Historical/Biopic films are a hard genre to do justice. Although it seems rather easy to just copy every event or moment that a historical figure has been recorded to be a part of, there's the issue that filmmakers need to ensure that audiences are engrossed in the film itself, which would result in fictional aspects in order to have the film be somewhat conventional in otherwise unconventional stories. Such was the case for Mel Gibson's take on the First War of Scottish Independence. In 1297, King Edward "Longshanks" has already conquered Scotland and has allowed his nobleman to take over land and earn special privileges, despite the misfortune of the Scottish people. When William Wallace marries his childhood friend, she is suddenly executed for fighting off English rapists. Wallace demands revenge as he and his plan overthrow the local English occupants, starting a war between the English and Scottish people as the latter refuse to stand down to their oppressors. I think it's common knowledge that although the film covers the basic story of Wallace and the war, there are plenty of inaccuracies scattered throughout that make the film look really questionable, especially by today's standard. From the occupation of Scotland, the portrayal of various characters, to the dramatization of the war itself, the historical inaccuracies pile on and on. With that said though, I actually don't mind the changes from history that much. Keep in mind that not only is Gibson starring and directing a medieval epic, but he not only has to do the story of Wallace and the war some sense of justice, but to also make a coherent and gripping story for a variety of audiences. Heck, if one watches the commentary, Gibson himself admits that he knew of the inaccuracies, but had to make choices for the film to be more compelling for a general audience. Regardless of the inaccurate take on history, the story still works as a medieval war flick that has a bit of comedic and romantic aspects to draw in plenty of audiences and ensure an gripping, entertaining film, you just have to accept that it's not a really good representation of what happened in history.
Mel Gibson as William Wallace at first seems like a really bad choice on people. Not only is the director the star of his own movie a really pretentious act, but the fact that he's an Australian trying to play a historical Scottish figure seems like it should derail the entire film. However, when you watch the movie, you would honestly be surprised by how good Gibson is at playing Wallace. His Scottish accent is pretty decent, he mixes his established charisma to this leader figure that makes him more likeable, he has the slower dramatic moments to flex his acting skills, and he simply brings this badass warrior that only Gibson can really pull off. Sophia Marceau as Princess Isabella of France acts well, but her character is only thrown to have another love interest for Wallace, considering the character being unrelated to Wallace in real life. Patrick McGoohan as King Longshanks does a great job as the tyrannical ruler of England who wants the Scottish people to be put to place, which he believes will occur once Wallace is dead. From then on, there are too many side characters to list, but I will name a few that I find pretty memorable. There's Angus Macfadyen's Robert the Bruce, who is conflicted whether or not he should join Wallace or follow Longshanks, Catherine McCormack's Murron, Wallace's newlywed wife and childhood friend who is killed during the first act of the film, Brenden Gleeson's Hamish, Wallace's longtime friend and formidable warrior in the army, James Cosmo's Campbell, Hamish's father who always has the spirit to fight no matter how many injuries he sustains, and Peter Hanly's Prince Edward, the son and successor to Longshanks who fears his father's wrath and is secretly a homosexual. All of the actors do a great job and the characters, major and minor, all manage to have a sense of humanity and personality, which is mainly by how great the cast is. However, even though every character gets their moment to shine, it's Gibson's leading role as Wallace that is the highlight, mainly by how he manages to excel expectations of his performance in general.
Gibson's second film directing proved to pay off as this film got him the Oscar for Best Director during that year. Regardless whether or not you like Gibson as an actor, no one can deny that he can't direct a movie. It's quite clear that his experiences in Hollywood managed to grant him this gift of directing that's unlike any other. Gibson is always known to have a sense of scale and grandeur in his films and "Braveheart" is clearly no exception. The use of backdrop locations in Ireland and Scotland for one really lets the viewer transport to that country. On top of that, the production design and costumes are great in capturing the 13th-century attire. Of course, there are some inaccuracies here and there, but I love the simplistic and raggedy costume design. There are no shiny knights or a variety of fancy uniforms, the costumes are baggy, dirty, and appropriate for the time period of the early medieval setting. The Oscar-winning cinematography by John Toll is well-deserved to say the least. Not does Toll offer excellent shots of the expanding landscape, but also some intense close-ups and carnage during the action sequences, as well as some nice angles and set-ups to showcase the sets and locations. Toll was clearly Gibson's best choice in visualizing his vision and I'm glad that he's still working to this day. The late James Horner also offers a really good score to boot, showing that everyone in the project is giving it their all. Of course there's all of the familiar Scottish beats such as the bagpipes and flutes, but offers some nice love themes and the action themes. It's nowhere near Horner's best works, but it's still very adequate. Speaking of the action, it's spectacular to say the least. Although compared to today's standards, it's not extremely bloody, but it serves as the standard for crafting well-made, extended sequences of exciting violence that series such as "Game of Thrones" take influence from. The action is always intense, you always question if the characters can pull through, and the editing by Steven Rosenblum is nicely done to show just enough of the on-screen carnage before things get too grotesque. The scene of Wallace's execution for example is fantastically put together to feel the agony and torture Wallace is going through, but Gibson and Rosenblum knew to never show any actual gore as they know Gibson's acting and audio effects are just enough to make you squirm in your seat. Inaccuracies and personality, Gibson knows how to make a fantastic film.
"Braveheart" is what you can call a flawed masterpiece. Sure, the film has a variety of historical inaccuracies that doesn't do the story of Wallace and the Scottish War of Independence full justice and the romance between Wallace and Isabella is very forced into the narrative, but aside of that, one can't deny how excellent of a film this is. From the well-balanced tone and engaging, if inaccurate, story, Gibson's acting as Wallace, the entire cast in general doing a great job giving their characters a sense of humanity and realism, the production and costume design transporting the viewer back to the 13th century, Toll's cinematography is just great, Horner's score is really good, the action sequences are extremely entertaining and well-edited by Rosenblum, and Gibson's directing offers the grand scale and scope that was necessary to accomplish the stakes and environment of the war. Even 25 years later, it's remarkable how the film is still amazing to watch and the quality of the filmmaking and acting is still preserved, despite a notorious inaccurate story. While it might not be his best film as a whole, Gibson still demonstrated that he not only has acting talent, but also the talent of a brilliant director.
Verdict: 9/10. An astonishing film that's only hampered by the historical inaccuracies. If you love medieval epics or blood-filled battles though, it's definitely one to check out!
No comments:
Post a Comment