Braveheart (1995)

I don’t know much about Scottish history, but I do know what I like.

For me history is a study of men who conquered -— Cyrus, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Attila, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, George Washington, Generals MacArthur and Patton -- these were men who made history and rightly belong in books.

William Wallace? William Wallace was at best a footnote in English history, all right, perhaps a whole chapter in Scots history. Certainly not as powerful or crafty as his opponent Edward I, familiarly known as "Longshanks". This was due to his towering height and was an allusion to his ancestor Robert "Shortbreeches", son of William the Bastard, who suffered from the opposite malady, stunted growth.

Mel Gibson did a creditable job of directing Braveheart, but less than great job starring as William Wallace, he should stick to comedy schtick, which seems to be his best suit as an actor.

In directing, by casting himself as the central hero, Mel's stunted size was made more apparent by the full-length shots and costumes that exposed his short knobby legs to the camera's probing eye. This shows to me he lacks perspective and fails to see the big picture. Yes, Mel, you can act in certain parts, no, Mel, you are not an epic hero!

Two actors do deserve particular credit in Braveheart, Patrick McGoohan, who brought the dreaded English king to life and David O’Hara, as "Stephen", the Irishman who talked to God.

The affair with Princess Isabelle (luscious Sophie Marceau) was totally unnecessary to the film and actually reflects discredit on Wallace, if it is to be believed that he was truly in love with his dead wife. However, according to the film, Princess Isabelle proved to be far more the man than her husband, homosexual Prince Edward. The part where she told Longshanks she was bearing Wallace's child was particularly galling, as it had no basis in fact, just a feel-good for those of Scots ancestry while another needless slap at the English.

The concept of William Wallace as a freedom fighter was not true, in my opinion. He would conquer and, if successful, become another oppressor, just as the English kings were. It was the way of the times and not that different from any other time in history. I have to conclude that Braveheart is a fictional story similar to most of Hollywood’s history movies. Wallace's yell of "freedom!" was an anachronism, aimed squarely at our Yankee sensibilities.

The portrayal of Scottish hero Robert Bruce as a vacillating weasel, if true, should be a slap at Scottish pride far worse than any deification of a minor figure like Wallace could hope to balance. In the old days, that sort of insult could only be expunged in blood. Still, Director Gibson has managed to insult nearly everybody in our dumbed-down society and come out smelling like a rose!

The cinematography was good, focusing on the Scottish highlands, except for when Gibson’s short stature was highlighted.

The haunting music, by James Horner, in surround sound was one of the highlights of the experience. The sound has certainly improved in movies over the last few years and I welcome the change.

The battle scenes were epic in scope, however the choice parts belonged to Patrick McGooghan, who stole every scene.

"Send in the Irish, arrows cost money," is one of the memorable lines delivered by that gifted actor.

The editing: In today's movies, it seems like the trend is "longer is better", I feel that they could have cut a good half hour out of Braveheart and had a better movie. There was plenty of filler, for example the focus on the love scenes with Sophie Marceau (who did a good job in the unnecessary role, by the way).

For my money, Braveheart was a good, not a great, movie. Those who would rate this movie very highly should see Kirk Douglas as "Spartacus", or an Errol Flynn swashbuckler like "They Died With Their Boots On", then they would know what a truly great performance looks like.

Three stars.


Recommended: Yes