BRAVEHEART
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1995 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: With some major accuracy problems and
some anachronistic language Mel Gibson
entertainingly tells the story of legendary 13th
Century Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace.
Not all of the film works, but only because the
story was so ambitious for a second directorial
effort. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4). For general
information and comparison, following the review I
will describe my understanding of the history of
Wallace, some of which might be considered film
spoiler.
With the directorial experience of just one film, THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE, Mel Gibson has tried to make his own film comparable to SPARTACUS, built around the late 13th Century Scottish hero and freedom fighter Sir William Wallace. He has given the film a 177-minute length of which could have been better used to tell the story of this larger- than-life hero. Unfortunately, Gibson's pacing is a bit off and the film gives way to some dull stretches. This is a film that I am happy I did my homework for before seeing to avoid being too impressed by the film and then having to be disillusioned later when I discovered the film's inaccuracies.
The story, with many obvious parallels to that of the film SPARTACUS, tells of the young Wallace growing up in a Scotland occupied by the troops of Edward Longshanks (a.k.a. Edward I, played by Patrick McGoohan). William's father narrowly misses being murdered with some other important Scots, then is killed fighting Edward. William is brought up by his uncle and taught to fight with his wits rather than by brute strength. He returns home to live as a simple farmer, and the story slows down to tell the story of his romance and marriage. But soon Edward's injustice reaches out to him. Wallace strikes back, is outlawed, and becomes a powerful leader of the rebels fighting against English rule.
In a large film with a big cast Patrick McGoohan walks away with all honors as the villainous pre-Machiavellian Machiavellian King Edward I. Rarely has the screen produced so ruthless a tyrant. While more ruthless than the character he played in DANGER MAN (a.k.a. SECRET AGENT), he brings the same cold, calculating efficiency to this role. Gibson seems to have had his hands full directing the film and brought little to his role more than expected. Besides the apparent love of freedom, he could have been playing his character Mad Max.
Curiously, this film seems less anachronistic than its trailers made it feel. Occasional lines seem, if not out of place, at least overly fine-tuned for the late 20th Century. Having characters exclaiming "Excellent!" seems better attuned to the time of Bill and Ted than of William and Edward. Gibson's visual style seems not yet matured so that he overuses slow motion scenes, sometimes telegraphing the action. Some of his scenes seem contrived and unbelievable. One such scene involves a dead body that drips blood just at perfect instant. Another involves what has to be the world's least skittish deer. (You have to have seen the film to know what I mean.)
Gibson tries to create a realistic feel by making Scottish communities seem properly grimy, though he applies this standard far less to women than to men. He has a great deal of violence, graphic and implied, in the course of the film. Toward the end of the film there are certainly some painful scenes to watch. Gibson also has some fun with the battle scenes that I suspect was not inspired by any historical record. Unfortunately, while the battle scenes are exciting and colorful, what we see bears little relation to what actually happened in the battles portrayed. In fact, while the film seems to say that Wallace was trained to use his wits in battle rather than brute force, that is not how he is portrayed on the screen. The historical Wallace used his wits far more in battle than Gibson's representation, who seems to rely on a good speech and little more than headlong berserker assaults. (The battle shown are very little like the real battles. See the historical note after the review.)
BRAVEHEART is well-intentioned and ambitious, but is disappointingly flawed. It probably required a more experienced director--and one who would have demanded a little more from Gibson.I give it a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
HISTORICAL NOTE (possible light spoilers):
In the years just preceding William Wallace's revolt Edward I knew his real enemy was France to the south with a military force much superior to his own. England had been at peace with Scotland for more than a century and Edward expected little trouble from the north. But John de Balliol, King of Scotland, allied himself with Philip IV of France rather than supply Edward with men and arms to fight the French. It was not a strong alliance since France had little faith in John's power to defend his title as king.
Edward was already taxing England for the war with France and did not relish the idea of fighting a war against Scotland and France at the same time. He certainly did not want to tax his people for both. In 1290 he had expelled the Jews from England and without them to borrow from any more he was finding that the decision to expel had been a costly one.
Edward decided to confer with Scotland's King John and to assure John's loyalty. He called upon John to meet him at Berwick. John refused. Edward took this as a declaration of war and invaded Scotland with intent to conquer, sacking Berwick. King John then renounced any homage to England. But Edward's commander, Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, defeated King John at the Battle of Dunbar. He captured John and imprisoned him. Edward declared himself to be King of Scotland before returning to fight France.
Edward set up a puppet government in Scotland, not expecting much resistance. William Wallace, the son of a poor knight, was outlawed at this time when he got into a personal argument with a young Englishman. The Englishman Selby insulted Wallace and Wallace killed him. Wallace joined one of the several bands of outlaws. With a band of 30 men he burned Lanark and killed the sheriff in May 1297.
Wallace organized an army from the small landowners and organized guerilla attacks on the English between Forth and Tay. Through this time Edward was fighting in France and Wallace was fighting the Earl of Surrey. Surrey brought a large army to fight Wallace in September. The two armies met September 11, 1297, at the Battle at Cambuskenneth (a.k.a. Stirling) Bridge near Forth. (This is very different from how the battle was portrayed in the film.) A narrow bridge separated the two armies. The Earl's own advisors told him that he could not get his full army across the bridge in under eleven hours and if he tried crossing he could bring only a small part of his army to bear on defense. He ignored the advice and ordered him men across the bridge. Wallace awaited the proper time, when about half the army was across the bridge, and attacked. Half the army watched helpless on the far bank as the other was driven back into the river to drown. Wallace earned a stunning victory and in the process captured Stirling Castle.
Edward made a truce with France by marrying the king's sister and betrothing the king's daughter to his son. He was off in Flanders when he found out that Wallace had defeated his army and, flushed with victory, had invaded England and was sacking Cumberland and North Umberland. Wallace was knighted and given the guardianship of Scotland ruled in Balliol's name. He decorated his shield with the skin of an English tax-collector.
Edward I, having his truce with France, re-invaded Scotland, marched to Stirling, and met Wallace's army at Falkirk on July 22, 1298. Wallace formed his forces into four schiltrons. That is a circle of men with spears pointed outward (similar to what the film showed at Battle of Stirling Bridge, but that was a straight line). Edward's knights could do little against these phalanxes and so were called off. Instead the English used a shower of arrows from long bows. This made quick work of the Scottish army. Wallace, however, survived by hiding in a dense nearby wood.
Wallace resigned his guardianship, but still fought a guerrilla war against the English in Scotland. In 1305 he was arrested at Robroyston near Glasgow. He was found guilty of being a traitor to Edward, though he had never sworn allegiance to the king. He was executed that same year, much in the manner shown in the film.
Contrary to the film, however, Edward I did not die until 1307, Edward II did not marry until 1308, and Edward II's and Isabella's first child was Edward III who was not born until 1310. Henry the Minstrel, also known as "Blind Harry" made Wallace a popular hero by immortalizing him in an epic romance poem in the 15th Century.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews