MY (LONG) REVIEW OF HOMOPHOBIC BRAVEHEART
Brand...@aol.com
BRAVEHEART - *
Critic: Brandon Judell
"Most of our pictures have little, if any, real substance. Our fear of what
the censors will do keeps us from portraying life the way it really is. We
wind up with a lot of empty fairy tales that do not have much relation to
anyone." -- Samuel Goldwyn, 1938
Entertainment-wise, "Braveheart," the story of Scotland's national hero
William Wallace, keeps you going for about half of its nearly three-hour
length. There are the dazzling Scottish and Irish landscapes, a melodic,
never overbearing musical accompaniment, and an at times inspiring tale of a
downtrodden folk fighting for their freedom. In fact, the early part of this
historical drama, the part which chronicles the childhood of William Wallace,
is nigh perfect.
Then producer/director/actor Mel Gibson comes on screen, and it's soon
obvious everyone was afraid to say, "No!" to him. It quickly becomes clear
that Gibson has distorted history, when he has not totally reinvented it,
bringing his off-screen homophobia to celluloid, and displaying an ego that
has grown to zeppelin proportions. He's also about ten years too old and much
too contemporary in body language for the part. (Wallace was executed as a
traitor when he was approximately 35. Gibson enters the action looking older
than his 39 years--and he's supposed to be, at that point, in his early
twenties.)
Well, where shall we start? First, the concrete facts available on William
Wallace's personal life are indeed limited. Asks Thomas B. Costain in his
"The Three Edwards" (Doubleday & Company, 1962): "Was he tall or short? Dark
or fair? Was he handsome of mien? There is not a scrap of reliable evidence
on any such points." Many details surrounding Wallace are mythic and come
from the 300 pages of rhyming verse attributed to a 15th century poet known
as Blind Harry, who based his verse on 200 year old legends.
Not having the poem at hand, I conferred with a few encyclopedias, scoured
the Internet and the New York Public Library. Gibson, on the other hand, was
possibly too busy having his tresses braided and staging odd "Lethal Weapon"
scenes for his opus (e.g. he and his horse jumping out of a window into the
river below).
Notes Costain: "Wallace had two brothers, but supposedly left his father's
household with his mother "at some crisis to find protection in the household
of a powerful relative at Kilspindie in the Carse of Gowrie and to have
completed his education, such as it was, at the seminary attached to the
cathedral of Dundee." In "Braveheart," Gibson has one brother, no mother, and
he runs around in filth. When his father and sibling are killed in battle,
his uncle comes to take him away and educate him.
(Please take stock of how in the early scenes, everyone is covered with filth
but has great teeth, something Pasolini never let occur.)
Compton's: "Wallace as a young man killed an Englishman who insulted him. For
this he was outlawed. He then collected a band of followers and began a
struggle against the English rule of Edward I." In "Braveheart," Wallace's
wife Murron (the very fine actress Catherine McCormack), has her throat slit
after refusing to be raped by the Brits. Costain: "[Wallace] was not
married."
"The Columbia Encyclopedia" (Columbia University Press, 1993) chronicles that
Wallace's first major battle against the forces of Edward I occurred when he
"marched on Scone and met an English force of more than 50,000 before
Stirling Castle in September 1297. The English, trying to cross a narrow
bridge over the Forth River, were killed as they crossed, and their army was
routed." The action has been transferred to a field. Killing the enemy as
they crossed a bridge probably wasn't macho enough.
Compton's: "In 1307, King Edward, then seventy years old, led an army toward
Scotland but died before he reached the border." Here he dies in bed, a
rather broken villain.
Most idiotic of all is the premise that Edward III, Edward II's son, was in
actuality sired by Wallace. The idea that Princess Isabella (Sophie Marceau),
Edward II's wife, even came into contact with Wallace is preposterous. In
fact, Edward II had not even married Isabella until four years after
Wallace's body had been cut into quarters and distributed for display in
Stirling, Perth, Newcastle and Berwick. She was 13 at the time of her
marriage. Nine at Wallace's carving up.
But very few of us expect historical accuracy in Hollywood biopics. What's
exasperating here is not the hundreds of nonsensical inventions that pop up
throughout the feature, but the lengths Gibson and his writer Randall Wallace
have gone to make Edward II into an unsympathetic nelly queen.
Compton's: "He was tall and handsome like his father, but he was a coward in
battle."
C. Warren Hollister, in his "The Making of England: 55B.C. to 1399" (D.C.
Heath and Company, 1992), quotes a contemporary of Edward as describing him
"fair of body and great of strength."
The Bishop William Stubbs adds: "He was a trifler, an amateur farmer, a
breeder of horses, a patron of playwrights, a contriver of masques, a
smatterer in mechanical arts; he was, it may be, an adept in rowing and a
practiced whip; he could dig a pit or thatch a barn; somewhat varied and
inconsistent accomplishments, but all testifying to be skillful hand rather
than the thoughtful head."
Well, just because you are born into royalty doesn't mean you should be
competent to rule. Edward II couldn't. His reign was a disaster on almost all
levels. Yet just because you're a bisexual or a gay King doesn't mean you
wear lipstick, rouge and lady's dresses plus mince around. The Effigy of
Edward II in Glocester Cathedral shows an attractive bearded and mustached
man, not Quentin Crisp in a ball gown.
In the most insufferable scene of the film, Edward I in a tiff throws his
son's paramour, probably meant to be Piers Gaveston, out a window to his
death. This is played for laughs. There is no sympathy for the son or the
lover. The fact that this never occurred makes the moment even more
horrifying. In a world where it's too often been and still is fair game to
bash and slaughter gays and lesbians and get away with it, it's frightening
to see the matter made light of in such an abominable way by the Hollywood of
the 1990's.
(For another view of the king, rent the late Derek Jarman's low-budgeted film
"Edward II," which captured the turmoil of Edward's brief inept reign.
Jarman's end product was a work of art that created a full-bodied person with
a soul--and made the man's life relevant to us today.)
Gibson will never have this mastery, and it's sad that Paramount Pictures
which has many gay employees has stooped to release such a flawed work of
bigotry and forced them to stand behind it.
Arthur Bell, the late Village Voice columnist and founder of the Gay
Activists Alliance, wrote on March 3, 1974 that "our revolution came late in
1969. But our stereotypes continue. Our screen image is alive and sick and in
need of a euthanasic ending and a liberated beginning." He then added that
the people making Hollywood films "are either unconscious of what they're
doing or homophobic enough to want to perpetrate age-old stereotypes that gay
is bad, an equivalent to black is ugly and one which the gay movement is
working to obliterate."
The Gay and Lesbian Defamation League will be leafletting theaters in nine
cities (e.g. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Minneapolis) to raise
awareness about the homophobic content in "Braveheart." See the film, join
them if you will, and then write a letter to Paramount and Mel Gibson,
letting them know you don't want to spend $7.50 for intolerance when you can
get it free in your streets.
(C) Copyright Brandon Judell for Critics' Choice 1995. All Rights Reserved.
Transmitted: 95-05-24 12:42:44 EDT
For other reviews (PRIEST, SUPER 8-1/2), you can get into Critics' Choice on
AOL, by punching in the keyword: CRITIC
OddsBotkin
Every time I think Hollywood can't get any dumber or more offensive, it
turns out I'm wrong....
O. Botkin
MaxCue
(Sorry if this is not pc...but it's about as true as their food is lousy.
Alexander E. Christensen
: BRAVEHEART - *
: Critic: Brandon Judell
: Not having the poem at hand, I conferred with a few encyclopedias, scoured
: the Internet and the New York Public Library. Gibson, on the other hand, was
: possibly too busy having his tresses braided and staging odd "Lethal Weapon"
: scenes for his opus (e.g. he and his horse jumping out of a window into the
: river below).
The horse scene is surreal and beautiful. Its only relation to "Lethal
Weapon" is that Gibson is involved. You don't have to be snotty to be a
reviewer.
: Notes Costain: "Wallace had two brothers, but supposedly left his father's
: household with his mother "at some crisis to find protection in the household
: of a powerful relative at Kilspindie in the Carse of Gowrie and to have
: completed his education, such as it was, at the seminary attached to the
: cathedral of Dundee." In "Braveheart," Gibson has one brother, no mother, and
: he runs around in filth. When his father and sibling are killed in battle,
: his uncle comes to take him away and educate him.
Taking liberties with history is nothing new, especially when it adds to
the dramatic content of the film. These changes did.
: Compton's: "Wallace as a young man killed an Englishman who insulted him. For
: this he was outlawed. He then collected a band of followers and began a
: struggle against the English rule of Edward I." In "Braveheart," Wallace's
: wife Murron (the very fine actress Catherine McCormack), has her throat slit
: after refusing to be raped by the Brits. Costain: "[Wallace] was not
: married."
Again, this showed the inhumanity of English rule and the horrendous
practice of "prima nocte," giving nobles the right of sleeping with a
bride on her first night of marriage. It was perfectly justifiable
dramatically.
: "The Columbia Encyclopedia" (Columbia University Press, 1993) chronicles that
: Wallace's first major battle against the forces of Edward I occurred when he
: "marched on Scone and met an English force of more than 50,000 before
: Stirling Castle in September 1297. The English, trying to cross a narrow
: bridge over the Forth River, were killed as they crossed, and their army was
: routed." The action has been transferred to a field. Killing the enemy as
: they crossed a bridge probably wasn't macho enough.
This is _so_ niggling. Do you realize you're criticizing a particular
battle for not taking place on a bridge and suggesting it's due to
Gibson's machismo? It's just silly. In an interview, Gibson says that
he simply wanted a horse charge here. The evidence that it occurred on a
bridge is not first-hand anyway, and the battle Gibson stages here is
rare for its beauty, massiveness, and the way it communicates strategy
despite its scale. It is superbly done. It has little to do with
machismo and much to do with good filmmaking.
: Most idiotic of all is the premise that Edward III, Edward II's son, was in
: actuality sired by Wallace. The idea that Princess Isabella (Sophie Marceau),
: Edward II's wife, even came into contact with Wallace is preposterous. In
: fact, Edward II had not even married Isabella until four years after
: Wallace's body had been cut into quarters and distributed for display in
: Stirling, Perth, Newcastle and Berwick. She was 13 at the time of her
: marriage. Nine at Wallace's carving up.
Ah, but it's so romantic. Sophie Marceau is brilliant.
: But very few of us expect historical accuracy in Hollywood biopics. What's
: exasperating here is not the hundreds of nonsensical inventions that pop up
: throughout the feature, but the lengths Gibson and his writer Randall Wallace
: have gone to make Edward II into an unsympathetic nelly queen.
There are historical suggestions that Edward II _was_ gay. So there is a
decision to be made. Gibson and Randall Wallace used this fact as a
device to make Isabella more susceptible to William Wallace's charms and
to weave a story about fathers and sons, with parallels between Robert
the Bruce and his father, William Wallace and his father, and Hamish and
his father. It is handled well and indeed resonantly. The character is
gay, but not portrayed as as much of a mincing faggot as Archibald
Cunningham was in "Rob Roy." There is true, pointless homophobia.
: Well, just because you are born into royalty doesn't mean you should be
: competent to rule. Edward II couldn't. His reign was a disaster on almost all
: levels. Yet just because you're a bisexual or a gay King doesn't mean you
: wear lipstick, rouge and lady's dresses plus mince around.
He does wear make-up, not altogether historically inaccurate and fancy
formal clothes, but never a "lady's dress." You should watch a movie
before you review it. He minces no more than anybody else.
: The Effigy of
: Edward II in Glocester Cathedral shows an attractive bearded and mustached
: man, not Quentin Crisp in a ball gown.
What the f--k do you have against Quentin Crisp? _Your_ homophobia is
showing.
: In the most insufferable scene of the film, Edward I in a tiff throws his
: son's paramour, probably meant to be Piers Gaveston, out a window to his
: death. This is played for laughs.
Bulls--t. No one laughed in my theater except one person who seemed
shocked. The scene adds to Edward Longshanks's inhumanity.
: There is no sympathy for the son or the lover.
Perhaps you saw it with some jerks. Sometimes homophobia is revealed by
moments like these, not created. I saw "The Wedding Banquet" with a
crowd who laughed at the love scenes here, even when they weren't being
played for laughs. That doesn't mean "The Wedding Banquet" should be
picketed.
: The fact that this never occurred makes the moment even more
: horrifying. In a world where it's too often been and still is fair game to
: bash and slaughter gays and lesbians and get away with it, it's frightening
: to see the matter made light of in such an abominable way by the Hollywood of
: the 1990's.
Yeah, I bet there will be an increase in gay military advisors being
thrown off of castles because of this film. Get real. Again, it only
showed the king's inhumanity.
: (For another view of the king, rent the late Derek Jarman's low-budgeted film
: "Edward II," which captured the turmoil of Edward's brief inept reign.
: Jarman's end product was a work of art that created a full-bodied person with
: a soul--and made the man's life relevant to us today.)
What this "us"? One film can use a character one way, and one film
another. They're telling different stories. Grow up.
You should watch this film again. The imagery and stories it portrays
are resonant and magical and legendary. Gibson has made a wonderful
film. Those who are picketing it should be embarrassed to have said
nothing about the horrible "Rob Roy" with its stereotypes while they
whine about "Braveheart," a wonderful film which admittedly uses an
unsympathetic gay character, but certainly not in a homophobic way.
--
Aechrist "That'd be cool if I could, like, mail myself...just put a stamp
\ / on my butt and say, 'Take me someplace cool.'" --Butt-Head
\ / WWW Home Page at http://liberty.uc.wlu.edu/~aechrist/aechrist.html
\/ "Come see a movie on our big screen soon!"
Mathemagician
[concerning the rape of Murron in the movie, _Braveheart,_ and how it
isn't historically accurate]
>Again, this showed the inhumanity of English rule and the horrendous
>practice of "prima nocte," giving nobles the right of sleeping with a
>bride on her first night of marriage. It was perfectly justifiable
>dramatically.
This is, in French, the "droit de signeur." And while it is quite a
common occurrence in plays of the 18th century and such, it was never
an actual right (yes, I know _Braveheart_ is set about the 14th century,
but it's still the case that the droit de signeur is a myth.)
That isn't to say that lords of the manor and such never had sex with
just-wed brides. It's to say that it was uncommon and not a right
of the lord. If it happened at all, it was still considered rape.
Whether or not the raped woman and her husband could do anything
about it, though....
--
Brian P. Evans | Why do they call it a one night "stand"
ev...@mail.sdsu.edu | when the idea is to get "laid"?