MOVIE: BRAVEHEART. Can I believe in this film?

Question

I'm not a UK citizen.

Answer 1

Most films made for mainstream cinematic release have to create a good story, dynamic characters and elevated themes. As a result, creative interpretation on past and current events spin out and whilst tied to historic events - the contection becomes loose. This is the case with Braveheart. Yes, the characters were there, the battles, but the reasons and meanings were simplified to fulfil the requirement of a film - not to mention timings. If only a war or a battle could be summed up in 3 hours, I think the world would seem a lot less complex.

Answer 2

The movie may be a great action drama with a 'historical twist'. Or a historical drama with great action sequences. Have your pick. Regardless, Braveheart is a hugely entertaining and well loved movie of the 90's. It may not be fully accurate to history but it created relevant characters/personalities to portray the historical consequences of Scotland's history and it was appreciated. The fact that it was not fully accurate made it perhaps more remembered. This story comes from imdb.com:

When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way". "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."

Answer 3

From what little I understand, Edward I of England did indeed want to rule the whole of the British Isles, and there were a lot of dirty machinations in the Scottish court that rather suited him (including Bruce's power plays - he was no saint). Little factual is known about Wallace, perhaps partly because he wasn't a king. I think he did fight the English heroically, and did die for it at Edward I's hands. Robert the Bruce emerged later as a hero king, cementing Wallace's achievements - I think that is reasonably reliable. The list of battles is no doubt incomplete but I don't think Gibson changed the outcomes (though he completely missed the point of Stirling Bridge, which centred around, er, a bridge).

So in arm-waving terms, it gives a broad idea of the big figures of the time and their intentions. In terms of detail, naah. But no historical film can do detail - we just don't know enough. And as for that being a complete description of the relationship between Scotland and England - well, forget it. A lot happened in the intervening 700 years.

Answer 4

Its Mel Gibsons Hollywood version of real events in the 13th and 14th century Scotland. William Wallace did exist he did become guardian of Scotland for a time his wife was killed by the english. He was betrayed by the Scottish noblemen. And he was taken to London and Hung Drawn and Quartered. All Gibson and Randal Wallace did was flower the story up and stick a bit of love interest in.

Answer 5

William Wallace was real, besides that fact, everything else is pretty much Hollywood's interpertation of Scottish history. While there are some small spots of accuracy, the majority is false.

Answer 6

I have read up on William Wallace and can confidently state that this film is about as believable as Forest Gump. The latter is far more entertaining.

Answer 7

Good action film. But historically flawed. As most Mel Gibson films are!

Answer 8

No I would say not. It has had the usual Hollywoodisation. I think it is probably fair to say that there has been significant dramatic license and economy with the actual version of events. And as for dear old Mel's Scottish accent..........don't get me started on how bad that was.

Answer 9

Sorry no you can't believe it.
The story is based on a poem written a few hundred years after the event.
It's an exciting yarn though.

Answer 10

It's loosely based on historical events, but given the usual Hollywood spin, so in short - no.