INTRODUCTION
The film “Braveheart” takes place in the 13th century and tells the tale of William Wallace a humble Scotts-man who falls in love with a young woman whom he makes his wife. However, Scotland was still under the thumb of English rule. This rule essentially allowed British soldiers to do as they please, including accost, abuse and rape the common-folk. This is the sad fate of William Wallace’s new bride. She is essentially executed for fighting against an English officer who attempted to rape her. Enraged, her death would send Wallace on the mission of saving Scotland and its people from English rule. Several large scale battles show just how bloody warfare at this time period could be. Much of Wallace’s anger is directed at the aging and ill King of England, Edward I, also called “Longshanks.” In the film the King is a deceitful, arrogant and cruel leader who not only dedicates his time to eliminating “Braveheart,” but also compensating for his son, who he deemed unfit to be King. The Prince and heir had been married, in an arranged marriage, to a French noble, Isabelle, who would ultimately falls in love with Wallace. At the same time, Wallace encourages Robert the Bruce to aid in the rise against Britain and take his place as the proper King of Scotland. Ultimately, “Braveheart” was captured and at the end of the movie we see him tortured, dismembered and executed; however, not before Isabelle admits to the dying King that the child that she is carrying is not his son’s but Wallace’s (Gibson, 1995).
DISCUSSION
This film has received a great deal of critical acclaim when it first opened in 1995 and it continues to be one of the grittiest, inspiring and epic tales that have all of the makings of a fantastic film experience. It has all of the elements of a great script, compelling characters, grand locations, realistic special effects and a poignant ending. “Braveheart” is all of those things, but what is not is entirely historically accurate. The reality is that there are not a lot of details on William Wallace real life; some believe that he was the son of a Knight from Ayrshire (Innes, 1998). His story gained popularity in the 15th century when it was told by a minstrel called Blind Harry. We know little about his childhood and upbringing. There are five major historical aspects that the film has altered and changed (Stevens, 2013).
Appearance: In the film, a fine performance and directorial accomplishments were made by Mel Gibson in the title role. However, that is not the description given historically regarding William Wallace. He was described as being unusually tall, akin to a giant, but was known to cheerful and agreeable, with wild look and broad shoulders (Stevens, 2013).
Isabella the Princess of Wales: Isabella becomes both Wallace’s confident, ally and lover in the film. This makes her presence in the course of the story important. However, history shows that there was no such relationship between Wallace and Isabelle. In fact, Isabella was a child of 9-years-old, living in France when Wallace was executed. She would not marry Edward II until the early 14th century long after, both, Wallace and Longshanks were dead (Innes, 1998).
Prima Nocte: In the film one of the major points of contention between the English Crown and the Scottish forces was the because of the concept of prima nocte. Prima nocte gives the Lords of Britain the right to have sexual relations with any Scotsman’s new bride on their wedding night. Despite what is seen in the movie there is no record that any Lords, nobles or royals ever claimed that right among the Scottish peasants (Innes, 1998). It was likely added to the film to show just how unjust and unethical the British forces were under the rule of Edward I.
York: One of the most significant battles detailed in the film is when the Scotts led by Wallace are able to defeat British military and take York. Wallace did invade England, but it was never anywhere near York (Innes, 1998).
Falkirk: One of the most memorable and humorous moments in the movie is when the Scottish armies faced off with British forces with a large number of Irish warriors leading the charge against the Scots on the field of Falkirk. As the Irish soldiers run up to meet the charging Scotts, they stop, greet the Scots like friends and switch sides; they join the Scottish attack. This did not happen in the real battle of Falkirk. In fact, there were very few Irish present. Ultimately, the battle would not end well at all for the Scotts. Wallace would escape but the battle decimated the Scottish forces (Innes, 1998).
Capture and Execution: Wallace was betrayed and captured 1305, near Glasgow; he was the set to Westminster for his trial and ultimate death. Again, in the film we are aware that Wallace was being tortured, but are not shown the specifics. In reality Wallace was sentenced to drawn, hung and quartered. He was tied to four horses where he was disemboweled. He was then beheaded and his entrails were burned, followed by his body be ripped into fours. What is true is the explanation of what was to be done with Wallace’s remains. His head was sent to rest on a spike on London Bridge and the remaining quarters were sent to Perth, Stirling, Newcastle and Berwick (Innes, 1998).
Even though there are many elements of the film “Braveheart” may not follow the exact facts of his life, but that does not make it any less a great film. For the most part films always exaggerate, reinvent and reorganize factual details to make the story they are telling more fitting of a cinematic format. However, what it can do is inspire people’s interest in historical characters and encourage them to research and study the real history. Despite the lack of details regarding much his life he remains a celebrated and relevant figure in Scottish history (Innes, 2013). It is possible that his contributions could have been embellished or exaggerated as part of the legend that grew up around his life and the events of his era. He is a celebrated folk hero and that is not likely to change (Stevens, 2013).
While the real history would be more accurate and true to form, it would not make for much of a movie. Movies need to have a flow, motivations and external forces that are threatening. Many are compelled to include a happy ending to wrap up the story. Again in “Braveheart,” the end is more tragic than happy, Wallace is executed and the King also dies, but the glimmer of light is that his bloodline will survive in the child that Isabelle is carrying (Gibson, 1995). This is film is definitely one worth watching. It, again, has all of the makings of a fantastic film, love, fighting, irony, disappointment, patriotism and a convincing villain for the main charger to defeat. The film is entertaining and thought-provoking. Regardless of whether or not Wallace did any of things that they claim he did and whether or not the film depicts actual history does not matter, because it will not change the legend (Stevens, 2013).
CONCLUSION
In 1995, there had not been many movies to embrace the level of visual realism, but compared to today’s realism, particularly when it comes to bloody death and injury, would seem quite conservative. The film displays a lot of violence but it represented as just violence with a noble and valiant cause; revenge for his lost wife and freedom of Scotland from England. It is true that William Wallace may have a different history that the film suggests. Wallace may be someone, who lived so long ago, that we never know all the true facts of his life. There may be bits of myth, legends and exaggeration in the tales told, like King Arthur and Robin Hood. Again, “Braveheart” is one of the best films of the last half of the 20th century and it is a fantastic tale that is worth the three hour length of the film.
REFERENCES
Gibson, Mel (dir). (1995). Braveheart. Icon Entertainment International, Ladd Company,
Innes, E.J. (1998). Braveheart, fact or fiction. Scottish History. Retrieved August 31, 2016,
Stevens, D. (2013). William wallace: The man behind the legend. Saber and Scroll. 2(2). 1-9.
