Throughout the history, in times of crisis, collapse of an empire, people tend to see only from one prospective. People read about history of Scotland, about how people suffered British imperialism and civil war that took place in XIII century, but a person cannot feel, or truly see what was really happening from Scottish prospective. The movie Braveheart is about how a peasant boy of the end of 13th century, William Wallace (Mel Gipson), that grows up into warrior, after the loss of his father and his wife, rebels against the British King, Edward I.
Wallace attacks English positions of Scotland, to free Scotland from British rules and succeeds. It’s undeniable that the film offers a worthy spectacle of Hollywood and of History that spectators are entertained and gained knowledge by its scenes during the whole film. Although the movie is criticized by its unrealism and imprecise historic events, the movie Braveheart succeeds to call upon viewers’ admiration, the heart touching moments and catch an attention and deliver the feeling of 13th century in Scotland.
But although there are a lot of critics about the movie, Mel Gibson succeeded to catch an attention and admiration of the audience. The most memorable event in the movie was Wallace’s speech to the provincials. William Wallace approaches the Scottish rebels as they are retreating from the British army. He gives a speech to them that inspires rebels to go into the battle with English army, not knowing whether they would live or die. There are several factors that make this speech outstanding. The pathos, logos, and ethos are all main factors in his speech.
First is the amount of emotion in the speech and the scene itself. Wallace is very full of enthusiasm in his speech, and passionately gets his point to the audience. He asks them one question, if that is how they would feel years after? With regret that they did not fight the battle and run like a chickens. Wallace very strongly ends his speech with, “They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom! ” He catches the audience’s attention and touches their heart by mentioning word freedom. This speech also leads to the factor: logos.
He mentions freedom logically delivering that freedom is worth dying for. And the final authoritative factor is the ethos of the speech. Wallace was well known as a great warrior and leader for many battle of capturing English posts, so this large amount of trust and believe that rebels have for him also impacts the effectiveness of his speech. At the end of the scene Mel Gibson included a little of amusing moment for the movie, where all the rebels yelled “YEEE” and showed their naked buts to the English army. This movie with such heart-touching scenes and hilarious moment would keep the viewers admiration.
Likewise, the most touching part of the movie was when Wallace’s wife gets executed. When English soldiers try to rape his wife, he interferes and fights them by beating all 4 of them. As he fights he asks his wife to take a horse and meet him at the place where they always go. She gets captured on the way as he escapes the setting. Even though this event is historically misinterpreted in the movie, Mel Gibson clearly gives us the true setting of the late 13th century and the rule of British Crown. Later in the scene, Wallace’s wife gets tide up to the poll by the general of the British post.
Before killing her, he gives a speech, “An assault on King’s soldiers is the same as an assault on the king himself”. Now pause in here. By putting this words into this scene Mel Gibson trying to catch viewer’s attention and give them a feeling of what was it like right before the executions in the British Empire. Then general cuts the throat of Wallace’s wife. Many viewers, even critics, would find this scene very touching because as she was tide up to the poll knowing that she would die, she still waits for her husband to rescue her.
As she look up the hill in hope to see him, the audience gets true feeling of Scottish peasants. Mel Gibson is trying to show that Scottish people waited for someone to rise up and rescue them. This movie is recommended for those who want to feel and admire the sites of late 13th century Scotland. In other hand, many critics may say that this movie is incorrect based on historic events and does not meet requirements to make the viewer to feel the real Scotland under British Crown.
The most criticized part of the movie is Wardrobe incongruities. According to the article “THE 10 HISTORICAL INACCURACIES YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE WATCHING THE MOVIE” which states “English soldiers are shown wearing uniforms while such was not in fact the custom in Wallace’s age. Martial dress code didn’t become a norm in England until the 17th century. In the age of Wallace, soldiers would wear pretty much anything they could get their hands on (as most were so poor they didn’t have two coins to rub together).
Aristocratic knights did wear suits of armor head-to-toe, but the only insignia they would wear was frequently their family coat of arms which ensured that if they were captured alive, they would still have a chance of returning home once their family paid their ransom. ” We can clearly see that movie failed to deliver us true sighting of social wardrobe of Scotland and Britain. If we think about it, it may be true. Since in 13th century many people other then king were very poor. Because even soldiers who risked their life for the king, were volunteering because of desire for respect or had no choice.
The British soldiers never got paid and the Scotland rebels had no money. More or less, this movie by Mel Gibson delivered total attention from spectators and admiration of viewers. Even though this movie can very much be criticized by use of violence and blood in the setting, wardrobe misconduct, historical misinterpretation etc. this movie succeeded on delivering the feeling of 13th century Scotland from Scottish peasant prospective, unlike any other historic book. And always remember, after this movie, only word that would come out the viewers’ mouth would be, “British took their life but they will never would’ve taken their freedom”“