HIT the woad, Jock. Oh, but there shall be wailing of teeth! Our subject this week is that film, you know the one that causes those and such as those, better known as the Craven Scotch, to saturate their Union Jack panties.
But, first, like true academics, let’s have a boring bit at the start defining our terms. Braveheart: it’s a film, ken? Reminder, in case you’ve forgotten already: it’s a film. A film. F. I. L. Flipping’ film. An American film. It’s not an official history of Scotland.
Made in 1995, Braveheart is about William Wallace, the early medieval Scottish hero who fought for some sort of devolutionary settlement based on federal principles under a Labour government. The film – because that’s what it was – starred Mel Gibson (who also directed and produced it) as Wallace.
Patrick McGoohan played Unionist hero Edward I of England, known as Longshanks for the time he took to have a pee. Oddly enough, passionate independence supporter Sean Connery was offered the role of Bad Eddie, but was too busy elsewhere (in a pleasing symmetry, Gibson had turned down the role of James Bond).
Connery, however, did inadvertently help Gibson perfect his Scottish accent when he noted, over dinner in a restaurant, that Hungarian Goulash was on the menu. “To hear Sean actually utter a word like ‘Goulash’ is a lesson in itself,” recalled Gibson. Of course, his accent was still panned in the traditional manner.
Also, interestingly – no, really – Terry Gilliam, co-director of historical documentary Monty Python and the Holy Grail, turned down the chance to direct the film.
I won’t rehash Braveheart’s plot here, for fear of the haters losing the plot. Most of you decent ratepayers ken it. Revolt. Few early successes. Ultimately heroic defeat. The usual Scottish schtick. See also football.
Still, at least we don’t hang, draw and quarter our managers, as the English did to Wallace. Only fair to note, though, that, in recent years, England has taken significant steps to improve its human rights record.
Braveheart’s storyline was provided by American screenwriter Randall Wallace, who conceived the idea while on holiday here, inspired by an Edinburgh Castle tour guide’s telling of the tale. Randall W. took as his main historical source Blind Harry's 15th century epic poem The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace – folk were terrible at spelling in those days.
Defending his script, Wallace has said: “Is Blind Harry true? I don't know. I know that it spoke to my heart and that's what matters to me.” What mattered most to contemporary critics was entertainment and, initially at least, most were positive, describing the film as “spectacular”, “in the spirit of Hollywood swordplay classics”, with action that “will pin you to your seat”. Others criticised it for “self-indulgence” and “machismo”.
But what all foreign critics failed to predict was the orgy of complaint that would engulf Scotia itself. Much of this, from the sort of people who watched latitude-indulging British war films without a word of complaint, focused on accuracy or its lack.
There were serious allegations about the belted plaids being incorrect. The love interest was panned, as French kissing was not invented till many centuries later. Critics in the anglo-supremacist Guardian newspaper and suchlike complained that it had not shown the English as heroic liberators.
It was all comically humourless, except for John O’Farrell in his Utterly Impartial History of Britain, who said Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to William Wallace and Gromit. Ha-ha. Nice one.
Mel Gibson acknowledged the historical inaccuracies but said events were portrayed to “be cinematically compelling”. Disgraceful. Imagine a film director wanting that.
At any rate, in the Academy Awards or Oscars, Braveheart won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Makeup.
When the nominations had pitted Braveheart against Apollo 13, Gibson had taken out a trade ad saying Braveheart had been nominated for “Best Moon Shot”. You may recall the Scottish army mooning the English before battle, another event disgracefully unrecorded in historical accounts.
You had to feel for Gibson when he heard the reaction of the Craven Scotch. He probably thought: ‘These people are weird.’ Correct. None weirder. If such an entertainment film were made based loosely on events in Norwegian or Dutch or Kenyan history, would there have been such a furore in these countries? Of course not. There’d be the odd gripe but not the onset of a national neurosis.
Still, at least Gibson had a laugh while making it. Filming in Scotland and Ireland (logistically easier than the Highlands, he said), up to 1,600 extras were deployed at any one time. These included Wallace clan enthusiasts. Mel asked one the traditional question about what he was wearing under his kilt. Came the traditional answer: “Your wife’s lipstick.”
Under the headline, “Scotland a nation again for a night”, that Herald newspaper reported Gibson and then Tory Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth attending the gala premiere in Stirling in full Highland dress.
While 1,000 fans cheered Mel wildly, Mr (now Lord) Forsyth was “unceremoniously booed and jeered”. Said Michael: “I think the welcome was in good humour.” That’s the spirit. As real-life English military hero General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett put it: “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.”
The Herald reported the most eloquent remark of the night coming from Scots actor James Cosmo: “This is the best and most important film Scotland has ever made, both politically and emotionally.”
Steady, old boy. You’ll set them off greetin’ again. Another Scots actor, Angus Macfadyen, reprised his role as Robert the Bruce for a sequel in 2019, and more bad news for the haters came when Gibson revealed he had a four-hour version of the film and was willing to reassemble it if film companies showed interest. Bring it on!
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel