It was Winston Churchill who said that "History is written by the victors". In the case of Braveheart however, it seems that history is not written by the victors, but by Hollywood. I watched Braveheart for the first time last night, and while I can't deny that the film is absolutely fantastic, its grounding in historical accuracy must be questioned.
The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.
I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.
For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.
However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.
However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.
While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.
It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.
This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.
He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.
The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.
Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment