The Curse of Braveheart

Many libertarian types are understandably excited by the prospect of this woman appearing in a forthcoming adaptation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Plenty of non-libertarians, of course, are simply keen on seeing Angelina Jolie in, well, anything.

I fear the worst however. The very worst. Cato's blog reminds me that the movie is being written, and may be directed by, Mr Randall Wallace. If I remind you that he was also responsible for the screenplay for Pearl Harbor you may gain some sense of the treats that lie in store. That's far from the end of Mr Wallace's crimes against decency and cinema however.

Much worse than Pearl Harbor is the fact that Mr Wallace is responsible for the claptrap that is the unaccountably successful and monumentally over-rated Braveheart. One would not expect any Hollywood movie, let alone one directed by and starring Mel Gibson, to bother itself with anything so mundane and tedious as historical record, so the irritation one felt over Braveheart's historical imbecilities is the least of one's concern with the movie.

No, it was the film's narcissism (it might have been 30 minutes shorter but for the loving, slow-motion close-ups of Stumpy Mel's woad-splashed visage), vulgarity, racism and cheap homophobia that, while scarcely unexpected, proved repulsive. One expected the historical ignorance, but it was gratuitous for the film to be so cheerily proud of this squalor too.

The film's social consequences were every bit as distasteful and cloying. For some reason my countrymen went Braveheart-mad. No reference to the national football or rugby teams was complete without some idiotic reference to something called the "Braveheart spirit" (usually, natch, in a losing cause). A statue of William Wallace was duly commissioned that bore an intentionally striking resemblance to Mr Gibson. Ghastly stuff indeed and just the sort of thing to have one pining for the innocent sillyness of Brigadoon.

Typically, mind you, the movie encouraged Scots to focus on the ennobling purity of heroic failure, rather than on the messy, complicated, conflicted but vastly more interesting figure of Sir Robert the Bruce whose campaign for Scotland was actually, like, successful. Braveheart fed an already healthy Scottish appetite for self-pity; far from being an ennobling experience, this was emasculating. Wallace lost: Bruce won. No wonder the country preferred to elevate Wallace to some sort of folk hero status. True, it would have been a lesser Bruce without Wallace, but were it not for Bruce Wallace would have been but a minor footnote in history, little more significant than old Owen Glendower in Wales. As it was, Bruce preserved Scottish independence until the day would come, in 1603, when the King of Scots would become the King of England (the first stage in what one might, in beery moments, consider one of the more startlingly successful reverse takeovers in history).

According to Mr Wallace Atlas Shrugged is much too like Braveheart for its own good (though, in fairness, he doesn't put it quite like that):

The assertion that change occurs when heroic individuals are willing to stand up–and further, that people in the herd want to be heroic individuals but aren’t encouraged to do so until they find a leader worth following–is very much in Braveheart, and it’s something thoroughly ingrained in the American psyche.

(It's unnecessary, I hope, to note in passing that this is a characteristically ignorant statement: Scotland was in revolt and turmoil before Wallace arrived, almost accidentally, upon the scene. Though he was appointed Guardian of Scotland, he was scarcely the only man to find himself fighting the invading English. There was, to give but one significant example, Andrew de Moray in the early years too. Many others played their part too. Which is not to say that Wallace was not important, only that he was not the doomed Messiah Messrs Wallace and Gibson seem to think he was.)

As for the comparisons Randall Wallace seems to be wanting to make between William Wallace and George Washington, well, these too seem stretched if for no other reason than Washington's career rather more closely resembles (if the comparison must be made) Robert the Bruce's than Wallace's. This would confirm that a) Mr Wallace knows nothing about what he speaks and b) he wrote his rotten movie about the wrong sodding Scot.

All done now. Feeling better, thank you. Time for a restorative whisky.

PS: Clive Davis recently compiled a list of criminally over-rated movies (rightly topped by The English Patient) that unaccountably to include Braveheart.

PPS: Yes, yes, I know that this is yet another minority opinion. Doesn't make me wrong.

Comments

[kb]

"I fear the worst however."

Oh please.

It's unlikely any film maker,no mattter how poor,could accurately display "Atlas Shrugged" more badly than the original author wrote it.

Worst case ? A film that is ridiculous drivel. So a no score draw with the book.

[ben]

Robert I is a far more compelling character than that of Wallace anyway, I think. In the end of the day Wallace, while a courageous man and a good motivator of men, got lucky, once, and that's about it. What Robert achieved was sans pareil.

I think it's a damn shame no Scottish Shakespeare ever attempted a play of King Robert I -- there's an opportunity for an eve-of-battle speech there that would put Harry to shame.

I don't know if it's his popularity and perceived common touch that has him remembered by name & surname. As he said himself in reply to a letter addressed to "Robert Bruce, Governor of Scotland":

"We cannot say anything in reply to the cardinals' letters which are not addressed to us as king. There are several 'Robert Bruces' who, in company with the other barons, are 'governors of the kingdom of Scotland' ... we will not open the pope's sealed letters, for they carry no royal title and are not addressed to us."

[Gabriel]

I once did a highland tour with a history-loving Scot who hated the fact that Wallace was so loved and Robert the Bruce relatively ignored, and he was beside himself when he realized that I was a Murray.

[Gabriel]

I also love the fact that the Mel Gibson statue at the Wallace Monument near Stirling now has protective barriers and security cameras trained on it because of being so often defaced.

[Gabriel]

and he was beside himself when he realized that I was a Murray.
I should clarify, beside himself in a good way. He was no fan of Wallace but a big fan of Andrew de Moray.

[Russ]

Obviously Braveheart and Pearl Harbors were dreadful things, but I could wish no other screenwriter for anything on that harpy Ayn Rand. My only hope is that Roland Emmerich produces and Michael Bay directs!!

[Clive Davis]

Alex,
I've never seen more than about two minutes of "Braveheart". Sounds as if I had a lucky escape! ("The Strike" with kilts?)

[NEaL_]

Well guys i dont understand why you ppl are so much against a great movie like Braveheart.Well its natural for the English Historians to accept the brutal truth ! But thats the way we know history of England which can never be changed by critisizing a movie like Brave-Heart. Feel sorry for you losers.

[NEaL_]

Well guys i dont understand why you ppl are so much against a great movie like Braveheart.Well its natural for the English Historians to accept the brutal truth ! But thats the way we know history of England which can never be changed by critisizing a movie like Brave-Heart. Feel sorry for you losers.

[Steve Benn]

It would be useful to note that the film braveheart WAS about the right guy - here's a quick history lesson to clear this up.

Braveheart WAS Robert the Bruce. His heart was embalmed after his death to lead the Scots on crusade. Robert Douglas was quoted as urging Bruce's "Brave heart" to lead the Douglas' men onwards.
PLEASE stop making the mistake of calling William Wallace "Braveheart".