Braveheart

Patrick MacGoohan as Edward Longshanks


I finally watched Braveheart for the first time, and I was impressed. It was a great flick, despite its obvious historical flaws and inaccuracies, the most obvious of which I spotted right away, despite the fact that I know next to nothing (if that much) about that period of English and Scottish history. When King Edward Longshanks (Edward I) sends his daughter-in-law to meet with William Wallace, the thought that thundered through my skull was something along the lines of "now shit, there's just no way that really happened."

Come to find out, not only did it not happened, there was no way it could have happened, or even been considered, seeing as how Isabelle did not marry the future Edward II until AFTER Wallace was dead. She was nowhere in the picture, in fact. Obviously, Gibson wanted to create a sense of romantic intrigue, and Isabelle provided the one female romantic lead in the movie, Wallace's own bride having been raped and murdered by the English (which of course was the reason for his rebellion).

Everything else was pretty accurate, with the exception of some costuming inaccuracies I read about which were fairly insignificant in the great scheme of things. I also wondered about the scene where the Scots meet with the Irish conscripts to the English army on the field of battle and, instead of fighting, join forces. I'm sure it happened, I just doubt that it happened in quite the manner in which it was portrayed.

Of course, when the film was first released, Mel Gibson (star, producer, and director) took a lot of flack for his supposed homophobia due to his depiction of the homosexuality and weakness of Edward II. The facts are, of course, Edward was weak and ineffectual, and he happened to be a homosexual, so I'm not sure what the problem here is. Was Gibson expected to write Edward to be something other than what he was? (In Edwards defense, though he certainly was a lousy king in almost every conceivable way, he did have a liking and empathy for the common people over the nobility, and in fact was instrumental in the founding of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford).

One scene in particular that caused some controversy was where Edward Longshanks lured his son's male lover to an open window in a castle with the pretense of eagerly getting his advice on how to deal with the William Wallace threat. He then overpowered him quickly and sent him flying out his window to his death. I have found no independent historical verification for this scene, and I'm sure it was an artistic license probably meant to convey a sense of the lives, interactions and relationships of father and son. Gibson later stated that he intentionally portrayed Edward Longshanks as a psychopath, and was surprised that the scene in question generated laughter from audiences. Uhhm, well, it was funny. Perhaps it was unintentionally so, but this was due more to the genius portrayal of Edward Longshanks by Patrick MacGoohan than any inherent sadism on the part of the audience. Besides, this foolish character should have known that a man with the reputation of Edward Longshanks needed no military advice from such a young upstart. Edward had fought successfully in a crusade, during a period in which he almost lost his life at the hands of an Islamic would-be assassin. A psychopath I have no doubt he was, but he was a psychopath with an attitude, a history, and, last but not least, a throne.

As for his son, his history becomes more comprehensible when viewed through the lens of the attitudes of the time towards homosexuality which was fostered and encouraged by the Church (at this time in England still the Catholic Church). It explains his dislike of the nobility and his difficulties during his reign. He had a heavy cross to bear, and with a father like Longshanks, its little wonder he had a hard time coping. I think the problem is the implication that homosexuals are by their nature weak and ineffectual. Growing up with the pressure he was constantly under, its incumbent to ask how he could be anything but weak and ineffectual.

As for William Wallace, though Gibson portrays him magnificently, he is little more than a vengeful cartoon character. Yet, this too is understandable. This was a man who revolved the entirety of his life, his sole purpose, toward revenge against the English and ending their domination of his beloved homeland. That lives little room for character development, but then again, Wallace might have been, in his own way, as psychopathic as Longshanks.


Gibson brings an intensity to his portrayal of William Wallace that would be hard to match.

Gibson has a kind of edge about him when portraying psychopathic or otherwise disturbed characters, and his portrayal of William Wallace was no exception. When he rode up to discuss terms with the English diplomat, the wild, crazed look in his eyes and the sneer as he moved about on his horse hurling insults at the English, his oppressors, was classic Gibson.

Unfortunately, psychopaths tend to be obsessive-compulsive, and this tendency brought about Wallace's doom. He was lured into a meeting with important Scottish lords, among them Robert the Bruce-who had already betrayed him once-against all sound advice, attending the meeting in the hopes of finally rallying the lords of Scotland against their harsh English masters and throwing off their oppressive yoke. Instead, he was lured into a trap designed by the elder Bruce, a horribly disfigured leper whose affliction denied him any legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland which was otherwise his by birthright. He made the deal in order to secure the place of his son, and in so doing earned his son's hatred and scorn. I'm really surprised Shakespeare didn't touch on all this. He did write a play about Edward Longshank's father-I think. As you can tell I am also no expert on Shakespeare.

At any rate, Wallace was delivered to London, during the dying days of Edward Longshanks, and when ordered to admit treason, replied that he had never accepted Edward as his king. As a consequence he was ordered executed following a period of "purification" by torture. If I understand this concept right, this was allegedly to save his soul and/or force him to change his mind, and at the same time make an impression among the people. It was probably more than anything for entertainment purposes aimed at the crowd of commoners who would flock to see such things. Wallace was racked, drawn, and disemboweled. During his last seconds, he summoned his last reserves of strength and screamed "Freedom". By this point the crowd, enthralled by his courage and strength, begged for mercy on his behalf.

It was a great film and would deserve four or maybe even five stars, but I would have to limit it to three due to the unnecessary use of Isabella as a romantic plot device, an unfortunate ploy doubtless meant to attract female audiences. There is enough actual drama and intrigue in this story, what is known of it, without having to burden it with unrealistic fictional occurences.

At the same time, if you have never seen this film, I do highly recommend it. You can almost feel these times come alive before your eyes. Gibson and MacGoohan are paricularly good.