OT Braveheart

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I just watched Mel Gibson die at the end of Braveheart. I couldn't hold my tears back any longer, my passion for my country was just too much. I've never been so proud to be English.

[Shiloh 12]

Great movie - Frreeeeeeeeeeedommmmmmmmmm!

[Stingray72 6]

O gotcha Widow lol, I did not see the punchline coming hahahahahahahahahahha!!

[Slartibartfast 153]

English and proud... (BAD movie and not in a good way)...

[Flyby PC 23]

Yes. If only he'd died at the start of the film along with the true history.

 

As a Scot, I can't say I'm proud to be English, but I can say I'm extremely proud that Edward 1 wasn't Scottish.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Yes. If only he'd died at the start of the film along with the true history.

 

As a Scot, I can't say I'm proud to be English, but I can say I'm extremely proud that Edward 1 wasn't Scottish.

 

Oh yes...horrible little man!.... I love Scotland..and the Scots

[von Baur 54]

Ahh, yes. who can forget that magical movie moment. Mel Gibson, his character's arms spread wide, defiantly screaming "Freeee-dommmmmmmm". And then....he smacks into the weather vane, spins around a few times, bounces off the power lines, careens into the feed trough, rebounds out of it and then has the trough flip over on him, breaking his arm....uh, wing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I always wondered if his opening line in "Chicken Run" was put in as a spoof of his last word in "Braveheart". Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.

 

Braveheart was an excellent movie. Who cares if it didn't follow reality? Do we expect that from Hollywierd anyway?

[Flyby PC 23]

The true story of William Wallace is the story of Scotland. The Braveheart film would have lost absolutely nothing of it's impact by portaying what really happened, but a fine opportunity was squandered.

 

It overlooked too many big, big, events, and introduced any number of improbable, if not impossible features. The blue woad being only one.

 

Edward 1 hated Scotland and became known as the hammer of the Scots, all because he covetted the kingdom for himself. He single handedly abused the trust placed in him to help an established independent Scotland find a new king after a Alexander III died without an heir, (well he did, but she died very young, and the bloodline ended). His plotting and manipulation was to be a blight on Scotland and destabilise the peace between Scotland and England for centuries to come. For an English regent bent on destroying Scotland having it absorbed as a region of England, Edward I's psychotic contempt for Scotland, (and Wallace), did more to form, unite and define the National identity of Scotland than anybody else save William Wallace himself.

 

I'm not sure, but I actually wonder about Braveheart, and believe it or not, whether the truth was toned down unless it agitated the case for Scottish Independence. The status of Scotland is not a settled issue, and no pun intended, it takes a brave heart for someone to make a feature film in the minefield of Scotland's history.

 

While much watered down, there is a modern parrallel with Margaret Thatcher, a narrow minded ardent Unionist, who's contempt for Scotland did more for the cause of Scottish Independence than decades of Nationalist politicians and a drum beating movie from Hollywood.

 

To quote an extract from the Declaration of Arbroath... (A letter written to Pope and more or less a Declaration of Scottish Independence written 6th April 1320)

 

The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favours and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harboured no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.

 

 

 

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be neutral here. I happen to hold England and the English in high regard, but a walk through the history of these nations is not a pleasant stroll.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Flyby PC

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Indeed flypc

 

They were vicious times...and Wallace was equally capable of hideous acts of genocide also.

 

The bit in the film, where he burns the English Soldiers to death in the Barn?...hmm..may or may not have happened.

 

Burning to death dozens of Women and Children at Hexham Abbey?...certainly did.

 

But that sort of crime is still commited today of course

[Hasse Wind 46]

When I first saw Braveheart, I thought it was great. Then in later years I started reading more British history, and was disappointed to see just how inaccurate the film was. That's always the problem. The more you know about a subject, the easier it is to spot all the faults in movies and books.

 

It's a mystery to me why directors and producers are so interested in making historical movies that are not actually historical. Isn't history more often than not exciting enough just like it is, without any need to invent things and change the course of events?

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I could not agree more!

 

Sometimes Actors and directors have an 'agenda' I think.

 

Gibson is clearly Anti- English... he makes no bones about it

(and I doubt we will see him starring in Schindlers List 2 either)

Edited September 25, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[Olham 164]

Does anyone know his "Hamlet"? (I don't yet). I heard it was good?

I liked him best in "Lethal Weapon". That's a field he knows to plough.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Gibson is clearly Anti- English... he makes no bones about it

(and I doubt we will see him starring in Schindlers List 2 either)

 

Have you seen The Patriot? Gibson's depiction of the British army is brutal, and the villain of the film is like the love child of Sauron and Cruella De Vil.

 

That being said, war crimes have happened in each and every war throughout the history of mankind. It takes some serious skill to portray such events and their causes in movies in a correct way. Most writers and directors lack that kind of skill.

 

In my opinion, the best films involving Gibson are the Lethal Weapon series and Apocalypto.

[Flyby PC 23]

You're absolutely right about Wallace, it's recorded he made a belt for his sword from the flayed flesh of Hugh de Cressingham, treasurer and tax collector for the English. I don't want to sound partisan about it, but I think it's curious to note however in the same chronciles which recorded it, Wallace wasn't condemned as a monster or savage for doing it, but the event is presented as a yardstick for the widespread hatred for de Cressingham.

 

It isn't recorded as being such, but I can't help thinking that flaying the hide of a tax collector could have symbolic significance in a country where the population were being 'skinned alive' by taxes; but for me to say this when the contempory history doesn't is a step too far and IS me being partisan.

 

I find with History, the best thing you can do is to know about, and don't be too hasty to judge it. Things are seldom that easy.

 

You may have noticed, I'm not a fan of Edward I, but without his deeds, perhaps Scotland might never have had it's day at Bannockburn either.

 

Take Scotland, (or England for that matter), as an example, who's to say this bleak and brutal history isn't the very thing which hardened the will of the people to forge these countries into the Nations and ultimately the Empire they subsequently did?

 

I sometimes like Mel Gibson, Mad Max springs to mind, but not in Braveheart. When he's dating his wife in the beginning, she's a young lass of 16 or so and he looks about 50. I'm not surprised they have to hide their romance from her father even in days before shotguns. Gibson is old enough to be her father.

 

I find it sad we now live in a world which elevates actors as our icons, instead of the trully great figures and heros which history singled out as remarkable.

 

 

Edit: On the other hand, how many people, even in Scotland, wouldn't know who William Wallace was but for the Braveheart film?

 

There was also a joke about Mel Gibson which I cannot remember properly, but it concerned an Australian playing a scot. Before Braveheart, Gibson was a heart throb, sex-symbol action man and all round good guy. After playing a Scot for a few weeks however, he turned into a foul mouthed, abusive, racist, sexist, anti-semitic alcoholic who hated the English.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Flyby PC

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

credit where it's due however...His Scottish Accent was convincing...and the action was well filmed

[Flyby PC 23]

Not so sure about Gibson's accent, (better than Christopher Lamert in Highlander right enough) but Mike Myres in Shrek? -Standing ovation for that! 10 out of 10.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

The worst one ever was that attempt at Cockney in Mary Poppins!

[Olham 164]

That's all forgiveable compared to the Germenglish in Hollywood movies.

 

"Ze Dsherrmans vill vinn ze varr!"

Mmuahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!

[xclusiv8 35]

Acts of anger and hate are committed in every conflict. I can only speak from my personal experience. In the Balkans the Serbs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, we all know this. mass murder, ethnic cleansing. Once this got out to the soldiers of the other side they started committing the same crimes, sure not to the same degree and scale but they are still hideous crimes. In war nobody is without blood on their hands.

[Bullethead 12]

Does anyone know his "Hamlet"? (I don't yet). I heard it was good?

I liked him best in "Lethal Weapon". That's a field he knows to plough.

 

I thought Gibson did quite well in Hamlet. In fact, I liked that whole movie. It was the actual play, dialogue and all, but set in and around a real castle instead of on a deliberately theatrical-looking stage as in the Olivier classic. That and the more-or-less contemporary Henry V were both IMHO outstanding film adaptations of the Shakespeare originals.

 

You're absolutely right about Wallace, it's recorded he made a belt for his sword from the flayed flesh of Hugh de Cressingham, treasurer and tax collector for the English. I don't want to sound partisan about it, but I think it's curious to note however in the same chronciles which recorded it, Wallace wasn't condemned as a monster or savage for doing it, but the event is presented as a yardstick for the widespread hatred for de Cressingham.

 

Both the English and the Scots were headhunting savages for thousands of years down to very recent times (say only 4 or 5 generations ago). The main difference between them was that in Scotland, it was mostly an individual thing, something you'd do to your archenemy or a member of a clan you were at feud with. In England, it was mostly a function of the crown. Thus, an Englishman would be repulsed by some private Scottish citizen making a drinking cup from the skull of his neighbor, but had no problem at all with the King hanging various body parts all over London like the chief of a cannibal tribe.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Both the English and the Scots were headhunting savages for thousands of years down to very recent times (say only 4 or 5 generations ago). The main difference between them was that in Scotland, it was mostly an individual thing, something you'd do to your archenemy or a member of a clan you were at feud with. In England, it was mostly a function of the crown. Thus, an Englishman would be repulsed by some private Scottish citizen making a drinking cup from the skull of his neighbor, but had no problem at all with the King hanging various body parts all over London like the chief of a cannibal tribe.

 

Not only the English and the Scots. Go back in time a few centuries, and life was pretty brutal everywhere. Things and acts that would now be considered heinous crimes and sheer barbarism in civilized societies were pretty common everywhere back then. Just think about the punishments of criminals, for example. Torture was a common method, and only started to get banned during the 18th century in most European countries. And in medieval times, when governments as we know them didn't exist in Europe, it was quite normal for people to settle crimes themselves without any "official" interference. Feuds were a commonly accepted practice in many old societies.

[Flyby PC 23]

You just have to look at the traditional Highland dress with it's sgian dubh, or 'black dagger'.

 

It was called the black dagger, because it was secret and kept hidden, often under the arm, and used for self defense in an emergency. If you didn't trust your company, you kept it hidden. In modern highland dress, the sgian is removed from concealment and stuck into your sock as a mark of respect and trust that you were in the company of people you trusted.

 

It's important to remember however, the Scots, especially the Highlanders were useful soldiers in the days of collonial empire building not merely for their fighting abilities, but many were also adept sailors who could navigate their way around land and waterways without getting lost, and also feed themselves from the land.

 

I'm not so sure about absolute savagery. The Borders between Scotland and England suffered greatly during the Anglo Scottish wars, where the Borders were effectively a lawless place, and your defence relied more on local militia called the Reivers rather than any national army. You got Scottish Reviers and English ones, who'd steal each other's cattle, and raid each others settlements, and kidnap each other's lords and nobles for ransome. The Scots reivers were not above kidnapping a Scottish Lord, and the English likewise, and would even on some occassions exchange hostages with each other. The Borders developed it's own 'laws' and you've perhaps heard of Jeddart Justice? You'll understand the term reiver, as in when somebody is bereaved.

 

I've lifted this from Wiki about the Armstrongs, one of the more famous Scottish Border Reiver families...

 

 

 

16th century

The Armstrongs' relationship with subsequent Scottish kings was turbulent, to say the least. The most notorious event in this uneasy relationship occurred in 1530. John Armstrong, known in history as 'Gilnockie Johnie', was persuaded by a Royal writ of safe passage to attend a meeting at Caerlanrig with King James V who, unknown to Gilnockie, had the malicious intent to silence the rebellious Borderers. The ruse succeeded. Gilnockie and fifty of his followers were captured in direct violation of the safe conduct.

 

A Royal order to hang them was issued, again in violation of James' own writ of safety, and despite several pleas for the King to be lenient in exchange for obedience, it was carried out. Defiant to the last, Gilnockie said these words directly to King James V:

 

"I am but a fool to seek grace at a graceless face, but had I known you would have taken me this day, I would have lived in the Borders despite King Harry and you both." His defiance is commemorated and echoed in the soulful popular Border ballad, "Johnie Armstrong".

 

The whole of Scotland would regret James V's betrayal of the Armstrongs, because his deceipt and betrayal of a truce greatly angered the whole Borders region, and no Armstrongs or like minded borderers would fight or assist James V army at the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542. A massive Scottish army was humiliated by a small force of English troops. With local knowledge which the Armstrongs had, the defeat, better described as a rout would never happened. It just goes to show how delicate and complicated a balancing act the history of Scotland can be.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Flyby PC

[Bullethead 12]

Feuds were a commonly accepted practice in many old societies.

 

And they're not where you live? Strange, almost unique :). Feuds are still the main thing in most parts of the world and of course in any urban area where there's more than 1 gang.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Feuds weren't restricted only to criminal gangs back then. But these days, normal people don't go running around and trying to kill people who've gravely offended them. At least not where I'm living. We have this thing called police and justice system.

[Bullethead 12]

Feuds weren't restricted only to criminal gangs back then. But these days, normal people don't go running around and trying to kill people who've gravely offended them. At least not where I'm living. We have this thing called police and justice system.

 

We have this thing called rednecks, most of whom are of Celtic origin, and that includes the cops. Besides, our government is infamous for its corruption. Thus, feuds are still fairly common here. Even deuling. As opposed to say 100 years ago, we don't have nearly as many killings, but we have a lot of very serious brawls and the odd arson.

 

This culture of bloody revenge is the main reason why Southerners are noted for the politeness. Nobody wants to start a feud by accident