Post a response to this discussion thread
I'm really surprised at the lack of positive material on this forum. Braveheart deserves more. The two posts that do try to defend it have serious flaws (I'm sure this one will, too, because I tend to forget a lot of things and make mistakes in general; that's why I'm asking for more posts, so all the gaps can be filled). I agree with stephin_finn, but there's more to be said. An oppressed and enslaved people fight for freedom; yes, that's a huge part. There's also the peasant who, deprived of his love by the oppressors, leads his people in that fight, becoming a national hero; his difficulties with the corrupt nobility; and his martyrdom, leading Bruce (is it Robert the Bruce? it's been at least a few months since the last time I've seen it, so I'm not sure I remember) to take up the torch and finish what Wallace started. Then there's Bruce, struggling to decide between what his father has always told him (as well as what is profitable) and what he senses is right. I also agree with MrBob. While the part about the screenwriters not havigg much to work with may be true, though, I think the really rerevant fact is that Braveheart is entertainment, not a historical documentary. I thought the opening narration made that clear. I think MrBob and I arrive at the same conclusion from our different paths: In stephen's words, "Hey, it's a movie; lighten up!" As far as the war scenes, my impression was that the violence wasn't done the way explosions and deaths are done in action movies, but ore the way drug addicts are shown in anti-drug commercials. The violence in action movies is exciting, while I thought the violence in Braveheart seemed more like a constant reminder of the cost that Wallace and the people wee paying (and willing to pay) for their freedom.
I would say a little more, but it's almost 4am, and Im falling asleep. Maybe I'll finish this in a second post or something.
Post a response to this discussion thread