It baffled me, at first, to discover that there were actually people who didn't like this film. How could anyone resist being swept away by this story? Well, I realize now, you can't make everyone happy, because there will always be people who are determined not to let you make them happy.
When "Braveheart" hit the theaters in 1995, it was inevitable that Scots and Irish would love it, and the English would hate it. English reviews of this film were hysterically shrill. Much was made of the "historical inaccuracies," but what did they expect--a $70 million documentary? Besides, the historical records of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce are so sparse and uncertain, historians and filmmakers alike are free to take great liberties in reconstructing the story just about any way they see fit. The indignation that the English feel when watching this film is probably similar to what the Scottish, Irish and Welsh feel when they study history and realize that the saga of their people has been nothing but a centuries-long struggle against English oppression. The U.S. senate has issued official apologies to blacks, Indians, Hawaiians and even the Japanese. A similar gesture from the Queen or the House of Lords might allay a lot of bad feelings.
In America the film was accorded the same treatment as any other independent film. It received a lot of smug reviews about "cute guys in kilts" and was soundly beaten at the box office by the insipid "Independence Day." Most reviewers are industry toadies who consider it a breach of professional protocol to say anything nice about an Indie. Anyhow, "Braveheart" won a half-a-dozen Academy Awards, while "Independence Day" was forgotten as soon as the advertising campaign ended.
There is also the bias against a Hollywood stud-muffin having the audacity to direct and star in his own film. What right does Mr. Lethal Weapon have trying to establish himself as a serious artist? But the fact is--as many people have said before--Gibson was the perfect man to direct this film. How would "Braveheart" have turned out in the hands of, say, Scorceses or Spielberg? (As a really funny mental exercise, try and imagine Tarantino doing this film. "I'm gonna get medieval on your arse!")
And then there were the feminists who denounced the film for being Testosteronally Challenged.
One remarkable thing about "Braveheart" is how little dialogue there is in this 3-hour film. The screenplay available on the Net is only 13 pages long! To tell a fairly complex tale in so few words is just good writing by Randall Wallace. But all some people can talk about is how unrealistic Wallace's portrayal of his namesake is. But that's the whole idea: "Braveheart" isn't realistic; it's idealistic.
And what's wrong with that?
When "Braveheart" hit the theaters in 1995, it was inevitable that Scots and Irish would love it, and the English would hate it. English reviews of this film were hysterically shrill. Much was made of the "historical inaccuracies," but what did they expect--a $70 million documentary? Besides, the historical records of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce are so sparse and uncertain, historians and filmmakers alike are free to take great liberties in reconstructing the story just about any way they see fit. The indignation that the English feel when watching this film is probably similar to what the Scottish, Irish and Welsh feel when they study history and realize that the saga of their people has been nothing but a centuries-long struggle against English oppression. The U.S. senate has issued official apologies to blacks, Indians, Hawaiians and even the Japanese. A similar gesture from the Queen or the House of Lords might allay a lot of bad feelings.
In America the film was accorded the same treatment as any other independent film. It received a lot of smug reviews about "cute guys in kilts" and was soundly beaten at the box office by the insipid "Independence Day." Most reviewers are industry toadies who consider it a breach of professional protocol to say anything nice about an Indie. Anyhow, "Braveheart" won a half-a-dozen Academy Awards, while "Independence Day" was forgotten as soon as the advertising campaign ended.
There is also the bias against a Hollywood stud-muffin having the audacity to direct and star in his own film. What right does Mr. Lethal Weapon have trying to establish himself as a serious artist? But the fact is--as many people have said before--Gibson was the perfect man to direct this film. How would "Braveheart" have turned out in the hands of, say, Scorceses or Spielberg? (As a really funny mental exercise, try and imagine Tarantino doing this film. "I'm gonna get medieval on your arse!")
And then there were the feminists who denounced the film for being Testosteronally Challenged.
One remarkable thing about "Braveheart" is how little dialogue there is in this 3-hour film. The screenplay available on the Net is only 13 pages long! To tell a fairly complex tale in so few words is just good writing by Randall Wallace. But all some people can talk about is how unrealistic Wallace's portrayal of his namesake is. But that's the whole idea: "Braveheart" isn't realistic; it's idealistic.
And what's wrong with that?