent in the season. It is in this spirit that I have chosen a love story to be my Guy Movie of the Week, and that love story is Mel Gibson's Braveheart.

Braveheart starts in the typical boy-meets-girl fashion, when young William Wallace's father and brother are killed by the hated British who, under the leadership of Edward Longshanks, the most ruthless King in all of English history, have massacred the Scottish nobles in an effort to tighten their stranglehold on that neighboring nation. William is tormented by visions of his dead father, as well as by the image of the slain nobles, strung up by their necks in a farmhouse, their tongues protruding obscenely from their swollen faces. (Oh, yeah, the boy-meets-girl thing happens at the funeral, when a young girl gives him a flower.)

Anyway, William is taken away to live with his uncle, and returns after many years of travels to the small village where he was raised. There, he meets up with the girl from the funeral, they fall in love, marry, (you should probably not read the rest of this paragraph if you haven't seen it), and she gets her throat cut by the town constable after William foils her attempted rape. That would be the boy-loses-girl point of the story.

Right about now, a lot of the love story stuff falls away. William murders and pillages and gets his countrymen to do the same, mostly with the goal of killing as many British as possible, but also secondarily trying to secure freedom for all of Scotland. His reputation spreads along with the rebellion, and eventually he is embraced by the Scottish nobility, and even knighted. Hell, eventually he gets to nail the Princess of Wales. That would be the boy-gets-a-new-girl point of the story.

I hesitate to say this, because the film is relatively new and untested, but it is entirely possible that Braveheart is the greatest guy film in cinema history. Its battle scenes are incredible--gory and vicious and real, and better than anything in Spartacus, or Ran, or any other big battle spectacular. Its scope is a grand as Lawrence of Arabia. What puts Braveheart over the top for me is the fact that it deals in such an explicit way with all the values that are important to, you know, guys.

Like honor, bravery, loyalty, betrayal, revenge . . . these are real guy issues. And it goes to the heart of these issues, and the emotions behind these issues. How many guy movies can you say are really about emotion and really make it true? Not many. But take a look at William Wallace's reaction when he sees who has betrayed him at the Battle of Falkirk: he doesn't cry. He doesn't yell. He doesn't start speechifying about how bad it is that this guy betrayed him. He just sits. He sits, unable to comprehend what has occurred. There were a thousands ways that this scene could have been misplayed, but Wallace's reaction is so real, and so perfect, that you can't help but think that you would have felt exactly the same way had you been there.

And because the emotions in the film feel so real, they draw you in, and take you on a journey, and if when Mel Gibson's Wallace cries out his last word at the end of the film your heart doesn't soar . . . well then, either you're not human, or you're not a guy.

And it's a smart movie, too. What other film would have the nerve to pun in Latin, and not even explain the joke in the subtitles?

People have criticized Braveheart for being too violent, but war is violent, and Braveheart is in many ways about war. Critics have pointed out that while Braveheart won an Oscar for Best Picture, it did not garner any nominations for acting, as if this is somehow a critique of the movie, instead of of the Academy. Mel Gibson should have been nominated for his great performance, and Patrick McGoohan's Longshanks is one of the great villains in cinema history.

So what was I saying about Braveheart being a love story? Oh yeah, ultimately all the killing, and dismembering, and chopping off heads and sending them in boxes and setting people on fire and having their guts ripped out in torture was just because Wallace loved his wife so damned much.

When you look at it that way, it kind of warms your heart.

[edit] Digitally Obsessed

Braveheart (2000 DVD release) -Bob Mandel (8/30/00)

"If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out." - Edward the Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan)

MPAA Rating: R for brutal medieval warfare (and nudity)

Run Time: 02h:57m:00s

DVD Release Date: August 29, 2000

Genre: adventure

DVD Review

When the king of Scotland dies, England's ignominious king, Edward the Longshanks (McGoohan), takes possession of the land North as his own. Cruel, oppressive and megalomaniacal, Longshanks treats his bounty with disdain. "The problem with Scotland is," Edward says, "that it is full of Scots!" In order to breed them out he invokes the ancient feudal custom of prima noctes, whereby the aristrocratic English owner of the land is allowed to take any Scottish bride, wed therein, into his bed on her wedding night.

The main story told here is about how a common Scottish farmer, William Wallace (Gibson), who prefers to live in peace but instead, when his fiancée is killed by the English, leads a band of ragtag soldiers and Irish mercenaries against Longshanks and wins, if temporarily, Scotland's freedom from tyranny over 700 years ago. Unfortunately, little is known of the actual Wallace, and Randall Wallace's screenplay borrows heavily from Shakespeare's Henry V.

Edward Plagenet I marries off his son, Edward II (who happens to be homosexual), to his enemy's daughter, the princess of France, in hopes of a real heir. While Longshanks is away in France, the feeble son is unable to outwit Wallace and his guerrilla tactics. At the heart of the story is Wallace's relationship with Robert de Bruce, the Earl who would become king, who at first fought with Wallace at Stirling, then betrayed him at Falkirk, then fought in his name in his stead, wresting the throne of Scotland from Longshanks by force.

Braveheart is a beautiful, sweeping tale, brought to film by star Mel Gibson in his directorial debut. In case you missed it, the film and Gibson won 5 Oscars®, including Best Picture and Best Director. I happen to be a big fan of Gibson, more so for his smaller films than the blockbusters, particularly Hamlet and The Year of Living Dangerously, where his Shakespearean training and humor are best used. In fact, had the version not been so abridged, I would deem his Hamlet the closest I have ever seen to my own reading of the character. It is with one eye toward the raw power of this tale, the other toward the humor that makes Gibson's treatment so special. I have watched this 7 times now since receiving it, and I barely grow tired of it.

Since so little is known of Wallace, in order to fill in the story much had to be gleaned and homogenized from what facts are known, and the history of the time. I have little problem with this (it should have been acknowledged up front), but what does bother me as an English Literature major in a past lifetime, and here my friend Shelly for once is absolutely right, is the substandard nature of the language. Screenwriter Randall Wallace admittedly wrote this as a modernization, but I think the dumbing down of the language reduces this from the elite rank (such as Henry V) to a fine film, and almost guilty pleasure. Don't get me wrong, I didn't watch this film 7 times just to gather ammunition for my B+ image transfer later on in this review, but because I enjoy it.

Much like Brannagh's Henry V, Braveheart shows well the brutality of hand-to-hand combat in a way few other films have. If for nothing other than these credible battles of blood, dirt, axe, sword, arrows, horses, infantry, and the like, Braveheart is a wonder to behold. You will have to watch the excellent accompanying documentary to understand the preparations taken to secure these scenes, some of which were groundbreaking. Gibson purposefully chose to match the epic nature of Spartacus.

The performances within are as powerful as the story. Catherine McCormack as Murron is alluring, but Patrick McGoohan (Longshanks) steals all of his scenes, if not the film.

[edit] BoxOffice.Com

Braveheart By Wade Major

5 Stars (Audio: A, Video: A, Features: A) Collector Rating:MUST HAVE

Mel Gibson, Sophie Marceau, Patrick McGoohan, Catherine McCormack. Directed by Mel Gibson. Written by Randall Wallace. Produced by Mel Gibson and Alan Ladd, Jr. and Bruce Davey. Released by Paramount Home Video. 1995. 177 minutes. Rated R.

Features: 16x9 enhanced, Dolby 5.1, two theatrical trailers, Mel Gibson commentary, "A Filmmaker's Passion"

Mel Gibson's towering epic about Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace scorched the 1995 Academy Awards with its blend of classic heroism, old-fashioned romanticism and unrelenting depicting of medieval warfare. No matter what one thinks of the film's overall merits, it's impossible to not be impressed on some level with the achievement.

As befits Oscar royalty, the film's hotly-anticipated DVD release is technically first-rate in every category, though some are sure to be a tad disappointed by the pedestrian menus (not so much as an animated twig!). The film, of course, is what matters here and even at nearly 3 hours (jammed into one double-layered side) both picture and sound are beyond reproach. The Dolby 5.1 audio is deep and resonant, taking advantage of the full 5.1 setup yet not so severely as to distract from the film's essentially gritty realism. And while Paramount's practice of mastering nearly all their DVD releases for 16x9 widescreen televisions doesn't always pay off, here the result is absolutely hypnotic.

Extras aren't exactly numerous, though what has been selected is of primary importance. Even the two theatrical trailers offer fascinating insight into the film's marketing strategy and subsequent success. While one heavily plays up the film's battle scenes for the male audience, the other angles for women with a romantic approach. That the film scored so highly with both men and women suggests the tactic was a wise one.

Detailed background on the making of the film is included in Mel Gibson's excellent commentary which reveals as much about Mel as it does about the movie. Gibon's exceeding passion for moviemaking in general and his far-reaching knowledge of film history are evident throughout the commentary, qualities so infectious that the film almost seems to improve as a result of the added insight. Unlike many directors who seem to pull their punches with such commentaries, Mel holds back nothing, sharing his secrets even as he relives the grueling shoot.

If there's any fluff on the disc, it's the "making of" documentary which plays like more of a sales tool than a properly informative documentary. Still, at nearly a half-hour in length, it's vastly more substantial than the usual "making of" featurettes which rarely run longer than five or ten minutes.

[edit] UKOnline: Screen Scene

BRAVEHEART - Keith Dumble

Braveheart is that rarest of films: one that works well on many levels.

Firstly, and most viscerally, the battle scenes in this film are outstanding. Reminiscent of Spartacus, they succeed in conveying a little of what massed warfare in the middle ages must have been like: violent, frightening and fast. Superbly choreographed, the battles - particularly the Battle of Stirling Bridge - are gripping, edge-of-the-seat stuff.

Secondly, Braveheart succeeds as an epic. Recent cinema has not had many epics to boast of, but this film is a master of the genre. Slightly less than 3 hours in length, Braveheart tells the life story of Scottish freedom fighter and leader William Wallace, from his childhood days, through his inspirational leadership of the Scottish people, to his gruesome death. Never feeling strained or overlong, the film is paced just right, scenes of battle-oriented action well-balanced with less frantic plot-furthering episodes. Sweeping, stirring and moving, Mel Gibson's film stands right up there with Ben Hur, Spartacus and other classic epics of movie history.

Thirdly, the film works as a love story. So often introduced tenuously or just for the sake of it, the love interest in Braveheart is excellently done and genuinely moving. The scenes between Wallace and Myrrin are tender and gentle; they also provide a linked theme running through the narrative that reminds the viewer that Wallace is not merely a bloody warrior, but a passionate and sensitive human being also. Whether this is historically accurate or not is irrelevant - it provides some excellent cinema.

All the performances in Braveheart are impressive. Gibson himself - coping admirably with the Scottish accent - turns in an extraordinarily subtle performance, equally at home in the midst of battle as in a secret tryst in a moonlit glade. His evocation of utter disbelief and dejection when he learns of the Bruce's deception for example, is excellent. The fact that he directed the movie as well makes his performance doubly impressive and elevates Gibson to an important position in present-day film-making.

The supporting cast is impressive also. Patrick McGoohan's ruthless Edward Longshanks is suitably sinister and repugnant; conversely Sophie Marceau's French princess is compassionate and tender. Wallace's men are also well-played, allowing some moments of light relief and also making the battle scenes more exciting as the viewer looks out for familiar faces in the midst of the carnage.

Films that make your spine tingle or that make you cry with genuine feeling are few and far between. Braveheart is one such film, sweeping the viewer up in its blood-soaked and heather-scented arms and carrying them to the inevitable and moving conclusion, having provided excellently-crafted entertainment along the way. A true classic, in every sense of the word.

Outstanding. 10/10

[edit] DVD Verdict.com

The Charge

Every man dies, but not every man truly lives.

Opening Statement

When Scotland's future looked most grim, a hero arose of mythic proportions. William Wallace (1272?-1305) remains to this day the most revered national hero of Scotland, legendary for his courage, cunning, stature, wisdom, and military insight. Wallace, the landless second son of an insignificant nobleman, was able to unite the common people of his fractious country and win almost miraculous victories against the dreaded "Southrons." In an era when the natural leaders betrayed their country for their own selfish ends, William Wallace shines forth as the one man who never swerved in his devotion to Scotland and its liberty.

In 1995 director Mel Gibson brought this era of history to popular attention with Braveheart. For many Americans, this sweeping historical epic was our first exposure to the exploits of Anglicorum Malleus, the Hammer of the English, and his battles against the forces of Edward I. Braveheart garnered five Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director honors for Gibson. The film is widely regarded as one of the finest of the 1990s. Paramount has now released Braveheart on a disc that attempts to do justice to the blood and passion of this cinematic masterpiece.

Facts of the Case

Braveheart begins as young William Wallace witnesses his father's involvement in a Scottish uprising against King Edward I of England. King Edward (Patrick McGoohan, A Time to Kill, The Phantom, Scanners), known as "Longshanks," has completed his conquest of Wales and is turning his attentions to the subjugation of Scotland. Malcolm Wallace (Sean Lawlor, Space Truckers, In the Name of the Father, Trojan Eddie) is a patriot, and is killed fighting the English. Young William is adopted by his uncle Argyle (Brian Cox—TNT's Nuremberg, Rushmore, Kiss the Girls), who promises to educate William in mind and in body.

Years pass, and William (Mel Gibson, Lethal Weapon, Hamlet, The Road Warrior) returns to his home village, where he is content to live in peace, tend his fields, and raise a family. At a wedding celebration he meets Murron (Catherine McCormack, Dangerous Beauty, Dancing at Lughnasa, Shadow of the Vampire) whom he knew as a child but who has grown into a stunning beauty. He is also reunited with Hamish (Brendan Gleeson, Lake Placid, Michael Collins, Far and Away), a childhood friend whom Wallace bests in a test of strength and wits. This wedding provides the first glimpse of the cruelty of English rule in Scotland. In an effort to attract more of his supporters to lands in Scotland, Longshanks has granted the right of prima nocte or "first night" to his nobles, giving them sexual rights to any female commoner in their territory on her wedding night. The bride avoids violence between her husband and the English soldiers by going with the lord willingly.

This is part of a larger pattern of oppression and growing tensions between the Scots and their English overlords. Wallace avoids the conflict as long as he can. He woos and marries Murron, keeping their union secret so that no English lord can claim her. However, when English soldiers attack her Wallace comes to her aid, assaulting several of the king's men in the process. In the confusion Wallace escapes from the village but Murron does not. Murron is summarily executed for the attack on the king's men. This leads William to strike back, attacking the local garrison and exacting his vengeance on the man who killed his love. This marks Wallace's entry into the conflict, and as his fame and battlefield successes grow he becomes a focal point for the Scottish cause. He attracts a large following, including the mad Stephen of Ireland (David O'Hara—CBS's Jesus miniseries, Fever, The Devil's Own) who becomes one of his closest confidants and advisors.

Wallace's greatest victory comes at the battle of Stirling Bridge, in 1297. In one of the greatest scenes in the film Wallace rallies his countrymen with an impassioned speech celebrating freedom and liberty. He then goes to "pick a fight" by insulting the English commander and ensuring that the Scottish nobles with him do not negotiate a reward for themselves and surrender without a battle. It is at Stirling that Wallace defeats an English heavy cavalry charge through the use of the schiltrom, a close-knit infantry formation of men with long spears. This marks the first time in over 200 years that an infantry formation has held against a charge of the heavy horse. This tactic was so successful that it became the basis for British infantry tactics until the end of the nineteenth century.

As a result of Wallace's rout of the English he is knighted by the Scottish establishment and named Guardian of Scotland. Almost immediately he is drawn into the infighting amongst the Scottish clans over the succession to the throne. The leading contenders are Robert the Bruce (Angus McFayden) and John de Balliol (Bernard Horsfall). Each is bound by a web of conflicting alliances and obligations to the Scots and to Edward Longshanks himself. Each is also wary of Wallace's growing influence with the commoners.

Wallace's military victories do not last, and he eventually falls victim to the political maneuvering of the Scottish lords. He is betrayed by his own countrymen and brought to London where he is tried and executed in a most grisly fashion. Even as he suffers and dies he maintains his single-minded devotion to freedom, and in death he becomes a powerful martyr to the Scottish cause.

After the death of Wallace, Robert the Bruce ascends the throne of Scotland. Rather than live as Longshanks' puppet, he fights on in the name of independence. He exhorts his countrymen: "You have bled with Wallace, now bleed with me!"

The Evidence

While Braveheart tells an ostensibly historical tale, that alone cannot account for its riveting appeal. The names and places may be real, the events may all have happened but Braveheart transcends all that, reaching the level of an epic myth. Indeed, the record of Wallace's life and achievements owes a great deal to the epic poem of Blind Harry the Minstrel, a source more akin to Homer or Euripides than the Encyclopedia Britannica. The entire plot could have been cribbed wholesale from Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces. It grips the viewer on a primal level and does not let go for almost three solid hours.

The success of the film depends in no small measure to outstanding performances from the entire cast. Gibson's William Wallace is utterly convincing as a man of peace driven to unimaginable violence by the loss of his love and the cause of his country. McGoohan gives a performance as Longshanks that transcends even Machiavelli and revels in a whole new level of ruthless cunning. O'Hara as Stephen and Gleeson as Hamish bring exactly the right mix of humor and strength to their roles as Wallace's stout supporters and close friends. O'Hara in particular is given some wonderful opportunities by Randall Wallace's Oscar-nominated script. He takes full advantage, able to wring roaring laughter from even the tense moments before a bloody battle. Angus McFayden's portrayal of Robert the Bruce, future King of Scotland is very moving as he shows us a man torn between his conscience and political necessity.

No review of Braveheart would be complete without high praise for its technical achievements. John Toll's Oscar-winning cinematography brings medieval Scotland to life in every frame. The special effects, along with Gibson's direction and some of the best editing ever seen, bring the horrible reality of medieval warfare to the screen. All of this is infused with life and soul by James Horner's incredible score, also nominated for an Oscar.

Paramount's DVD release of Braveheart is a 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer. Picture quality is for the most part excellent, although there are more "blips" and assorted picture defects than one would expect. Not a lot, but they tend to appear in noticeable situations, such as extended close ups. Image quality varies, from razor-sharp to somewhat soft. In fact, there is a lot of the film that seems to be in slightly softer focus, and I tend to think that this is due to deliberate choices made by Gibson and Toll rather than any problems with the video transfer. Colors, most noticeably flesh tones, are dead on. Colors throughout the film are often muted by cloudy Scottish weather, but that is as it should be. There was only one instance of shimmer, seen in chain mail patterns, but it was hardly noticeable and quite forgiveable.

The sound mix is Dolby Digital 5.1. I found myself wishing for more battle noises from the rear surrounds, but overall the movie sounds great. I'm sure those of you with subwoofers will feel the English heavy horse charging straight through your home.

The extra content on the disc, while lacking in quantity, is of very good quality. Two theatrical trailers are provided in their original aspect ratio. There is a 28 minute documentary entitled "A Filmmaker's Passion: The Making of Braveheart." This documentary is very well done, and gives the viewer a lot of interesting information. However, the centerpiece of any film's extra content is the commentary track, and Braveheart is no exception. Gibson's commentary is one of the most interesting and informative I have ever heard, almost reaching the level of Ron Howard's Apollo 13 track. Gibson's comments are not wall-to-wall; he knows when to let the movie speak for itself. The commentary is full of Mel's observations, historical insights, and details of the filmmaking process. From defenestration to camera speeds to battle choreography he covers it all. He also points out with some relish different techniques that Steven Spielberg later "stole" from him for Saving Private Ryan.

The Rebuttal Witnesses

I have only one major objection to the storyline, and that is the introduction of a subplot involving the Princess of Wales. Sophie Marceau (The World Is Not Enough, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Lost and Found) is wonderful in her role, but this subplot feels tacked on, and stretches historical credibility just a bit too much. Her scenes with Wallace do reveal more of his depth and passion, but the suggestion that a Scottish rebel chieftain would ever meet the Princess of Wales, let alone form a passionate relationship, is completely unbelievable. Somehow it works as part of the movie, but objectively it seems pretty ludicrous. To his credit, Gibson acknowledges as much in his commentary track.

While the quality of the extra materials is great, the quantity is definitely lacking. Surely there must have been deleted scenes that would have been of interest. In a day and age when every studio is including text screens of cast and crew biographical information on even the most bare-bones release, surely Paramount could have thrown something together. Also, this film was nominated for ten Oscars and won five; would it have been too much to ask for a list of them all? Paramount has never been known for their extra content, and while they put more effort into Braveheart, I find them lacking. It is a shame, especially in light of the treatment that other studios give inferior flicks like Independence Day, Men in Black, and Armageddon, not to mention the upcoming release of The Patriot.

Finally, a bit of a warning. This movie is not for the faint of heart, and it is certainly not for viewing by young children. The battle scenes are presented with incredible skill and realism, but it is not for everyone. Some viewers will probably be quite shocked by the graphic and realistic portrayal of medieval combat. In my mind these battles are central to telling Wallace's story, but others may find them too much to stomach.

Closing Statement

In the course of this review, I have tried to walk a fine line. I am as you can probably tell a great fan of this film, and I have endeavored to be objective. I have tried not to sound like a Paramount sales rep, but now I say this: if you have not bought this disc, go out and do so immediately. This is a respectable presentation of a great film, and it belongs in everyone's collection.

The Verdict

The film is acquitted on all counts. For even bringing it to trial the prosecutor is ordered to present himself before the court, place his head between his legs, and kiss his own…you know the rest.

Paramount is once again convicted of shortchanging one of their outstanding titles. Although this disc is much more complete and has a much better selection of extra material than Paramount's previous criminal record would lead us to expect, it is hardly sufficient treatment for such a wonderful film. They have proven themselves incorrigible; drawing and quartering would be too good for them.

Note—William Mackay's outstanding book William Wallace: Brave Heart was indispensable in the preparation of this review, and much of my opening statement comes directly from his introduction.

[edit] Edinburgh University Film Society

Braveheart - Neil Chue Hong (01/12/96)

Braveheart is a film that seems to have been bursting to come out of the Scottish film industry for sometime. Strange then, that it took an Australian director, American writer, and Japanese and American money to make it come true.

Part romance, part action, it tells the story of the life of William Wallace, sworn protector of Scotland, from childhood to death, creating a highly emotional, yet immensely enjoyable, rollercoaster ride through this part of Scottish history (artistic license excepted). From the brutal slaying of his father, through the events which subsequently lead to his fight with his English, and his victories on the battlefield, up to his defeat and sacrifice Gibson excels, both as director and as star, and, though his accent falters, he manages to inject passion and humour into a character who could have turned into a medieval Rocky.

Long, bloody and pulsating with raw energy, it is a modern epic to challenge the like of Spartacus. Helped by a strong supporting cast including Patrick MacGoohan as the snarling English monarch, Edward the Longshanks and Angus MacFadyen and Ian Bannen as the conniving Bruce the younger and elder as well as Catherine MacCormack and Sophie Marceau as the love interests, it also has some of the best battle scenes ever seen (reminiscent of Excalibur on a bigger budget) and fully realises the futility of war whilst paying respect to those who fight it.

Braveheart may not quite match the epics it seeks to emulate and it might not have deserved the Oscar but that doesn't stop it from being a damn watchable film. It is not anti-English, as reported in the media, in fact it actually portrays all `races' concerned in both good and bad light, acknowledging that there can be evil and jealously lurking anywhere. A huge commercial hit in Scotland (and America, and Australia), attracting people who previously would never have come to see a film, this will get your heart racing. It's the quickest three hours you'll sit through. Simply unmissable.

"Breathtaking beauty, resonating brutality and rip-roaringly good story-telling *****" - Empire

Let me get one thing straight before you accuse me of misleading you: Braveheart is definitely NOT historically accurate. Although it may pretend to present a true depiction of the events of that time, it's really just Hollywood glamourising the story again. This does not in any way detract from the main reason you should be watching this film --- for enjoyment.

Braveheart is very much fashioned in the mould of the great epics such as Ben Hur or Spartacus, with a charismatic leading man rallying his supporters against the enemy. And Gibson does provide that charm with gym-toned muscles pumping and immaculately tousled hair extensions twirling, his perfect blue eyes piercing the clouds of betrayal and humiliation. As actor he lends a more quirky interpretation of a leader of men, which bears comparison with his performance as the troubled Prince of Denmark in Zeferelli's Hamlet. In both he is at his best in the action scenes, and there are some outstanding ones in Braveheart. Unfortunately, in his long, extended speeches about freedom, choice and Scotland, his accent tends towards a back-of-throat growl which is practically indecipherable, and his delivery is often over the top, too impassioned if that can be the case. As director, in only his second feature (after The Man Without A Face) he does impressively well for what could be slated as just another vanity piece.

By and large the rest of the cast does a good job of keeping up with the enthusiasm of Gibson. Perhaps the best of them is Angus MacFadyen whose portrayal of Robert the Bruce is both human and touching. Torn between his duties to his clan and his desire to see Scotland free, he eventually lets his heart decide. Catherine MacCormack does a reasonable impression of the Scots lass whom Gibson sweeps off her feet. Indeed Gibson takes a brave path by building up her character before despatching her unexpectedly, although it could be argued that this is necessary to explain Wallace's own change from peaceful crofter to rampaging fighter. As the lonesome French princess, Sophie Marceau certainly looks very nice (although in real history she would have been about 10 at the time) but really only serves as a female foil against which to balance the latter third of the film. Of course every film should have a snarling, mean, nasty, English bad guy and the wonderful Patrick MacGoohan fills the role well.

The struggle between MacGoohan's King Edward the Longshanks and Gibson's William Wallace provides the foundations on which the films outstanding battle set pieces are built on. Using many hundreds of volunteers from the Irish Reserve army, this is by far the most impressive portion of the film, a bloody and brutal segment that is unrivalled in recent cinema. The sense of inevitablilty that sinks on the viewer as the two sides square up and rush headlong at each other serves as a reminder of the real futility of war. In this film, the fighting is not glamourised; people fight to survive, people die. We see the classic portrayal of the sadistic upper ranks forcing their ordinary minions to fight the war for them.

[edit] DVD Empire

Mel Gibson stars on both sides of the camera, playing the lead role plus directing and producing this brawling, richly-detailed saga of fierce combat, tender love and the will to risk all that's precious for something more precious: freedom. In an emotionally charged performance, Gibson is William Wallace, a bold Scotsman who used the steel of his blade and the fire of his intellect to rally his countrymen to liberation. Filled with sword-clanging spectacle, Braveheart is a tumultuous tapestry of history come alive, "the most sumptuous and involving historical epic since Lawrence Of Arabia" (Rod Lurie, Los Angeles Magazine).

[edit] Reslife.com

Legendary Scottish warrior William Wallace (Mel Gibson) leads the overmatched and outnumbered Scots into battle against the tyrannical and powerful English army in the late 13th century in this sweeping epic.

REVIEWS

"Rousing, romantic adventure. . . Breathtaking. Furious energy. . . Some of the most vivid battle scenes ever filmed."- Peter Travers, ROLLING STONE

"A thundering battering ram of a movie! Gibson at his best."- Graham Fuller, INTERVIEW MAGAZINE

"The best of this year and one of the best films I’ve ever seen. . . The most sumptuous and involving historical epic since David Lean’s LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. . ."- Rod Lurie, ::LOS ANGELES MAGAZINE & 710 TALK RADIO

"An epic of monumental proportions. It grabs and never lets go. Powerful and gigantic in every respect. A cinematic triumph."- Barry Zevan, CHANNEL AMERICA

"BRAVEHEART has romance, humor and passion. It’s an action picture with lots of thrilling romantic scenes."- Roger Ebert, ABC-TV CHICAGO

"This film rocks! Go see it!"- John Sencio, MTV/TOP 20 VIDEO COUNTDOWN

"Gibson portrays the kind of big budget swashbuckler seldom seen on movie screens today. Action is nonstop. Full of passion."- Bruce Williamson, PLAYBOY MAGAZINE

"A 10! The most spectacular battle scenes ever. Terrific performances."- Gary Franklin, KCOP-TV LOS ANGELES

"Spectacular! Mel Gibson now joins the ranks as one of Hollywood’s finest directors."- Don Stotter, ENTERTAINMENT TIME-OUT

"A magnificent epic film. Fantastic!"- Jim Ferguson, PREVUE NETWORKS

"Pulsates with passion. Thrilling and exciting."- Barbara and Scott Siegel, SIEGEL ENTERTAINMENT SYNDICATE

"Magnificent! Mel is impeccable."- Guy Flatley, COSMOPOLITAN

"Moviemaking on a grand scale. A major achievement for director and star Mel Gibson."- Pat Collins, WWOR-TV

"A masterpiece of epic proportions."- Earl Dittman, TUNE-IN PUBLICATIONS

An impressive achievement."- Jack Kroll, NEWSWEEK

"Authentic. Intense. A heroic epic."- Gene Siskel, CBS THE MORNING

(5 stars) Deliriously romantic. Director Gibson has delivered a real drum-banger."- Mike Clark, USA TODAY

"One of the most spectacular entertainments in years! An explosive action movie. An exhilarating new-fashion epic."- Caryn James, THE NEW YORK TIMES

[edit] Austin Chronicle

Louis Black (05/26/95)

In the late 13th century, after England, under Edward I, extended its rule over Scotland, William Wallace helped lead the charge for Scottish independence. There is a real history of Wallace, though not much is actually known and much of what is comes from the unreliable 300-page poem by Blind Harry, written a century and a half after Wallace's adventures. Wallace was obsessed with liberty and freedom and, as was extremely rare then, incorruptible; he couldn't be bought with land or money. There is a historical person. Then there is this splendid, rousing adventure by Mel Gibson, a deliberate heroic myth-making tale that combines history with fantasy. Gibson, who starred, produced and directed, audaciously presents this as a classic adventure, without apology, telling the tale of a Scotland suppressed by King Edward I (McGoohan), of William Wallace (Gibson), a commoner who wanted nothing to do with the cause, of his falling in love, of tragic turns that forced him to take up arms in a war for freedom and liberty. Although it presents complex political relationships, these are mostly entanglements designed to complicate and enhance the plot rather than pose real ideological or historical relationships. Gibson plays fast and free with history, but Braveheart is a film of romance, of legend, of possibility, and of freedom. Deftly, Gibson directs this epic along; with most of the story racing to reach the screen, the almost three-hour film rarely drags until just before the end, and even then, redeems itself. No revisionist history here, and few dark undercurrents, war is made to look brutal and fruitless, and at the same time heroic. Wallace begins by leading a small band of rebels and is soon at the head of a large army fighting several battles destined to become famous. This is a movie of warfare, of smoke, of blood, and of fire. Action directing is unusually difficult; it requires enormous imagination to be able to cinematically convey a battle -- part of the genius of Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus is that the battle scenes are so coherent. We know where each side is, we know how and when they are crashing. Although Gibson occasionally overuses slow motion, the whole film is beautiful (shot by Legends of the Fall cinematographer John Toll), and the battle scenes are splendid. Lacking Kevin Costner-liberal-revisionist tendencies or Spartacus screenwriter Dalton Trumbo's overt politics, outside of celebrating violence, freedom, liberty, and the rights of the people against the uncaring nobles -- all as extremely broad and nonspecific concepts -- Braveheart offers no real vision. But it is the most thrilling epic since Clint Eastwood's The Ballad of Josey Wales; the scope is grand and the acting ideal for the film. If you can't stand a certain amount of body-hacking and naïve adventuring, then this is probably not for you, although Annie, planning to duck out in the middle and go book-shopping, found herself glued to her seat for the entire time. Epics frequently flail about, characters lost in dialogue rather than action, they climax too quickly, or offer great action scenes but no plot. Braveheart overcomes these problems; it is tightly scripted and beautifully directed. If The Wind and the Lion or Robin Hood (MGM's not Costner's) or Spartacus are your kind of films, Braveheart will delight. A month back, I had been pondering whether movies still held power for me. Then Annie and I saw the brilliant but harrowing Once Were Warriors. Afterwards, it was as a guest in our home and in our selves for days after, and Braveheart, not so ambitious or extraordinary, proved thrilling, a grand cinematic adventure -- beautifully handled myth-making from Gibson, who, by the way, is just fine in the lead.

[edit] Deranged Video Dude

It's no secret that Braveheart has been one of the most eagerly anticipated DVDs ever since the format was introduced. A quick search of the alt.video.dvd archives will reveal hundreds of posts begging, pleading, demanding and asking for this title. Well, it's finally here and the burning question is: Does it live up to expectations?

Braveheart is an historical epic, that odd Hollywood beast that attempts to spin real events into an entertaining format. It tells the tale of William Wallace and his efforts to free Scotland from the rule of England. However, simply because this movie is based upon real events doesn't mean the movie remains true to those events. If you want historical accuracy (or at least what passes for it), go watch a documentary or read a history book. While there are true-to-life elements in the film, Braveheart is first and foremost a product meant to entertain. In his commentary track, Gibson makes no apologies for any inaccuracies and many of them were conscious choices.

I am by no means finding fault with the choices between accuracy and storytelling. Almost without exception, the decisions made enhanced the tale. Even more important, the inaccuracies that are present maintain the flavor of the Wallace legend - the events might have happened this way.

The film opens with Wallace as a boy. Right from the beginning we are shown that these Scots are a tough people. When Wallace and another boy are playing war, they are just as happy to slug it out with each other as they are with throwing stones at the imaginary enemy. Parents likely dealt with as many broken noses as they did skinned knees.

Wallace's family is brutally murdered by the English and Wallace is sent away to live with an Uncle. This Uncle, a terrifying image of a battle scarred old warrior, proves to be a great influence to Wallace. He is educated in more than just the use of a sword and passes on his knowledge to Wallace.

Wallace returns to his village as an adult and resumes a romance with a childhood sweetheart. The budding romance is kept secret partly because the girl's parents don't fully approve (they see Wallace as a troublemaker, unwilling to settle down) and partly because Longshanks, the King of England, has imposed a First Night policy upon the Scots. In an effort to pollute the Scottish bloodline, an English soldier is permitted the first night, and all that implies, with any new Scottish bride.

Unwilling to participate in this practice, Wallace marries his sweetheart in secret. The English soldiers suspect the truth, however, and demand their right from Wallace's bride. She resists them and is put to death. This ignites a fire within Wallace that won't be extinguished by anything less than England's withdrawal from Scotland. He uses his passion and anger to stir up his countrymen and incite a revolution.

Watching the film, one can easily appreciate how difficult a time Mel Gibson must have had playing the part of William Wallace. Not only is it a physically demanding role, but it's also an emotional roller coaster. It's also easy to appreciate how difficult a movie of this scale must have been to direct. That Gibson also tackled that side of it makes this film a monumental achievement due to the fact that he hits all the right notes on both sides of the camera.

Aside from the superb performances by everyone involved, this film also looks fantastic. We find out in Gibson's commentary that much of the film's look was nearly accidental (it rained so much that they had no choice but to shoot in it), but it doesn't matter. Whether planned or not, every shot lends to the epic scope of the film.

Braveheart's battle scenes get talked about a lot and they deserve every bit of praise heaped upon them. Every time I see the film, I'm amazed that such vividly realistic battles could be depicted without really killing off half of the extras. I know that there is a lot less violence actually onscreen than what we think we see. It's a testament to the filming, editing and choreography that those scenes come across as utterly convincing as they do.

As I said, the DVD release of the film was highly anticipated. It's my understanding that Paramount delayed its initial plans for the disc until Gibson's schedule allowed for him to record a commentary track. It's efforts such as that one that make a DVD release special. This isn't a crammed special edition, but it's good stuff nonetheless.

[edit] Washington Post

Desson Howe (05/26/95)

I'm no historian, as Mrs. Taylor often reminded me at school, but I have the gravest doubts that 13th-century Scottish rebel William Wallace instructed his troops to moon the English at the beginning of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Perfunctory research in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and a few other sources has failed to, uh, uncover any such incident. But according to Mel Gibson's bloody, glib, saccharin and lengthy "Braveheart," the troops of Edward I were met with more than just a display of Scottish might. If the movie achieves little else, it puts to rest that age-old question about what Scotsmen wear under their kilts.

Gibson's second directorial effort, in which the oppressed people of Scotland are led to freedom by a short man with dazzling blue eyes, a dreadlock wig, an Australian accent and excellent biceps, is a rambling disappointment.

The movie, written by ex-television scriptwriter Randall Wallace (whose potential blood connection to his subject is undetermined), starts off at a disastrous limp. For a good 50 minutes, we watch Wallace evolve from boy to man, grow all that hair, then woo and wed childhood sweetheart Murron (Catherine McCormack).

Then after Murron runs somewhat afoul of the rapacious English law (in which English overlords get to sample the goods of brides on their wedding night), Wallace becomes an instant populist leader.

Accompanied by strongman Hamish (Brendan Gleeson as Little John to Gibson's Robin Hood) and wild Irishman Stephen (David O'Hara in a psychotically endearing performance), Wallace rallies the clans for a major confrontation with the Sassenachs south of the border. He also attempts to mobilize the Scottish nobles (including Angus McFadyen as Robert the Bruce), but the allegiances of these figureheads are shaky.

When Wallace's men (flush with their mooning success) take the war into the English town of York, brutal King Edward I, a k a Edward the Longshanks (Patrick "Secret Agent" McGoohan), decides it's time to crush the threatening Scot. He also dispatches Isabelle (Sophie Marceau), his French daughter-in-law (unhappily married to Edward's theatrically effete, namesake-son), to engage McMad Max with false concessions and Gallic comeliness.

What little is known of the real Wallace comes from isolated facts and a lengthy, fanciful ballad attributed to (I am not making this up) a sightless poet known as Blind Harry. So Gibson has much available license. However, he's excessive on every front, whether it's the syrupy, backlighted romance between Wallace and Murron or the heather-thronged killing fields. Authentic brutality is one thing, but making the point over and over again is the mark of an overeager neophyte.

If "Braveheart" were any longer, it would have to be moved around by flatbed truck. By the time the story trudges to its hyper-climactic close (with Gibson's appetite for historical, gory detail in major overdrive), you feel as though you marched through a couple of meaningless campaigns.

Anyone with good hair and a few rock videos (or a lucrative acting career) can get a director's job from the studios these days. But few can guide a big project to more than competent completion. Gibson, who previously directed "The Man Without a Face," has shown the world how good he looks in a kilt. He has demonstrated how easily he can arouse women of the Middle Ages: Marceau and her handmaiden go giddy at the mere mention of his name. And yes, he has guided this tale to completion. But now it's time to put the pants back on and return to Los Angeles. Veteran detective Danny Glover, who is still facing retirement, needs help against an international terrorist ring—or something like that.

[edit] Washington Post (2nd review)

By Hal Hinson (05/24/95)

There's all too little opportunity in modern life for righteous anger—particularly of the sort that affords the aggrieved party license to take off an enemy's arm with a broadsword. Not so in the 13th century, when men were men, and certainly not during the life of William Wallace, the fierce Scottish lord whose rebellion against the English is the subject of Mel Gibson's hunk-driven historical epic, "Braveheart."

According to Gibson—who functions as producer-director-star for this nearly three-hour movie—and screenwriter Randall Wallace, the great Scot is a hero in the Robin Hood mode. A common farmer who wants simply to be left alone to work his land, Wallace has seen Edward I slaughter his country's nobles, tax its clansmen and claim the right to sleep with the brides of all Scotsmen on their first night of marriage. Even so, Wallace does not initially join some of the others in their uprising against the king, preferring to remain on the sidelines.

Soon, however, the British attack his own family—including his childhood beloved (Catherine McCormack)—and though Wallace may be slow to boil, he makes up for it by hurling himself into battle with murderous abandon. In the process, Wallace becomes one of the nation's founding fathers—like Rob Roy—followed by a motley pickup army that sees him as a sort of living myth. Actually, "Braveheart" might not have seemed quite so ordinary—or so monstrously long—just three months ago, before the release of "Rob Roy"; now it's merely the second-best film about Scotland around. Both films are ostensibly historical romances; "Braveheart," though, emphasizes the history over the romance. Gibson seems to have consciously chosen a character whose impulse toward action is the opposite of another of his recent roles—Hamlet.

Powerfully built with a wild mane of chestnut hair flying behind him, Wallace is a simple, uncomplicated man. Similarly, the movie doesn't have any lofty ambitions. It is entertaining, especially when the director sets his armies in motion against each other. These colorful, lavishly violent battles are easily the movie's most impressive scenes. In terms of sheer spectacle, they're expertly orchestrated in a manner that, though not particularly original, still manages to be both stirring and beautiful.

Unfortunately, the energy from these high points doesn't spill over into the rest of the movie. After Wallace's initial attempt to boot the Brits out of Scotland fails, the movie can't quite get up to speed again. All that's left, really, is for Wallace to repeat himself by, again, winning the war on the battlefield only to lose it in the negotiations that follow.

Gibson may be ambitious as a director and producer here, but not as an actor. Though the character is immense, Gibson keeps him human with an appealingly boyish performance. He's obviously having a whale of a time with a character who not only speaks French, Latin and Italian and romances an alluring French princess-turned-spy (Sophie Marceau), but also, periodically, wades thigh-deep into human gore.

Wallace's defining characteristic is his intelligence; instead of simply overwhelming his foes, he outfoxes them, turning their superior size and inflexibility against them. But for a story whose hero is supposedly such a brain, "Braveheart" doesn't seem to have much on its mind. The movie itself is very old-Hollywood, in its casual mixing of historical and melodramatic elements. The costumes are the latest in medieval grunge, the cinematography is expansive and transporting, and the supporting cast outclasses the star (Patrick McGoohan as Edward and Marceau as the French Princess Isabelle are especially fun). In making "Braveheart," Gibson has proved that he is a competent director, capable of handling ambitious projects with large casts and big production costs. He has created a completely adequate modern facsimile of the classic romantic epic.

[edit] ReelViews.Net

James Berardinelli

(4/4 stars)

The crown jewel of 1995's summer blockbusters appears to have arrived early. It's hard to imagine any motion picture released between now and August matching Mel Gibson's Braveheart for spectacle. With its clashing armies, heartstopping action, and grand sense of romance, this is the sort of film it's a pleasure to see and review.

Let me state my preferences up front. I'm a big fan of the epic adventure, a category in which Braveheart, like cream, rises to the top. There's a lot in this film that's praiseworthy -- not the least of which is its ambition. Those viewing this picture may be easily reminded of Gettysburg, The Last of the Mohicans, Glory, and such classics as Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid, and Spartacus. The grandeur is certainly present; nevertheless, Gibson gives us not only memorable battles, but characters of real substance.

Borrowing from masters like Sam Peckinpah and David Lean, the actor/director has crafted an exceptional cinematic tapestry in only his sophomore effort. Most of the time, three hour movies have a few flat spots, but Braveheart is constantly on the move -- riveting from start to finish. When the end credits began to roll, I was hard pressed to accept that nearly 170 minutes had elapsed.

The title character is William Wallace (Gibson), a hero of Scottish history whose legend has surely outstripped fact (in its own unique way, the film acknowledges this). Wallace fought for Scotland's freedom in the late 13th century, wielding his broadsword and influence to defeat the forces of King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan), the British monarch who had declared himself king of Scotland upon the former ruler's demise.

Braveheart builds slowly to its first gritty climax. Much of the early film concentrates on Wallace's love for Murron (Catherine McCormack). Their courtship is unhurried, yet this is all preparation. The real meat of the story, which includes political mechanations, betrayal, and dramatic battles, is yet to come. Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" That might well be Wallace's motto. "It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom!" The nobles of Scotland fight for land and riches, but Wallace stands for the individual, and earns respect with words and deeds.

Bulked up and wearing a long-haired wig, Gibson brings his usual wealth of charisma to the title role. Patrick McGoohan, best known from TV's Secret Agent Man and The Prisoner, is almost unrecognizable beneath a snowy beard. His Edward the Longshanks exudes an aura of cold menace. He's a worthy foe for Wallace because his intelligence matches his ruthlessness. Sophie Marceau, the French actress who plays Princess Isabelle, and Catherine McCormack are both immensely appealing.

Braveheart is a brutal, bloody motion picture, but the violence is not gratuitous. The maimings, decapitations, and other assorted gruesome details make Wallace's world seem real and immediate. In addition, few theatrical moments make a more eloquent statement against war than when Gibson shows women and children weeping over the dead on a body-littered battlefield. War is a two-headed beast, and both faces -- the glorious and the tragic -- are depicted.

Lately, certain films have come in pairs: two Robin Hoods, two Columbuses, two Earps, and now two Highlander epics. Rob Roy, the first, is a fine motion picture. Braveheart, however, is better, offering an exhilarating, and occasionally touching, experience that has viewers leaving the theater caught up in an afterglow of wonder. These days, heros like William Wallace are as rare as motion picture displays of this high, uncompromising quality.

[edit] Beyond Hollywood Online

(also good images at bottom of review)

Movie Grade: 5/5

Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" was a monumental film, and it's not too much to say that it single-handedly revolutionized the way war films are made today. Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan," for all of its bloodbath and "war is really really hell" scenes, came after Gibson's opus about a commoner Scotsman who rises up to oppose the powerful English army that holds 13th century Scotland in a tyrannical grip.

::"Braveheart" stars (and also director) Mel Gibson as William Wallace, the commoner Scotsman who unites all of Scotland under one banner to fight off the English, who are superior in force and, well, everything else. Wallace himself was a pacifist, having lived through his own father's murder at the hands of the English, and been educated in foreign lands by his uncle thereafter. After he returns home as an adult, and after the English murders his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack), Wallace leads a rebellion that eventually pushes Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan), the king of England, to the brink of defeat.

What makes "Braveheart" so good? For one, it takes the phrase "war is hell" and makes it "war is really really hell" by showing the most gruesome medieval combat to ever come down the Hollywood pipe. After "Braveheart" changed the way filmmakers looked at not only medieval combat but combat in war movies in general, anything short of making battle scenes as gruesome and as hellish as possible becomes a letdown. Consider the John Woo World War II movie, "Windtalkers," which looked like a trip to summer camp compared to Spielberg's "Ryan" and Terrence Malick's "Thin Red Line." War is hell, and it started here with "Braveheart."

Besides its breakthrough treatment of warfare, "Braveheart" also has a very good sense of romanticism, which might seem like a contradiction in a movie about men smashing each other over the head with hammers and slicing off each other's limbs at will. But "Braveheart" makes it work, mostly because the actors sell their roles so well, and director Gibson is able to translate the script of Randall Wallace ("We Were Soldiers") to screen by making it accessible and, dare I say it, flesh and blood.

The film is really bookended by two love stories, one in the beginning with Wallace and Murron, and a second in the second half with Wallace and Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau). The romance between Wallace and Isabelle is unexpected, but works in the confines of the movie. It also gives us a breather by taking us away from the bloodbaths in the battlefield and makes the movie, once again, seem within our reach (we all know about new love, but how many of us have cleaved someone's head off at the shoulders with a sword?). All the credit goes to Gibson for being able to balance two very opposite themes with near perfection.

It can't be stressed enough how magnificent this film is, especially in light of the fact that it was only the second film directed by Mel Gibson (who has not directed another movie since). Besides having a firm grasp on the film's romantics, Gibson shows an incredible feeling for the battle scenes. The movie is exceptionally well balanced between the romance and the violence. The sheer logistics of the film's gigantic battle sequences alone would drive a veteran director insane, and yet under Gibson's care, the film feels coherent even when nothing seems so onscreen.

Critics might say the film takes too many liberties with history, and in fact it does. There are numerous examples, but this is by no means a "true account" type of film. In fact, the movie's main hero (William Wallace) is a legend on the scale of Joan of Arc, and no one is really sure he actually existed in the first place! Does it matter? Of course not. "Braveheart" is a movie that is best looked on as sheer fantasy entertainment – one that breaks every single rule and creates new ones for others to follow.

And if you think Gibson and writer Randall Wallace (no relation to the character) are afraid to break with tradition, consider the movie's ending. It's a brave film, and even braver filmmakers, who refuses to let his main character be gloriously killed off in battle, but instead Wallace is dispatched by way of…

Well, I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen this gem. But needless to say, you will never see the twist coming, and the ending is as poetic as any film I've seen.

If you want to compare "Braveheart" to another film, only Malick's "Thin Red Line" comes close. Both films are violent, about violent men doing violent things, but through it all, they manage to remain very human.

[edit] LA Times/CalendarLive.com

PETER RAINER, TIMES STAFF WRITER (5/24/95)

In "Braveheart," Mel Gibson plays 13th-Century Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace, and, boy, is his heart ever brave. So are his eyes, his mane, his pecs, his knuckles. But he's not just brave--he's smart too. As the young William's father tells the boy just before the British slaughter him, "It's our wits that make us men."

At close to three hours, "Braveheart" is a great big chunk of brogues and pillaging and whooping. Gibson, who also directed, is priming us for an epic experience--"Spartacus" in kilts. As a filmmaker, he lacks the epic gift, but the movie, scripted by Randall (no relation) Wallace, works on a fairly basic level as a hiss-the-English medieval Western. Gibson's calisthenic efforts are clunky but they're not boring, at least not until the film moves into battle overkill in the third hour and the soundtrack turns into one big * aaarrgh .

Wallace, who leads a rebellion against the tyrannical English King Edward the Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan) after his wife (Catherine McCormack) is tragically sundered, is a celebrated Scottish hero about whom very little that isn't legendary is known.

Gibson plunges straight into the folklore. Just before the battle of Stirling, where his men are hopelessly outnumbered against the British, Wallace rouses his troops with a speech that plays like a Classics Illustrated version of the St. Crispin's Day speech from Shakespeare's "Henry V."

Once he gets the fighting spirit early on, Wallace never lightens up, not even when he's knocking around with his shaggy Wild Bunch of fellow liberators--the burly porcine Hamish (Brendan Gleeson), the Irish hothead Stephen (David O'Hara) and the old warrior Campbell (James Cosmo), who yanks arrows out of his chest with his bare hands and then laughs lustily. These guys aren't just medieval: They're practically Cro-Magnon.

Even though Wallace practically keens with a love for freedom, the real reason the Scots whoop and war in this film appears to be less than transcendent. With all the horrors inflicted by the English, the film portrays the Scots as perpetually ready-to-rumble, even among their own clans. Freedom is a guy thing. (In a recent New Yorker, a Ziegler cartoon depicts a clan of warring Scots with the caption, "Has it ever occurred to anyone that if we stopped wearing these damned skirts we wouldn't have to march off to defend our manhood every five minutes?")

With such a bunch, it would be a feat to hold up the English as much worse than anybody else. But Gibson has his ace in the hole: Patrick McGoohan is in possession of perhaps the most villainous enunciation in the history of acting. (Who can forget the way he ripped into the word * scanners in "Scanners"?)

In actual history, King Edward came up with the idea of Parliament--no mean feat--but here he's a lizardly terror. And he's given a gay son, Prince Edward (Peter Hanly), who is depicted as such a mincing recidivist caricature that, when his father cautions him that he may one day become king, you half expect him to add, "or . . . queen?"

Gibson realizes he needs a love interest to soften up his Wide World of War so he periodically works in kissy pastoral interludes involving Wallace's wife and, later, Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau), the daughter of the French king who is married to the prince but who hankers for the fiery Scot. The ruffian impresses her at their first powwow by speaking to her in French, then in Latin. When they clasp against sylvan settings, her fiery long tresses are twinned with his. Gibson's longhaired look not only outdoes Liam Neeson in "Rob Roy," it even trumps Brad Pitt in "Legends of the Fall." (Did the title of that film refer to Pitt's mane?)

The battle scenes are more impressive than the love scenes. From a commercial standpoint, Gibson may be wondering, particularly with his female fans: If they come to see me, will they stay for the beheadings? The skirmishes are well-staged. The rain of British arrows upon the Scots has an obscene horror--shot high into the air, they dart down deep into flesh. The Scots' ingenious use of 14-foot sharpened poles at Stirling is a ringing endorsement of the wits-that-make-us-men stuff.

But Gibson, as a director, doesn't go beyond the good guys/bad guys war plan. For the battle scenes to be great, they would have to show us how the Scots, especially when they pushed into York, were also driven into frenzies of inhumanity. The film never tries to confuse our loyalties or question the strategies of our hero or bring home the all-embracing soul-destroying horrors of war for * all sides. "Braveheart" may be rip-roaring, but it isn't all that brave.

Braveheart, 1995. R, for brutal medieval warfare. A Paramount Pictures release of an Icon Productions/Ladd Co. production. Director Mel Gibson. Producers Mel Gibson, Alan Ladd Jr., Bruce Davey. Executive producer Stephen McEveety. Screenplay by Randall Wallace. Cinematographer John Toll. Editor Steven Rosenblum. Costumes Charles Knode. Music James Horner. Production design Tom Sanders. Set decorator Peter Howitt.

[edit] MIT/TheTech

Gibson directs a historical triumph in Braveheart - Teresa Esser

Mel Gibson's Braveheart is a curious compostion of historical legends and modern dramatic techniques woven together into a tapestry of connected stories. With the plot based loosely on Scotland's real-life struggle for independence from England and the screenplay straight from modern Hollywood, the three-hour show reminds one more of Lethal Weapon and Pulp Fiction than the other medieval Scottish movie of the summer, Rob Roy.

The movie's plot is rather complex. Young William Wallace follows his father and brother to a peacemaking meeting in a remote Scottish barn, where they find their noble countrymen dead and swinging from the rafters. When William's father and brother ride off to avenge this trickery (and meet their own deaths), young William is adopted by his cosmopolitan uncle. Schooled in Latin and French and introduced to the wonders of continental Europe, William returns years later to his tiny village determined to settle down and marry his childhood sweetheart, Murron (Catherine McCormack). Wallace's domestic bliss is extremely shtort lived, for the evil British lords slit Murron's throat.

Thus provoked, Wallace assembles his friends and neighboring clansmen into an army, burns the British forts and charges toward the English border.

Braveheart increases its appeal by contrasting these highland goings-on with portrayals of British regal life. As evil King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan) grows older, he worries more and more about what will happen after his death. Frustrated with his heir's homosexuality, he literarally picks up his son's lover and throws him out a tower window. The French-born queen-to-be, Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau), kills time by wandering through the castle corridors, gossiping with her lady-in-waiting and lamenting her nonexistent love life.

The Scottish clansmen and the English royalty intersect when Isabelle becomes infatuated with the passionate peasant hero, Wallace. Sent by the tricky king to offer gold and a truce to Wallace in person, her crush intensifies when she learns that the "savage" is tri-lingual. Suffice it to say that their covert liaison threatens to reconfigure the royal bloodline.

Although the Scots have a impassioned ringleader and military strategist on their side, their cause is weakened by the handful of wishy-washy and traitorous nobles who managed to survive Edward's last round of peace-talk hangings. In addition to these internal conflict, the English army has a decided technological advantage

Starving, ill-equipped and vastly outnumbered, the rebellious Scots take on legion after legion of Britian's best in a series of bass-underscored battlescenes guarenteed to get your heart pounding. "They fought like warrior poets," the narrator says. Unfortunately, they died like misguided lemmings.

Although a great many of the scenes in Braveheart are unusually gruesome, it is difficult to avoid being drawn in to the ubiquitous life-and-death struggles. The battle scenes may be far-fetched and the sheer quantity of impaled, gouged, hacked, or smashed bodies a bit extreme, but the film as a whole is immensely satisfying.

[edit] Plugged In Online

A nominee for 10 Academy Awards and the winner of five (including Best Picture and Best Director), Braveheart captures both the picturesque serenity and abject brutality of 13th-century Scotland and her quest for independence from England’s cruel pagan ruler, King Edward I (aka Longshanks). Leading the charge in this bloody campaign is Scottish hero William Wallace, a warrior whose dreams of a home, family and peace are quickly snuffed out by English tyranny. Now, his only quest is freedom. Both a brilliant military strategist and a savage warrior, Wallace tackles oppression head-on, yet faces resistance from comfortable bourgeois countrymen reluctant to rock the boat. Such compromise sickens Wallace who, oddly enough, wins the heartfelt support of lovely Princess Isabelle, Longshanks’ under-appreciated daughter-in-law. This often violent tale is part history, part mythology, all action-adventure. At its core lies a fundamental life-and-death struggle for what so many 21st-century Americans take for granted ... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

positive elements: Early in the film, a young Wallace receives sage advice from his father who tells him, "I know you can fight, but it’s our wits that make us men." Following his father’s death, William’s uncle reinforces this by telling him that using one’s intellect should precede the use of force. A girl demonstrates kindness and sympathy by, without a word, handing the grieving orphan a flower at his father’s funeral (this is the girl Wallace will later marry). The boy decides to travel abroad, learn numerous languages and work toward an enviable education.

Fighting for one’s noble convictions—indeed, a willingness to die for them—is central to this 3-hour saga. Wallace is a devoted, loving husband before becoming an inspirational leader of men. He also shows humility by asking for forgiveness from his father-in-law following his wife’s murder. When he rallies troops to medieval combat, he doesn’t watch from a distance like Longshanks does; he stands at the front of the charge. Wallace’s own brutality in war is not without a decent respect for women and children. He has little patience with political squabbling among well-to-do Scots afraid to enter the fray. In fact, when he tells them, "You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom," American viewers may rise up, cheer wildly and wish he could materialize in Washington to address Congress. After betraying Wallace to the English, a fellow Scot experiences regret, saves Wallace’s life and tells his rationalizing father, "No! I will never be on the wrong side again" (after Wallace’s death, it is he who spearheads the battle that finally wins Scotland its freedom). Even faced with public torture and sure martyrdom, Wallace prays for strength and refuses to bow to the evil authority of Longshanks.

spiritual content: A religious funeral (spoken mostly in Latin) includes a clearly Christian benediction. Wallace states, "God makes men what they are," which may not be entirely true (often a man created by God can make ungodly choices that shape his identity), but at least his statement recognizes that individuals are part of a divine plan. A mercenary warrior mixes spirituality with bloodlust and dicey language, and claims to have been sent by the Almighty to kill Englishmen. Wallace makes a sincere plea to his comrades in the name of Christ, and later prays for strength to face a painful fate.

sexual content: Longshanks decrees that whenever a Scottish nobleman is married, Englishmen are to have sex with the bride first in order to "breed out" the Scots. There’s breast nudity and implied sex between Wallace and his new bride (whom he marries in secret because he refuses to share her with any other men). In one scene, a lecherous soldier tries to take advantage of Wallace’s wife. Much later, the widowed Wallace sleeps with Princess Isabelle, who has grown romantically attached to the passionate patriot. It is strongly implied that Prince Edward and his male aide are involved in a homosexual relationship. Dialogue between the princess and her handmaid reveals the servant’s promiscuity.

violent content: Many brutal combat scenes more than justify Braveheart’s R rating. Men are bludgeoned with maces, struck with axes, hit in the face with arrows, set on fire, speared, stabbed, impaled, hanged, decapitated and beaten to a pulp. A leg is severed. A man loses his hand. Another is gouged in the throat with a set of antlers. Horses and their riders are speared with long poles. Several people have their throats cut. The most disturbingly graphic occurrence involves Wallace casually slitting the throat of the man who killed his wife in similar fashion. It’s easy to feel for him, but he seems to enjoy his vengeance a little too much. In separate incidents, Longshanks has his archers fire into a scrum aware that his own men will be hit, and personally hurls his son’s gay lover out a tower window to his death. Wallace beheads the king’s nephew and sends Uncle Longshanks the disembodied noggin in a basket. Bloodied bodies litter the landscape following vicious hand-to-hand combat.

crude or profane language: About a dozen profanities, including two f-words.

other negative elements: To antagonize the enemy, Wallace’s army moons the opposing troops.

conclusion: There’s something especially compelling about the person of William Wallace, a larger-than-life revolutionary who operated under Nike’s "Just Do It" mantra centuries before heroes started pulling down six-figure endorsement deals. To face martyrdom so bravely. To die with one word on his lips—freedom—as he’s being drawn and quartered. To reject being "bought out," but rather to persevere on behalf of his oppressed countrymen, their children and their children’s children. Just as in Gibson’s more recent war story, The Patriot, there are a lot of healthy messages here. But just as in The Patriot, this Oscar-winner asks audiences to endure raw, extremely graphic violence along the way. Now available on DVD, Braveheart can be viewed in all of its widescreen splendor—great when the cinematographer focuses on fog-swept hillsides enriched by James Horner’s soothing Celtic score, but a little less desirable when painted barbarians are butchering each other in living color. Is the extreme violence necessary to convey the events leading to Scotland’s liberation? I’m not convinced that it had to be quite so extreme, explicit and, in a few cases, exploitative. Leaving a bit more to the imagination would have made Braveheart a more accessible entertainment without diminishing its inherently powerful messages.

special DVD features: A pair of rousing theatrical trailers are joined by a 28-minute "making of" featurette that includes background on William Wallace (and shows the monument to him that still stands today), interviews with the cast and crew, and a look behind the scenes at how Gibson staged and choreographed the battle scenes.

There’s also a version of the film overlaid with commentary by Oscar-winning director/star Mel Gibson that’s interesting, but seems rather flat considering Gibson’s manic story-telling ability.

[edit] FilmCritic.Com

-Christopher Null

Mel Gibson deserves a lot more credit than I've been giving him. A few years ago, no one could have conceived that the action star could pull off the lead role in a dazzling, epic, historical adventure-thriller-romance, let alone direct it. But he does, making Braveheart a vastly entertaining and powerful film.

Gibson plays Scottish hero William Wallace, a Scotsman with simple roots who finds himself thrust into a role as leader of the Scottish revolt against England in the late 13th century. After the despicable King Edward the Longshanks (Edward I) decrees that English nobles will have the right to sexual relations with all newly-wed Scottish women, the revolution is set in motion. Wallace takes up the cause, only to find himself facing incredible odds against a superior English army and fighting Scottish nobles who want to negotiate peace instead of fight. In fact, it's the nobles who turn out to be the bigger obstacle.

The film is exquisite in its melding of romance, political intrigue, and some of the most effective (and gory) battle scenes I've ever watched. At the forefront is the surprisingly capable portrayal of Wallace by Gibson, who comes off as such an awesome Everyman hero that he makes Rob Roy look like a wuss. Also, the film is so effective at making the English seem so overwhelmingly evil--really evil--that the audience is nearly ready to rush the screen. Patrick McGoohan, who plays the embodiment of this evil in King Edward, deserves an early nod as Best Supporting Actor for his staggering portrayal.

The only real problem with the film is that it is way too long. Clocking in at three hours, Gibson spends far too much time on certain sequences, like the half-hour of Wallace as a child. While entertaining, they add little to the picture as a whole, and the long panning shots of the Scottish highlands, while beautiful, get old after awhile.

Thematically, Braveheart explores the definitions of honor and nobility, reinforcing what we've always known: that true nobility is not the result of your birthright, but that it arises from the way you live your life. It's an excellent reminder that stays with you long after the film is over, and that is all too rare in Hollywood these days.

[edit] San Francisco Chronicle

Macho Mel Beats His Chest in Bloody `Braveheart' -PETER STACK (Wednesday, (05/24/95)

So point-blank violent that some viewers will struggle to keep brave stomachs, Mel Gibson's long, gritty and histrionic ``Braveheart faces an uphill battle to win anything but begrudging respect from even the most gullible of hero worshipers.

Three hours long, ``Braveheart stars Gibson with newcomer Catherine McCormack as his fiery black-eyed love and a wonderfully gnarly-looking Patrick McGoohan as his nemesis, King Edward the Longshanks. It opens today at Bay Area theaters.

Gibson directed himself as the kilt-clad hero in ``Braveheart as if he were giving the ultimate full- fist salute to freedom-loving souls and Christian believers. At times the film seems an obsessive ode to Mel Gibson machismo.

WARRIOR AND FIREBRAND

There's also no denying that Gibson is a robust screen presence. But playing the part of legendary 13th century Scottish ``freedom fighter William Wallace, Gibson

wants to be righteous warrior, silver-tongued democratic firebrand and Christ figure in one fell swoop. But the swoop doesn't fall fast enough, and ``Braveheart -- complete with Gibson on a cross -- bumps along for at least one hour too many. Frequent slow-motion sequences offer little more than a chance to study the sumptuous but ultimately burdensome details, not the least of which is Gibson himself, who looks like a '70s rock and roll idol from some Celtic thrash band.

Some of ``Braveheart's smaller parts are also the most memorable -- the too-brief appearance of British beauty McCormack as the hero's clandestine wife; the pointedly amusing portrayal of King Edward's son as a swishy homosexual (Peter Hanly) unwilling to ful fill the sexual desires of his pouty wife, French princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau); the Scottish warriors baring their pinkish manhood to British legions in prebattle rituals. Then there's the blue war paint on Gibson's face that makes him look like a crazy, time-warped San Jose Sharks fan.

There's no denying ``Braveheart is an eyeful. The battle scenes are staged with enough dramatic sweep to make De Mille envious. They have a gritty bite that helps keep Braveheart big and boldly handsome.

IMPRESSIVE TREAT

Sometimes hauntingly beautiful in its green, mud-daubed and gray-sky tones (mostly Irish locations) and accompanied by a James Horner sound track that becomes a Celtic serenade between thunderous sword clanks, the film is an impressive feast. But as many people who live in beautiful places know, scenery alone doesn't pay the bills.

Braveheart comes up short by beating the drums of human treachery and violence so loudly

they become assaults. The film repeatedly sabotages its best intentions by almost smirkingly forcing upon viewers a repugnant violence that after a while has a mechanical feel to it. It depicts with graphic realism enough eviscerations, decapitations, disembowelments, dismemberments, defenestrations and skewerings that the overall effect is numbing.

The overstated depiction of the ``freedom-crying hero in sequences reminiscent of the crucifixion scenes in ``Spartacus are so farfetched they simply make Gibson look foolishly self-aggrandizing.

If Gibson's intention is to remind viewers that the Middle Ages were a brutish time for warriors, it's a hollow gesture. His eagerness to capitalize on the '90s fixation with near-pornographic depictions of violence makes ``Braveheart inappropriate for young audiences -- or anybody sensitive to spurting, oozing blood and spilled guts.

It's the late 13th century and young farmer William Wallace (Gibson) is living under a ruthless pagan king of England, Edward the Longshanks (McGoohan), a cunning cuss obsessed with holding sway over the tribal Scots and their lands. Longshanks tries a number of treacherous political tactics, leaving scars on Wallace's impressionable young soul.

When Wallace is old enough to seek a mate, he marries his childhood sweetheart, a beauty named Murron (McCormack), but the English have made a terrible demand on Scottish marriages -- all new brides are subject to a ``first night of forced sex by British lords.

Wed in secret, Wallace's bride is nonetheless snatched by the British and is killed when she fights off rape by a British soldier. Hatred becomes revenge, and Wallace rallies defiant Scots from various clans to rise up against the treacherous king.

The depiction of the Scottish warriors as hearty, macho rough- and-tumble types is affectionate and fun. Several characterizations are finely shaded portrayals of earthy, believable people -- Irish actor Brendan Gleeson as the robust Wallace crony Hamish; James Cosmo as the tough old coot Campbell; Peter Hanly as the gay Prince Edward; Angus McFadyen as soul- tormented Robert the Bruce.

[edit] Movie Gazette

-Gary Panton

Hills, bagpipes, mist, the word "Scotland" written along the bottom of the screen - it can only be one place. That's right, Wales. Nah, only joking - as if anyone would ever make a film about Wales.

Mel Gibson both directed and starred in this tartan-clad epic about William Wallace, the legendary Scottish freedom fighter/terrorist who, even way back in the 14th Century, had already had enough of the English going on about winning the World Cup in 1966. So, armed with just some rocks, a few hundred muck-dwellers and an extremely peculiar accent, he led a nation to fight for freedom from English tyranny. Or something along those lines.

It's actually fairly appropriate to be so vague about all of this, because nobody really knows all that much about the real Wallace (and most of what we do know comes from a poem). You could spend a lifetime picking apart the historical inaccuracies in the flick, and there would still be those who'd disagree with what you found.

Because of that, how much enjoyment you can get from this 177-minute beast depends largely on your willingness to accept Wallace as a charmer with biting wit and a permanently clean-shaven chin. As the sort of bloke beautiful French princesses would hand over national secrets to simply because of the way he looks at them. Or even just as a guy who doesn't smell like moss.

The most breath-taking, if gruesome, parts of the movie are the incredibly lifelike battle scenes. Putting them together must have been an immense project to undertake, but you've got to hand it to Gibbers - he does it very, very well. He also makes a likable hero figure, providing you can put to the back of your mind the fact that he's basically playing the original ned.

Personally I find the movie far too long, particularly as parts of it play like a TV advert for the Scottish Tourist Board. In one scene, for example, Wallace sprints to the top of a mountain and just stands there, kilt billowing, for no apparent reason. Anyone who's ever worn a kilt will of course know that the last place you're likely to linger is a-top a windy Scottish mountain. Talk about "freedom"!!

[edit] Rolling Stone

PETER TRAVERS (06/15/95)

Wags enjoy razzing the 13th-century Scottish epic Braveheart, starring Mel Gibson in the role of freedom fighter William Wallace, as Die Hard in a kilt. Wait till they get to the knobby question of how Gibson's knees stack up against Liam Neeson's in Rob Roy. No matter. Gibson gets the last laugh. Braveheart resists glib categorization. This rousing, romantic adventure is laced with sorrow and savagery. The audacity Gibson shows as the film's director extends to the running time, which is nearly three hours. Hamlet, with Gibson playing the melancholy Dane, was shorter, and Braveheart isn't Shakespeare. Don't panic. Though the film dawdles a bit with the shimmery, dappled love stuff involving Wallace with a Scottish peasant and a French princess, the action will pin you to your seat. With breathtaking skill, Gibson captures the exhilaration and horror of combat in some of the most vivid battle scenes ever filmed.

Wallace was knighted for leading his people in the fight against domination by England. Few facts are known about his personal life, which frees Gibson and screenwriter Randall Wallace (no relation) to run with the legend passed down mostly from the rhyming verse of a poet known as Blind Harry. It's a shame that Harry predates Hollywood by five centuries -- he could have made a killing cranking out kick-ass crowd pleasers.

Gibson's Wallace is a potent blend of Robin Hood, Attila the Hun and, yes, the wags were right, Detective John McClane in Die Hard. Wallace could relate to any story that pits one pissed-off fighter against the system. He faced an English army led by bad-to-the-bone King Edward the Longshanks, played by Patrick McGooban in a classic portrait of slithering sadism. Wallace also had to inspire Scottish peasants and nobles to follow his lead against daunting odds.

It's a ripping yarn, and Gibson could have slid by with the usual hack heroics. Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves did just that and still earned a pile. Gibson does it the hard way with attention to detail. He has retained the keen eye for character he showed in The Man Without a Face, his promising 1993 directing debut. Wallace doesn't spring to life as a full-blown legend, though he does speak Latin and French when he returns to his village in Scotland to settle down as a farmer and marry Murron (the meltingly lovely Catherine McCormack), his childhood sweetheart. It's the brutal fate dished out to Murron by the English that makes the farmer an outlaw.

That's when Wallace organizes the villagers into a ragtag militia. Brendon Gleeson's Hamish, James Cosmo's Campbell and Alun Armstrong's Mornay register strongly, as does David O'Hara's Stephen, the Irish warrior who joins the Scottish cause. The teasing camaraderie botched in Robin Hood is expertly handled here. Gibson's impassioned performance as the hero who would not trade his freedom for English gold doesn't shrink from showing the barbarian who emerges at a call to arms.

"Are you ready for war?" Wallace shouts to his outnumbered troops at Stirling. It's the film's first major battle scene and a triumph for Gibson. Trying to stir hundreds of fatigued soldiers to action, Wallace rides his horse back and forth in a frantic effort to be heard. In most historical films, the stationary star manages to move multitudes with a throaty whisper. Gibson jettisons the Hollywood fakery. Riding among the men, his face streaked with woad (a blue dye used to terrify the enemy) and his voice hoarse from yelling. Wallace is a demon warrior crying out for vengeance.

Cinematographer John Toll, an Oscar winner for Legends of the Fall, thrusts the audience into the brutal frays at Stirling, York and Falkirk. Superbly edited by Steven Rosenblum (Glory), these sequences recall the blood poetry of Welles' Chimes at Midnight and Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Sophisticated weaponry was centuries away. The Scots used hammers, axes, picks, swords, chains and even farm tools to crack skulls as they battered the English in the mud. They also set oil traps on the ground to burn their enemies, though shields and chain mail offered scant protection against the rain of English arrows. "Quite the lovely gathering." says Longshanks, surveying the carnage and dispatching his officers to send in Irish volunteers instead of expert English archers. "Arrows cost money," he sneers.

Gibson's handling of Wallace at war is so thrillingly done that one regrets the subplots that distract from the action. Wallace's flirtation with the king's French daughter-in-law, Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau), is fanciful fluff that undercuts his undying love for Murron, and the king's homophobic revenge on his preening son, Prince Edward (Peter Hanly), and the son's boy toy, Phillip (Stephen Billington), comes off as inexplicable gay baiting. Judicious cutting might have sharpened the film's focus and impact.

Still, don't get your kilt in a bunch over a spectacle that provokes such lively debate about the method and madness of war. Filmed with furious energy and surprising gravity, Braveheart takes the measure of a hero with a taste for blood to match his taste for honor. Wallace is an inspiring, unsettling role, and Gibson plays him, aptly, like a gathering storm.

[edit] BBC Online

-Ali Barclay

Scotland in the 13th century - and the population has had enough of the tyrannical rule of Edward Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan). Local farmer William Wallace (Gibson) finally snaps after the brutalities inflicted on his family and leads his fellow Scotsmen in an uprising against the English.

Gibson's tale of Scottish heroism steers pretty clear of historical accuracy and political implication, its primary aim being to showcase Gibson and entertain. It achieves this with a certain amount of success. Gibson, who is rarely off screen, is an earnest Wallace and surprisingly stoic, so much so that even when suffering extreme torture he barely grimaces. Patrick McGoohan clearly relishes his role as the evil Longshanks, maximizing his rare moments of menace and ably assisting what little plot there is.

A simplistic tale of good versus evil with large quantities of heroism thrown in for good measure, it is let down by the improbable romance woven into the plot for no apparent reason. That said, the battle scenes are staged well with a fast bloody pace, the acting is passable, and as far as a good old-fashioned story of historical oppression goes, it does sweep you up and entertain. Gibson clearly wanted to step away from his "Mad Max" and "Lethal Weapon" roots, however the result is still another action film, but with kilts, swords, and a Scottish backdrop.

[edit] Deseret News

By Chris Hicks

Mel Gibson the actor does pretty well in "Braveheart," though one wonders if a more focused director could have pulled a performance from him that would have given the central character a bit more heft.

And Mel Gibson the director vindicates himself with ferocious, complex battle scenes involving hundreds of extras while managing to tell the intimate story of one man whose name is still revered in Scottish history. (Let's remember that he has only directed one other film, the small drama "The Man Without a Face.")

But Mel Gibson the co-producer seems to have been unable to keep his director and star's egos in check. With its slow-motion sequences, an emphasis on bloody gore and an unwieldy 3-hour running time, "Braveheart" just hints at what it might have been. In fact, it's fair to say that a terrific 2-hour movie could probably be found somewhere in this 3-hour epic.

Keeping his focus on his real-life central character, Scottish knight William Wallace, whom he also plays, Gibson has made a valiant effort to make this medieval adventure authentic, faithful to its time in terms of sensibility and physicality. The characters are filthy and crude, the fight scenes are up close and personal and the politics are simplistic and often duplicitous.

But there are times when, instead of feeling as if they are being pulled into the story, audience-members may feel pushed away. The level of violence, in particular, is up there with the slasher-horror genre, which may keep even Gibson's most ardent fans from wanting a second helping in weeks down the road. (And repeat-viewings are essential to the profit margin of a film this size, reportedly budgeted at $70 million.)

An educated man, unlike the peasants who surround him, Wallace is a Scotsman through and through, and when the king of England (Patrick McGoohan) seizes the Scottish throne and begins to impose impossible demands on the people, Wallace is asked to join a rebellion. But he declines.

Later, however, after he romances and marries his lifelong love Murron (Catherine McCormack), a tragedy occurs that changes his mind as he leads his people into battle against the English.

The sheer logistics of the battle scenes must have been a tremendous obstacle, and Gibson is to be commended for making the military strategy understandable and the violence unpleasant (as opposed to the cheerful violence in the "Lethal Weapon" movies). But in achieving the latter, Gibson has boosted the gore factor to an over-the-top degree. Making the audience flinch this much seems unnecessary, and Gibson ups the ante as the film progresses.

There are also too many scenes that seem redundant, repeatedly making a point that has already been made — as if Gibson just couldn't bear to throw anything out and refused to listen to cooler heads on the subject.

The performances here are all quite good, and McGoohan makes an unexpectedly terrific nasty villain. The cinematography takes advantage of the locations (the film was shot in Scotland and Ireland), James Horner's music is appropriately enthralling and the character of Wallace is a compelling one.

But there is the nagging feeling as one leaves the theater that less is definitely more, and with a bit of restraint Gibson might have had a great movie here instead of merely a pretty good one.

[edit] Rotten Tomatoes

77% TomatoMeter

[edit] Films in Review

Title: Interview with Mel Gibson., By: Gallagher, John Andrew, Caminer, Sylvia, Films in Review, 00151688, May/Jun96, Vol. 47, Issue 5/6

Braveheart, Mel Gibson's inspiring, heroic saga of 13th-century, Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace, has placed the international movie star among the ranks of our finest filmmakers. With his second feature as director (his first was 1993's The Man Without a Face), Gibson created an epic that blends sweeping spectacle with haunting personal drama, mixing brutal action with a potent love story, as well as his trademark sense of humor.

The film has been a huge international success, winning five Academy Awards (including Best Picture, Director, and Cinematography), a Golden Globe for Best Director, and a special National Board of Review Award for Filmmaking Achievement. Filmed on location in Scotland and Ireland, Braveheart was stunningly photographed by John Toll (Oscar winner for Legends of the Fall), with an outstanding music score by James Horner (Glory).

Born in Peekskill, New York, on Janurary 3, 1956, Gibson moved to Australia with his family at the age of 12. From the beginning of his filmmaking career in the mid-seventies, he's been able to balance action movies (the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon pictures, Gallipoli, Maverick) with passionate dramas (Tim, The Year of Living Dangerously, Mrs. Soffel, The River, Tequila Sunrise, Hamlet), a quality that is abundantly evident in Braveheart.

We interviewed Mel Gibson between takes at New York's Kaufman-Astoria Studios, where he was starring in Ron Howard's Ransom. To preserve the distinctive American/Australian flavor of his speech, we've kept the editing of his remarks to a minimum.

Films In Review: How did you get involved in Brave-heart?

Mel Gibson: It came from a writer, Randall Wallace, who was just trying to explore his own roots cause he had the same handle as him over in Scotland. He was looking around over there, saw this thing (a statue of William Wallace) and got totally caught up investigating it, which he did on a lot of levels, through different books and legends. People said, "You should write about this." Randy was a screenwriter anyway, he worked for television; and gradually he just slapped it together Alan Ladd, Jr. and Becky Pollock were at MGM at the time, and they came and gave me the script. It sounded pretty amazing. I read it and it was good but it's one of those things I didn't cotton to entirely, for a lot of different reasons. You're a little afraid of something that big. I thought I was too old and all that stuff to be over there horsin' around, so I basically passed on it and no one else picked up on it.

It was like a year later, and I kept thinking about it. That was the one that wouldn't go away. I kept revisiting the story. I gradually started to form images; how would you do it, what would it be like, the usual process I think you go through with a lot of films, although this time it was more the images. The sequences were coming together a lot more clearly than most times when you take a job as an actor.

FIR: Were you originally approached by Ladd to direct as well as star?

MG: No, just be in it. I had no real track record. I had done one small film (The Man Without a Face). It wasn't like people came up and said, "Hey, come on, direct this"--they weren't clamoring or banging the door down. It was purely a box office marquee thing, Somebody who wasn't, I guess, so American--they'd be believable in another century, in another culture.

So I kept thinking about it. It was interesting. I was with my assistant, Dean Lopata, and we were just finishing Maverick (1994), and he said, "What are we gonna do next?"

I said, "I don't know, I haven't seen anything I've liked. The only thing I've read that's kind of bugging me a little bit is this story. Somehow it got to my core."

He said, "Wow, what's that?"

And I said, "Oh, it's a really cool story, it's about this guy, see . . ." and I started to tell him the story and two hours later I'm jumpin' all over the room, goin', "And then this happened, then he does this, then there's a low angle with this fuckin' thing," and I was painting this whole picture for him.

He was saying, "Wow, I gotta read this." He ran out and got it and a couple of days later he said, "It's kind of like what you were saying, but you were doing other things there." I said, "Really?"

I hadn't read it in a while so it had probably gone through some weird kind of metamorphosis, like paraphrasing something. So I read it again and I had indeed embellished a lot. I hadn't realized I'd done that so I went back to it and read it two more times and I thought, "What if?" Then I sat down with the writer and we talked a little bit. He's great, he's really terrific, great to work with. I started thinking about the logistics of it and then it was "Oh my God, there's something like eight castles that we need, probably six major battles."

I thought, "You can't do that. It's a nine-hour film. It's a great story and you can read it, but you can't do all that." So it was a question of paring it down a little bit. I thought, "Alright, I'll have a crack." I went to Laddie and said, "Listen, I don't want to be in it, but can I direct it?" Quick as a flash he said, "I got no problem with that." We virtually just got it up and mounted. I think it was February '94.

FIR: How did you handle acting in that kind of physically challenging part and directing? Did you ever sleep?

MG: Well, you do. A little. You get enough. You're pretty tired. It's the same as doing this (acting in Ransom), except you're doing everybody's job. It's like working with Ron [Howard], except for the fact that you just have to jump 'round and be Ron as well. But you're always using that part of your judgment anyhow, even if you don't express it, unless you think it's really important and you need to mention it to the director. One's always looking at it that way. I am, anyway. A lot of actors don't, they just turn up, do their thing, and take off. But I've always been the kind of actor that hangs around the set and is interested in the overall thing. I like to know the whole picture. So it's really just a question of being vocal and demonstrative about what you're thinking and inviting other opinions. Those people you're working with, God, they've all got opinions too.

FIR: You must rely more than usual on your director of photography.

MG: Somebody like John Toll is an exceptional DP. He's one of the great American DP's now, I think. It was his third job in that capacity. He'd been an operator for years and learned from the best. He worked with Conrad Hall. He has a very good sense of how he should go about it and texture a story. And he's thinking story too, he's not thinking coldly lighting, he's thinking lighting as it relates to story and what kind of effect we want. We liased quite often. I couldn't explain technically what it was that I wanted. Sometimes I could, but more often it was, "Listen, John, this scene's about this and I want this kind of feel with this," and he would just do it, ya' know? He'd say, "What do you think of this?" I'd go, "That's fucking great." Or I'd come up with an idea and he'd say, "Here's another way to do it." It was great. He's so smart and talented. We depended on each other I think, but he was really the workman. He would just get in there and kick ass.

FIR: We read that sometimes, to keep the atmosphere light on the set, you'd direct as Elmer Fudd, or as one of our favorites, Ben Gazzara.

MG: Ben! I like Benny. I like watching Benny. I like him in those Cassavetes movies. I thought he was fantastic in Husbands (1970). I've always been a Benny fan. You don't see him around often enough.

FIR: What were some of the pictures you screened before you made Braveheart?

MG: I made a reel. I noted every picture I could remember where I saw stuff that was really like "Wow!" My assistant Dean and I got together and we got as many little sections of pictures as we could, like Polanski's Macbeth (1971), which I saw when I was a teenager and loved, Spartacus (1960), big epic battles, Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight (1966), A Man for All Season (1966), as well as NFL highlights for bodies slamming together in battle.

FIR: Alexander Nevsky (1938)?

MG: I never saw that one. Actually, this critic in Los Angeles, Rod Lurie, sent it to me. He said "Alexander Nevsky, you saw that right and you copied it." I said, "I've never seen it," so he actually sent me the disc and I watched it. It was interesting.

FIR: There's another picture, Tony Harvey's The Lion in Winter (1968), that, like Braveheart, has a great sense of period, where people are filthy, before deodorants, looking like they live in the clothes they're wearing.

MG: Oh, that was a great movie! I didn't actually put that on the reel but I probably should have just for what the people looked like and the politics and relationships and stuff. That would have been a good one, but I'm sure that was in the back of my head somewhere.

FIR: Also some of the Kurosawa films like Seven Samurai (1954) and Throne of Blood (1957), especially with some of the scenes in the rain. Throne of Blood was on cable last night and we had the Brave-heart score playing, and it worked.

MG: Does it?

FIR: Though it's a little strange when the Scottish music comes in and it's Japanese guys on the screen.

MG: It's not that far different.

FIR: As an actor, you've worked with some great directors.

MG: Many, and I was always impressed with some aspect of what they were doing. They were all different, all achieving something from a totally different approach, which was what I found really interesting. So I thought there's no right way to do it, there's just lots of wrong ways. It's always a struggle to extract what you can from what's in front of you and to have it work well if you possibly can.

I think what probably made more of an impression on me was the earlier guys that I worked with because that was when I was really curious and really asking questions like "What are you doing? What? Why?" It seemed very weird to just be a piece of meat on the stage in a scene. "Why are we doing this?"--it just doesn't make sense sometimes unless you can put yourself in the director's shoes and find out what his vision is. I was more attentive to investigating that earlier on, because it puzzled me. So you got guys like George Miller [the Mad Max films] and Peter Weir [Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously]--not bad examples.

FIR: Is there anything special that you observed working with Mark Rydell on The River (1984)?

MG: I think he's really strong when he talks to his actors. It was a kind of thing that I had never been exposed to before, a very American approach to performance which I don't think I could grasp at that time. I think it showed in the film. I wasn't quite up with it. But I appreciated what he was doing. He's a good actor himself. That was his real expertise, relating to the actors and performance on the set, and doing it in a style that I think is very New York, which is fascinating. I don't work like that, but I can certainly understand it. He's a good guy. I bump into him every now and then. I wish he'd make more films, actually.

FIR: How about Gillian Armstrong on Mrs. Soffel (1984)?

MG: Yeah, I've been in touch with her a couple of times though it never quite comes to fruit, but she's always someone I'd like to work with again.

FIR: Franco Zeffirelli on Hamlet (1990)?

MG: Zeffirelli--his thing is the look of a frame that's really interesting. He has to have certain things happening at a certain timing in the frame.

You pick it up from all these people--Dick Donner [the Lethal Weapon films, Maverick]--just for some kind of lightness that you can bring. He's also a real veteran, no bones about it. Get a lot of coverage, get in there and shoot the daylights out of it and don't be afraid to try anything. You don't have to pin the bug down to the board. Sort of let it move around a while, do its own thing for a while and follow it, see where it goes, a more loose approach to things, a lot of improvisation. So that nothing is so sacred that you can't really hack it up and turn it on its head.

We had to do that a few times on Braveheart. There were times I had to rip 15 pages out of the script. I mean just rip 'em out because there was no money and no time left. That's all there is to it. And there's that balance between, ya' know, artistic endeavor and the practicalities of being a producer, which a lot of people come to loggerheads with, but I think that the two can co-exist. I think there's an art in that. Once you reconcile to get it finished so it won't become a fiasco and a waste of money and heartache and bent egos, you just make them work together and do it. We didn't get all bummed out about it, it was just something we had to figure out. You put your mind to it and you actually come up with something better and more economical.

FIR: You really have to get creative on a low budget.

MG: Absolutely. I think it's a good way to work.

FIR: You used the Irish army for the battle scenes.

MG: We used the reserve army in Ireland. A couple of thousand guys. Sixteen hundred some days. I think we got up to a couple of thousand with just the horse guys and they were terrific. They had barracks and a horse track nearby, so everyone was well housed. It was one of the reasons we moved to Ireland, to save costs and to make it easier for everyone. It worked out rather well. The key to some of those big scenes was the fact that we had the army, a well-regimented bunch of young hooligans really. A semblance of order, however slight, is better than a mob of unruly extras. They had a chain of command that they were used to.

FIR: How long did it take to shoot the Stirling battle?

MG: Six weeks. There's a lot involved. There's a lot of footage there. It goes on for a little while, but we could have made a whole movie out of that.

FIR: That's what I loved about it--that it does go on. You don't shortchange the audience.

MG: No, we gave 'em the whole battle.

FIR: Brutally.

MG: You should've seen what we cut out.

FIR: Will we ever? Maybe on a special laserdisc edition?

MG: Well, ya' know, we could go back and whack another ten minutes in easy, but I don't know if it's worthwhile doing that. A lot of it is just more horrors. We tailored it to a place where it was acceptable.

FIR: How was it working with the kids?

MG: Nice kids. None of them had worked before. It's good they hadn't worked somewhere and gotten a bunch of bad habits, which is what happens with a lot of kids. They get into some amateur theatrics or someone gives them a way of doing things and they're not raw. And raw is okay if you can influence it the right way.

FIR: There's a beautiful moment at the funeral when she gives him the thistle.

MG: She's very cute. She was five years old.

FIR: You make it a game.

MG: You have to. They're not in the real world. She hasn't even achieved the age of reason yet.

FIR: How do you get the emotion to come out?

MG: She just understands enough. When she came out on the set that morning with her mother, I kept peeking at her from behind her mother and she kept looking back to a point where I started goofing with her, getting behind her and pulling her hair. She just fell in love with me, so I could influence her because she had a soft spot for me. It was great. No problem. She went with it, completely and totally innocent, totally uncomplicated. This is where children are wonderful because they're not thinking of how something looks and they're not trying to manipulate anything. You just make a suggestion and they'll try and be that. They don't analyze it. It's not intellectual. She wouldn't keep her eyes on anything but me, so I had to be her eyeline in a sense. She's looking at the boy, I had to be on a ladder 12 feet back, just looking out from behind his ear. Things like that. I would say, "Mhairi, just look at me," and I would talk to her and she'd be listening to me without saying anything, and there's a thought process going on there. I'd give her directions like "You're very sad," and then she'd be very sad with hardly any effort. It was almost imperceptible, her exterior, it's just that she would then feel very sad and do the thing. It was great.

FIR: The little boy that played you as a kid seemed like the barbaric cousin of the Feral Kid from The Road Warrior (1981).

MG: Yeah, the boy was really a very intelligent kid. Very quiet, quite a shy kid who wondered about the wisdom of his doing this. He liked it but he wasn't wholly sure about the thing.

FIR: We liked that you cast the picture with non-Hollywood actors.

MG: Like Sophie [Marceau]. People had heard of her, she'd done a lot of French films, but not exactly a household name in this country. Pat McGoohan, dug him up out of his writer's frenzy. We were very fortunate the way that all came together. I just went for good actors, ya' know, and there are plenty of them in England and Scotland and Ireland. It was just a question of having them all brought in, the ones that looked interesting, the ones the casting lady could point you in the right direction to. Just get them in there and talk to them. Don't read 'em. Waste of time. "Now read this scene . . ." It's so boring. It's cold. It doesn't do anything for them. All you can find out is whether they can read or not. Basically, what you want to do is find out a little bit about who they are and get some sense of them to see if they're right.

FIR: At what point did you bring music composer James Homer into the picture?

MG: Oh, very early. I had worked with him before [Man Without a Face]. I said I had this story and asked him general questions about what sort of sound they had in Scotland in the 12th century. If you were going to be realistic about the sound from that era, then it wouldn't have been good at all. It was pretty basic, not much harmony. It sounded like Arabic. So we went for something more 15th or 16th century.

FIR: Did you use scratch tracks when you were cutting like those used for Spartacus or Lawrence of Arabia (1962)?

MG: Oh yeah, different soundtracks from films and sometimes just things that we picked up along the way. Bits and pieces from the Chieftains, Brendan's Voyage, or something like that.

FIR: Steven Rosenblum's editing is brilliant.

MG: I can't speak highly enough about him. He's a terrific editor, with a great sense of story--because the editing is the final rewrite. Oh boy, we had to make some tough cuts in there. I mean, how do you lose an hour and still have it make sense? So we just had to find some short cuts. We didn't have to do one reshoot, not one. Only one shot, but that was for a special effects thing.

FIR: In a battle scene?

MG: Yeah, in one of the battles. Just the low front shot of horses being impaled and breaking things off because you had to have the horses look like they were hitting something and rear off and do all this kind of stuff. The horses we had over there were well trained horses, but they were a little skittish, so you couldn't actually get them to do some of the stuff. So we did one shot in Arizona, with some cowboys and regular old Western horses. We just put them in the right outfits.

FIR: Paramount's been very supportive of the film.

MG: Yeah, they have, ever since about the third week of dailies. They gave us the green light and everything, but they weren't totally on board I think until the stuff we were shooting was coming back. Then they were like "Oh, this could be good."

FIR: I didn't realize 20th Century-Fox was involved.

MG: It's an independent film.

FIR: Did Fox take the foreign rights and Paramount the domestic?

MG: Yeah. It's an Icon indie film. That's the structure of it. They're involved, but it's an independent film. It's really interesting. There's more than one way to skin a cat. But they've both been tremendous and really helped a lot with the financing. And they weren't that extravagant. I hear people say 70 million dollars and that is such bullshit. We made it for a lot less, substantially less. I don't like talking price, but I'm quite proud of what we made that film for, and it wasn't that easy.

FIR: It's interesting the way you used slow-motion, not only in the action scenes, but also for emotional effect in some of the dramatic scenes. The prima notre scene tips your heart out when it's in slo-mo.

MG: That's 36 frames per second. I wanted it to be just a little slow.

FIR: How did the weather cooperate with you?

MG: Pretty good, really. It wasn't too bad. It's just that once you make the decision to shoot, no matter what happens, the weather's great.

FIR: When John Ford made The Quiet Man (1952) in Ireland, it rained a little bit every day.

MG: We got some rain, yeah.

FIR: Particularly the scene where you revenge Murron's murder when you ride into town.

MG: Yeah, there was some drizzle happening. You just make the decision to do it no matter what.

FIR: Dean was telling us about the midges.

MG: Oh yeah, little bugs. Can't kill 'em. Nothing keeps them off. You just have to live with them. They afflict some people worse than others. Alan Ladd, Jr., for example, was bitten all over his head.

FIR: They go after executive producers.

MG: I guess. Some of us got off pretty light.

FIR: Were the locals in Scotland and Ireland cooperative?

MG: Yeah. We were very careful. There was a film crew that came in before us, and they'd actually used locations that we may have wanted to use, but no one would let us use them because of the total disrespect that was displayed for the people that owned the land or the people that live there. Inexcusable. It's people like that who give film crews a bad name and I have no tolerance for those people. You go in, and you gotta leave it just like you found it. You're in someone else's home. You can't be pigs. So we approached it like that. The guy doing all the location scouts with us, who acquired these locations, was really top line. He would go in, wouldn't snow 'em, just tell 'em like it was. He'd just give them a lot of leeway.

For example, where we put that first town in Scotland, the one with the fortress, that was just a sheep meadow. When we left, we had to replace it because we tore it up pretty bad. We built from nothing, it was just sheepery and so we just figured it was a good spot to have it, the best location. When we left, we re-turfed it, re-seeded it, re-planted it, the whole nine yards.

FIR: No missing sheep.

MG: Nothing. A few extras though [laughter]. What was that about? I don't know.

FIR: How does it feel to be getting recognition as a filmmaker?

MG: It's all right. Recognition is usually measured for me in terms of box office really. I think if you've got your hand on something people want and it sells, that's really the first thing you're going for. Recognition from your peers is really good but isn't always forthcoming, and there's no reason why it should be. I mean why do you have to be applauded by your peers? You don't, not really. You're all in the same game, you all understand what it is to be in an industry that crafts public dreams, but it's not necessary to piss in each other's pockets. I've been in ones where the public stayed away too. So sometimes you're up to it, and sometimes you're not. I think it's something from a storytelling point, from a performing aspect that one does crave, but you don't do this for some sort of elite. You do it for the masses as a Statement to identify or focus on what you know to be true about life and behavior from a human point of view. You put that on display to see how people react to it. If they react favorably to it, well, that's very reassuring to yourself as a productive member of the human race. It's not a cure for cancer and it never will be. That's the reward, if people dig it. That's enough really.

FIR: People must love Braveheart in Scotland.

MG: Oh, they went nuts.

FIR: Do you have a desire to do theater?

MG: Yeah, I started off in the theater, trained in the theater, did repertory stuff for years, Shakespeares and traveling shows, only in Australia, but quite a while actually. It was interesting, though--the first two jobs I ever got professionally were on film (Summer City, Mad Max) and after that I followed up with a few years of repertory company stuff. The last time I was on stage was in 1984, and I miss it. You find more magic on stage than you do in film. Film is a little cold, and the magic gets performed afterwards in another room. For real fulfillment as an actor, I think stage is the place.

FIR: With a film you have to wait so long for the payoff, whereas on the stage it's immediate.

MG: I'm not talking about the payoff or the return. It's more about the actual experience of being in action. It's a very different thing on film. You get a little short burst of it, but on stage, Jesus, you could be on there for two hours and it's a very intoxicating thing. It can be docked, you can be out to lunch totally, you can lose yourself. It's the best job there is that can't hurt you, unless you take it the wrong way. But that trip--that's a pretty good high, especially if you're really flying with it. It doesn't always happen. Stage is a weird deal. I wish I'd done Hamlet on the stage. I've never done that play in sequence. I don't know what that play's about. I did it in bits and pieces. I read it in sequence, of course, but I never actually had a run at it.

FIR: It's never too late.

MG: That's a tough one. Mind you, you haven't got to go through the repetition of take after take. I would imagine that on stage, with a run at something like that, it could be pretty wild.

The authors would like to thank Dean Lopata, Alan Nierob, John Kelly, Julie Kuendorf, and Steve Carducci for their help with this interview.