Historical epic as a genre was almost banished from Hollywood in early 1990s. For many critics, scholars and, most importantly, film producers, it was a thing of the past -something that could have attracted crowds only in the era of black-and-white television and non-CGI special effects. But in 1995, same as in the case of Dances With Wolves five years earlier, there came the man who decided to use of all his energy and talents of actor, producer and director in order to revitalise that particular genre. And, same as in the case of Dances With Wolves, he was awarded for his effort with "Oscars". The name of the film was Braveheart, and the name of its director and main actor was Mel Gibson.
The plot chronicles the life of Scottish warlord and folk hero William Wallace (1272 - 1305). In his time, English king Edward I "Longshanks" (played by Patrick McGoohan) has almost completely subdued entire British Isles, including Scotland, whose proud inhabitants are now subjected by "ius primae noctis" and various other forms of humiliation and oppression by English knights. Although English had killed his father many years ago, young Scottish commoner William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson) doesn't care about politics and wants only to have peaceful life with his new bride Murron (played by Catherine MacCormack). Murron's death changes that and Wallace takes arms and, together with small but dedicated band of followers, begins guerrilla campaign that would systematically destroy almost every English garrison in the country. Through time, more and more people join his ranks and in 1298 Wallace's rag tag army scores surprising victory against English knights in the Battle of Stirling Bridge. But the newly won freedom is endangered by the internal squabbles between Scots themselves, especially nobles under pretender Robert the Bruce (played by Angus MacFadyen), who wouldn't like to have a simple commoner as a national leader.
Braveheart was only the second film in the directorial career by Mel Gibson, so it wouldn't be fair to compare it to the better known genre classics directed by David Lean or Anthony Mann. However, even when we apply such criteria Braveheart is more than decent historical epic that takes new and refreshing approach to the genre. The most noticeable element of this approach is naturalism. While older Hollywood films set in medieval Europe used to give fairytale-like vision of picturesque castles, splendid costumes and knights in shining armour, Gibson shows us the extremely unpleasant world of poverty and feudal injustice where might made right and life was hard, short and brutish. This general unpleasantness is especially underlined in the scenes of battle, where hand-to-hand combat is naturalistically displayed in all its gory details, never seen since Verhoeven's ultra-naturalistic Flesh + Blood. Compared with this naturalistic approach, most of Old Hollywood epics look like stage plays. Braveheart also employs humour at the right places, not only to make bloody realities of medieval British Isles more bearable to sensitive audiences, but also to underline its down-to earth atmosphere, so different from previous historical epics.
What makes Braveheart "larger than life" is his protagonist. Mel Gibson obviously invested plenty of his energy and talent in bringing the mythical figure of William Wallace and, as a result, character of 15th Century poems is transformed into superhuman being that resembles late 20th Century comic book hero. Wallace is more than superior to his enemies, both physically and mentally, yet he is able to show his sensitive, more vulnerable side. Naturally, when the character is based on epic poems, most of historical accuracy is going down the drain (which was the case with almost every historical epic from Hollywood in 1990s). However, even those who don't particularly care about history or are willing to give poetic license to scriptwriter Randall Wallace might think that he went over the top in idolising Wallace, especially in the second part of film when Scottish superhero manages to seduce Princess Isabel (played by Sophie Marceau) and make her a child. Because of that the disbelief is hardly suspended, and final scenes aren't as effective as they should be.
Mel Gibson as an actor is truly wonderful, and he is also helped by small army of very good British and Irish actors. Most memorable of them all is Patrick McGoohan, whose cold, calculated and evil medieval monarch is one of the most effective villains seen in contemporary cinema. Brendan Gleeson (who would later become famous for his role in Boorman's General) is also very good as Wallace's trusted companion, as well as Ian Bannen is effective as leprosy-stricken King John Balliol. David O'Harra is very entertaining as Wallace's Irish ally, and Angus MacFadyen brings a lot of anxiety into his conscience-stricken character of Robert the Bruce. Women in this film have rather thankless roles, especially Marceau as one-dimensional French princess. Catherine McCormack as Wallace's wife was more interesting, but she was eliminated from the picture early on. From the technical point of view, the film is also very good. Photography by John Toll brings a lot of Scottish natural beauty to the screen. On the other hand, the musical score by James Horner employs too much of modern-day instruments for period piece set in medieval times.
Although mostly welcomed by critics and audiences alike, Braveheart was often criticised for homophobia and other forms of extreme conservatism. The main reason for that was the fact that Gibson, among many historical facts, chose to be faithful only to those related to sexual orientation of "Longshank"'s son Prince Edward (played by Peter Hanly). He is not only presented as a villain, but also as one of the less competent in villain's camp - and portraying of homosexuals as villains or inferior to heterosexuals is almost unforgivable sin in "politically correct" Hollywood. To make things even more obvious, Good Guys in this film are the total opposite of effeminate and incompetent Edward - rugged macho men of mountains who are more practical and efficient because they tend to employ conservatives' common sense instead of fashionable theories of ivory tower liberals. However, although the message of this film might look right-wing, it owes more to leftist ideology of various national liberation movements in 20th Century. According to that ideology, oppressed classes (workers, peasants) are better suited to fight for national freedom because their members has less to lose in that struggle and, as such, they are more radical, less willing to make compromises and more efficient; on the other hand, privileged classes (aristocracy, bourgeoisie) are more likely to betray the cause of freedom and be in cahoots with foreign oppressors in order to keep their privileges. This Marxist worldview is presented in Braveheart without any subtlety.
In the end, whether the audience is patient enough to discover hidden meanings or simply wants to enjoy entertaining historical epic, Braveheart is more than adequate choice for all fans of this recently resurrected genre.
RATING: 7/10 (+++)
(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews on October 15th 2001)
==
Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com
Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/
Cent profile https://beta.cent.co/@drax
Minds profile https://www.minds.com/drax_rp_nc
Brave browser: https://brave.com/dra011
BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG
ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7
Movie URL: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/197-braveheart?language=en-US
Critic: AA