There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding with what was said in this video. 1. We repeated that we've been told this movie is inaccurate so that people can stop telling us that, its not a judgement on the film before it even started. We said it just so people will stop telling us. 2. We actually really enjoyed this movie, which we said on camera after the movies done.
One thing I want to point out is "Prima Nocta" is not a thing and never was. Hollywood has done a good (bad) job creative a narrative of kings being horrible oppressive to their vassals but in reality it was much more like modern day employers and employees, but instead of us getting paid by our boss, we get all the money and pay the boss the portion. As a result Lords and such made sure not to piss of the common person. So a "Prima Nocta" type thing would never exist. In fact, it would be seen as sleeping with a commoner, even for a trist beneath the aristocracy, and an insult. A bit like letting everyone at work know you bought a hooker for a night (Not shaming, just comparing it to current times culture viewing such a statement) If they did fancy a common person they'd likely hire them into their castle and then move on them. I'm not saying bad things didn't happen, just, it wasn't overt. Also, in military they would never volley arrows into their own men. Just like in modern times we don't deliberately destroy our own equipment (let alone men) they would not then as it would hurt their military resources, as fighters were a resource. This is no criticism on your reaction just additional context that many don't understand about the era. Some other common misconceptions: 1. People didn't bathe. They did bathe regularly. 2. Were illiterate. They were functionally literate but since most of the aristocracy relied on French or Latin, most English / Scottish weren't considered "literate" because they didn't know "cultured languages"
@@TearDownGenesis"Prima nocta" is not grammatically correct Latin. "Jus primae noctis" would be more correct, but there is no evidence that this was done in medieval England. There are, however, examples throughout history of this type of practice - notably in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Herodotus' Histories. As for the deliberate destruction of your own forces as a modern strategy, there are numerous examples of this in recent times. Human wave tactics used by the Japanese in the Pacific theater and similar tactics by Chinese soldiers in Korea, while artillery was simultaneously used in the same area hitting there own and US soldiers. Russia has used these tactics as well in Stalingrad during WW2, in Chechnya and Afghanistan and in the current conflict in Ukraine.
The historical inaccuracy of this film has been somewhat overblown, to the point where people treat it like a fantasy movie & as a Scots person I do find that quite annoying tbh. William Wallace was real. He did lead a vastly outnumbered Scottish army to victory against the English at Stirling Bridge. He did invade England. He was betrayed & he was executed by the same method shown in the film. The dead wife is fantasy & the French princess is fantasy but just about everything else is well within the bounds of "artistic licence" rather than just being complete inventions.
I'm Scottish, I loved this movie when it came out, I love it to this day. The film is largely based on a 15th century poem by a wandering minstrel called Blind Harry about the legend of William Wallace, so it's a TELLING of the story but William Wallace was a real person, he did fight for an independent Scotland and at the Battle of Stirling bridge he won a famous victory over the far larger English army and on the back of that victory he made successful raids on the north of England and was appointed, along with the man he fought alongside at Stirling Bridge, Andrew Murray (not the tennis player) as Guardians of the Kingdom of Scotland by King Of The Scots (John Balliol), and was in later years, knighted, becoming Sir William Wallace. As Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland he was succeeded by Robert the Bruce - another Scottish legend who dedicated much of his life to Scottish Independence and is prominent in this movie.
I'm half Scottish half English. My dad was a Scottish historian and absolutely loathed this film. Being inaccurate is one thing but getting 99% wrong is ridiculous. Wallace dad was alive when Wallace was an adult. The Princess was aged 3 when Wallace died , blue face paint and tartan? Nope not during this time , long shanks was alive years after Wallace died and the biggest insult Wallace being betrayed by the Bruce? I'm not saying it needs to be a Documentary but they could have put some effort in. Might as well have Abraham Lincoln dueling JFK
@@billdoor3140 Those choices are what makes Mr Gibson an Oscar winning filmmaker and makes Braveheart a great movie, and I'll bet thousands more people actually read about the REAL William Wallace in history books because of that film than any amount of lectures or documentaries would have inspired.
@@bannjaxx I severely doubt braveheart got more people into history than history professors mate 😅....the modern embrace of misinformation to the point people think the earth is flat and vaccines are the worlds scientists coming together to wipe them out is more likely the results of people believing this sort of plop. People way too happy to accept fiction as facts. Every single major plot point in this inaccurate from Wallace father's death to his marriage to the Princess to the Kings death.
There was a sort of semi-followup a few years back about Robert the Bruce starring the same actor, and before that there was one made for Netflix called the Outlaw King with Chris Pine, which condenses some of the historical events and legends
Look, it's not a documentary. It's a Hollywood movie. They make these changes to make the story more compelling and emotional. They do the same thing with a lot of movies. I agree with your assessment of the movie, but I don't think it was meant to be taken too seriously. @@billdoor3140
As a Scot, this movie is a classic. Know about the historical inaccuracies but it's so well made and a good jumping off point for anyone who's interested in researching the real history.
Speaking as somebody from Scotland, I think this film is brilliant and highly enjoyable. I don't watch it to learn our history, so the inaccuracies don't bother me at all. It is just a well made movie in my opinion.
Its genuine good entertainement. And it Gets your Blood boiling when you see the army of Scotsmen roaring and charging the English. And James Horner soundtrack is just "Chef's Kiss"
It's funny seeing the different reactions from different Scottish people. For example as someone from Scotsman me and my family just hate this film. Though that probably also has to do with the fact that we have a bunch of people who love history in our family 😅
They were chanting "MacAulish," which means "Son of Wallace" in Scottish. It shifted to "Wallace," signifying that he was no longer the son of Wallace, but the new Wallace.
"They may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!" The betrayal scene is the best acting Mel Gibson ever did. Most people would have played it angry. He made it feel like real betrayal does: confusion, disbelief, numbness, the life flowing out of him. Absolutely gutted me the first time I saw it. Also, this film is EVERYTHING even now after all these years, which never gets old.
Once you say the word braveheart here in the U.K. someone will just pop out of anywhere and tell us how inaccurate it is, you could be anywhere at anytime
what are the intros? I've watched for a while but i honestly don't know, is it referencing other films? Is it just complete random? Please explain, i might be dumb
If you really pay attention to the actions of the dwarf performers prior to the execution, you will realize that they are pantomiming what is really going to happen to Wallace moments later. Also, I believe that Isabella, Princess of Wales, was actually just a kid when Wallace died and probably never met him.
Native Scot here - I first saw Braveheart in 2005 in high school, literally; Mr Forsyth chose it for the visual media part of our English class. As such, I've seen it, particularly the Battle of Stirling Bridge scene ("the sword against the blue sky reflects the blue of the Scottish flag and that's why the director chooses to focus on it", etc), more times than I can recall. So it's testament to the strength of the movie that *despite* this introduction and exposure, I love it all the same. It's not just a historical mess for the points George raised. The French princess not only wasn't in Britain at the time of Wallace's campaign, but was also just three years old. The face paint was also worn by the Picts, the people who lived in parts of the land before Scots conquered it all (centuries before Braveheart's setting). While that was 1000 years too late, the wearing of tartan and kilts is about 500 years too early, and two-handed blades (also known as claymores, from the Gaelic _claidheamh mòr_ "big sword") were not in use by any Scottish warrior at the time. Speaking of Gaelic, at 18:10 _amadan_ means "idiot" but only for males; the female would be _oinseach_ Most amusing of all: the Scottish hero William Wallace is played by (EDIT: Australian / American) Mel Gibson; The King of England is Patrick McGoohan, an Irishman; and the mad King Stephen of Ireland is portrayed by David O'Hara, who despite the name is Scottish. Congratulations - between this and Trainspotting you've probably covered two of the most fundamental cornerstones of Scottish-based cinema! Might I suggest Shallow Grave and/or The Angels' Share for two more? Thank you for these FREEEEEEEEE reactions 🏴
Technically Gibson isn't Australian. He does hold permanent residency despite not having really lived there since the early 90s. His family is from New York and he moved with his parents to Australia when he was a teen. He got famous when in Australia but has always been a US citizen.
@@gregall2178 Into a gap where I haven't seen it! I know, I know, something I have to remedy as soon as possible, having heard only great things about it
To answer George's inquiry, generally an invading force needs a ratio of at least 3:1 when going up against a prepared defender behind good fortifications. That will of course increase due to various other factors like morale, terrain, supply, weather, etc.
You need more troops then the enemy can kill in the time it takes for you to reach them. In trench warfare the number would depend on the speed of fire of machine guns.
I think this is a modern idea based on the first world war, where defenders had a great advantage. Having more men is always nice off course, but I don’t think they really used this rule of thumb before modern times.
@@thelizardking3036 The exact ratio might not have been established, but it's not a new, modern idea. In the third chapter of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," he refers to a general rule of war that ". . . if you outnumber the opponent ten to one, then surround them; five to one, attack; two to one, divide. If you are equal, then fight if you are able. If you are fewer, then keep away if you are able. If you are not as good, then flee if you are able." So the concept of following a certain ratio as a guide to military action is hardly a modern concept (written 6th century BC). The modern era of war may have made this more specific especially by the Soviets who created elaborate algorithms to account for qualitative and quantitative factors between opposing forces to determine force levels to use (3:1 in tanks, 5:1 infantry, 9:1 artillery for assaults against a NATO position for example).
in actuality; it depends on the era and the tech available. depending on the era and fortifications the mathematics for a guaranteed victory against prepared defenses could be anywhere from 1.5 more men (wooden, hastily prepared) to as many as 10:1 to achieve victory. on the whole though throughout human history the ratio against stone walls was usually anywhere from 3:1 to 5:1... though toward the end of European siege warfare in the 18th century that would climb much higher
@@thelizardking3036 Defenders had far greater advantages in the past, modern artillery made stone fortresses into death traps, prior to that many castles were completely impenetrable without months of siege. There were cases of sieges lasting well over a year.
Omg! Finally you guys are reacting to this masterpiece! I know there will be people happy to point out the historical inaccuracies but I’m in the camp of just enjoying great movies and don’t take things so seriously and personally 😊
I'm Scottish, live where William Wallace's father was born and went to school with the actor who played young Wallace. I don't care about the inaccuracies of this movie. The story, the music and the action make this an incredible movie.
I was a history major, and we had a long going discussion on this movie specifically. We concluded, that is Braveheart the movie could make a person interested in history as a subject, then it has still served a positive role to the field. Then it's up to historians to explain the details. That's not the role of this movie, when it boils down to it.
There is a large discussion surrounding this movie, and others like it, as a medievalism. It is an irresponsible attempt to capture an imagined rustic past when things were better than they are now. These types of movies are almost always at the expense of modernity and progressive ideals. It is not a mistake that the manly country man of tradition is rebelling against the effeminate metropolitan king and that these types of movies are so loved by christofascists.
Same! I remember seeing this in the theater with some buddies, and getting entirely lost in those eyes. Sophie Marceau is, without doubt, one of the great beauties of her age.
@@ZenzeroCAM Damn right he was the one they feared if the history books are true. Plus he was loyal to the Bruce taking the Bruce heart to the Holy land.
"got lost in her eyes". Loved that comment. A whole (my) generation of teenagers did, when she starred in "La Boum" 1980. For us it was awesome to see her again.
Braveheart received ten Academy Award nominations, and a month later, won five including Best Picture, Best Director for Gibson, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Makeup
Yeah there's usually about a month between the Academy Award nominations being announced, and the actual award ceremony itself. So that tidbit applies to every film that has ever won an Oscar, ever.
@@richieclean lol, the tidbit is: _it was nominated for 10 and won 5,_ the 'month later' part is no more than nice writing, instead of just saying 'and won 5' as I just did.
Braveheart received ten Academy Award nominations AKA Oscar nominations, meaning that it was one of the contestant in ten AKA 10 different categories. After one month AKA over 4 weeks it won 5 Academy Award AKA Oscars which meant it was awarded as best in 5 different categories 😁. Those 5 wins included Best Picture, Best Director for Mel Gibson which means he directed the movie. Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Makeup. Mel Gibson was also main star in the film. 🙂
The thing about this is, despite all the inaccuracies in this movie, they actually toned down WW's torture. And everything the Irish guy said in this movie was pure gold.
If people paid attention to the film, just before they bring him up for torture the two dwarfs act out the disembowelment scene, pulling fake intestines from the victim, to the crowds hilarious delight.
The spiritual successor to this film is The Patriot (2000), also starring Mel Gibson battling the English complete w/ historical inaccuracies. Both movies have fantastic musical scores by James Horner & John Williams.
James Horner is my top "gone too soon" person in the industry. His scores for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Glory, Titanic, and numerous others are epic, and hold up against anything Williams, Zimmerman or Goransson have done
This was the first movie I remember where they didn’t cut away from the violent battle scenes. Usually, you’d see the hero slash his sword then it cuts to another part, minimizing the effect. Seeing legs hacked off and hands getting smashed gave me a visceral reaction unlike any movie before. Made it seem more real, less Hollywood than other battle scenes from before it.
In real life Isabella, also known as the She-Wolf of France, deposed Edward the 2nd [the son of Longshanks] in 1327 and ruled as Queen for several years before her son Edward the 3rd assumed the throne of England as King.
Another great would be Excalibur from 1981. It’s the best version of King Arthur, and you’ll see great actor who were up and coming. They’re totally legends now. Such an excellent film!
Something not everyone is aware of is that a spinoff/sequel to Braveheart came out in 2019, called Robert the Bruce. It takes place several years after the death of William Wallace and is centered around, well, Robert the Bruce, starring Angus Macfadyen, the same actor who portrayed him in Braveheart. I haven't heard many people talk about it, so I don't know how well known it is, or how it would do on a poll, but just figured I'd put it out there just in case.
It doesn't share even one writer, director, or producer with Braveheart, and the production company is entirely different too, so there's no way you can link the two films by calling the newer one a sequel. The only connection is in the similarity of their historical source material (and the shared actor).
It´s more stupid that ppl still say Napoleon was small where in fact he was totally fine back then. Imagine what a shitty personality a lot of ppl have to take beauty standards from today to mock a person from 200 years ago.
From IMDB: "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."
One of the strange oddities of this movie are Wallace's lieutenants. Hamish is played by Brendan Gleeson who is Irish while Stephen, the import from Ireland, is played by David O'Hara who is Scottish.
I noticed the same thing in The King. I found it funny that they had Timothee Chalamet, a Frenchman, play Henry V, while also casting Robert Pattinson, an Englishman, as the French Dauphin.
There's a story that one of the local extras asked about the bridge, and Mel's reply was that it got in the way. The extra's response? "Aye, that's what the English found too."
So George is right that the "Wallace being the real father of Isabella's son" arc is total fabrication (and yes, impossible, Isabella was a 10 year old girl when Wallace was executed and her son was born several *years* later). But when you know the history there's far more of a calculated insult in this plot line. One, Isabella herself is legendary as the "she-wolf of France" and a major figure in English history in her own right, and second, her son, Edward III, is considered one of England's greatest monarchs, so much so that there's a push by many historians to have him granted the title "Edward Magnus" (i.e. Edward the Great). So suffice to say, this little invention in the plot is basically trying to take away some of the greatest moments in England's history. Oh yeah, and Edward I "Longshanks" is definitely not at all the monster portrayed in the movie. Instead he was actually known as a man of honor, a kind and devoted father, son and husband, and a figure so respected that one of the biggest problems the Scots claimants to the throne (John Balliol, Joh Comyn, Robert the Bruce etc) had was that Scottish nobles simply preferred Edward as King because they felt he was a better man and a better monarch. You also have to bear in mind that a lot of the Scots noble houses were part of the international francophone caste that dominated Western Europe.. they saw themselves as Christian, French-speaking nobles first and Scots second so being ruled by someone who was also part of that class like Edward even though he was based out of England(plus quite a few of them knew him and his brother Edmund personally from crusading with him in Outremer and other shared ventures), was really not a big issue to them (basically nationalism as we know it wasn't really full formed yet, though in their ways the stories of Wallace and Robert the Bruce would become part of creating it in Scotland).
While it's fair to say Edward wasn't without his good qualities, particularly his devotion to his wife & contributions to later English democracy, to the people of Scotland & Wales he absolutely was a tyrant (like many monarchs of the middle ages). The sack of Berwick, the siege of Stirling, & the treatment of Wallace & other patriots (his murder at the end of the film is actually *tame* compared to the reality) went beyond the pale, as did his expulsion of the Jews from England in his reign. The Scottish nobilities' connections to the Norman aristocracy complicated matters, but the Church & peasantry had other ideas, hence the examples of the Northern Rising under Andrew de Moray & the kirk's defiance under Bishop Wishart. True, there were differences in how people viewed nationhood compared to today, but they weren't absent either, as evidenced by the Declaration of Arbroath & QlWallace's campaign.
I watched Braveheart at the cinema and was blown away. Much later I heard there were historical inaccuracies and was really interested to learn what the actual history was and to find out the anachronisms. Back in the day, the biggest contoversy was whether you preferred the natural beauty of Wallace's wife or the sophisticated beauty of the French princess. I'm with George on this.
A lot of the bowmen that fought for the English were actually Welsh who were considered particularly skilled with the bow. All Englishmen were required by law for many years to regularly train with the longbow and to this day a lot of churchyards have Yew trees in them which were planted to ensure a supply of suitable wood for longbows.
Wasn't it usually once a week at minimum? If I recall correctly it would usually be Saturday or Sunday when they would practice, but it probably varied.
Not quite. The practice bit is right enough, but English yew wasn't straight enough for bows. Most English bows were made from Spanish yew, which was paid as an import tax on Spanish wine. Basically, for every cask of wine you wanted to bring into the country, you had to provide x number of bow staves or pay a LOT of money (more than the cost of the bow staves).
Actually,yew trees are planted in graveyards because the seeds are poisonous and stop animals rooting around in the soil. It also dates back to pagan times as it can release a hallucinogenic vapour in spring,and was considered a doorway to the dead.
True history: For a long time Scotland and France coordinated strategies against England. This relationship was called the 'Auld Alliance' in Scottish. As to 'Longshanks', I was very entertained by a passage in a coffee-table book on the English royals: 'Surely one of our greatest monarchs was Edward I...' He is 'great' chiefly for well-planned aggression, among other things for defeating the barons who had created the House of Commons, conquering Wales, driving the Jews out of England, and numerous forays against Scotland. He is generally reviled in those countries. He ordered the building of state-of the-art castles in Wales, though, that are major tourist attractions. Edward thought of himself as a second King Arthur and had actual Round Tables manufactured for festivals with jousting and music and so on. So he did provide some entertainment for his people.
@@jdnaz1288Actually you're 100% right, I had misremembered it. It was when they were interviewing movie directors - my favorite is still the Michael Bay one 😂 Anyway, I'll edit my comment
One of the funniest things I have ever seen is the comedian Stewart Lee doing a routine about this movie to a Glasgow audience. The man has balls of steel
"She was a real historical figure, that French Princess, but at the time of Wallace's death she was only 4 years old... Now I'm not saying that William Wallace didn't have sex with her... He probably did. But if he did, it would have been a far less romantic scene."
I love epic films, and I also love history. So I unironically love this movie, while also recognizing its egregious historical inaccuracies. (You covered some of these at the end of the video, which I watched after typing all this up. So apologies for any repeats.) The depiction of Wallace's family (and of Scotland in general) as backwater mud-farmers is pure fantasy. Scotland was a reasonably-developed European power by the end of the 13th Century - not as wealthy, powerful, or influential as England or France, but also not a barbaric mud-hole. And Wallace's father was a knight, landowner, and minor noble. There are a lot of other inaccuracies, but I consider that to be the most narratively-impactful. I won't list all of the others (again, you covered a lot of them at the end of the video), but the other big one is less important to the story, but arguably a bigger "detail" to get wrong: The actual Battle of Stirling (the first major battle depicted in the film, where the Scots use the chiltrons (long spears) for the first time) was actually the Battle of Stirling Bridge. And the Scottish victory had more to do with the fact that the English had to deploy their heavy cavalry over a narrow bridge and onto muddy terrain, than with the innovative use of the chiltrons - although that was a relatively new innovation, deployed by the Scots against the English cavalry at many other battles of the Scottish Wars of Independence - so it's logical to assume they would've been deployed at Stirling as well. Obviously the English as a whole, and Edward I (the "Longshanks") in particular, are played as straight-up cartoon villains. The movie needed really galling bad guys so that the revenge plot would feel especially satisfying. And for a film presented largely from the Scottish side of the conflict, from that perspective, the English *were* villains. "Prima nocta", as an actual institution, may be largely ahistorical. But as happens any time in history when a more powerful nation oppresses a weaker one, the English interactions with the Scottish were very brutal. It's less that the English would never do something like that, and more that we simply don't have evidence that it was an organized, institutional "thing". Despite all of its inaccuracies, I think this movie succeeds majorly on two fronts: 1) As cinema, it's almost perfect. It's emotional and heartbreaking and satisfying. The production still holds up pretty well in 2023, and in 1995 it was absolutely groundbreaking. This movie's success sort of signaled to big studios that epic period pieces could be successful, and we got a lot of big epics in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a result (e.g. 'Gladiator' in 2000). And as goofy as Mel's accent (and his hair extensions) were, he gave a great performance - as did many others in the movie. The cinematography, James Horner's score, etc. - all magnificent. 2) Although a lot of the details are wrong, I do feel like the movie accurately captured the *nature* of the Scottish Wars of Independence, at least in a way that a modern movie-going audience could understand them. The power discrepancy between the Scottish and English armies (what we might call an "asymmetric conflict" today) that required the Scots to use innovative tactics, the duplicitous nature of the aristocracy on both sides (who were often, as the movie version of Edward I says, just as rich in English lands as they were in Scottish lands) and the shifting allegiances, etc. So it's a bad movie if you want accurate historical detail about this period in British history, but it's a great movie if you want an accurate *feeling* about the period (at least insomuch as we understand it today). I'm glad y'all watched this one. Warts and all, it's one of my favorite movies.
George didn’t read enough. Wallace’s wife was killed by the sheriff and Wallace avenged her death very similarly to what happened in the film. Also, Wallace’s death in the film was pretty accurate to what really happened. In real life they didn’t give him the choice of a quick death and he never yelled “Freedom!”
It was funny to me looking back at the reaction people had about this film....as though it was supposed to be a documentary and not a Hollywood movie.😂
Despite the inaccuracies a very patriotic and moving movie. Highly recommend The Outlaw King which follows on from Wallace's death. Another great (but not accurate) historical Scottish movie which is criminally overlooked is Rob Roy starring Liam Neeson and is set in Jacobite times.
I'm with George...I was a teen when this was in the cinema and I completely fell in love with Sophie Marceau (and English spoken in a French accent) for ever more... Fun fact: Edward I reigned in the Norman period when English monarchs and nobility were mostly speaking Old French as a first language
Campbell was Hamish's father. Played by James Cosmo, who also played Lord Commander Mormont in Game of Thrones. He was also one of the coal miners in Chernobyl.
It might not be "historically accurate" but in my opinion, it is one of the best movies ever made! Has alot of heart, and a very quotable movie! And I would go as far to say, it's one of the greatest love stories of all time!
Highlander is not trying to be a historical film though based on historical people, Highlander is clearly a fantasy film, so that’s a false equivalence
@@Penddraig7 they are talking about lot about films that take place in the “past” like Highlander and LotR which are intentionally not accurate to the past of real life. So by referencing these false pasta they are still dwelling on historical inaccuracies. It’s not a knock on them, it’s making movie references, just thought it was funny. I hope now that I explained the joke you can find it funny too
@@jarrodoakley6911 it would help if you could write a coherent comment. The point remains, Highlander and LotR are both fantasy stories with no basis in reality, Braveheart is a historical film about actual historical events and actual historical people and therefore the comparison doesn’t make any sense, whether you were saying it to be a passive aggressive dick or whether you were trying to be funny, the result is the same because either way it hinges on the comparison being an actual comparison, the point I made is still valid
@@jarrodoakley6911 not a ruiner of things, just pointing out your very obvious flaw in your comment which makes no sense at all and is a completely false equivalence, you are comparing two completely unrelated comments by George. You not being that bright is not down to me, you wrote your comment, not me, so don’t try and flip it onto me, you ruined your own comment by making it in the first place 🤦♂️ Part of life is about making mistakes, taking accountability for those mistakes and learning from those mistakes in order to grow and become a better person. Whether you are trying to be passive aggressive or make a joke, if the execution of it fails then you failed, take it as a life lesson, grow from it
My first viewing of Braveheart was in the cinema and not knowing anything about the history I was floored at the end when, unlike most fantasy sorts of historical movies, he wasn't saved from execution. Just a huge cinematic impact for me as a young moviegoer at the time!
@@stinkbug4321 Perhaps, but don't under estimate the ignorance of the general public (myself included.) As of my seeing it in the theaters I had never heard of the name William Wallace.
I second this...the guts to do that in front of a Scottish audience. It's one of my favourite pieces of stand up; but he got away with it as he is, technically, Scotch.
@@nathankilburn1953 He's technically scotch is he? A roll of plastic adhesive tape? Christ, I'd never heard that before, good on him for figuring out the comedy circuit
They usually hung ( not until dead) wracked him to break his bones then disemboweled him. Took away his stomachs. They usually burned the bowels and stomachs on the fire in front of the victim. The blue dye was called WODE. Hence the colour of the Scottish flag. Blue and white. The man who played the King Longshanks( long legged) was our great English/ Irish actor Patrick McGowan. Rest in peace sir.
Wow I remember renting this on VHS from Blockbuster on spring break back in the day. 😂 We watched it like 3x before we returned it 😎 historical accuracy be damned...this is a great action flick.
10:30 "Yeah. See? It's not raining at _all."_ Maybe not at the moment, but Scotland is a _very_ rainy country. There's this joke that, in Scotland, a clothesline is a place where you hang clothes up to be _rinsed._
I was born in Scotland & have friends & family there, When they went to see it in the theater, at the end of the film the whole audience cheered & stood and applauded. Technically it is historically accurate. But things like the kilt didn’t come into existence till the 16th century & the bagpipes were invented after this. The Scot’s didn’t win their freedom and Robert the Bruce was also hung drawn & quartered. But it’s the spirit of the film that makes it so good.
The Scots DID win the wars of independence, after Wallace was killed Bruce won the Battle of Bannockburn, which was THE decisive battle in the wars. Scotland was largely independent from that time on till the union of the crowns and the subsequent political union with England. As for Kilts....the great kilt would have been worn by the highlanders at this time....the kilt as it is now is a modern version of the old great plaid. Bagpipes have been around for thousands of years in one form of another, more than likely the Romans introduced them to the British isles and from there developed into what is now the Irish War Pipe, the great Highland war pipe etc It's difficult to say whether they were around in the 13th century but possibly in an earlier form Hope that clears you up a bit
What you didn't "see" at the end when he was being tortured, was him being castrated, then disemboweled. Even though there was a lot of "inaccuracies" in this movie, it's still an amazing movie in itself, with a great story line. The acting for that time (1995) was amazing and well done too. I very clearly remember when this came out in 1995. I went to the movie theater for 3 straight days and watched it 3 times in a row because I loved it so much. It was my favorite movie for a very long time. Still in my top 5 easily.
Another curious fact about Braveheart The actor who played "Hamish" is actually Irish in real life and the actor who played "Stephen" is actually Scottish in real life
If you watch Game of Thrones, there are two actors from this. Campbell is played by James Cosmo and is Jeor Mormont in GoT. Also, Lord Bottoms, the English Lord who came by the festival to claim Prima Nocta, is played by Rupert Vansittart and is Yohn Royce in GoT.
Commenting just to be corrected: this is more or less Robert Bruce's story, with some William Wallace splashed in. Like Temujin's story mixed with Subodai, or Geranimo's story mixed with Sitting Bull. It's still a good damn story. There's a reason these legends fighting impossible empires still exist. We like the guys who told em to fugg off.
Nice one, you two! Braveheart came out the same summer as two other Celtic themed movies. Rob Roy and also The Secret Of Roan Inish, both of which are very good too. It was a summer of Maximum Celticity. Thanks for sharing this one. 🙂
Every single film based on historical events is inaccurate, but Braveheart seems to get unfairly singled out for it. It's not even the worst offender either. Truth is, it's a feature film, and as such it has absolutely no obligation to be accurate, It's there to entertain, and it does that job extremely well. If anyone wants accuracy, then they should watch a documentary.
Kinda sad that the whole focus of their reaction is on the inaccuracies rather than how great this film is directed, how amazing the soundtrack, how good the costumes, the many many extras for the battle scenes, etc. etc.
YES!! Agreed, and since they deemed it historically inaccurate, treated it like a comedy and laughed through the entire film. Went right over their heads...
I get the qualities of the film, brilliant score, beautiful scenes, very easy to root for Wallace and all of that but I was never able to love this film. And it's not just the inaccuracies, it always felt a bit gradiose but silly for me. Maybe it's just me never being able to take Mel Gibson seriously, but between the "innacurate" ones, I'll take Gladiator over Braveheart easily. So I kinda get their reaction. Not everyone is going to be equally engaged by every movie, even every good movie.
Probably because any time anyone watches this film every dullard on RUclips races to the comments to talk about how only the bare bones story is accurate and loads of the rest is made up. It’s tedious man
I feel like you guys may have misheard or misunderstood me. Because at the start i said that we've been told many times this was inaccurate, so that people will stop telling us that, but i also said that we dont know much about Scottish history and there for we dont know what is actually inaccurate, which is why we asked people to point it out to us. We both actually said in this video in the after movie discussion that we loved this movie even if its not accurate and that we dont care that it isnt. Perhaps you missed that bit?
Longshanks in this movie is one of the all time great cinema villains. He doesn't get the credit. He's smug, self serving, hateful, cruel, and without mercy. Great actor
Hamish's Dad, as you kept on referring to him is a power-house of a Scottish actor, James Cosmo. He was later in Game of Thrones as the commander of the forces on the wall, and also played Robert the Bruce's Dad in the movie "Outlaw King" a few years ago. He was interviewed some years ago and said that he spoke with the script writers and complimented them as they had written a script that had captured an idea of a Scottish identity that he felt was going to grow. He felt proud that he had been part of a film that would help raise the idea of an independent Scotland. Outlaw King is definitely worth watching, though it has some inaccuracies, it does spend quite a lot of time and effort on period details and shows the relationship between Edward Longshanks and Robert the Bruce's father...
It's great that you started by saying that Scotland ia gorgeous, because most of it was shot in Northern Ireland. I'm not sure if this movie was actually the beginning of them building an industry there, but it has become a popular place to shoot. Basically anything in "The North" in Game Of Thrones was shot there, among other things. They did shoot some stuff in Scotland, because some scenic shots just couldn't be faked, and only exist in Scotland, but otherwise... One of my favorite pieces of trivia about this movie is that even though the cast is a mix of Scottish, Irish, English, and whatever else actors, because it was mainly shot in Northern Ireland, it was obviously logistically easier to get Irish actors, like the Great Brendan Gleeson, that played Scottish, but the one character in the movie that's actually supposed to be Irish, was played by a Scotsman. I've always just enjoyed the irony of it.
mostly shot in the Republic of Ireland (County Wicklow, Kildare and Ardmore Studios Dublin) as they got tax breaks from the Irish Government and the use of the Irish Army Reserve for the battle scenes. However three weeks filming was done in Scotland.
2:13 While there were some filming locations in Scotland, Ireland provided a lot of locations Church of St Nicholas, Dunsany Castle Dunsoghly Castle Coronation Plantation in the Sally Gap, Wicklow Mountains The Curragh Plains Trim Castle Ballymore Eustace Blessington Lakes Bective Abbey
6:40 Sophie Marceau, Famous and beloved french actress, is a stupidly gorgeous and natural beauty. Even now when she's 57, she's amazingly gorgeous. Her career is long (she started at 13yro) and Varied, she did everything from comedy, to romance, to thrillers and adventures. She did Theatres play and other things too She was interntionaly knowed as One of the Bond Girls in The World Isn't Enough in '99 as Elektra King.
29:38 "Is he qualified?" - "I am skilled in the arts of secret backdoor negotiations and swordplay tactics, sire" - "Very well, I will make you responsible for the development of our airborne tactical doctrine"
The film was set in the 13th century and the scots didn't wear kilts until the 6th century. Also the blue paint was (as George said) done by the brits to the Romans (it was called Woad).
The quote I always remember about Braveheart when it came out was from a historian on TV being interviewed and asking, "why have they got Wallace living in a Hobbit village?"
Hollywood isn't history. However, this only ever seems to be brought up in relation to 'Braveheart' People will lap up Saving Private Ryan, Shindlers List, Twelve Years a Slave, etc... as if they're fly on the wall documentaries and only engage their brains for 'Braveheart'
I noticed it a lot more after Mel Gibson said some unsavory things during a pretty bad period of his life. (whether he holds those views and all times or currently is not for me to say) It definitely fell out of favor due to that, and it was the easiet way to criticize a film he made and starred in after it was well received upon it's release. I saw similar reactions to films produced by Harvey Weinstein's former company as well. Histroy as certainly shown us that the way people behave in real life affects people's opinons on their art, or their willingness to criticize it.
Saving Private Ryan has no historical characters in it besides maybe the generals at the beginning. Their stories can't be historically inaccurate, they didn't exist. It is roughly based on a set of actual brothers where the policy of sending the last one alive home came about, the rest is fiction. Schindler's List is about a real man and his actions in he movie roughly reflect what he did in real life, but more heroically - in reality, like any Nazi who was trying to subvert the Third Reich, he was complicit in a lot of shit. Twelve Years a Slave is, again, lauded for its accurate depictions of slavery. Sounds like you're just on some "poor old white man" shit.
12:23 - That's what she said. Also, this moment when he's on the horse is the modern-day equivalent of a guy pulling up to the curb and reving his engine and honking for his girl to come out.
The hate this film got/gets is bullshit. No one involved in its production ever claimed the film was historically accurate. It's an artistic interpretation, just like many, many other films about actual historical figures/events; films that never received such scrutiny. 🤷♂️
A. No one "hates" Braveheart. It's a great action war flick that's obviously just an anti-English film. Not like the English don't see plenty of those, lol. Also, yes they do. You're probably just not watching a lot of historical films and engaging in discourse in them. Literally everyone loves to talk about historical accuracy in movies.
if TF2 ever taught me anything, is how to channel a proper angry Scotsman vibe. -"If ye looken' for trobble, lad... yo FAUND et!" -"Ahm gon'ta STRENGLE yo with me BERR HANDS!" -"Ohhh the'r gon'ta find ya aaaaall ded in the alley... with cats LIKKING at ye." -"DOMENETED! ... and Ah'v been shaggin' yer WAIF!"
I've no problem with movie's taking libraries to what actually happened cause at the end of the day your main focus is make the best movie possible and be as accurate as you can that's how I look at it as bravehart is a truly epic and emotional film
Lol what isnt inaccurate is that scotland is gorgeous. Was mostly filmed in Ireland 😂😂😂 but as an Irish guy...it was nice to have so much Irishness...in it. Because all the scots cone from Ireland. They were all originally Irish clans.
Stewart Lee did a stand up routine to a Glaswegian crowd that tore strips off the historical accuracy of this film, it's a must watch on how to fearlessly roast your audience.
I've seen that a couple of times and it's epic. When he points out that the French princess would've been a small child which would've made Wallace a pedo😂.
Fair warning, if you ever travel to Scotland. Edinbrugh is to Scotland what London is to England, or even New York to all of America. Its a beautiful city and I love it there, but take my advice and have a wee drive around the Highlands x
A movie is a movie, you should interpret it that way, 99.99% of movies are historically inaccurate, that's what documentaries are for, that being said, this movie was and is a beautiful story
I don't know if is possible to state that some things are accurate or not because I believe history was not well recorded by the Scotts at this time, as addressed by the film in the beginning when it said history is written by the victors.
According to a history I read, Wallace got an additional bit of revenge at Stirling: he took a single strip of skin off the body of the hated English commander--Hugh de Cressingham--from his scalp to his ankles, and made it into an around-the-shoulder sword belt for his famous two-handed sword. Also, the grandson of Edward I "Longshanks" and purported bastard of Wallace in this movie, was the great warrior king Edward III, who ruled England for 50 years and had 13 (legitimate) children.
My absolute favorite movie of all time. Accuracy - meh. Story, pictures, music - all is perfect! And still after seeing it about 30 times, and maybe the same amount of reactions to it, i still cry every time! Some movies just do that perfect. "Gladiator", "Philadelphia", "LotR: TRotK", "Steel Magnolias".........
🔔 Historical Inaccuracy "Randall Wallace, who wrote the screenplay, has acknowledged Blind Harry's 15th-century epic poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie as a major inspiration for the film.[61] In defending his script, Randall 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, that it spoke to my heart."[61] Blind Harry's poem is not regarded as historically accurate, and although some incidents in the film that are not historically accurate are taken from Blind Harry (e.g. the hanging of Scottish nobles at the start),[62] there are large parts that are based neither on history nor Blind Harry (e.g. Wallace's affair with Princess Isabella).[6] "Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film that "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure".[63] It has been described as one of the most historically inaccurate modern films.[6] Sharon Krossa noted that the film contains numerous historical inaccuracies, beginning with the wearing of belted plaid by Wallace and his men. In that period "no Scots [...] wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)." Moreover, when Highlanders finally did begin wearing the belted plaid, it was not "in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film". She compares the inaccuracy to "a film about Colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around."[64] In a previous essay about the film, she wrote, "The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate-in short, just about nothing is accurate."[65] The belted plaid (feileadh mór léine) was not introduced until the 16th century.[66] Peter Traquair has referred to Wallace's "farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (1,000 years too late) running amok in a tartan kilt (500 years too early)."[67] Caroline White of The Times described the film as being made up of a "litany of fibs."[68] Irish historian Seán Duffy remarked that "the battle of Stirling Bridge could have done with a bridge."[69] "In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times.[6] In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit".[70] "In the DVD audio commentary of Braveheart, Mel Gibson acknowledges the historical inaccuracies but defends his choices as director, noting that the way events were portrayed in the film was much more "cinematically compelling" than the historical fact or conventional mythos.[6]" [Wikipedia]
If I want historical accuracy I'll watch a documentary. If I want a damned good story, I'll watch Braveheart. I saw this in the theater when it first came out. It was amazing on the big screen.
Apparently a local crew member asked the same question about the bridge. When Mel Gibson said they had a problem with it the crew member laughed and said "ay, so did the English".
According to mel gibson from the braveheart dvd commentary, he knew that stirling was a bridge battle, but he wanted to show what a typical medieval battle looked like and wanted to showcase typical medieval tactics on the field. So I suppose he was historically accurate in showing that rather than the actual historical battlefield.
To me, the Stirling battle is a continuation of a plot thread going back to the beginning of the movie, showing Wallace as a superior tactician. A young Wallace shows interest in Argyle's sword, but Argyle vows to teach Wallace "how to use this"(tapping him on the forehead, signifying his brain) and THEN "how to use this"(the sword). When Wallace returns to his village as an adult, he is challenged by Hamish to the stone throwing competition. Hamish, being physically stronger, can throw a much larger, heavier stone, but it misses Wallace. Wallace in turn, throws a smaller stone, but can throw it much more accurately, striking Hamish in the head. Skill and accuracy is better than pure strength. The Stirling battle is an uneven match. In a straightforward fight, the Scottish forces are badly outnumbered by the superior English forces, and would likely be defeated. All the English have to do is pelt the Scottish forces with accurate arrow volleys until they break ranks, then ride them down with their heavy cavalry. Wallace rides out before the battle "to pick a fight". He berates and insults the English leaders in a deliberate attempt to provoke and anger them into an ill conceived and hasty attack. The trick with the long spears can only work if the English blindly charge into them, while the mounted Scottish forces feign retreat, only to circle around and take out the English archers. Wallace leads the Scots to victory through guile, subterfuge, and superior tactics.
The time clock at my last place of work would 'ding' when you punched out. I so wanted to hack the system and replace the 'ding' with Wallace shouting 'FREEDOM!'
Movies are not about historical accuracy. It’s like complaining about the syntax of a poem. It’s meant to communicate emotions and ideas, not provide a history lesson.
Fun fact: despite being English, the history of William Wallace isn't taught in schools. It's so unknown that most people in England didn't realise how inaccurate this movie was.
Many Scots were upset with the portrayal of their hero ‘Robert the Bruce’ in ‘Braveheart’. Angus Macfadyen who played Robert the Bruce continued the role in the film ‘Robert the Bruce’ (2019). The film was about the Bruce’s darkest moments after his rebellion, before he won his victory at Bannockburn, briefly mentioned at the end of ‘Braveheart’. The film is slow paced, but is more grounded than ‘Braveheart’. The. ‘Princess of Wales’ did have a hand in the death of her husband Edward, in what was considered one of the most gruesome ways to die. There are more gruesome methods of executions, from ancient Assyria to as recent as WW2 on A Pacific Island by Japanese soldiers on US Navy POWs. I dare not say them here. Robert the Bruce won the battle of Bannockburn with disciplined ranks of Scots armed with very long spears, pikes in a ‘schiltron’ that destroyed English cavalry, NOT the way it was shown in ‘Braveheart’. I saw the very fanciful ‘Braveheart’ five times in theater, but saw the more realistic ‘Robert the Bruce’ just once. (Sigh)
There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding with what was said in this video.
1. We repeated that we've been told this movie is inaccurate so that people can stop telling us that, its not a judgement on the film before it even started. We said it just so people will stop telling us.
2. We actually really enjoyed this movie, which we said on camera after the movies done.
One thing I want to point out is "Prima Nocta" is not a thing and never was.
Hollywood has done a good (bad) job creative a narrative of kings being horrible oppressive to their vassals but in reality it was much more like modern day employers and employees, but instead of us getting paid by our boss, we get all the money and pay the boss the portion. As a result Lords and such made sure not to piss of the common person. So a "Prima Nocta" type thing would never exist. In fact, it would be seen as sleeping with a commoner, even for a trist beneath the aristocracy, and an insult. A bit like letting everyone at work know you bought a hooker for a night (Not shaming, just comparing it to current times culture viewing such a statement) If they did fancy a common person they'd likely hire them into their castle and then move on them.
I'm not saying bad things didn't happen, just, it wasn't overt.
Also, in military they would never volley arrows into their own men. Just like in modern times we don't deliberately destroy our own equipment (let alone men) they would not then as it would hurt their military resources, as fighters were a resource.
This is no criticism on your reaction just additional context that many don't understand about the era.
Some other common misconceptions:
1. People didn't bathe. They did bathe regularly.
2. Were illiterate. They were functionally literate but since most of the aristocracy relied on French or Latin, most English / Scottish weren't considered "literate" because they didn't know "cultured languages"
@@TearDownGenesis"Prima nocta" is not grammatically correct Latin. "Jus primae noctis" would be more correct, but there is no evidence that this was done in medieval England. There are, however, examples throughout history of this type of practice - notably in the Epic of Gilgamesh and Herodotus' Histories.
As for the deliberate destruction of your own forces as a modern strategy, there are numerous examples of this in recent times. Human wave tactics used by the Japanese in the Pacific theater and similar tactics by Chinese soldiers in Korea, while artillery was simultaneously used in the same area hitting there own and US soldiers. Russia has used these tactics as well in Stalingrad during WW2, in Chechnya and Afghanistan and in the current conflict in Ukraine.
The historical inaccuracy of this film has been somewhat overblown, to the point where people treat it like a fantasy movie & as a Scots person I do find that quite annoying tbh. William Wallace was real. He did lead a vastly outnumbered Scottish army to victory against the English at Stirling Bridge. He did invade England. He was betrayed & he was executed by the same method shown in the film. The dead wife is fantasy & the French princess is fantasy but just about everything else is well within the bounds of "artistic licence" rather than just being complete inventions.
Have you watched soldier 1998?- this is a fantastic action movie with Kurt Russell
Ugh. The internet overreaction has to be the worst to deal with. We love you guys, don't listen to the stupid haters who are just whining
I'm Scottish, I loved this movie when it came out, I love it to this day. The film is largely based on a 15th century poem by a wandering minstrel called Blind Harry about the legend of William Wallace, so it's a TELLING of the story but William Wallace was a real person, he did fight for an independent Scotland and at the Battle of Stirling bridge he won a famous victory over the far larger English army and on the back of that victory he made successful raids on the north of England and was appointed, along with the man he fought alongside at Stirling Bridge, Andrew Murray (not the tennis player) as Guardians of the Kingdom of Scotland by King Of The Scots (John Balliol), and was in later years, knighted, becoming Sir William Wallace. As Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland he was succeeded by Robert the Bruce - another Scottish legend who dedicated much of his life to Scottish Independence and is prominent in this movie.
I'm half Scottish half English. My dad was a Scottish historian and absolutely loathed this film. Being inaccurate is one thing but getting 99% wrong is ridiculous. Wallace dad was alive when Wallace was an adult. The Princess was aged 3 when Wallace died , blue face paint and tartan? Nope not during this time , long shanks was alive years after Wallace died and the biggest insult Wallace being betrayed by the Bruce? I'm not saying it needs to be a Documentary but they could have put some effort in. Might as well have Abraham Lincoln dueling JFK
@@billdoor3140 Those choices are what makes Mr Gibson an Oscar winning filmmaker and makes Braveheart a great movie, and I'll bet thousands more people actually read about the REAL William Wallace in history books because of that film than any amount of lectures or documentaries would have inspired.
@@bannjaxx I severely doubt braveheart got more people into history than history professors mate 😅....the modern embrace of misinformation to the point people think the earth is flat and vaccines are the worlds scientists coming together to wipe them out is more likely the results of people believing this sort of plop. People way too happy to accept fiction as facts. Every single major plot point in this inaccurate from Wallace father's death to his marriage to the Princess to the Kings death.
There was a sort of semi-followup a few years back about Robert the Bruce starring the same actor, and before that there was one made for Netflix called the Outlaw King with Chris Pine, which condenses some of the historical events and legends
Look, it's not a documentary. It's a Hollywood movie. They make these changes to make the story more compelling and emotional. They do the same thing with a lot of movies. I agree with your assessment of the movie, but I don't think it was meant to be taken too seriously. @@billdoor3140
As a Scot, this movie is a classic. Know about the historical inaccuracies but it's so well made and a good jumping off point for anyone who's interested in researching the real history.
I think it was made more for the morality and of what William Wallace stood for, "Freedom for his people" than historical accuracy.
Read my comment
I choose to adopt the view that the English are künts and the Scots are a fine people thanks to this movie.
@@SarkkiKarkki which was true, back then :p now is a different story
Speaking as somebody from Scotland, I think this film is brilliant and highly enjoyable. I don't watch it to learn our history, so the inaccuracies don't bother me at all. It is just a well made movie in my opinion.
Its genuine good entertainement.
And it Gets your Blood boiling when you see the army of Scotsmen roaring and charging the English.
And James Horner soundtrack is just "Chef's Kiss"
Yeah, Mel Gibson definitely knows how to create a good film & viewing experience.
It's funny seeing the different reactions from different Scottish people.
For example as someone from Scotsman me and my family just hate this film.
Though that probably also has to do with the fact that we have a bunch of people who love history in our family 😅
And to me a genuine love letter to the fighting spirit of the Scottish people.
Without this movie, we very likely would have not known about William Wallace and his rebellion against England.
They were chanting "MacAulish," which means "Son of Wallace" in Scottish. It shifted to "Wallace," signifying that he was no longer the son of Wallace, but the new Wallace.
Thanx a lot, i was asking for this since i saw it first, back then.
Seen this movie 10+ times. Never understood this. Ty
@@KurtFeudaleKing happy to help. I had to look it up coz it seemed like the old dude was just getting kinda dissed lol
"They may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
The betrayal scene is the best acting Mel Gibson ever did. Most people would have played it angry. He made it feel like real betrayal does: confusion, disbelief, numbness, the life flowing out of him. Absolutely gutted me the first time I saw it.
Also, this film is EVERYTHING even now after all these years, which never gets old.
Fuck yes anytime i see that scene you can feel the pain he's feeling definitely one of the best acted scenes in any movie.
My favorite scene! You literally can see every feelings he has showing up on his face one by one. Incredible acting
And he does it all without saying a word. Just the way his expression changes when he sees Robert's face, and then just slumps down in defeat.
I actually love this film more now that I did when it came out and the first few years I had it on dvd. It has aged very well as a movie.
Absolutely spot on my guy :)
"Braveheart is historically inaccurate" has been spoken about as many times as "Did you know that Viggo Mortensen broke his toe in that scene?"
Hey did you hear about Leo DiCaprio's hand in Django Unchained?
Once you say the word braveheart here in the U.K. someone will just pop out of anywhere and tell us how inaccurate it is, you could be anywhere at anytime
Impossible. No factoid about any movie will EVER supercede Viggo Mortensen's toe story! lol
And Alan Rickman was dropped before the count of 3 he was expecting in Die Hard.
“These doors are so loud”. Priceless. A supercut of Simone’s intros would be amazing.
I concur.
+1
what are the intros? I've watched for a while but i honestly don't know, is it referencing other films? Is it just complete random? Please explain, i might be dumb
I wanna go all the way back to the original ones where she used to just do variations on "Cine binge"
"Binder cringe!"
I thought she was doing an impression of Christopher Walken.
If you really pay attention to the actions of the dwarf performers prior to the execution, you will realize that they are pantomiming what is really going to happen to Wallace moments later. Also, I believe that Isabella, Princess of Wales, was actually just a kid when Wallace died and probably never met him.
Yep. IIRC she was 3 or 4 when this all actually went down.
Native Scot here - I first saw Braveheart in 2005 in high school, literally; Mr Forsyth chose it for the visual media part of our English class. As such, I've seen it, particularly the Battle of Stirling Bridge scene ("the sword against the blue sky reflects the blue of the Scottish flag and that's why the director chooses to focus on it", etc), more times than I can recall. So it's testament to the strength of the movie that *despite* this introduction and exposure, I love it all the same.
It's not just a historical mess for the points George raised. The French princess not only wasn't in Britain at the time of Wallace's campaign, but was also just three years old. The face paint was also worn by the Picts, the people who lived in parts of the land before Scots conquered it all (centuries before Braveheart's setting). While that was 1000 years too late, the wearing of tartan and kilts is about 500 years too early, and two-handed blades (also known as claymores, from the Gaelic _claidheamh mòr_ "big sword") were not in use by any Scottish warrior at the time. Speaking of Gaelic, at 18:10 _amadan_ means "idiot" but only for males; the female would be _oinseach_
Most amusing of all: the Scottish hero William Wallace is played by (EDIT: Australian / American) Mel Gibson; The King of England is Patrick McGoohan, an Irishman; and the mad King Stephen of Ireland is portrayed by David O'Hara, who despite the name is Scottish.
Congratulations - between this and Trainspotting you've probably covered two of the most fundamental cornerstones of Scottish-based cinema! Might I suggest Shallow Grave and/or The Angels' Share for two more? Thank you for these FREEEEEEEEE reactions 🏴
Shallow Grave really is quite underrated
Technically Gibson isn't Australian. He does hold permanent residency despite not having really lived there since the early 90s. His family is from New York and he moved with his parents to Australia when he was a teen. He got famous when in Australia but has always been a US citizen.
Where does Gregory's Girl fall into Scottish-based cinema? 😀
I came here specifically looking for someone to mention the Picts, happy to see it
@@gregall2178 Into a gap where I haven't seen it! I know, I know, something I have to remedy as soon as possible, having heard only great things about it
To answer George's inquiry, generally an invading force needs a ratio of at least 3:1 when going up against a prepared defender behind good fortifications. That will of course increase due to various other factors like morale, terrain, supply, weather, etc.
You need more troops then the enemy can kill in the time it takes for you to reach them. In trench warfare the number would depend on the speed of fire of machine guns.
I think this is a modern idea based on the first world war, where defenders had a great advantage. Having more men is always nice off course, but I don’t think they really used this rule of thumb before modern times.
@@thelizardking3036 The exact ratio might not have been established, but it's not a new, modern idea. In the third chapter of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," he refers to a general rule of war that ". . . if you outnumber the opponent ten to one, then surround them; five to one, attack; two to one, divide. If you are equal, then fight if you are able. If you are fewer, then keep away if you are able. If you are not as good, then flee if you are able." So the concept of following a certain ratio as a guide to military action is hardly a modern concept (written 6th century BC). The modern era of war may have made this more specific especially by the Soviets who created elaborate algorithms to account for qualitative and quantitative factors between opposing forces to determine force levels to use (3:1 in tanks, 5:1 infantry, 9:1 artillery for assaults against a NATO position for example).
in actuality; it depends on the era and the tech available. depending on the era and fortifications the mathematics for a guaranteed victory against prepared defenses could be anywhere from 1.5 more men (wooden, hastily prepared) to as many as 10:1 to achieve victory. on the whole though throughout human history the ratio against stone walls was usually anywhere from 3:1 to 5:1... though toward the end of European siege warfare in the 18th century that would climb much higher
@@thelizardking3036 Defenders had far greater advantages in the past, modern artillery made stone fortresses into death traps, prior to that many castles were completely impenetrable without months of siege. There were cases of sieges lasting well over a year.
Despite its inaccuracies. It is a brilliant film. The score from the late James Horner is incredible.
Which is also incredibly inaccurate in everything it portrays.
I would argue that BECAUSE of its inaccuracies it’s a brilliant film.
@@SparksDrinker I always say about the movie, its historically, an inaccurate movie, but one hell of a Hollywood movie
@@NecramoniumVideoagreed
Omg! Finally you guys are reacting to this masterpiece! I know there will be people happy to point out the historical inaccuracies but I’m in the camp of just enjoying great movies and don’t take things so seriously and personally 😊
Amen
I'm Scottish, live where William Wallace's father was born and went to school with the actor who played young Wallace. I don't care about the inaccuracies of this movie. The story, the music and the action make this an incredible movie.
I was a history major, and we had a long going discussion on this movie specifically.
We concluded, that is Braveheart the movie could make a person interested in history as a subject, then it has still served a positive role to the field. Then it's up to historians to explain the details. That's not the role of this movie, when it boils down to it.
Yeah, when they say 'based on a true story' they never say what percentage, could be 100%, could be 50%, could be 0.5%
There is a large discussion surrounding this movie, and others like it, as a medievalism. It is an irresponsible attempt to capture an imagined rustic past when things were better than they are now. These types of movies are almost always at the expense of modernity and progressive ideals. It is not a mistake that the manly country man of tradition is rebelling against the effeminate metropolitan king and that these types of movies are so loved by christofascists.
@@paulcurran4786 It never says it is a documentary so people need give it a break.
so no Conclusion realy ;)
@@erikjohnson3859"Christofascists"
06:22 As a child of the early 80s George falling for Sophie Marceau is *very* relatable. 🥰
I could definitely fall into those eyes too😍
Same! I remember seeing this in the theater with some buddies, and getting entirely lost in those eyes. Sophie Marceau is, without doubt, one of the great beauties of her age.
How can you not? Lord have mercy.
So classic, he loved the second he saw her haha
"No man can resist me" -- Sophie to James Bond 😆
Another good film on Netflix is outlaw king, based on Robert the Bruce. Set around this era and just after.
A lot more accurate but still dramatised
It’s fantastic. The scene in Greyfriars church was so well done and caught me completely off guard.
the black : "whats my fookin name!!?"
The Black Douglas is the best in that whole film. Such a badass
@@ZenzeroCAM Damn right he was the one they feared if the history books are true.
Plus he was loyal to the Bruce taking the Bruce heart to the Holy land.
There is nothing more accurate than Brave heart. Mel Gibson is a genius.
"Whom shall I send" and "Not my gentle son..." I love that monologue by the king
Regardless of historical inaccuracy, this is a fantastic and epic movie.
Perhaps I've seen it too many times, but...meh.
After watching Stewart Lee's comedy routine on Braveheart I can't watch the movie without laughing.
Its kinda formulaic. The Mel Gibson movie making template. Basically the same movie as The Passion.
@@gavinsheridan4680- the Patriot is pretty much colonial Braveheart
@@Chris_34but when you realise it's not supposed to be historically accurate and it's based on the tales and poem's about William Wallace.
One of my all time favorite movies. It has everything. Amazing music, scenery, action, love story.
"got lost in her eyes". Loved that comment. A whole (my) generation of teenagers did, when she starred in "La Boum" 1980. For us it was awesome to see her again.
Braveheart received ten Academy Award nominations, and a month later, won five including Best Picture, Best Director for Gibson, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Makeup
Yeah there's usually about a month between the Academy Award nominations being announced, and the actual award ceremony itself. So that tidbit applies to every film that has ever won an Oscar, ever.
@@richieclean lol, the tidbit is: _it was nominated for 10 and won 5,_ the 'month later' part is no more than nice writing, instead of just saying 'and won 5' as I just did.
Braveheart received ten Academy Award nominations AKA Oscar nominations, meaning that it was one of the contestant in ten AKA 10 different categories. After one month AKA over 4 weeks it won 5 Academy Award AKA Oscars which meant it was awarded as best in 5 different categories 😁. Those 5 wins included Best Picture, Best Director for Mel Gibson which means he directed the movie. Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Makeup. Mel Gibson was also main star in the film. 🙂
The thing about this is, despite all the inaccuracies in this movie, they actually toned down WW's torture.
And everything the Irish guy said in this movie was pure gold.
For the finished film they did but it was more barbaric in the script and the first draft.
Wasn't really torture. It was the usual punishment for treason and both sides of the Scottish civil war swore fealty to Edward,so it was treason.
If people paid attention to the film, just before they bring him up for torture the two dwarfs act out the disembowelment scene, pulling fake intestines from the victim, to the crowds hilarious delight.
They didn't tone it down so much as *imply* it without actually depicting it.
Stephen is the best part of the movie by far
The spiritual successor to this film is The Patriot (2000), also starring Mel Gibson battling the English complete w/ historical inaccuracies. Both movies have fantastic musical scores by James Horner & John Williams.
And following that Last of the Mohicans
James Horner is my top "gone too soon" person in the industry. His scores for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Glory, Titanic, and numerous others are epic, and hold up against anything Williams, Zimmerman or Goransson have done
@@naughty.r0bot *Zimmer
The Mask of Zorro is one of the most underrated Horner scores.
This was the first movie I remember where they didn’t cut away from the violent battle scenes. Usually, you’d see the hero slash his sword then it cuts to another part, minimizing the effect. Seeing legs hacked off and hands getting smashed gave me a visceral reaction unlike any movie before. Made it seem more real, less Hollywood than other battle scenes from before it.
In real life Isabella, also known as the She-Wolf of France, deposed Edward the 2nd [the son of Longshanks] in 1327 and ruled as Queen for several years before her son Edward the 3rd assumed the throne of England as King.
Another great would be Excalibur from 1981. It’s the best version of King Arthur, and you’ll see great actor who were up and coming. They’re totally legends now. Such an excellent film!
Somehow, I've never seen this one. I'm going to look it up today. I've always loved the First Knight Arthur telling from 95 with Richard Gere.
@@sudzy2779 Hellen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, Ciaran Hinds, Nicol Williamson, definitely an all-star cast!
Not historically accurate but it captures the legend of Arthur better than any other film I've seen. And visually it's glorious.
Something not everyone is aware of is that a spinoff/sequel to Braveheart came out in 2019, called Robert the Bruce. It takes place several years after the death of William Wallace and is centered around, well, Robert the Bruce, starring Angus Macfadyen, the same actor who portrayed him in Braveheart. I haven't heard many people talk about it, so I don't know how well known it is, or how it would do on a poll, but just figured I'd put it out there just in case.
It doesn't share even one writer, director, or producer with Braveheart, and the production company is entirely different too, so there's no way you can link the two films by calling the newer one a sequel. The only connection is in the similarity of their historical source material (and the shared actor).
"Longshanks" was a mocking nickname given to the king because of being tall. He was six-two, which was unusual at the time.
The real Edward the First certainly earned his fearful reputation
Not mocking at all - then, as now, tall people were lauded more than short people.
It´s more stupid that ppl still say Napoleon was small where in fact he was totally fine back then. Imagine what a shitty personality a lot of ppl have to take beauty standards from today to mock a person from 200 years ago.
They opened his tomb in the 1770s, and that's how they know for sure that he was six feet, two inches tall.
From IMDB: "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."
One of the strange oddities of this movie are Wallace's lieutenants. Hamish is played by Brendan Gleeson who is Irish while Stephen, the import from Ireland, is played by David O'Hara who is Scottish.
Much like in Highlander with a Scot being played by a Frenchman and an Egyptian played by a Scot. 😂
I noticed the same thing in The King. I found it funny that they had Timothee Chalamet, a Frenchman, play Henry V, while also casting Robert Pattinson, an Englishman, as the French Dauphin.
If you're going all in on inaccuracies, why stop at only the plot? 😂
That is hilarious! A classic movie here in the States is "Gone With The Wind". A major protagonist is Gerald O' Hara, who was Irish.
Yes,from an ethnic perspective it would have made more sense to have Hamish played by David O’Hara and have Stephen portrayed by Mr. Gleeson.
There's a story that one of the local extras asked about the bridge, and Mel's reply was that it got in the way. The extra's response? "Aye, that's what the English found too."
So George is right that the "Wallace being the real father of Isabella's son" arc is total fabrication (and yes, impossible, Isabella was a 10 year old girl when Wallace was executed and her son was born several *years* later). But when you know the history there's far more of a calculated insult in this plot line. One, Isabella herself is legendary as the "she-wolf of France" and a major figure in English history in her own right, and second, her son, Edward III, is considered one of England's greatest monarchs, so much so that there's a push by many historians to have him granted the title "Edward Magnus" (i.e. Edward the Great). So suffice to say, this little invention in the plot is basically trying to take away some of the greatest moments in England's history.
Oh yeah, and Edward I "Longshanks" is definitely not at all the monster portrayed in the movie. Instead he was actually known as a man of honor, a kind and devoted father, son and husband, and a figure so respected that one of the biggest problems the Scots claimants to the throne (John Balliol, Joh Comyn, Robert the Bruce etc) had was that Scottish nobles simply preferred Edward as King because they felt he was a better man and a better monarch. You also have to bear in mind that a lot of the Scots noble houses were part of the international francophone caste that dominated Western Europe.. they saw themselves as Christian, French-speaking nobles first and Scots second so being ruled by someone who was also part of that class like Edward even though he was based out of England(plus quite a few of them knew him and his brother Edmund personally from crusading with him in Outremer and other shared ventures), was really not a big issue to them (basically nationalism as we know it wasn't really full formed yet, though in their ways the stories of Wallace and Robert the Bruce would become part of creating it in Scotland).
While it's fair to say Edward wasn't without his good qualities, particularly his devotion to his wife & contributions to later English democracy, to the people of Scotland & Wales he absolutely was a tyrant (like many monarchs of the middle ages). The sack of Berwick, the siege of Stirling, & the treatment of Wallace & other patriots (his murder at the end of the film is actually *tame* compared to the reality) went beyond the pale, as did his expulsion of the Jews from England in his reign.
The Scottish nobilities' connections to the Norman aristocracy complicated matters, but the Church & peasantry had other ideas, hence the examples of the Northern Rising under Andrew de Moray & the kirk's defiance under Bishop Wishart. True, there were differences in how people viewed nationhood compared to today, but they weren't absent either, as evidenced by the Declaration of Arbroath & QlWallace's campaign.
@yt45204 Mel Gibson isn't Australian, he's American. He was born in the US and his only other citizenship is from Ireland.
English boys seething, the man called for the genocide of the scots, such honour
@@PhuckYT12 People think he's Australian because his family moved there when he was 12 years old. And he began his career doing Australian films.
@@richardstephens5570 Ah, didn't know that. They can have him if we can have the Hemsworths
I watched Braveheart at the cinema and was blown away. Much later I heard there were historical inaccuracies and was really interested to learn what the actual history was and to find out the anachronisms.
Back in the day, the biggest contoversy was whether you preferred the natural beauty of Wallace's wife or the sophisticated beauty of the French princess. I'm with George on this.
A lot of the bowmen that fought for the English were actually Welsh who were considered particularly skilled with the bow. All Englishmen were required by law for many years to regularly train with the longbow and to this day a lot of churchyards have Yew trees in them which were planted to ensure a supply of suitable wood for longbows.
Wasn't it usually once a week at minimum? If I recall correctly it would usually be Saturday or Sunday when they would practice, but it probably varied.
Not quite. The practice bit is right enough, but English yew wasn't straight enough for bows. Most English bows were made from Spanish yew, which was paid as an import tax on Spanish wine. Basically, for every cask of wine you wanted to bring into the country, you had to provide x number of bow staves or pay a LOT of money (more than the cost of the bow staves).
@@MrHws5mp I've played enough RuneScape to know how expensive bow staves can get.
Actually,yew trees are planted in graveyards because the seeds are poisonous and stop animals rooting around in the soil. It also dates back to pagan times as it can release a hallucinogenic vapour in spring,and was considered a doorway to the dead.
Thank you for pointing this out.
True history: For a long time Scotland and France coordinated strategies against England. This relationship was called the 'Auld Alliance' in Scottish.
As to 'Longshanks', I was very entertained by a passage in a coffee-table book on the English royals: 'Surely one of our greatest monarchs was Edward I...' He is 'great' chiefly for well-planned aggression, among other things for defeating the barons who had created the House of Commons, conquering Wales, driving the Jews out of England, and numerous forays against Scotland. He is generally reviled in those countries. He ordered the building of state-of the-art castles in Wales, though, that are major tourist attractions.
Edward thought of himself as a second King Arthur and had actual Round Tables manufactured for festivals with jousting and music and so on. So he did provide some entertainment for his people.
"Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but the man knows story structure."
-Character on South Park (not Cartman)
Wasn't it that one General who said that in Imaginationland, when they were interviewing film directors?
@@jdnaz1288 yes, it was General in the first episode of Imaginationland, not Cartman.
@@jdnaz1288Actually you're 100% right, I had misremembered it. It was when they were interviewing movie directors - my favorite is still the Michael Bay one 😂 Anyway, I'll edit my comment
One of the funniest things I have ever seen is the comedian Stewart Lee doing a routine about this movie to a Glasgow audience. The man has balls of steel
"She was a real historical figure, that French Princess, but at the time of Wallace's death she was only 4 years old... Now I'm not saying that William Wallace didn't have sex with her... He probably did. But if he did, it would have been a far less romantic scene."
I love epic films, and I also love history. So I unironically love this movie, while also recognizing its egregious historical inaccuracies.
(You covered some of these at the end of the video, which I watched after typing all this up. So apologies for any repeats.)
The depiction of Wallace's family (and of Scotland in general) as backwater mud-farmers is pure fantasy. Scotland was a reasonably-developed European power by the end of the 13th Century - not as wealthy, powerful, or influential as England or France, but also not a barbaric mud-hole. And Wallace's father was a knight, landowner, and minor noble.
There are a lot of other inaccuracies, but I consider that to be the most narratively-impactful. I won't list all of the others (again, you covered a lot of them at the end of the video), but the other big one is less important to the story, but arguably a bigger "detail" to get wrong: The actual Battle of Stirling (the first major battle depicted in the film, where the Scots use the chiltrons (long spears) for the first time) was actually the Battle of Stirling Bridge. And the Scottish victory had more to do with the fact that the English had to deploy their heavy cavalry over a narrow bridge and onto muddy terrain, than with the innovative use of the chiltrons - although that was a relatively new innovation, deployed by the Scots against the English cavalry at many other battles of the Scottish Wars of Independence - so it's logical to assume they would've been deployed at Stirling as well.
Obviously the English as a whole, and Edward I (the "Longshanks") in particular, are played as straight-up cartoon villains. The movie needed really galling bad guys so that the revenge plot would feel especially satisfying. And for a film presented largely from the Scottish side of the conflict, from that perspective, the English *were* villains. "Prima nocta", as an actual institution, may be largely ahistorical. But as happens any time in history when a more powerful nation oppresses a weaker one, the English interactions with the Scottish were very brutal. It's less that the English would never do something like that, and more that we simply don't have evidence that it was an organized, institutional "thing".
Despite all of its inaccuracies, I think this movie succeeds majorly on two fronts:
1) As cinema, it's almost perfect. It's emotional and heartbreaking and satisfying. The production still holds up pretty well in 2023, and in 1995 it was absolutely groundbreaking. This movie's success sort of signaled to big studios that epic period pieces could be successful, and we got a lot of big epics in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a result (e.g. 'Gladiator' in 2000). And as goofy as Mel's accent (and his hair extensions) were, he gave a great performance - as did many others in the movie. The cinematography, James Horner's score, etc. - all magnificent.
2) Although a lot of the details are wrong, I do feel like the movie accurately captured the *nature* of the Scottish Wars of Independence, at least in a way that a modern movie-going audience could understand them. The power discrepancy between the Scottish and English armies (what we might call an "asymmetric conflict" today) that required the Scots to use innovative tactics, the duplicitous nature of the aristocracy on both sides (who were often, as the movie version of Edward I says, just as rich in English lands as they were in Scottish lands) and the shifting allegiances, etc.
So it's a bad movie if you want accurate historical detail about this period in British history, but it's a great movie if you want an accurate *feeling* about the period (at least insomuch as we understand it today).
I'm glad y'all watched this one. Warts and all, it's one of my favorite movies.
George didn’t read enough. Wallace’s wife was killed by the sheriff and Wallace avenged her death very similarly to what happened in the film. Also, Wallace’s death in the film was pretty accurate to what really happened. In real life they didn’t give him the choice of a quick death and he never yelled “Freedom!”
I mean, the bit about his wife comes from Blind Harry, which is a highly dubious source.
That did not happen. It was added to his legend in a poem almost 200 years after his death. No contemporary source ever mentions it.
It was funny to me looking back at the reaction people had about this film....as though it was supposed to be a documentary and not a Hollywood movie.😂
I heard the gentleman state that, "she is ridiculously gorgeous." This is a SERIOUS STATEMENT that should be used, only 4 times in life.
Despite the inaccuracies a very patriotic and moving movie. Highly recommend The Outlaw King which follows on from Wallace's death.
Another great (but not accurate) historical Scottish movie which is criminally overlooked is Rob Roy starring Liam Neeson and is set in Jacobite times.
Rob Roy is a great film. Hope they react to it at some point.
I'm with George...I was a teen when this was in the cinema and I completely fell in love with Sophie Marceau (and English spoken in a French accent) for ever more...
Fun fact: Edward I reigned in the Norman period when English monarchs and nobility were mostly speaking Old French as a first language
Campbell was Hamish's father. Played by James Cosmo, who also played Lord Commander Mormont in Game of Thrones. He was also one of the coal miners in Chernobyl.
And a Trojan General in "Troy"!
It might not be "historically accurate" but in my opinion, it is one of the best movies ever made! Has alot of heart, and a very quotable movie! And I would go as far to say, it's one of the greatest love stories of all time!
“Let’s not dwell on historical history inaccuracies”
Also:”let’s reference Highlander a lot” 😂
Highlander is not trying to be a historical film though based on historical people, Highlander is clearly a fantasy film, so that’s a false equivalence
@@Penddraig7 they are talking about lot about films that take place in the “past” like Highlander and LotR which are intentionally not accurate to the past of real life. So by referencing these false pasta they are still dwelling on historical inaccuracies. It’s not a knock on them, it’s making movie references, just thought it was funny. I hope now that I explained the joke you can find it funny too
@@jarrodoakley6911 it would help if you could write a coherent comment.
The point remains, Highlander and LotR are both fantasy stories with no basis in reality, Braveheart is a historical film about actual historical events and actual historical people and therefore the comparison doesn’t make any sense, whether you were saying it to be a passive aggressive dick or whether you were trying to be funny, the result is the same because either way it hinges on the comparison being an actual comparison, the point I made is still valid
@@Penddraig7 you are a ruiner of things.
@@jarrodoakley6911 not a ruiner of things, just pointing out your very obvious flaw in your comment which makes no sense at all and is a completely false equivalence, you are comparing two completely unrelated comments by George.
You not being that bright is not down to me, you wrote your comment, not me, so don’t try and flip it onto me, you ruined your own comment by making it in the first place 🤦♂️
Part of life is about making mistakes, taking accountability for those mistakes and learning from those mistakes in order to grow and become a better person.
Whether you are trying to be passive aggressive or make a joke, if the execution of it fails then you failed, take it as a life lesson, grow from it
My first viewing of Braveheart was in the cinema and not knowing anything about the history I was floored at the end when, unlike most fantasy sorts of historical movies, he wasn't saved from execution. Just a huge cinematic impact for me as a young moviegoer at the time!
If he was saved at the end that would have been something to yell about how inaccurate the movie was, not all of the other little nit picky points.
@@stinkbug4321 Perhaps, but don't under estimate the ignorance of the general public (myself included.) As of my seeing it in the theaters I had never heard of the name William Wallace.
I implore you to watch the comedian Stewart Lee doing a bit about Braveheart in front of a Glasgow audience. It's solid gold.
I second this...the guts to do that in front of a Scottish audience. It's one of my favourite pieces of stand up; but he got away with it as he is, technically, Scotch.
@@nathankilburn1953 He's technically scotch is he? A roll of plastic adhesive tape? Christ, I'd never heard that before, good on him for figuring out the comedy circuit
"I am a gay" - William "Braveheart" Wallace
@@aidanrock8719 Give him some credit, he was doing it for comic effect, with all shortbread crumbs all over his face.
@@bhurzumii4315 and we know that's what it said, because the clue is in the name 'Gaelic'
They usually hung ( not until dead) wracked him to break his bones then disemboweled him. Took away his stomachs. They usually burned the bowels and stomachs on the fire in front of the victim. The blue dye was called WODE. Hence the colour of the Scottish flag. Blue and white. The man who played the King Longshanks( long legged) was our great English/ Irish actor Patrick McGowan. Rest in peace sir.
Wow I remember renting this on VHS from Blockbuster on spring break back in the day. 😂 We watched it like 3x before we returned it 😎 historical accuracy be damned...this is a great action flick.
10:30 "Yeah. See? It's not raining at _all."_
Maybe not at the moment, but Scotland is a _very_ rainy country. There's this joke that, in Scotland, a clothesline is a place where you hang clothes up to be _rinsed._
Don't care if it's inaccurate it's still a fantastic movie
It's not a documentary so it doesn't have to be accurate.....
@@cthulhucollector EXACTLY
@@cthulhucollector100%!
Yes, most people hate that movies are inaccurate to what they’re based on. I can see their point, but some some movies are still good regardless
The film was never meant to be a history lesson, it was made to inspire.
Yeah, sorry, I can't get inspiration if the historical inaccuracies are so blatant and also cornerstones of the plot.
It was a great story, I just wish they admitted it was a fantasy and set it in a fantasy kingdom.
Yeah, sorry, nobody gives a shit what you think.
0:26 most people who criticize this movie for historical inaccuracy didn't even know who William Wallace is before this movie comeout.
"MacAulish" is (Scottish) Gaelic for "Son of Wallace". They started out chanting that version of William's surname, and then switched to "Wallace!"
I was born in Scotland & have friends & family there, When they went to see it in the theater, at the end of the film the whole audience cheered & stood and applauded. Technically it is historically accurate. But things like the kilt didn’t come into existence till the 16th century & the bagpipes were invented after this.
The Scot’s didn’t win their freedom and Robert the Bruce was also hung drawn & quartered.
But it’s the spirit of the film that makes it so good.
The Scots DID win the wars of independence, after Wallace was killed Bruce won the Battle of Bannockburn, which was THE decisive battle in the wars. Scotland was largely independent from that time on till the union of the crowns and the subsequent political union with England.
As for Kilts....the great kilt would have been worn by the highlanders at this time....the kilt as it is now is a modern version of the old great plaid.
Bagpipes have been around for thousands of years in one form of another, more than likely the Romans introduced them to the British isles and from there developed into what is now the Irish War Pipe, the great Highland war pipe etc
It's difficult to say whether they were around in the 13th century but possibly in an earlier form
Hope that clears you up a bit
What you didn't "see" at the end when he was being tortured, was him being castrated, then disemboweled. Even though there was a lot of "inaccuracies" in this movie, it's still an amazing movie in itself, with a great story line. The acting for that time (1995) was amazing and well done too. I very clearly remember when this came out in 1995. I went to the movie theater for 3 straight days and watched it 3 times in a row because I loved it so much. It was my favorite movie for a very long time. Still in my top 5 easily.
Another curious fact about Braveheart
The actor who played "Hamish" is actually Irish in real life and the actor who played "Stephen" is actually Scottish in real life
Another fact Braveheart was the name given to King Robert De Brus aka Robert the Bruce
“At last, you know what it means to hate. Now you're ready to be a king.” Epic line.
Even better when Robert's response was "My hate will die with you."
If you watch Game of Thrones, there are two actors from this. Campbell is played by James Cosmo and is Jeor Mormont in GoT. Also, Lord Bottoms, the English Lord who came by the festival to claim Prima Nocta, is played by Rupert Vansittart and is Yohn Royce in GoT.
Cosmo is also in "Troy" which has a lot of GoT alumni.
Be seeing you 👌@@blechtic
Commenting just to be corrected: this is more or less Robert Bruce's story, with some William Wallace splashed in.
Like Temujin's story mixed with Subodai, or Geranimo's story mixed with Sitting Bull.
It's still a good damn story. There's a reason these legends fighting impossible empires still exist. We like the guys who told em to fugg off.
Nice one, you two! Braveheart came out the same summer as two other Celtic themed movies. Rob Roy and also The Secret Of Roan Inish, both of which are very good too. It was a summer of Maximum Celticity. Thanks for sharing this one. 🙂
This movie got 10 nominations, winning 5 oscars, including Mel winning best director and best producer. Its perfect, in every way
Every single film based on historical events is inaccurate, but Braveheart seems to get unfairly singled out for it. It's not even the worst offender either.
Truth is, it's a feature film, and as such it has absolutely no obligation to be accurate, It's there to entertain, and it does that job extremely well. If anyone wants accuracy, then they should watch a documentary.
"Outlaw King" is a must after this.
It follows the story of Robert the Bruce, after Wallace.
Kinda sad that the whole focus of their reaction is on the inaccuracies rather than how great this film is directed, how amazing the soundtrack, how good the costumes, the many many extras for the battle scenes, etc. etc.
YES!! Agreed, and since they deemed it historically inaccurate, treated it like a comedy and laughed through the entire film. Went right over their heads...
Pretty normal, their opinions were already warped by "this film is pretty inacurate" before the viewing of the film for multiple people.
I get the qualities of the film, brilliant score, beautiful scenes, very easy to root for Wallace and all of that but I was never able to love this film. And it's not just the inaccuracies, it always felt a bit gradiose but silly for me. Maybe it's just me never being able to take Mel Gibson seriously, but between the "innacurate" ones, I'll take Gladiator over Braveheart easily. So I kinda get their reaction. Not everyone is going to be equally engaged by every movie, even every good movie.
Probably because any time anyone watches this film every dullard on RUclips races to the comments to talk about how only the bare bones story is accurate and loads of the rest is made up. It’s tedious man
I feel like you guys may have misheard or misunderstood me.
Because at the start i said that we've been told many times this was inaccurate, so that people will stop telling us that, but i also said that we dont know much about Scottish history and there for we dont know what is actually inaccurate, which is why we asked people to point it out to us. We both actually said in this video in the after movie discussion that we loved this movie even if its not accurate and that we dont care that it isnt. Perhaps you missed that bit?
Longshanks in this movie is one of the all time great cinema villains. He doesn't get the credit. He's smug, self serving, hateful, cruel, and without mercy. Great actor
He's like Emperor Palpatine, but a thousand times less ugly, and about a million times less likely to blow up a planet. lol
@@jacob4920 Palpatine is cartoonishly evil. Everything he says is loaded with malice and wickedness. Not really believable
22:55 Simone’s Highlander joke is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while!
😆
Hamish's Dad, as you kept on referring to him is a power-house of a Scottish actor, James Cosmo.
He was later in Game of Thrones as the commander of the forces on the wall, and also played Robert the Bruce's Dad in the movie "Outlaw King" a few years ago.
He was interviewed some years ago and said that he spoke with the script writers and complimented them as they had written a script that had captured an idea of a Scottish identity that he felt was going to grow. He felt proud that he had been part of a film that would help raise the idea of an independent Scotland.
Outlaw King is definitely worth watching, though it has some inaccuracies, it does spend quite a lot of time and effort on period details and shows the relationship between Edward Longshanks and Robert the Bruce's father...
It's great that you started by saying that Scotland ia gorgeous, because most of it was shot in Northern Ireland. I'm not sure if this movie was actually the beginning of them building an industry there, but it has become a popular place to shoot. Basically anything in "The North" in Game Of Thrones was shot there, among other things. They did shoot some stuff in Scotland, because some scenic shots just couldn't be faked, and only exist in Scotland, but otherwise...
One of my favorite pieces of trivia about this movie is that even though the cast is a mix of Scottish, Irish, English, and whatever else actors, because it was mainly shot in Northern Ireland, it was obviously logistically easier to get Irish actors, like the Great Brendan Gleeson, that played Scottish, but the one character in the movie that's actually supposed to be Irish, was played by a Scotsman. I've always just enjoyed the irony of it.
mostly shot in the Republic of Ireland (County Wicklow, Kildare and Ardmore Studios Dublin) as they got tax breaks from the Irish Government and the use of the Irish Army Reserve for the battle scenes. However three weeks filming was done in Scotland.
@@dcanmore oh, thank you. Guess I've been wrong all this time.
2:13 While there were some filming locations in Scotland, Ireland provided a lot of locations
Church of St Nicholas, Dunsany Castle
Dunsoghly Castle
Coronation Plantation in the Sally Gap, Wicklow Mountains
The Curragh Plains
Trim Castle
Ballymore Eustace
Blessington Lakes
Bective Abbey
6:40 Sophie Marceau, Famous and beloved french actress, is a stupidly gorgeous and natural beauty.
Even now when she's 57, she's amazingly gorgeous.
Her career is long (she started at 13yro) and Varied, she did everything from comedy, to romance, to thrillers and adventures.
She did Theatres play and other things too
She was interntionaly knowed as One of the Bond Girls in The World Isn't Enough in '99 as Elektra King.
A main villain in TWINE, no less.
...and one of the best Bond villains of all time.
@@daneng3641 As well, as one of the sexiest Bond Girls, ever.
29:38 "Is he qualified?"
- "I am skilled in the arts of secret backdoor negotiations and swordplay tactics, sire"
- "Very well, I will make you responsible for the development of our airborne tactical doctrine"
I don't care if I understand what Simone is talking about in her openings or not. LOVE THEM! The weirder, the better! Go girl!
The film was set in the 13th century and the scots didn't wear kilts until the 6th century. Also the blue paint was (as George said) done by the brits to the Romans (it was called Woad).
The quote I always remember about Braveheart when it came out was from a historian on TV being interviewed and asking, "why have they got Wallace living in a Hobbit village?"
Hollywood isn't history.
However, this only ever seems to be brought up in relation to 'Braveheart'
People will lap up Saving Private Ryan, Shindlers List, Twelve Years a Slave, etc... as if they're fly on the wall documentaries and only engage their brains for 'Braveheart'
I’ve noticed this too. Very odd…
Noticing things is dangerous, you should stop that right now.
I noticed it a lot more after Mel Gibson said some unsavory things during a pretty bad period of his life. (whether he holds those views and all times or currently is not for me to say) It definitely fell out of favor due to that, and it was the easiet way to criticize a film he made and starred in after it was well received upon it's release.
I saw similar reactions to films produced by Harvey Weinstein's former company as well. Histroy as certainly shown us that the way people behave in real life affects people's opinons on their art, or their willingness to criticize it.
Just a coincidence!!!
Saving Private Ryan has no historical characters in it besides maybe the generals at the beginning. Their stories can't be historically inaccurate, they didn't exist. It is roughly based on a set of actual brothers where the policy of sending the last one alive home came about, the rest is fiction. Schindler's List is about a real man and his actions in he movie roughly reflect what he did in real life, but more heroically - in reality, like any Nazi who was trying to subvert the Third Reich, he was complicit in a lot of shit. Twelve Years a Slave is, again, lauded for its accurate depictions of slavery.
Sounds like you're just on some "poor old white man" shit.
12:23 - That's what she said.
Also, this moment when he's on the horse is the modern-day equivalent of a guy pulling up to the curb and reving his engine and honking for his girl to come out.
The hate this film got/gets is bullshit. No one involved in its production ever claimed the film was historically accurate. It's an artistic interpretation, just like many, many other films about actual historical figures/events; films that never received such scrutiny. 🤷♂️
A. No one "hates" Braveheart. It's a great action war flick that's obviously just an anti-English film. Not like the English don't see plenty of those, lol. Also, yes they do. You're probably just not watching a lot of historical films and engaging in discourse in them. Literally everyone loves to talk about historical accuracy in movies.
You’re being disingenuous.
if TF2 ever taught me anything, is how to channel a proper angry Scotsman vibe.
-"If ye looken' for trobble, lad... yo FAUND et!"
-"Ahm gon'ta STRENGLE yo with me BERR HANDS!"
-"Ohhh the'r gon'ta find ya aaaaall ded in the alley... with cats LIKKING at ye."
-"DOMENETED! ... and Ah'v been shaggin' yer WAIF!"
I've no problem with movie's taking libraries to what actually happened cause at the end of the day your main focus is make the best movie possible and be as accurate as you can that's how I look at it as bravehart is a truly epic and emotional film
Just how many libraries did it take exactly? If it is more less than 5, then it's ok. If it's more...
@@CATDHDThere's no limit. The Great Escape was mostly fictional, but no one brings that up.
@@nebularain3338 The Great Escape has libraries in it too? Cool. I must have missed that scene. :)
Lol what isnt inaccurate is that scotland is gorgeous. Was mostly filmed in Ireland 😂😂😂 but as an Irish guy...it was nice to have so much Irishness...in it. Because all the scots cone from Ireland. They were all originally Irish clans.
Stewart Lee did a stand up routine to a Glaswegian crowd that tore strips off the historical accuracy of this film, it's a must watch on how to fearlessly roast your audience.
I've seen that a couple of times and it's epic. When he points out that the French princess would've been a small child which would've made Wallace a pedo😂.
Stewart Lee? More like Poo-art Wee
who? never heard of him?
@@nodruj8681 Joe Pasquale
Fair warning, if you ever travel to Scotland. Edinbrugh is to Scotland what London is to England, or even New York to all of America. Its a beautiful city and I love it there, but take my advice and have a wee drive around the Highlands x
A movie is a movie, you should interpret it that way, 99.99% of movies are historically inaccurate, that's what documentaries are for, that being said, this movie was and is a beautiful story
I don't know if is possible to state that some things are accurate or not because I believe history was not well recorded by the Scotts at this time, as addressed by the film in the beginning when it said history is written by the victors.
As a people of Scotland - it’s a fantastic movie and it gets you right in the feels but… it’s massively innacurate. Still great though!
According to a history I read, Wallace got an additional bit of revenge at Stirling: he took a single strip of skin off the body of the hated English commander--Hugh de Cressingham--from his scalp to his ankles, and made it into an around-the-shoulder sword belt for his famous two-handed sword. Also, the grandson of Edward I "Longshanks" and purported bastard of Wallace in this movie, was the great warrior king Edward III, who ruled England for 50 years and had 13 (legitimate) children.
My absolute favorite movie of all time. Accuracy - meh. Story, pictures, music - all is perfect!
And still after seeing it about 30 times, and maybe the same amount of reactions to it, i still cry every time!
Some movies just do that perfect. "Gladiator", "Philadelphia", "LotR: TRotK", "Steel Magnolias".........
"Philadelphia" is a killer for me, as well as "A River runs Through it". "Hotel New Hampshire" and "Out of Africa"/
🔔 Historical Inaccuracy
"Randall Wallace, who wrote the screenplay, has acknowledged Blind Harry's 15th-century epic poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie as a major inspiration for the film.[61] In defending his script, Randall 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, that it spoke to my heart."[61] Blind Harry's poem is not regarded as historically accurate, and although some incidents in the film that are not historically accurate are taken from Blind Harry (e.g. the hanging of Scottish nobles at the start),[62] there are large parts that are based neither on history nor Blind Harry (e.g. Wallace's affair with Princess Isabella).[6]
"Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film that "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure".[63] It has been described as one of the most historically inaccurate modern films.[6] Sharon Krossa noted that the film contains numerous historical inaccuracies, beginning with the wearing of belted plaid by Wallace and his men. In that period "no Scots [...] wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)." Moreover, when Highlanders finally did begin wearing the belted plaid, it was not "in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film". She compares the inaccuracy to "a film about Colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around."[64] In a previous essay about the film, she wrote, "The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate-in short, just about nothing is accurate."[65] The belted plaid (feileadh mór léine) was not introduced until the 16th century.[66] Peter Traquair has referred to Wallace's "farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (1,000 years too late) running amok in a tartan kilt (500 years too early)."[67] Caroline White of The Times described the film as being made up of a "litany of fibs."[68] Irish historian Seán Duffy remarked that "the battle of Stirling Bridge could have done with a bridge."[69]
"In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times.[6] In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit".[70]
"In the DVD audio commentary of Braveheart, Mel Gibson acknowledges the historical inaccuracies but defends his choices as director, noting that the way events were portrayed in the film was much more "cinematically compelling" than the historical fact or conventional mythos.[6]"
[Wikipedia]
If I want historical accuracy I'll watch a documentary. If I want a damned good story, I'll watch Braveheart.
I saw this in the theater when it first came out. It was amazing on the big screen.
Apparently a local crew member asked the same question about the bridge. When Mel Gibson said they had a problem with it the crew member laughed and said "ay, so did the English".
According to mel gibson from the braveheart dvd commentary, he knew that stirling was a bridge battle, but he wanted to show what a typical medieval battle looked like and wanted to showcase typical medieval tactics on the field. So I suppose he was historically accurate in showing that rather than the actual historical battlefield.
He's full of shit.
To me, the Stirling battle is a continuation of a plot thread going back to the beginning of the movie, showing Wallace as a superior tactician. A young Wallace shows interest in Argyle's sword, but Argyle vows to teach Wallace "how to use this"(tapping him on the forehead, signifying his brain) and THEN "how to use this"(the sword).
When Wallace returns to his village as an adult, he is challenged by Hamish to the stone throwing competition. Hamish, being physically stronger, can throw a much larger, heavier stone, but it misses Wallace. Wallace in turn, throws a smaller stone, but can throw it much more accurately, striking Hamish in the head. Skill and accuracy is better than pure strength.
The Stirling battle is an uneven match. In a straightforward fight, the Scottish forces are badly outnumbered by the superior English forces, and would likely be defeated. All the English have to do is pelt the Scottish forces with accurate arrow volleys until they break ranks, then ride them down with their heavy cavalry. Wallace rides out before the battle "to pick a fight". He berates and insults the English leaders in a deliberate attempt to provoke and anger them into an ill conceived and hasty attack. The trick with the long spears can only work if the English blindly charge into them, while the mounted Scottish forces feign retreat, only to circle around and take out the English archers. Wallace leads the Scots to victory through guile, subterfuge, and superior tactics.
The time clock at my last place of work would 'ding' when you punched out. I so wanted to hack the system and replace the 'ding' with Wallace shouting 'FREEDOM!'
Movies are not about historical accuracy. It’s like complaining about the syntax of a poem. It’s meant to communicate emotions and ideas, not provide a history lesson.
This was my mom's favourite movie for years. I'm glad you enjoyed it! :)
Fun fact: despite being English, the history of William Wallace isn't taught in schools. It's so unknown that most people in England didn't realise how inaccurate this movie was.
Wallace was also not that great a person.
Fun fact Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, & James Cosmo all come out in another historical war epic together. Troy.
Many Scots were upset with the portrayal of their hero ‘Robert the Bruce’ in ‘Braveheart’. Angus Macfadyen who played Robert the Bruce continued the role in the film ‘Robert the Bruce’ (2019). The film was about the Bruce’s darkest moments after his rebellion, before he won his victory at Bannockburn, briefly mentioned at the end of ‘Braveheart’. The film is slow paced, but is more grounded than ‘Braveheart’. The. ‘Princess of Wales’ did have a hand in the death of her husband Edward, in what was considered one of the most gruesome ways to die. There are more gruesome methods of executions, from ancient Assyria to as recent as WW2 on A Pacific Island by Japanese soldiers on US Navy POWs. I dare not say them here. Robert the Bruce won the battle of Bannockburn with disciplined ranks of Scots armed with very long spears, pikes in a ‘schiltron’ that destroyed English cavalry, NOT the way it was shown in ‘Braveheart’. I saw the very fanciful ‘Braveheart’ five times in theater, but saw the more realistic ‘Robert the Bruce’ just once. (Sigh)