Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson)
Posted by old bluffer
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) September 04, 2006 08:31PM |
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) February 02, 2007 03:18PM | Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 37 |
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) February 02, 2007 03:38PM | Admin Registered: 7 years ago Posts: 597 |
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) August 01, 2007 06:40PM |
IIRC, on his DVD commentary track, Mel describes how they had to heavily re-edit this sequence. There was a lot more blood and gore on display in his initial cut of the film. But, preview audiences could not take it (alluding to many taking a walk). As well, the scene where the inquisitor slowly reveals the instruments of torture to Wallace, Mel says they had to remove a piece of dialog. Paraphrasing, '...and we will use each one...' It instilled too much dread among the preview audience and some left after that line, and before the fun begins.
That said, I think the sequence is still very powerful and uses the audiences imagination to fill in the unseen actions to great length. And, if you're familiar with the old British form of execution for treason (hung, drawn, and quartered), those images can be quite horrific. In fact, Mel actually describes what really happened to Wallace on that commentary track--the film maker actually toned it down, significantly.
That said, I think the sequence is still very powerful and uses the audiences imagination to fill in the unseen actions to great length. And, if you're familiar with the old British form of execution for treason (hung, drawn, and quartered), those images can be quite horrific. In fact, Mel actually describes what really happened to Wallace on that commentary track--the film maker actually toned it down, significantly.
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) August 05, 2007 11:08AM | Registered: 7 years ago Posts: 850 |
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) March 03, 2008 04:12PM |
I just cant understand how many idiots on this forum actually beleive what they saw in a Hollywood movie!
The guy who wrote Braveheart said its 80% fiction on every chat she he did while promoting the film. Mel Gibson himself said the only reason why he did the movie was because of the stories artistic license and if he would have had to have made the movie historically acurate then he wouldnt have bothered.
Wallace was executed in 1305, five years before Isabella and Henry II were married. Edward III was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death. In fact, Isabella was only 11 years old when Wallace died. If Wallace did screw her, like suggested in the movie, then that would make him a paedophile which Im sure is a fine icon for you all to look up to! Also the sweet little woman depicted in the movie is quite unlike the actual Isabella, called the "She- wolf of France," who personally murdered her husband with a hot poker.
Robert The Bruce couldn't have "betrayed" Wallace because he and Wallace actually were fighting on opposite sides, since Wallace supported John Balliol as king of Scotland instead of Bruce.
Wallace invaded north eastern England, killing men, women, and children as he went
raping and looting were a part of his strategy to bring fear to those in his way.
So the next time you go see a great movie thats based very very loosely around some historic event or character, just do some research before you go blubbering into your kleenex.
Read these:
[www.gaddgedlar.com]
[www.highlanderweb.co.uk]
[www.celticfringe.net]
[ourworld.compuserve.com]
or just go to your local library instead of sitting on your fat butts stuffing your faces with pocorn!
Its people like you that give all of us a bad name throughout the world, this is why Americans are classed as the stupidest most uncultured people on earth.
The guy who wrote Braveheart said its 80% fiction on every chat she he did while promoting the film. Mel Gibson himself said the only reason why he did the movie was because of the stories artistic license and if he would have had to have made the movie historically acurate then he wouldnt have bothered.
Wallace was executed in 1305, five years before Isabella and Henry II were married. Edward III was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death. In fact, Isabella was only 11 years old when Wallace died. If Wallace did screw her, like suggested in the movie, then that would make him a paedophile which Im sure is a fine icon for you all to look up to! Also the sweet little woman depicted in the movie is quite unlike the actual Isabella, called the "She- wolf of France," who personally murdered her husband with a hot poker.
Robert The Bruce couldn't have "betrayed" Wallace because he and Wallace actually were fighting on opposite sides, since Wallace supported John Balliol as king of Scotland instead of Bruce.
Wallace invaded north eastern England, killing men, women, and children as he went
raping and looting were a part of his strategy to bring fear to those in his way.
So the next time you go see a great movie thats based very very loosely around some historic event or character, just do some research before you go blubbering into your kleenex.
Read these:
[www.gaddgedlar.com]
[www.highlanderweb.co.uk]
[www.celticfringe.net]
[ourworld.compuserve.com]
or just go to your local library instead of sitting on your fat butts stuffing your faces with pocorn!
Its people like you that give all of us a bad name throughout the world, this is why Americans are classed as the stupidest most uncultured people on earth.
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) March 03, 2008 07:18PM | Registered: 6 years ago Posts: 1,026 |
Fair points, but bear in mind that you really shouldn't speak in generalities - I'm British, as is Old Bluffer. Likewise, I don't think Americans are "the stupidest, most uncultured people on earth" since I'm pretty sure you'll find those in every country, not to mention that's very rude and stereotyping.
Matt, who has never seen Braveheart.
-----------------
My DVD Aficionado page!
My reviews at ThatGuywiththeGlasses.com!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2008 07:25PM by Matt.
Matt, who has never seen Braveheart.
-----------------
My DVD Aficionado page!
My reviews at ThatGuywiththeGlasses.com!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2008 07:25PM by Matt.
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) March 07, 2008 07:56PM | Registered: 7 years ago Posts: 850 |
Historically inaccurate or not, I still consider Braveheart to be a great film, and I like how Gibson's Wallace really, really, reeeeeally wants to avoid any trouble until the English just push him too far. He's good at that sort of role (see The Patriot, too, for example, although unlike Braveheart I can't say I like that movie very much).
As to why I dislike The Patriot, well, I'm unsure. It's got most if not all of the same elements Braveheart does (including a cool villain; Colonel Tavington and Edward the Longshanks are awesome love-to-hate-'em baddies), but there's just this weird undercurrent of smugness about it, unlike in Braveheart in which I detect no such smugness (well, except from Longshanks, but that's understandable given that he's the heavy).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Movie Deaths Gallery: [smg.photobucket.com]
DVD Collection: [kooshmeister.dvdaf.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2008 07:59PM by Kooshmeister.
As to why I dislike The Patriot, well, I'm unsure. It's got most if not all of the same elements Braveheart does (including a cool villain; Colonel Tavington and Edward the Longshanks are awesome love-to-hate-'em baddies), but there's just this weird undercurrent of smugness about it, unlike in Braveheart in which I detect no such smugness (well, except from Longshanks, but that's understandable given that he's the heavy).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Movie Deaths Gallery: [smg.photobucket.com]
DVD Collection: [kooshmeister.dvdaf.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2008 07:59PM by Kooshmeister.
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) June 29, 2008 08:27AM | Registered: 4 years ago Posts: 15 |
"After the beheading, William Wallace's body was torn to pieces. His head was set on London Bridge, his arms and legs sent to the four corners of Britian as a warning. It did not have the effect that Longshanks planned"
this is obviously sayin that Edward Longshanks was the most ruthless king to ever sit in the throne of England, & when Wallace was killed it still hadn't achieved anythin.
these final words from the movie Braveheart, tell us of his passion and legacy:
"In the year of our Lord - 1314
Patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered
Charged the fields of Bannockburn.
They fought like warrior poets, they fought like Scotsmen... and won their freedom"
this is obviously sayin that Edward Longshanks was the most ruthless king to ever sit in the throne of England, & when Wallace was killed it still hadn't achieved anythin.
these final words from the movie Braveheart, tell us of his passion and legacy:
"In the year of our Lord - 1314
Patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered
Charged the fields of Bannockburn.
They fought like warrior poets, they fought like Scotsmen... and won their freedom"
|
Re: Braveheart: William Wallace (Mel Gibson) July 13, 2008 06:22PM |
I have just (and I MEAN just!) finished reading a book called "William Wallace The Kings Enemy" by D J Gray. It is a FANTASTIC book! I could not put it down. It is a factual book, not a work of fiction. In fact, having read the book, the film Braveheart directed by Mel Gibson is, to the most part, true to the facts. (even if some of the storylines in the film are a bit mixed up re dates etc)
Bruce was on opposing sides to Balloil, but he did join with Wallace later on. King Edward 1st, however did not entirely trust Bruce because he gave him his allegience, but kept changing sides. Wallace fought for the most part in the name of Balloil, who he later met in France. The book does state that we don't actually know what Wallace thought of Balloil but it gives the distinct impression that he wasn't overall impressed. Wallace was the only man who actually fought for Scotland's freedom. Wallace did not hold any substantial lands or vassals, he fought only for the cause of freedom for the Scots. The others changed sides quite often. He did have his own band of close followers who never changed sides, but quite a few of the knights and earls did, according to how Edward threatened them or their lands or their family. There was also John Comyn, 'The Red' who may well have betrayed Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk. He was supposed to go in with his cavalry when signalled but, when they saw the sheer numbers of the English, fled. He was never forgiven by Wallace. It might well be that he hoped Wallace would die in the fray, as he thought that he, a man of means, should not be taking orders or direction in battle by the 'lowly' Wallace. Had he not betrayed Wallace, the battle might well have been won. Bruce was not at Falkirk.
Wallace travelled to Fance to appeal to the king, Phillip. Phillip was sympathetic, but Edward later married Phillip's daughter (or was it his sister?!) so there was a family connection there which led Phillip to side more with Edward than with Wallace. Wallaces 'wife' Margaret was killed because she helped him and his father escape when they were trapped in her village. The book does not mention Isabelle, which I must admit, I was a little disappointed in, as I am a great romantic!
Wallace suffered an awful and humiliating death. So much so, it makes me ashamed to be English. He was hung, drawn and quartered, which makes it sound quite clinical. In fact, the victims in these sentances were hanged till they were not quite dead. They were still alive enough to know what was happening to them. They were taken down and laid on a table or slab. Instruments of torture or butchery were laid out before them, and their bodies were slit from throat to genitals, from left to right. (No painkillers obviously!). Their innards were taken out and shown to them, so they knew what was happening. Then the organs were thrown onto a fire. Finally, their genitals were cut off, and presumably shown to them also, and put onto the fire. Then their heads were cut off and later placed on spikes above the London Bridge Then their bodies were cut into quarters. His right leg was sent to Berwick, the left to Perth, the left arm was taken to stirling and the right arm to Newcastle Upon Tyne, to hang 'above the sewer'.
I have also read the book "William Wallace Braveheart" by James Mackay, which is another good read. This book also states that, when men where hung, they would involuntarily urinate and defecate, and "as a final obscene touch, had a massive erection and involuntarily ejaculated. to the amusement and entertainment of onlookers".
How on earth would you possibly portray this in a film?!
Obviously, I have very quickly run over a few facts so you really need to read these books to get the full picture. His 'bad' death leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a bad feeling in my heart.
Bruce was on opposing sides to Balloil, but he did join with Wallace later on. King Edward 1st, however did not entirely trust Bruce because he gave him his allegience, but kept changing sides. Wallace fought for the most part in the name of Balloil, who he later met in France. The book does state that we don't actually know what Wallace thought of Balloil but it gives the distinct impression that he wasn't overall impressed. Wallace was the only man who actually fought for Scotland's freedom. Wallace did not hold any substantial lands or vassals, he fought only for the cause of freedom for the Scots. The others changed sides quite often. He did have his own band of close followers who never changed sides, but quite a few of the knights and earls did, according to how Edward threatened them or their lands or their family. There was also John Comyn, 'The Red' who may well have betrayed Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk. He was supposed to go in with his cavalry when signalled but, when they saw the sheer numbers of the English, fled. He was never forgiven by Wallace. It might well be that he hoped Wallace would die in the fray, as he thought that he, a man of means, should not be taking orders or direction in battle by the 'lowly' Wallace. Had he not betrayed Wallace, the battle might well have been won. Bruce was not at Falkirk.
Wallace travelled to Fance to appeal to the king, Phillip. Phillip was sympathetic, but Edward later married Phillip's daughter (or was it his sister?!) so there was a family connection there which led Phillip to side more with Edward than with Wallace. Wallaces 'wife' Margaret was killed because she helped him and his father escape when they were trapped in her village. The book does not mention Isabelle, which I must admit, I was a little disappointed in, as I am a great romantic!
Wallace suffered an awful and humiliating death. So much so, it makes me ashamed to be English. He was hung, drawn and quartered, which makes it sound quite clinical. In fact, the victims in these sentances were hanged till they were not quite dead. They were still alive enough to know what was happening to them. They were taken down and laid on a table or slab. Instruments of torture or butchery were laid out before them, and their bodies were slit from throat to genitals, from left to right. (No painkillers obviously!). Their innards were taken out and shown to them, so they knew what was happening. Then the organs were thrown onto a fire. Finally, their genitals were cut off, and presumably shown to them also, and put onto the fire. Then their heads were cut off and later placed on spikes above the London Bridge Then their bodies were cut into quarters. His right leg was sent to Berwick, the left to Perth, the left arm was taken to stirling and the right arm to Newcastle Upon Tyne, to hang 'above the sewer'.
I have also read the book "William Wallace Braveheart" by James Mackay, which is another good read. This book also states that, when men where hung, they would involuntarily urinate and defecate, and "as a final obscene touch, had a massive erection and involuntarily ejaculated. to the amusement and entertainment of onlookers".
How on earth would you possibly portray this in a film?!
Obviously, I have very quickly run over a few facts so you really need to read these books to get the full picture. His 'bad' death leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a bad feeling in my heart.
