I HATE BRAVEHEART - and here's why
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
: No more has annoyed me more this year than Braveheart. I found this
: movie reprehensible and embarrassing - and please note I actually
: saw the movie, so you can't nail me there.
: And, what is Wallace's fault, if any? He is turned in by a Judas. He trusted
: people who betrayed him. That is, it seems, the *only* reason he gets
: caught and killed. And then, when he gets killed, boy does he get killed:
: his balls burnt off, his guts ripped out, his head cut off - all while he
: is on a cross. You could not write a more self-serving death scene.
: So, Braveheart is the usual wish-fulfillment fantasy bullshit. The hero
: wins and does all these impossible things to win the gaze of people in
: the movie and in the movie theater. (I know it is based on historical legend,
: but without even reading that legend I'm sure they altered it enough for
: us to consider this "fiction.") It is saying, hey, you can have total
: success in your life and accomplish all these contradictory things.
As regards the wallace character. All of the above that you see as
fantasy bullshit actually happend. Wallace rose from the ranks of th
common man to lead an army against the English. he won all those
spectacular battles, was offered the throne and declined, preferring to
follow Bruce as King, was betrayed, and killed in exactly the fashion
described in the movie. The results of his endeavours eventually led to
bruce winning a magnificent victory in 1314 over the english at Bannockburn.
These are well attested facts of history, Both bruce and Wallace are huge
folk and historical heroes to the Scots. Every city has a staue to
wallace/and/or bruce. These two men did liberate Scotland. It is really
as simple as that. From my point of view (a Scot admittidly) this is what
makes the story so compelling..it is true!
The french princess bit was a lie, she was 5 at the time of the events.
however, it may be seen as alegory of a mutual defence treaty (The auld
Alliance) betwen Scotland and France, signed in 1280-odd and lasting
until the present day essentially. Scotland and france did unite against
England on many occasions, at the political level.
Edward the II was gay, and was killed by his own counsellers by having a
red hot poker shoved into his rectum. Again this is historical fact. i am
sorry you didn't like the plot..it wass all esentially true. Your Christ
analogy is interesting..but the motif of a hero dying in battle is very
common in celtic mythology..and predates Christ by a good few millenia.
As films, bioth RobRoy and Braveheart can be seen to play out Historical
drama within the framework of celtic storytelling. A very apt framework
for these two figures. But that doesn't detract from the power of the
story. If Wallace had died, and Scotland had been subjugated you would
hav liked it more? Fortuantely, that just didn't happen. And tht enthod
of executiuon was well attested to. Even the defence used by Wallace "I
never swore an oath of fealty' was his defence (a clever one at the time,
you see he wasn't a knight when he started out, therefore he was not
considered a threat, therfore he did not take an oath.). Further, latin,
French and Scots English would have been used in the Borders in political
circles at the time, and wallace was a clever man.
Finally i would say..dont blame your dislike of the film on what you see
as a fantasy hollywood plot. for once they stuck to the real story..how
much pressure would have been on any other director to let Wallace live
at the end, kill EdII and marry the princess? That would have been
fantasy bullshit.
Comments accepted.
__________________________________________________
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
sr...@galactose.mc.duke.edu
"Insert your own pithy phrase just about here!"
J Evans
>No more has annoyed me more this year than Braveheart. I found this
>movie reprehensible and embarrassing - and please note I actually
>saw the movie, so you can't nail me there.
It seems to me that you have a *philosophical* disagreement with
Braveheart. Which is fine. But does that make it a bad film?
Put another way, if a film espouses ideas and values with you disagree with,
does that make it a bad film? If the film does this in a compelling manner,
is it *still* a good film, even if you despise it? TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is
the most obvious example which comes to mind. Some people have serious
problems with, say, Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - Pauline Kael accused
Kubrick of trying to make the audience like and sympathize with a sadistic
psychopath. I don't agree with her interpretation, but that's not
relevant - the point is, it's still a great film. "Great" as in
"entertaining, thought-provoking, technically admirable." Please note thatI'
m not saying BRAVEHEART is as good as A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
>First, let me outline two trends in movies since the late '70s which
>I strongly dislike.
>1) Happy endings
>2) The spectacle
> There have always been
>happy endings, fairy tales and books or whatever. But with a Snow White
>fairy tale, you know that it is artifice, that it's a book, a story. The
>spectacle of modern movies - besides being ends unto themselves - make
>people confuse the artifice with "reality.
Huh?
I mean, what are you saying here?
That people think all movies are documentaries? No. (Yes, I know you
didn't mean that, but that's what the words on their own mean.)
That film is a "hot" medium, as opposed to literature, and people respond to
it in a more visceral and emotional way? Sure. Do happy endings and big
spectacles add to this response? Absolutely. If you're just pointing out
these facts, I agree, but you seem to think that there is something wrong
with this, and I'm afraid you're not explaining it very clearly.
>Now, Braveheart. Braveheart has a happy ending. No doubt people will
>disagree with me since the hero gets disembowled. But what happens?
>Scotland wins its freedom, the king is sick and dies, the princess is
>knocked up by Mel (is that what happens? I forget) - Mel has won.
I would argue that trying to describe Braveheart's ending as either "happy"
or "sad" is a gross oversimplification. Why does it have to be either/or?
> And let's also look at
> how Mel is playing William Wallace. Mel/Wallace is:
>brave; tough; smart; multi-lingual; even funny; courageous to a fault;
>witty; a brilliant leader; dashingly handsome; rugged; covered with dirt
>except for the make out scenes; made up as some sort of Christ figure
>(the visual signs are too many and too embarrassing to list) with an axe.
>So I am already pretty much hating Mel Gibson in this movie for playing
>what he only wishes he could be. This guy is a narcissistic megalomaniac.
Do you hate Toshiro Mifune for playing the General in Kurosawa's THE HIDDEN
FORTRESS? (Virtually all of your descriptions above apply - not the
Christ one, it being Japanese - and then some.) Does that make Mifune a
"narcissistic megalomaniac"? Even if it does, does that make THE HIDDEN
FORTRESS a bad film? If so, why?
If this was the first movie Mel Gibson had been involved with since Mad Max,
would you dislike it as viscerally?
>And, what is Wallace's fault, if any? He is turned in by a Judas. He trusted
>people who betrayed him. That is, it seems, the *only* reason he gets
>caught and killed. And then, when he gets killed, boy does he get killed:
>his balls burnt off, his guts ripped out, his head cut off - all while he
>is on a cross. You could not write a more self-serving death scene.
Could you explain what you mean by "self-serving"?
>So, Braveheart is the usual wish-fulfillment fantasy bullshit...
>us to consider this "fiction.") It is saying, hey, you can have total
>success in your life and accomplish all these contradictory things.
No it's not. It's not "saying" anything. If you want to infer a moral you
can go ahead and do so, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that
Braveheart is a film that actually tries to make some kind of moral point.
(Not that I have anything against movies which do so: DR. STRANGELOVE is my
favourite film.) It's just telling a colourful and entertaining story
about a likable character. And it tells it well.
>But Braveheart goes one step further, which on its face seems "honest"
>and "real" but is really just more of the same: it says you must die in
>order to accomplish all this.
See above comment.
Good films do not necessarily have "messages".
(REPO MAN and NAKED LUNCH are two more of my favourite movies).
>So maybe that is why I hate Braveheart. It is the happiest ending yet -
>the one where you end up as Jesus Christ for centuries on end, except
>Mel Gibson was needed to make a movie about this one. All praise Mel
>Gibson for discovering the lost Jesus Christ! The lost All Time Good Guy,
>who started as some schlep just like you or me, and who is now
>personified by Mel Gibson!
Let me repeat: if this was Gibson's first film since MAD MAX - if he was
almost unknown - would you have the same problems with the movie?
>I should end here. But let me add that the particular spectacle that
>makes Braveheart additionally reprehensible are all the maimings, gougings
>and graphic depictions of bodily harm that confuse people between
>*reality* (whatever the story of William Wallace was) and asinine
>wish-fulfillment (this piece of junk).
Let me rewrite your paragraph slightly:
"But let me add that the particular spectacle that makes THE SEVEN SAMURAI
additionally reprehensible are all the maimings, gougings and graphic
depictions of bodily harm that confuse people between *reality* (whatever
the story of 18th century Japan was) and asinine wish-fulfillment (this
piece of junk)."
You're clearly intelligent enough to see my point.
>I also hated the sappy score with the bagpipes.
I wasn't a big fan of the score either.
>I congratulate anyone who has read this entire thing and am very anxious
>to hear reactions, positive or negative, as well as the inevitable half-
>dozen carps on some minor plot point I might have gotten incorrect.
I think your criticism is intelligent and well-written.
But I also think it's dead wrong.
>P.S. I got most of my ideas from Seeing Through Movies, edited by
>Mark Crispin Miller.
I get mine from the voices in my head.
>Lukas Kendall
Jon
http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~jemevans
"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have
to show you no stinking badges!" - THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
Jim_...@transarc.com
> First, let me outline two trends in movies since the late '70s which
> but I am still very suspicious of them and careful to acknowledge their
> presence:
I'm not sure why you see these as trends since the late '70s. Most of
what you say applies to movies since their invention.
> 1) Happy endings, i.e. Star Wars, Karate Kid, Ghostbusters, Top Gun,
> basically any romantic comedy or blockbuster hit along these lines.
> These movies are about going backwards in life. Let us, for a minute,
> pretend we understand what life is all about (see Lacan) and call this
> a procession from being an infant to going through the mirror stage
> (i.e. the baby first sees itself in the mirror and recognizes that it
> is a separate person) to this long, sucky existence where we become adults
> and wrestle with the Symbolic Order. To be short (and probably wrong),
> life does not have a happy ending - in fact it has no ending at all except
> a literal one, death. It is a chain of events, some good, some bad, all of
> them driven by desire - for a mate, for success, for fun, whatever. It is
> always, always ambiguous, and I like it when movies reflect the
> "contradictions of being" to borrow a phrase from somewhere (I
>forget). Typical '80s/'90s happy endings are not reflecting these ambiguities, they
> are canceling them out - you *can* become a Top Gun pilot and have a
> brainiac civilian instructor as your woman. These dissonances of reality,
> the conflicts between being a child and growing up, are *negated*. So
> happy endings are already impossible and should be taken with a grain of
> salt.
There are several points that are worth making here.
First off, one theory of art is that art imposes structure on this
randomness, that the very nature of art is to help create the
structure that isn't always there in life. This is a theory of art
followed by many great artist, ranging from the ancient Greeks,
through Shakespeare and Dickens, and through a number of artists
today. Thus, movies that impose such structure are no less artistic
than movies that do not (unless you want to contend that, by the very
nature of their approaches, Becket is more of an artist than
Shakespeare).
Second, you also seem to contend that true art (or true quality films)
must have an unhappy ending (or at least reflect the bleankness of
existence). Again, this flies in the face of the large number of great
works of art that DO have happy endings. Odysseus returns home to
Penolope. Prospero and Miranda return to Italy to live happily, with
the bad guys put in their places. And so on.
The final point I'd debate is again on artistic theory. You seem to be
arguing for strict "realism," in the modern sense of the word. Again,
this is one approach to art. But there are others. As much as I love
James Joyce, I want to read both Joyce and Dickens (and
Shakespeare). And as much as I like some movies that can classified as
"realism," I also want to see Sense and Sensibility and Mr. Holland's
Opus (and Raiders of the Lost Ark).
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Nathan Parker
summarize your grievances with Braveheart and address each one
individually. After that I'll add some of my own comments about the film.
If I unintentionally misrepresent your position please by all means
correct me.
1) Happy endings. It seems to me that your definition of a happy ending
can be used to rationalize almost every movie as having a "happy" ending.
Take Schindler's List. Now there is a bad movie. Why? Because it has a
happy ending. Sure 6 million Jews were killed and Oskar Schindler died a
penniless man but today there are more descendants of the Schindler Jews
than there are Jews in all of Poland. Furthermore, the tree that was
planted for him is still growing and he has become an admired man for his
courage. I think Schindler's List is a great movie but it has both a sad
and an uplifting message about the difference one man can make with the
courage of his convictions.
2) Spectacle. I must say that I really don't know what you mean by this.
You seem to imply that people will confuse reality with what they see on
the screen (with the nice sound effects and production design etc....). I
say give people more credit. Movie making by its very nature is
manipulative and false. Real life does not have a plot. Forcing a story
with in a 2 hour time frame, the use of dialogue for character
development, and the twisting of time and space that accompanies filmmaking
necessarily results in a false experience. So what? Name for me a movie
that doesn't do this.
3) Wallace as a morally unambiguous character, Christ figure. It seems to
me that you must judge a movie on its terms and not your own. What was
Braveheart trying to accomplish? Mel has stated that the goal was the
creation of a myth. The fact that a movie has a larger than life hero
does not make it a bad film. Braveheart deals with larger themes of
romance, courage, filial piety (notably between father and son), etc....
It was not trying to create a small, personal, character driven
docudrama. How else do you show how one man was able to galvanize an
entire nation to shed the yoke of oppression? Think of it interms of
painting. Would you suggest that one piece of art that uses broad
powerful strokes with vibrant colors is less than a more detailed,
structured painting? Is Turner's delicate use of color in his paintings
of oceans less a piece of art than say many of todays contemporary works
of art? No. They are trying to do entirely different things.
Since I'm not a Christian let me just say that while I can see the Christ
motif in one scene (the death scene) it evades me where else you see the
comparison. But let us suppose that Wallace=Christ just for the sake of
the argument. So what? Schindler's List very openly tried to make the
comparison between Oskar Schindler and Moses. That didn't take anything
away from the movie. And while we're at it I must say that I think that
Schindler's List was also a movie that dealt with larger themes and did
not get into detail on the individual's motives etc.... Schindler was not
a very morally ambiguous character (in the movie). Yet it is a great movie.
Suppose that they did decide to make Schindler's List into a character
driven film that analyzed each person's motives and character. I'd suggest
that the larger themes that came out in the real movie would have been lost
in a sea of detail.
Now for some questions. Why does it make Mel Gibson a "narcissistic
megalomaniac" to play the character of William Wallace. If you accept my
assertion that there are many types of movies each trying to accomplish
something different then what is so narcissistic with Gibson playing
Wallace anymore than Liam Neeson playing Schindler or Harrison Ford
playing Indiana Jones or any actor playing any role? You seem to state
that it is narcissistic to want to play the role of a larger than life
person. Why? What is your basis for this assertion? Just wondering.
What do you mean the film says "you can have total success in your life
and accomplish all these contradictory things." What contradictory things
are you talking about?
You then say "it says you must die to accomplish all this... But it's
still absurd. It takes an absurd, wish-fulfillment premise- that you can
liberate a country at the expense of your own life- and offers the reward
of immortal, perpetual admiration." Surely you must realize that since
the beginning of time we have admired our martyrs. Christ galvanized his
followers when he was killed. There is a 300 ft. statue of Wallace in
Scotland to this day. Martin Luther King Jr. died for his beliefs and
today we honor his sacrifice every year. Joan D'Arc is considered one of
history's greatest women for dying for her beliefs. Even John F. Kennedy
(a rather marginal president if you look at his record) is considered
great simply because he was killed. Again, what is your point? That we
admire those of courage who lay down their life? Is that so wrong? Mel
didn't discover "The lost All Time Good Guy" as you stated. He simply
told a story about a legend. There are many legends throughout history
and they make great stories. That is all Mel did. He told a story.
Finally, you say that you didn't like the "maimings, gougings, and
graphic depictions of bodily harm" which you called "reprehensible".
Well, guess what, war is bloody. Mel's original version was even bloodier
and would have received an NC-17 had it been released in that format.
There is only so much one can do to show the horrors of war in film.
I personally loved the film and think it is the best of 1995. Everyone has
there own opinions and favorites but isn't that what makes the movies so
much fun? There are so many different kinds each striving to accomplish
something different that most everyone's tastes can be satisfied.
Cordially,
Nathan Parker
Lukas Kendall
> Finally i would say..dont blame your dislike of the film on what you see
> as a fantasy hollywood plot. for once they stuck to the real story..how
> much pressure would have been on any other director to let Wallace live
> at the end, kill EdII and marry the princess? That would have been
> fantasy bullshit.
That is true. Thank you for the factual information. That's a pretty
remarkable story, but I still wonder if the real William Wallace was a
grimey asshole or a blue-eyed, long-haired Mel Gibson.
It is precisely the fact that the movie did not 100% cave in to Hollywood
rewriting, and yet was so full of sap and manipulation (so that everybody
thinks it's serious and loves it) that bugs me.
LK
Lukas Kendall
> I'm not sure why you see these as trends since the late '70s. Most of
> what you say applies to movies since their invention.
True. But in the late '60s and early '70s there was a great string of
"serious," good mainstream movies - The Wild Bunch, Clockwork Orange,
Chinatown, many many more. Adult movies like those went down the toilet
once Jaws, Star Wars and E.T. make tons of money.
> First off, one theory of art is that art imposes structure on this
> randomness, that the very nature of art is to help create the
> structure that isn't always there in life. This is a theory of art...
Very true, which is why movies have a great responsibility to reflect
things back on life which will make people think. Okay, the message of
Braveheart to fight for freedom is better than, say, the message if any
of Top Gun, but it's still deceptive, and as such, bad.
> The final point I'd debate is again on artistic theory. You seem to be
> arguing for strict "realism," in the modern sense of the word. Again,
> this is one approach to art. But there are others. As much as I love
> James Joyce, I want to read both Joyce and Dickens (and
> Shakespeare). And as much as I like some movies that can classified as
> "realism," I also want to see Sense and Sensibility and Mr. Holland's
> Opus (and Raiders of the Lost Ark).
This is only partly what I meant (probably my fault). Okay, there's
artifice and there's reality. They should not be confused. Check out the
following from Roland Barthes, from an essay in Mythologies where he
talks about how Julius Caesar (1953) is partly naturalistic, but partly
full of these cultural signs like silly ROman locks of hair on Marlon
Brando's face:
"Here again, the sign is ambiguous: it remains on the surface, yet does
not for all that give up the attempt to pass itself off as depth. It
aims at making people understand (which is laudable) but at the same
time suggests that it is spontaneous (which is cheating); it presents
itself at once as intentional and irrepressible, artificial and natural,
manufactured and discovered. This can lead us to an ethic of signs.
Sings ought to present themselves only in two extreme forms: either
openly intellectual and so remote that they are reduced to an algebra,
as in the Chinese theatre, where a flag on its own signifies a regiment;
or deeply rooted, invented, so to speak, on each occasion, revealing
an internal, a hidden facet, and indicative of a moment in time,
no longer of a concept (as in the art of Stanislavsky, for instance).
But the intermediate sign... reveals a degraded spectacle, which is
equally afraid of simple reality and of total artifice. For although it
is a good thing if a spectacle is created to make the world more explicit,
it is both reprehensible and deceitful to confuse the sign with what
is signified. And it is a duplicity which is peculiar to bourgeois art:
between the intellectual and the visceral sign is hypocritically
inserted a hybrid, at once elliptical and pretentious, which is
pompously christened *'nature'*."
Barthes to the rescue! I found Braveheart nothing if not elliptical
and pretentious... and most definitely bourgeois art.
Stupid bourgeois art!
Lukas
Bert Bulmer
cape...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Capell) wrote:
[Clipped]
> I think you've managed to confuse Braveheart and Kids. Kids was a
> vulgar, boring, poorly written movie, one of the worst of the year.
How droll. I think you're the one's who's confused. Kids was a heartfelt
examination of today's youth and the state of a society that put them
there. Braveheart was a heartfelt genuflection to Mel Gibson's ego.
"Vulgar", how Victorian. It's a testament to the success of Hollywood that
it's audiences have been dumbed down to such a degree that they mistake a
pseudo-sincere, psueudo-intellectual 13th century fashion show for a smart
movie. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at America's tastes.
> Braveheart was the runaway best movie of the year. I'm glad to see the
Oscars
> finally leaving the politics behind and selecting movies based on quality.
Excuse me I have to... The only reason a slipshod effort like Braveheart
was even considered over such hugely superior films like 12 Monkeys,
Seven, Usual Suspects etc. etc. was precisely because of policitics.
Believe me Mel Gibson has a lot of friends.
> You also confused Rob Roy with Braveheart. Rob Roy was so simplistic that
> even an 8 year-old could keep up with it - if he didn't fall asleep first.
> Braveheart was a complex epic, with a great plot and interesting moral
> questions that most Hollywood movies leave out.
An 8 year old eh? Well, it obviously flew way, way over your head. Rob
Roy's power lies in its subtlety. Something Braveheart certainly has
absolutely none of. The drama of Rob Roy arouse out of the stresses put on
the very real relationship between Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange. It was a
touching film that worked because the characters - good and bad - were not
caractures but real people with believable problems. Braveheart followed
the trite post 80's Hollywood formula of the superhero. His relationship
with his woman (and just where did Wallace find a supermodel agency in the
13th century anyway) was the usuall banal slap and tickle of the worst
buddy films. Braveheart was a boy's film if there ever was one and
appealled to the same emotions Die Hard and its ilk did.
And what moral questions by the way. Here's the films moral stance: Mel
good. Rich guys bad. Yup, pretty complicated. For moral shading and
realistic character motivation, again, see Rob Roy.
> Regarding the last two points, realize that there are few known facts about
> William Wallace. Gibson had to speculate for most of the movie. Given what
> he had to work with, he did a fantastic job with it, and most people realize
> that. About the Lethal Weapon in skirts comment - anyone who a) actually
> watched both films; and b) possesses a little intelligence realizes that the
> two movies are nothing alike.
>
> Jeff
Ooh, I'm hurt. Try opening your mind and divorcing yourself from the
ingrained Hollywood mindset that leads you (and many others unfortunately)
to mistake a rather run of the mill (save for the setting) vanity/action
film for anything other than what it was: tripe.
There, I think I'm done.
Bert
--
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." -- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945
KITTIES5
I respect your opinion, but I do find you as somewhat of a pessimist. To
me, the movie Braveheart portayed a hero, a man who believed in the
freedom of his country and was uncompromising in his struggle to achieve
that.
Unfortunately, the Scots did achieve freedom for about 150 years after
William Wallace died (too bad the ending couldn't have been changed to
distort the truth to make you happy).
As for the torture...that's the way they did it in medieval times!
Gibson's depiction of the torture was typical of that time period as well
as the battle scenes. Gibson was kind in not showing us all the gore.
It's nice to see a movie where a strong, true, faithful hero is shown.
The cinema has not been very strong in showing us true heroes and
Braveheart was a breath of fresh air!
Young people today don't have many heroes to look up to, and it's nice to
see a cinematic classic achieve that!
Elizabeth A Esser
: The drama of Rob Roy arouse out of the stresses put on
: the very real relationship between Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange. It was a
: touching film that worked because the characters - good and bad - were not
: caractures but real people with believable problems. Braveheart followed
: the trite post 80's Hollywood formula of the superhero.
If Tim Roth's character wasn't a "carcature" villian I don't know what is.
I'm not going to defend Braveheart, because personally I didn't like it
very much, but I have to laugh at all these posts such as this one that
talk about "the trite post 80s Hollywood formula of the superhero."
Hasn't anyone seen a film with Clark Gable before? John Wayne, maybe?
Just wondering,
Liza
--
********************************************************************
Liza Esser <elizabe...@yale.edu> Save a tree: /\
http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~esser/ e-mail instead. /__\
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies ||
********************************************************************
Lukas Kendall
> 1) Happy endings. It seems to me that your definition of a happy ending
> can be used to rationalize almost every movie as having a "happy" ending.
Well, yeah, but in vastly different ways. At the end of Chinatown,
Jake has lost, unable to stop Noah Cross from polluting the world,
unable to save Faye Dunaway. What's this saying? To me it's acknowledging
the reality of all of us being caught up in the world, this symbolic order,
this Other that is unstoppable. But at least recognizing that is a first
step towards coping with it.
I would rather not discuss Schindler's List because I haven't seen it
since it came out, and I do have problems with it that I am not prepared
to articulate.
> 2) Spectacle. I must say that I really don't know what you mean by this.
> You seem to imply that people will confuse reality with what they see on
> the screen (with the nice sound effects and production design etc....). I
> say give people more credit.
Really? People amaze me. They'll swallow all of Broken Arrow as a rollicking
good time, everything consistent and satisfying, but if they were to
see a boom mike in a scene, then - "ha ha ha, this is totally unrealistic,
it's a boom mike! I can't watch this movie." Maybe that is an exaggeration.
But people will swallow darn near anything these days as long as
the pictures are pretty.
> 3) Wallace as a morally unambiguous character, Christ figure. It seems to
> me that you must judge a movie on its terms and not your own. What was
> Braveheart trying to accomplish? Mel has stated that the goal was the
> creation of a myth....
Well here already I am annoyed. Ooh, let's create a myth, with me as
the centerpiece of all attention, as William Wallace and as the guy making
the movie! Aren't I great! Mel Gibson didn't do anything personal to me,
I don't know him, he didn't blow me off on the street or anything - I
just find his self-promotion totally shameless and obvious.
> The fact that a movie has a larger than life hero
> does not make it a bad film. Braveheart deals with larger themes of
> romance, courage, filial piety (notably between father and son), etc....
> It was not trying to create a small, personal, character driven
> docudrama. How else do you show how one man was able to galvanize an
> entire nation to shed the yoke of oppression? Think of it interms of
> painting. Would you suggest that one piece of art that uses broad
> powerful strokes with vibrant colors is less than a more detailed, ...
No, because each acknowledges its artifice. See the passage from
Barthes I quoted in a previous post. I don't know how I would show
one man mobilizing an army, but it would probably be without the
slushy bagpipe new age music, the cheese speeches, the assortment of
Atrocities that befall this guy's friends and relatives.
> Since I'm not a Christian let me just say that while I can see the Christ
> motif in one scene (the death scene) it evades me where else you see the
> comparison.
Just in the signs - the hair, the framing, the story of this leader,
comes out of nowhere, dies for people's sins, betrayed, killed on a cross,
etc. I'm certainly not Christian either - but these are cultural signs,
not religious ones. (I'm a Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew!)
> Now for some questions. Why does it make Mel Gibson a "narcissistic
> megalomaniac" to play the character of William Wallace. If you accept my
> assertion that there are many types of movies each trying to accomplish
> something different then what is so narcissistic with Gibson playing
> Wallace anymore than Liam Neeson playing Schindler or Harrison Ford
> playing Indiana Jones or any actor playing any role? You seem to state
> that it is narcissistic to want to play the role of a larger than life
> person. Why? What is your basis for this assertion? Just wondering.
Isn't it obvious? Boy, I really played that larger-than-life heroic
character well. I guess I'm such a larger-than-life heroic character myself,
people love me as it. I think I'll direct myself in a movie as larger-than-
life hero so people can revel in my brilliance and good looks.
Directors have always tried to live vicariously through roles they create
on screen. Mark Hamill got George Lucas's approval on his portrayal of
Luke Skywalker in certain scenes when he started imitating Lucas's
mannerisms. That's obviously Sam Peckinpah as Pike in The Wild Bunch and,
more blatantly, as Bennie in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia - they even
decked out Warren Oates to look like Peckinpah in the latter. But you
gotta hand it to Sam to portraying himself as a tortured, mean son of
a bitch trying to come to terms with his own life in this twisted movie.
> What do you mean the film says "you can have total success in your life
> and accomplish all these contradictory things." What contradictory things
> are you talking about?
Growing up as opposed to remaining a child. Being a Top Gun fighter pilot
and getting the girl. Having an infantile fantasy and winning at it and
getting to live happily ever after with the princess.
> great simply because he was killed. Again, what is your point? That we
> admire those of courage who lay down their life? Is that so wrong? Mel
> didn't discover "The lost All Time Good Guy" as you stated. He simply
> told a story about a legend. There are many legends throughout history
> and they make great stories. That is all Mel did. He told a story.
In true Hollywood cheese fashion, with himself as the martyr, with
gruesome "reality" of dirt and arrows in people's butts to make people
think it not just Hollywood plot-by-numbers, but the greatest movie ever.
> Finally, you say that you didn't like the "maimings, gougings, and
> graphic depictions of bodily harm" which you called "reprehensible".
> Well, guess what, war is bloody. Mel's original version was even bloodier
> and would have received an NC-17 had it been released in that format.
> There is only so much one can do to show the horrors of war in film.
Of course war is bloody. And I love a movie like Full Metal Jacket that
addresses it for what it is. But in Braveheart the blood is mere shock-
material, emphasizing the linear narrative as opposed to the myth (see
Levi-Strauss), tricking people as to what they are actually seeing.
Thank you for your comments. Please keep future comments in this thread,
on the newsgroup. I'm a narcissistic jerk and want everybody to read
my diatribes.
Lukas
DONNA ANSTEY
It's an epic adventure with a truly classic epic hero at the center. It
involves romance, political intrigue, betrayal, and of course, war. "Wow, this
would make a cool movie" he thinks, and decides to direct it--and ends up
starring in it, because that's the only way he can get the money to make it at
all.
The movie comes out, to widespread critical acclaim. He's made a damn fine
epic adventure, everyone says. It does okay at the box offce, no doubt
hampered by the fewer showings per day as a result of its 3+ hour running
time.
Fast forward 7 months. Paramount has, of course, hyped the movie for Oscars,
but probably no more than any company did for any film they thought had a
reasonable shot at a few nominations. Much to EVERYONE'S surprise (even those
who champion the movie, and especially Mel Gibson himself), it gets 10
nominations, more than any other film.
And THIS event sends rec.arts.movies.current-films into an uproar, and
suddenly we have someone writing a 5-page diatribe that loses credibility
because he can't resist calling the movie "Bravefart," and here we have a
thread where Shakespeare, James Joyce, and Dickens have come up, and Lacan
has been paraphrased, and God knows who else has been summoned to the cause
of either defending or decrying BRAVEHEART.
You know, I often find that the best movies are the ones that elicit passionate
debate.
Mel Gibson should be damn proud of himself.
Lukas Kendall
> ldke...@unix.amherst.edu (Lukas Kendall) writes:
> It seems to me that you have a *philosophical* disagreement with
> Braveheart. Which is fine. But does that make it a bad film?
Yes. Please see someone else's post (I forget the title) on all its short-
comings and pathetic manipulations. If you are saying is the sound design
"good," is the costuming "good," maybe technically they put a lot into
it, but to mean it is definitely a bad, schlock movie.
> Put another way, if a film espouses ideas and values with you disagree with,
> does that make it a bad film? If the film does this in a compelling manner,
> is it *still* a good film, even if you despise it? TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is
[deleted]
I understand your point. Triumph of the Will is a great film, but the most
horrifying one ever. But it's original, a piece of art - cinematic techniques
used for the first time. Movies like Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs (which
Kael also called fascist) are morally debatably, but make you think about
these issues in fascinating, provocative ways.
re: artifice/reality
> I mean, what are you saying here?
> That people think all movies are documentaries? No. (Yes, I know you
> didn't mean that, but that's what the words on their own mean.)
> That film is a "hot" medium, as opposed to literature, and people respond to
> it in a more visceral and emotional way? Sure. Do happy endings and big
> spectacles add to this response? Absolutely. If you're just pointing out
> these facts, I agree, but you seem to think that there is something wrong
> with this, and I'm afraid you're not explaining it very clearly.
You see Star Wars. It's a fairy tale, fantasy. It is understood as such.
You see Chinatown. It is a gritty, serious - "real." It is understood as
such, the tragic ending resonating back at you.
You see Braveheart, and it's a fairy tale male fantasy made up to look like
a serious Chinatown - and that I despise.
> Do you hate Toshiro Mifune for playing the General in Kurosawa's THE HIDDEN
> FORTRESS? (Virtually all of your descriptions above apply - not the
> Christ one, it being Japanese - and then some.) Does that make Mifune a
> "narcissistic megalomaniac"? Even if it does, does that make THE HIDDEN
> FORTRESS a bad film? If so, why?
No, no of course not. But as my film professor explained to me (he also
hated Braveheart, to my delight), when a director concludes his movie with
a crucifixion of himself as the subject, that is unacceptable.
> If this was the first movie Mel Gibson had been involved with since Mad Max,
> would you dislike it as viscerally?
I would still dislike it, perhaps not as much.
> >is on a cross. You could not write a more self-serving death scene.
> Could you explain what you mean by "self-serving"?
Oh, come on. He's the martyr, the leader, the Christ figure, he's serving
himself up as this mythical super-warrior creation. He only wishes he
was playing himself.
> No it's not. It's not "saying" anything. If you want to infer a moral you
> can go ahead and do so, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that
> Braveheart is a film that actually tries to make some kind of moral point.
What? What about all these people yelling at me about how the movie is
about freedom and bravery and standing up for yourself? The movie may
not explicitly have a line, "This movie is saying blank," but anything
has an affective power - it is communicating to the audience whether
it wants to or not. And Braveheart says its messages so many times it
bonks you over the head.
> "But let me add that the particular spectacle that makes THE SEVEN SAMURAI
> additionally reprehensible are all the maimings, gougings and graphic
> depictions of bodily harm that confuse people between *reality* (whatever
> the story of 18th century Japan was) and asinine wish-fulfillment (this
> piece of junk)."
This is totally misrepresenting my point. The Seven Samurai is a brilliant,
classic film about warriors who have in some way come to the end of their
line (notice how many of the samurai are felled by guns) and seek some
final honor or accomplishment by protecting a village. I haven't seen it
in a while, I can't state its themes exactly - although it's very similar
to The Wild Bunch (one of Peckinpah's strongest influences). Here are
these warriors, living by their own code their whole life, fighting for
their own honor and survival, seeking retribution, although they can't
even understand why, by doing this "good deed."... it's very complex
and I'm sure I just got it wrong. But furthermore, the violence in
The Seven Samurai is 1/100th of that in Braveheart - I don't remember
peoples guts being slattered about in techicolor - a natural part of the
samurais' world and not being used for the audiences' kicks. (True, the
violence was a natural part of the Scotsmen's world, but it was used
beyond that, to the point of bludgeoning people into taking the movie
seriously, to revel in the spectacle.)
> I think your criticism is intelligent and well-written.
> But I also think it's dead wrong.
No, I disagree. Thank you for your responses.
Lukas
John Flynn
>No more [movie] has annoyed me more this year than Braveheart. I found this
>movie reprehensible and embarrassing - and please note I actually
>saw the movie, so you can't nail me there.
[Extensive philosophical beef with _Braveheart_ theme snipped]
> But let me add that the particular spectacle that
>makes Braveheart additionally reprehensible are all the maimings, gougings
>and graphic depictions of bodily harm that confuse people between
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!!!!!!!!!!
>*reality* (whatever the story of William Wallace was) and asinine
>wish-fulfillment (this piece of junk).
[...]
>So maybe that is why I hate Braveheart.
[snip]
>P.S. I got most of my ideas from Seeing Through Movies, edited by
>Mark Crispin Miller.
>
>Lukas Kendall
Well, those complaints weren't new there either. This
anti-hero, anti-"traditional"-virtue hate has been a part of
a western artistic subculture for a few decades now. But that's ok.
If you'll permit me, I'll summarize your points: essentially you
think it a reprehensible film because you (a) don't think a person
(Wallace) could be that virtuous, and (b) if he was, his behavior
is not what you would consider virtue anyway. So, you hate it
because the main character is a Forrest Gump, only with brains,
charisma, and luck.
Let me ask you something Lukas... who the hell are all these
"people" you are worried about being "confused" ?? What dangerous,
insidious thoughts will propagate through their minds, color
their attitudes, or corrupt our learning institutions?
I personally thought it was very inspiring; granted some dramatic
license was taken, but its historical basis made it quite powerful
for me. But I'm biased, because my ancestors were also oppressed
by the English.
What *is* kind of novel is that Hollywood hasn't produced many
films like this for a while.
John
arandia
I liked it.
joel
Lukas Kendall
> Well, those complaints weren't new there either. This
> anti-hero, anti-"traditional"-virtue hate has been a part of
> a western artistic subculture for a few decades now. But that's ok.
Yes, of course. Thanks for your comments.
> Let me ask you something Lukas... who the hell are all these
> "people" you are worried about being "confused" ?? What dangerous,
> insidious thoughts will propagate through their minds, color
> their attitudes, or corrupt our learning institutions?
They will love bad movies and annoy the hell out of me, to be superficial.
They will reap rewards on people who made this movie but who must be
the most cynical bastards on earth to pull of its massive manipulation.
Yeah, no one is killing people in the streets because of Braveheart, but
let's say it represents a massive step back intellectually, and a step
forward in the money-making machinery that made it.
> I personally thought it was very inspiring; granted some dramatic
> license was taken, but its historical basis made it quite powerful
> for me. But I'm biased, because my ancestors were also oppressed
> by the English.
I am amazed how many people have to bring in the red herring of
"I'm Scottish" or "my ancestors were also oppressed by the English" as
a defense of this movie.
Lukas
Jouni Karhu
Steven Pirie-Shepherd (sr...@galactose.mc.duke.edu) wrote:
> Finally i would say..dont blame your dislike of the film on what you see
> as a fantasy hollywood plot. for once they stuck to the real story..how
> much pressure would have been on any other director to let Wallace live
> at the end, kill EdII and marry the princess? That would have been
> fantasy bullshit.
That is true. Thank you for the factual information. That's a pretty
remarkable story, but I still wonder if the real William Wallace was a
grimey asshole or a blue-eyed, long-haired Mel Gibson.
Most of your gripes about Braveheart seem to center on Mel Gibson being in
the role of Wallace, and that Mel Gibson set on making himself a Christ
figure.... well, what would you have thought of the film if someone else
had been in the role? Is your dislike of the film simply dislike of Mel
Gibson? Think on this for a while...
(By the way, wasn't Gibson intending just to direct the film originally,
with someone else in the role?)
--
'I have something to say! | JJ Karhu 'The Immoral Immortal'
It's better to burn out, | k11...@proffa.cc.tut.fi \o
than to fade away!' | -=========================|xxxxxxo
| kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Lukas Kendall
> Maybe you should get some of your own ideas instead of from someone else!
Maybe I like to learn stuff.
> Young people today don't have many heroes to look up to, and it's nice to
> see a cinematic classic achieve that!
George Lucas made Star Wars for young people. Is Braveheart really children's
morality tale? I mean, it is, but it just uses devices for children
and aims them at adults.
LK
Lukas Kendall
> And THIS event sends rec.arts.movies.current-films into an uproar, and
> suddenly we have someone writing a 5-page diatribe that loses credibility
> because he can't resist calling the movie "Bravefart," and here we have a
> thread where Shakespeare, James Joyce, and Dickens have come up, and Lacan
> has been paraphrased, and God knows who else has been summoned to the cause
> of either defending or decrying BRAVEHEART.
Would you prefer I just did the usual, I hate Braveheart and you people who
liked it are all morons, yada yada yada?
I ignored Braveheart at the time because I was hoping it would just go away.
I guess you could say I don't have a problem with the movie existing as much
as I do with the fact that everybody is recognizing it as some great
masterpiece.
Lukas
Lukas Kendall
> I'm not going to defend Braveheart, because personally I didn't like it
> very much, but I have to laugh at all these posts such as this one that
> talk about "the trite post 80s Hollywood formula of the superhero."
> Hasn't anyone seen a film with Clark Gable before? John Wayne, maybe?
Of course. But there is a difference between those original screen heros
and post- '80s crap versions of them - after such a great cinematic
time as the late '60s and early '70s.
From nothing to John Wayne is a step forward. From John Wayne to William
Holden as Pike is a step forward. From (ack) Pike to Mel Gibson is
a gigantic step backwards.
Lukas
Bert Bulmer
(Elizabeth A Esser) wrote:
> If Tim Roth's character wasn't a "carcature" villian I don't know what is.
Were you awake during the movie? The great thing about Tim Roth's
character was that his motivation was fully explained (his mother's lack
of affection etc. Remember him being stripped of his locket after he's
dead). He was so chilling because we were made to see how depraved a real
person would have to become to be as mean as he was. In short, his evil
was humanized. This personalisation of evil (or goodness) is absolutely
absent from any Braveheart character. They act like they do out of
convention, not story.
> I'm not going to defend Braveheart, because personally I didn't like it
> very much, but I have to laugh at all these posts such as this one that
> talk about "the trite post 80s Hollywood formula of the superhero."
>
> Hasn't anyone seen a film with Clark Gable before? John Wayne, maybe?
>
> Just wondering,
> Liza
Uh, yeah. And it that means you're lumping Braveheart in with those
surreally unreal vehicles Clark Gabel and John Wayne starred in then I'd
agree with you. But Wayne's and Gable best movie's - and best role - were
centred and fully developed, real characters. You liked them because there
was something in them that touched you.
FSS
[MUCH DELETED]
: Put another way, if a film espouses ideas and values with you disagree
: compelling manner, is it *still* a good film, even if you despise it?
[Sorry that this is so late, but my news provider doesn't relay posts to
me on time]
I too did not like Braveheart(BH), both philosophically and
artistically. Philosophically, BH was a call to nationalism. And it
was a call to nationalism laced with the ideals of John Locke.
But as you say, the film shouldn't be judged by its philosophical
themes. As to the story, I think that it was slow and repetitive. The
tension builds too slowly at first, and then is held too long. The
important decisions made by Wallace are made after the first hour, and
then simply repeated at every step.
The relationships were shallow and un-developed. While the cinemintography
was very good, the dialogue was poor. The charactors seemed to me to
be mere caricatures. There was no ambiguity. The closest we get to a
truely compelling moment of decision is Robert the Bruce's struggle with
his father. And even in that there is not enough information given to
the audience for it to make a decision on the right path, or even the
reasons for the actions of the father (surely the elder Earl of Bruce
would know that a crown bestowed by the English would be no crown at
all). One could argue that in an epic it is not necessary to draw the
main charactors in depth, the myths behind lead us to the depth.
However, in great epics there should be a charactor that views the
tragady/triumph in such a way as to allow the audience of mere humans to
approach the struggle (as in _Hidden Fortress_ that has been mentioned).
This is not done in BH, save perhaps by the Princess of Wales or perhaps
Robert the Bruce. However, these charactors are integral parts of the
epic and given short screen time to allow an in for the audience.
Finally, two cheap shots. Wasn't anyone else ashamed at the way the
homosexuality of Edward II handled? Sure, he might have been a shitty
king, but does that have to be linked to his homosexuality (once again,
un-ambigious, even to the point of drawing on homosexual stereo-types)?
And didn't anyone else think it was just a remake of _El Cid_?
--
"Just like Mary Shelley, | Brian Williams
Just like Frankenstein, | bwil...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Breaking chains and counting change, | Temple University
and trying to walk the line." | Department of Religion
Rick Culler
>
>Well here already I am annoyed. Ooh, let's create a myth, with me as
>the centerpiece of all attention, as William Wallace and as the guy making
>the movie! Aren't I great! Mel Gibson didn't do anything personal to me,
>I don't know him, he didn't blow me off on the street or anything - I
>just find his self-promotion totally shameless and obvious.
>
In truth, Mel didn't want to be in the movie at all, feeling (correctly) that
he was to old to play the character of Wallace, he wanted only to direct. It
was the Paramount execs that would only OK the film with Mel as the star.
Beth Simer
>I guess you could say I don't have a problem with the movie existing as much
>as I do with the fact that everybody is recognizing it as some great
>masterpiece.
>
>Lukas
You've got to be kidding me. There are people - and enough
people that you refer to them as *everybody* - who think that
_Braveheart_ was a "great masterpiece? It was a ludicrously
puffed up hero vehicle for Mel - and I have nothing against Mel,
particularly - and it did all right as that, but a *masterpiece*?
Give me a break, folks!
Lukas Kendall
> Most of your gripes about Braveheart seem to center on Mel Gibson being in
> the role of Wallace, and that Mel Gibson set on making himself a Christ
> figure.... well, what would you have thought of the film if someone else
> had been in the role? Is your dislike of the film simply dislike of Mel
> Gibson? Think on this for a while...
It would still be a bad film, but much less egregiously bad.
LK
Elizabeth A Esser
: In article <4g2qbf$t...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, es...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
: (Elizabeth A Esser) wrote:
: > If Tim Roth's character wasn't a "carcature" villian I don't know what is.
: Were you awake during the movie? The great thing about Tim Roth's
: character was that his motivation was fully explained (his mother's lack
: of affection etc. Remember him being stripped of his locket after he's
: dead). He was so chilling because we were made to see how depraved a real
: person would have to become to be as mean as he was. In short, his evil
: was humanized. This personalisation of evil (or goodness) is absolutely
: absent from any Braveheart character. They act like they do out of
: convention, not story.
Yep, I was quite awake, and I didn't find him chilling at all.
Ridiculous was more like it. I think Tim Roth is a fantastic actor, and
it pained me to see him resort to the cliched bad guy in Rob Roy.
: > I'm not going to defend Braveheart, because personally I didn't like it
: > very much, but I have to laugh at all these posts such as this one that
: > talk about "the trite post 80s Hollywood formula of the superhero."
: >
: > Hasn't anyone seen a film with Clark Gable before? John Wayne, maybe?
: >
: Uh, yeah. And it that means you're lumping Braveheart in with those
: surreally unreal vehicles Clark Gabel and John Wayne starred in then I'd
: agree with you. But Wayne's and Gable best movie's - and best role - were
: centred and fully developed, real characters. You liked them because there
: was something in them that touched you.
My point is not that Gable and Wayne were bad actors, or that they didn't
have some wonderful roles. My point is, this "post-80s superhero" that
folks are talking about has been around as long as the movies have.
Cheers,
Jeff Capell
>> If Tim Roth's character wasn't a "carcature" villian I don't know what is.
>Were you awake during the movie? The great thing about Tim Roth's
>character was that his motivation was fully explained (his mother's lack
>of affection etc. Remember him being stripped of his locket after he's
>dead). He was so chilling because we were made to see how depraved a real
>person would have to become to be as mean as he was. In short, his evil
>was humanized. This personalisation of evil (or goodness) is absolutely
>absent from any Braveheart character. They act like they do out of
>convention, not story.
Sorry, but there was no viable explanation for Roth's character's evil. The
stuff you mentioned does not turn somebody bad. There is no such thing as
evil being humanized. Unless, of course, you come from the camp that believes
everybody is made good or evil from a young age, and nothing they do can
change it. The reason Roth's character's evil was effective is because of the
great job Roth did with the role. It had nothing to do with the writing.
Jeff
Lukas Kendall
> You've got to be kidding me. There are people - and enough
> people that you refer to them as *everybody* - who think that
> _Braveheart_ was a "great masterpiece? It was a ludicrously
> puffed up hero vehicle for Mel - and I have nothing against Mel,
> particularly - and it did all right as that, but a *masterpiece*?
> Give me a break, folks!
Yes, exactly! I agree with you! I come in peace! But look at all the
moronic praise heaped on this movie just in this newsgroup.
LK
Hiroshi Amari
seems that the making of Braveheart is logical this year. Although I have
not seen the movie, the past pattern of the Oscar dictates that it will
win the major awards. The long running time is commercially risky and it
is possible that it will be the producing company's, Hollywood's, and the
director's good advertisement. "Unforgiven" and "Schindler's List" also
enjoyed the support from the marketing, distribution and perhaps executives.
Right now, Hollywood lost directions. The days of contemporary military
heroes and lawyers seem to be over. The violence is experiencing
backlash. We have seen the lowering threshold of decency standards in
late 60s and 70s and this widened the horizons of movie themes. The
horizon is currently receding. Old formulas do not work any more.
The artificial scripts in Hollywood cannot beat documentaries. People do
not want to see politics. The society is so polarized that they cannot
come up with what a typical family is like. The American dream seems like
being restricted to some elites in science. So, a realistic happy ending
story does not seem to appeal to an average family. The audience is
getting tired of pathetic characters as well.
France's answer to American invasion was "Queen Margot" that included
everything, such as epic drama, star actors and actresses, dazzling
costumes, sex, nudity, the war, and fighting. One good thing about this
type of violence is that they do not use guns.
This is why the Oscar is looking for the past and new technologies that do
not involve humans and the society, I guess. In my view, the epic drama is
Hollywood's best bet in terms of business for the moment, because they
have lots of money.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Jeff Capell
Look, this is getting really old. Enough of these "yes, I agree" posts that
add nothing new to the discussion. And enough of this "you're a moron because
you liked a movie that I didn't like." There's nothing wrong with having an
intelligent discussion, but posts like the above are serving to do nothing but
clutter this newsgroup.
Jeff
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
: This thread is already long and I have no interest in this movie. It
: not seen the movie, the past pattern of the Oscar dictates that it will
: win the major awards. The long running time is commercially risky and it
: is possible that it will be the producing company's, Hollywood's, and the
: director's good advertisement. "Unforgiven" and "Schindler's List" also
: enjoyed the support from the marketing, distribution and perhaps executives.
Sorry If I misunderstand this...are you now saying that Scindlers List and
The Unforgiven were not worthy Oscar winners? Both of these films were
excellent.
Pn another note, i am still of the old fashioned belief that if you have
not seen a movie you cannot criticise it! See Braveheart before making
judgements!
__________________________________________________
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
sr...@galactose.mc.duke.edu
"Insert your own pithy phrase just about here!"
Hiroshi Amari
: J Evans (JEME...@ELECTRICAL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: > ldke...@unix.amherst.edu (Lukas Kendall) writes:
: used for the first time. Movies like Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs (which
: Kael also called fascist) are morally debatably, but make you think about
: these issues in fascinating, provocative ways.
(edited)
: You see Star Wars. It's a fairy tale, fantasy. It is understood as such.
: You see Chinatown. It is a gritty, serious - "real." It is understood as
: such, the tragic ending resonating back at you.
: You see Braveheart, and it's a fairy tale male fantasy made up to look like
: a serious Chinatown - and that I despise.
I love Chinatown and Clockwork Orange.
OK. I have not seen Braveheart. But Hollywood seems preoccupied with the
idea that the movie has to have a happy ending in order to be
heart-warming. This is a BIG mistake. A series of Japanese films that
feature the same family and actors/actresses, which is called Tora-san
series, had been around for more than 23 years (46 films). Unfortunately,
some of the actors in its key roles died several years ago, and it was
probably stopped. Every one of these films has an *unhappy* ending. Its
leading role cannot find a girl friend in the end. However, they are
extremely heart-warming films that center around a family. These films
are more popular in Japan than Kurosawa films.
Usually, a movie covers a short time and you do not have to be happy in such
a short term. I feel that it is great to have a friend in a movie who is
optimistic in spite of unhappiness. See, for example, "The Slingshot"
from Sweden. This film has a heart-warming ending, but not necessarily
a happy ending. *Hoop Dreams* does not have a happy ending, but it is
still heart-warming.
: > Do you hate Toshiro Mifune for playing the General in Kurosawa's THE HIDDEN
: > FORTRESS? (Virtually all of your descriptions above apply - not the
: > Christ one, it being Japanese - and then some.) Does that make Mifune a
: > "narcissistic megalomaniac"? Even if it does, does that make THE HIDDEN
: > FORTRESS a bad film? If so, why?
I have not seen him in this movie. But I saw him in Seven Samurai, Red
Beard, and Rashomon. Mifune is a Godzilla in Kurosawa movies. He cannot
act. He is in fact famous for his inability to act in Japan. Kurosawa's
script is usually artificial, moralistic, and crowd-pleasing. He is good
at editing, framing, and special effects. No wonder Spielberg and Lucas
admire him.
If Kurosawa was interested in making good samurai films, he should have
used kabuki actors or Tatsuya Nakadai instead of Mifune.
(edited)
: > "But let me add that the particular spectacle that makes THE SEVEN SAMURAI
: > additionally reprehensible are all the maimings, gougings and graphic
: > depictions of bodily harm that confuse people between *reality* (whatever
: > the story of 18th century Japan was) and asinine wish-fulfillment (this
: > piece of junk)."
I do not think Kurosawa is interested in history and authenticity. He
trivializes things so that the audience will appreciate them.
: This is totally misrepresenting my point. The Seven Samurai is a brilliant,
: classic film about warriors who have in some way come to the end of their
: line (notice how many of the samurai are felled by guns) and seek some
: final honor or accomplishment by protecting a village. I haven't seen it
: in a while, I can't state its themes exactly - although it's very similar
: to The Wild Bunch (one of Peckinpah's strongest influences). Here are
: these warriors, living by their own code their whole life, fighting for
: their own honor and survival, seeking retribution, although they can't
: even understand why, by doing this "good deed."... it's very complex
: and I'm sure I just got it wrong.
I agree that "Seven Samurai" has a positive message, but it does not have
much of elements of samurai films. I do not think it has a great,
authentic story. His films are humane, but shallower than Mizoguchi and
Ozu.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Sigurdur Hrafn Gislason
Scotland wins its freedom years after Wallace dies. This was just thrown in
as historical fact, not as the end of the movie. The princess does say she
becomes pregnant by Wallace (but for all we know, she could have just said
this to get at the king's nerves - she despised him deeply). The king gets
sick and on his own, not because of Wallace. And yes, Wallace gets
killed. As the guy who responded to you before me says, a happy
(bullshit) ending would have let Wallace live, marry the queen, kill the king
and prince and half his army, and free Scotland immediately. Instead, Gibson
made us deal with reality.
****************************************************************
I can add that the queen had her child 7 years after wallaces death according
to the history books.
--
B.C. Dictionary: cheap
- The entire vocabulary of a low priced parrot.
Hiroshi Amari
: Hiroshi Amari (eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
: : This thread is already long and I have no interest in this movie. It
: : seems that the making of Braveheart is logical this year. Although I have
: : not seen the movie, the past pattern of the Oscar dictates that it will
: : win the major awards. The long running time is commercially risky and it
: : is possible that it will be the producing company's, Hollywood's, and the
: : director's good advertisement. "Unforgiven" and "Schindler's List" also
: : enjoyed the support from the marketing, distribution and perhaps executives.
: Sorry If I misunderstand this...are you now saying that Scindlers List and
: The Unforgiven were not worthy Oscar winners? Both of these films were
: excellent.
I am not sure about this chronological order. Was not "Unforgiven" in the
same year as "Howard's End" and some other movies such as "Malcolm X" and
"The Player"? The nomination itself is doubtful. "The Schindler's List"
is more worthy, but the net contribution of Spielberg in addition to the
powerful subject seems overrated. It is easy to imagine that such a long
film has lasting impressions. Spielberg was careful not to offend the
viewers. It could have been better. I have a vague memory that Spielberg
contacted Polanski for collaboration and Polanski declined (probably
wrong). I wish Polanski had made this film. I am not sure about
Spielberg's personal experience, but Polanski was a real victim and he is
a better director who does not compromise.
: Pn another note, i am still of the old fashioned belief that if you have
: not seen a movie you cannot criticise it! See Braveheart before making
: judgements!
I do not think I criticized "Braveheart" per se. I am not interested. I am
not interested in Tim Robbins, either. He is uninspiring and a mocked
liberal who chooses the safe middle ground on controversial issues that
are considered to be "worthwhile to be filmed". They are my personal
preferences. Watching a film is a favor to the movie makers.
--
Hiroshi Amari
J Evans
>I have not seen him in this movie. But I saw him in Seven Samurai, Red
>Beard, and Rashomon. Mifune is a Godzilla in Kurosawa movies. He cannot
>act. He is in fact famous for his inability to act in Japan. Kurosawa's
>script is usually artificial, moralistic, and crowd-pleasing.
You view RASHOMON as "artificial, moralistic, and crowd-pleasing?"
Jon "pardon me, my mind is boggling" Evans
http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~jemevans
"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have
to show you no stinking badges!" - THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
Dagwood
>OK. I have not seen Braveheart.
PLEASE SEE IT (you'll be suprised) AND RE-POST
>But Hollywood seems preoccupied with the
>idea that the movie has to have a happy ending in order to be
>heart-warming.
THERE WAS NOT A HAPPY HOLLYWOOD ENDING, BUT NICE GUESS
--
Dagwood
Hiroshi Amari
: Hiroshi Amari (eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
: : This thread is already long and I have no interest in this movie. It
: : seems that the making of Braveheart is logical this year. Although I have
: : not seen the movie, the past pattern of the Oscar dictates that it will
: : win the major awards. The long running time is commercially risky and it
: : is possible that it will be the producing company's, Hollywood's, and the
: : director's good advertisement. "Unforgiven" and "Schindler's List" also
: : enjoyed the support from the marketing, distribution and perhaps executives.
: Sorry If I misunderstand this...are you now saying that Scindlers List and
: The Unforgiven were not worthy Oscar winners? Both of these films were
: excellent.
I am not sure about this chronological order. Was not "Unforgiven" in the
same year as "Howard's End" and some other movies such as "Malcolm X" and
"The Player"? The nomination itself was questionable. "Unforgiven" seems
to me, at least in hindsight, Clint Eastwood's 'redeeming' himself. He
somehow had to show his regret in his performances in Wetern action films,
before he is 'recognized' as one of the best, including the lifetime
achievement award in the last year.
"The Schindler's List" is more worthy, but the net contribution of
Spielberg in addition to the powerful subject seems overrated. It is easy
to imagine that such a long film has lasting impressions. Spielberg was
careful not to offend the viewers. It could have been better. I have a
vague memory that Spielberg contacted Polanski for collaboration and
Polanski declined. I wish Polanski had made this film. I am not sure about
Spielberg's personal experience, but Polanski was a real victim and he is
a better director who does not compromise. Spielberg is not a good
director for this film, considering his earlier works.
I recommend reading Alice Walker's "The Same River Twice: Honoring the
Difficult" which just came out. She wrote original screenplay for
Spielberg's "Color Purple" which is of course her Pulizter winning novel.
Spielberg did not like hers, and instead used Menno Meyjes's version. It
seems that Spielberg's choices are not good. It is saddening to read this
book to see how a black woman writer is criticized from various quarters
of people. This book has its original screenplay by Alice Walker. I have
not finished the book, so that I cannot tell you everything.
: Pn another note, i am still of the old fashioned belief that if you have
: not seen a movie you cannot criticise it! See Braveheart before making
: judgements!
I do not think I criticized "Braveheart" per se. I admit it was confusing.
I believe that watching a movie is a favor to the director. If I am not
interested, I do not go to a theater.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Jim_...@transarc.com
eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Hiroshi Amari) writes:
> : > Do you hate Toshiro Mifune for playing the General in Kurosawa's THE HIDD\
> EN
> : > FORTRESS? (Virtually all of your descriptions above apply - not the
> : > "narcissistic megalomaniac"? Even if it does, does that make THE HIDDEN
> : > FORTRESS a bad film? If so, why?
>
> Beard, and Rashomon. Mifune is a Godzilla in Kurosawa movies. He cannot
> act. He is in fact famous for his inability to act in Japan. Kurosawa's
> at editing, framing, and special effects. No wonder Spielberg and Lucas
> admire him.
Well, first off, you missed the point of the previous paragraph. It
had nothing to do with acting ability.
But, I disagree with your points about both Kurosawa and Mifune.
Perhaps you should explain in which way Kurosawa's scripts are usually
"artificial, moralistic, and crowd pleasing." Does Rashamon fit into
this? Does Seven Samauri? If so, in what ways.
As for Mifune, since I only have seen him much in subtitled films I'm
perhaps my judgement isn't the best here. But his acting has always
seemed quite good to me.
> If Kurosawa was interested in making good samurai films, he should have
> used kabuki actors or Tatsuya Nakadai instead of Mifune.
But Kurosawa wasn't trying to just make "samurai films." In fact,
several of his films were responses to the samauri film genre. Seven
Samurai and Yojimbo were both attemps to de-romanticize the genre (and
both managed the near impossible job of functioning as both marvelous
examples of a genre and as critiques of the genre at the same time).
> I do not think Kurosawa is interested in history and authenticity. He
> trivializes things so that the audience will appreciate them.
What does he trivialize? (By the way, you are in part right that
authenticity wasn't his main point. He wasn't making historical epics,
per se.)
> I agree that "Seven Samurai" has a positive message, but it does not have
> much of elements of samurai films. I do not think it has a great,
> authentic story. His films are humane, but shallower than Mizoguchi and
> Ozu.
But the "positive message" is somewhat ambiguous, don't you think. In
the end, the samurai (the few that live) realize that they are no
longer needed and that the important things in life have really passed
them by.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Hiroshi Amari
: eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Hiroshi Amari) wrote:
: >But Hollywood seems preoccupied with the
: >idea that the movie has to have a happy ending in order to be
: >heart-warming.
: THERE WAS NOT A HAPPY HOLLYWOOD ENDING, BUT NICE GUESS
I do not know how often film directors rewrite history. It is not based
on fiction, right?
--
Hiroshi Amari
Peter Reiher
>Dagwood (dag...@club.dag.com) wrote:
>: eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Hiroshi Amari) wrote:
>
>: >But Hollywood seems preoccupied with the
>: >idea that the movie has to have a happy ending in order to be
>: >heart-warming.
>
>: THERE WAS NOT A HAPPY HOLLYWOOD ENDING, BUT NICE GUESS
>
>I do not know how often film directors rewrite history.
Invariably. As historical epics go, "Braveheart" was probably a little
better on the accuracy than most. Relatively little is directly and
definitely known about William Wallace. The film is fairly true to what
is known. Some aspects are definitely ahistorical, others are plausible
fillings-in of the blanks. Given that Gibson never claimed that the film
was anything other than a mythological view of the character, I'd say
"Braveheart" was well within the bounds of historical film accuracy.
If you have a serious interest in how films (especially Hollywood films)
distorts history, there are a couple of books worth checking out. One
is the recent "Past Imperfect," a collection of essays by eminent historians
critiquing various historical films. Another is a book by George MacDonald
Fraser (I forget the title - something like "The History of the World
According to Hollywood," I think) that advances the thesis that Hollywood
doesn't get history nearly as wrong as is often made out.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/project-members/reiher>
Bob Morris
Lawrence of Arabia has been the subject of many "historical accuracy
articles". The best is "Lawrence of Arabia: the cinematic rewriting of
history" by Gary Crowdus, in Cineaste, vol. xvii, No. 2, 1989, pp. 14-21.
Also see. pp. 147-153 of "Lawrence of Arabia: the 30th Anniversary
Pictorial History" by Morris & Raskin for an exchange of letters between
Robert Bolt and Basil Liddell Hart about how accurate both the film
and its interpretion of Lawrence's character are.
"The Making of David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia" by Adrian Turner also
has a lengthy discussion of this topic.
One thing is for sure: unless a film makes an impact no one gives a damn
about how historically accurate it is, cause no-one notices it.
And, according to Bolt, you can't make an impact without twisting history
to some extent. In reality, for example, the man who Lawrence shot
and the man he rescued from the desert (Gasim) were not the same person.
Bolt combined them for impact. It sure worked. Dryden was a composite
of a number of British civil servants. That worked too: I've read
the John Monk Saunders, Terance Rattigan, and Micheal Wilson "Lawrence"
screenplays and there are simply too many characters in them.
Read the intro to Bolt's play "Vivat! Vivat Regina!" for an essay
on historical accuracy in plays and films.
But Bolt would only go so far: the play starred Bolt's wife Sarah Miles
and in 1989 they told me how Bolt told Hal Wallis to go to hell when Wallis
demanded that there be a meeting between Mary and Elizabeth in
the film version of the play. (Mary and Elizabeth never met!)
That's why there *is* a meeting between Mary and Elizabeth in "Mary Queen of
Scots" and it's also why the screenplay *is not* by Robert Bolt.
Braveheart, though it steals many "scenes" from Lawrence and Spartacus,
is one of the better epics in recent years. It has had a huge impact
in Scotland by reminding them of their past. No, it's not in the "Lawrence
of Arabia" ballpark but IMHO it's sort of in the "Spartacus" ballpark in
terms of overall quality. (Kubrick puts Spartacus at the bottom of his list.)
I suspect that the obvious compromise of giving Apollo 13 best picture
and Mel Gibson best director is going to happen and Braveheart is not
going to disappear into obscurity anytime soon.
Bob Morris
Mitchell Holman
}
}Braveheart, though it steals many "scenes" from Lawrence and Spartacus,
}is one of the better epics in recent years. It has had a huge impact
}in Scotland by reminding them of their past.
In the year of "bagpipe westerns" as the Scots call them, Braveheart
was much more dismissed in Scotland as hollywood hype than Rob Roy
for the simple reason that Rob Roy didn't TRY to be a Scottish epic, but
stuck to the single tale of single individual. Thus it's flaws were written
off as artistic license, and Braveheat's were seen as an assault on their
history - esp. the unnecessary insults to Robert Bruce, who DID free
Scotland from England.
Mitchell Holman
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's
the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 1988
John Flynn
>
>eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Hiroshi Amari) wrote:
>
>
>>OK. I have not seen Braveheart.
>
>PLEASE SEE IT (you'll be suprised) AND RE-POST
>
>>idea that the movie has to have a happy ending in order to be
>>heart-warming.
>
>THERE WAS NOT A HAPPY HOLLYWOOD ENDING, BUT NICE GUESS
>Dagwood
********SPOILER*********
I would say the ending was "gut wrenching"...
ok, bad joke, sorry!
John
Evelyn C. Leeper
Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> If you have a serious interest in how films (especially Hollywood films)
> distorts history, there are a couple of books worth checking out. One
> is the recent "Past Imperfect," a collection of essays by eminent historians
> critiquing various historical films. Another is a book by George MacDonald
> Fraser (I forget the title - something like "The History of the World
> According to Hollywood," I think) that advances the thesis that Hollywood
> doesn't get history nearly as wrong as is often made out.
The Fraser is THE HOLLYWOOD HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"I like anarchy, but it's kind of hard to enforce." --Brian Westley
Hiroshi Amari
: >: eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Hiroshi Amari) wrote:
: >: THERE WAS NOT A HAPPY HOLLYWOOD ENDING, BUT NICE GUESS
: >
: >I do not know how often film directors rewrite history.
(snip)
: If you have a serious interest in how films (especially Hollywood films)
: distorts history, there are a couple of books worth checking out. One
: is the recent "Past Imperfect," a collection of essays by eminent historians
: critiquing various historical films. Another is a book by George MacDonald
: Fraser (I forget the title - something like "The History of the World
: According to Hollywood," I think) that advances the thesis that Hollywood
: doesn't get history nearly as wrong as is often made out.
Thanks for your references, but I have no problem with 'rewriting' the
history. It seems that it is difficult to change the winners and losers
of the wars without international criticism.
--
Hiroshi Amari
Peter Reiher
>Peter Reiher (rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: >: eco...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Hiroshi Amari) wrote:
>
>: >: THERE WAS NOT A HAPPY HOLLYWOOD ENDING, BUT NICE GUESS
>: >
>: >I do not know how often film directors rewrite history.
>
>
>: distorts history, there are a couple of books worth checking out.
>
>history. It seems that it is difficult to change the winners and losers
>of the wars without international criticism.
Your point is unclear to me. If you are still talking about "Braveheart,"
it did not rewrite history in the respect of who won. The English are
clearly depicted as ultimately putting down William Wallace's rebellion,
as indeed they did. Robert the Bruce is depicted as successfully
rekindling that rebellion, as indeed he did. Robert the Bruce ultimately
succeeded in obtaining Scotland's independence, and Scotland remained
independent from Britain until a peaceful joining of the kingdoms
occured centuries later.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: As the guy who responded to you before me says, a happy
: and prince and half his army, and free Scotland immediately.
Not quite. I think `Braveheart' was going for a `Spartacus' type of
ending, where the hero dies but his seed lives on, so it's both sad *and*
hopeful. Problem is, it didn't work, because of (1) the historical
improbability of it all, (2) the inconsistency of a person like Wallace
being haunted by his first wife ("I *know* she's watching!") yet lashing
the linen with the Princess without a second's hesitation (or foreplay,
for that matter), (3) Wallace knows nothing about the baby while
Spartacus gets a chance to see his own son, and (4) Spartacus actually
had a *relationship* with Varinia, whereas Wallace's screwing of the
Princess, in light of the _prima noctae_ stuff early in the film, reeks
of an androcentric you-fuck-our-women?-then-we'll-fuck-yours mentality.