So the film was released in 1995 and at the following year’s academy awards it won 5 Oscars including best film and best director. When it was released it captures the political movement of the time as the Scottish National Party was campaigning for independence. The Scottish establishment latches onto the whole ethos of the film. The films main message is one of good versus evil. Also the film doesn’t know how to appeal to its audience apart from in the 20th century style which is comprised of sex and patriotism. The renound historian denounced other academics and said that the film was better than the Scottish historical review which didn’t even mention Wallace at any stage and brought him to the general public’s attention for the first time. Overall the main point that he made about the film was that it got it right but it also got it wrong in the same way.
So now about Wallace and the going’s on of the time between 1286 and 1307.In 1286 King Alexander III of Scotland died and his only surviving heir at the time was his granddaughter Margaret also the daughter of the King of Norway. In 1290 negotiations concluded on the arrangement to marry Margaret to son of King Edward I of England in the treaty of Birgham-Northampton. But as Margaret prepared to officially become Queen of Scotland she died in Orkney on her way to Scotland. With her death there was now no apparent heir to the throne of Scotland. Which lead to main claimants to the throne coming forward. During this period Edward I secures acknowledgement of his overlordship from of Scotland from all the claimants to the throne of Scotland. There was 13 possible successors to Margaret with the two main ones being John Balliol and Robert Bruce. Now the problem for King Edward is can he afford not to get involved in Scotland and the deciding of who becomes king?. The answer was no. The two main contenders John Balliol and Robert Bruce are both originally from France. They both have extensive lands in England and Scotland and are also connected through marriage to powerful aristocrats in England. Balliol is married to the earl of Surrey and Bruce’s sister is married to the earl of Gloucester. The King is also lord of Ireland and the earl of Gloucester has lands in Ireland and ambition to extend those lands with the help of Bruce.
In 1292 Edward declares that John Balliol is the rightful King of Scotland and he becomes King John but Edward stays as Overlord. In 1296 war breaks out between England and Scotland as king john continually doesn’t do what Edward wants him to do. John eventually heads to exile in France. King Edward is the first real impearliest and lord of the Celtic countries as he already has control of Wales and Ireland and now appeared to conquer Scotland.
This is where Wallace now comes to the fore. He leads a rebellion in the name of the deposed King John and leads the army to victory in the battle of Stirling Bridge. He is then appointed as guardian of the kingdom in the name of King John.even though he is portrayed as being poor in the film is he actually a middle class man .Wallace himself took a very conservative stance when it came to politics. In 1298 Wallace gathers an army together to fight the english. He has a simple form of conscription to get this army. He has a list of every 16 to 60 year old in every town in scotland.A question then arises as to wether wallace is a bully? because after finding out that the people of aberdeen are refusing to join the army he has them hanged.This shows a much darker side to wallace that isn't shown in the film.Wallace had no children or a wife so had a lot less to lose then other men as thay had kids wives lands to harvest etc.Wallace's army is then defeated at the battle of falkirk and he is removed as the guardian of scotland and he then leaves the country.
Between 1299-1303 resistance to edwards rule continues but not on the same scale as earlier rebellions.The general surrender happens in 1304 but Bruce seemed to do this in early 1303 whereas wallace continued to fight on.In 1305 wallace is captured and executed in london.In 1306 Robert bruce rebels again and is crowned king of scotland and king edward dies in 1307.
The main questions that are raised are What is wallaces true motive for rebelling?.What side is Robert Bruce really on? and why does he surrender earlier than everyone else?
14 comments:
I don’t think you really tied in the reasons for the lecturer’s heavy emphasis on the film over the actual character. Yes we don’t know much about William Wallace, as you stated, but there’s much more to it.
In 1994 there was an overhaul of the current Scottish government, the Scottish nationalist party needed something the Scottish people could cling to and that would bring them out to vote in droves for the 1997 general election. They found that in the release of Braveheart. Present this upstanding figure of patriotism, liken themselves to the brave Celtic warrior and reap the benefits. It’s all very clever really.
We know little about Wallace and for many people that’s a good thing. Elizabeth King stated that the movie version of Braveheart did more for William Wallace than the Scottish Historical Review ever did; right here we see pre 1995 ignorance to the topic leaving a blank canvas for people that wished to benefit from his legend. If the people aren’t aware, then you have licence to twist and contort the story to fit your goal.
The Americans were the first to benefit from this, Braveheart was the said to have revived the “historical epic” genre and grossed $210,409,945 in the process. Only after 20th Century Fox made their millions did the Scottish catch on. And like the yanks, they made a little legend go a long way. Posters, Political Speeches, Flyers, Media; Scottish politicians were all clamoring to be the peoples hero, the Braveheart of a new generation. And to an extent it worked… but did the man live up to the myth?
In truth, it doesn’t matter, any solid facts we heard about the Scottish war of independence were based of the likes of King Edward I, Balliol and Bruce, however, these people were better documented than Wallace himself who only really came to the fore two hundred years after his own death! Yes the film was inaccurate… but to an extent so were the history books.
So William Wallace was a good man, William Wallace was a cruel man; William Wallace was really whatever the person who is using the folklore of William Wallace for their personal gain wants him to be. The nice people at the Scottish Nationalist Party would like you to think Wallace would have voted for them if he were a alive today. And those kind folks at 20th Century Fox would have you believe William Wallace was the type of man to inspire the shelling out of €50 to buy the Special Edition, Visually Enhanced, Dolby surround sound, Blueray, 10th Anniversary edition of the major motion picture Braveheart.
The main points in the lecture about William Wallace was is he the hero that he is made out to be in the film!
In 1995 Braveheart the film was realeased staring Mel Gibson as William Wallace.
In this movie Wallace is made out to be a big hero who is willing to die for his counties freedom and although this made be true the film is altered to appeal to the people of the twenty first centry.
It is said that Wallace had no wife or children, yet in the film his reasons for starting the war for freedom are because his wife is murdered. So the question is what motive did he have if he had no wife?
Why was he willing to die for his country??Not much is known about William Wallace so it may never be known.
Did the people of Scotland really want to be a part of his army and go to war?... Not everyone did!
And when Wallace found this out he had the people hung.
although Wallace had no family so he may not of understood that the men would not want to leave there wifes and children unprovided for.
This film was said to have done more for William Wallace than the Scottish Historical review ever did or could do, but is this only because the film was edited to suit the audience??
would people have reacted the same way if all the facts known about Wallace were added to the movie?
People want to see a hero defeat a baddie in a movie an the baddie in Braveheart was King Edward I.
But it is known that the King was not as bad as he was made out in the film.
Very little is Known about Wallace but the facts state that he did fight for his country and he did die for freedom which does make him a hero, but was it done the way it is done in Braveheart?? the answere is No!
oh but even though the film adds bits in and leaves facts out its still deadly!! :-)
I think there are far too many maybes in the story of William Wallace! I agree that William Wallace has been used as a bit of a puppet to suit everyone. Because there is not a lot of solid facts about William Wallace it’s easier for people like the makers of the movie “brave heart” to possibly get carried away with themselves and misinterpret the little facts we do know.
I agree with Addy that it was a really smart move by the Scottish government in 1994. The release of a patriotic and possibly controversial movie (in the sense that it would stir up a lot of media attention and boil some patrism in the voters) was an incredible opportunity for the government that would subconsciously encourage the public to vote.
In the facts we know about Wallace he was not as heroic as conveyed in the movie he did not go out and just recruit war heroes he force this ultimatum on the Scottish people. He gave them the choice of doing as he was “fighting for freedom” or face your whole family being hung. Wallace was a man who believed he was doing right fighting for his country and he needed to intimidate the Scottish to join him or he wouldn’t have stood a chance against the English army. Therefore I do still think that Wallace was a hero maybe not to the extent shown it the movie but nevertheless still a hero!
Even thought the lecturer didnt go into as much detail about "william Wallace" as he did about the film i think that what he was trying to convay was the legessy or the myth that "William Braveheart Wallace" had made, a leccsy or myth that has lasted down through the centries.
althought we can establish that infact "william Wallace" did excist like ellen and your self said we simply dont have enought facts or proof to catagoricly prove what happoned. that is why teh film in my opinion is so important, because when it came out it "capured teh spirit of the scotish movent in 1995 ". yes ther was sex and voilance and indeed specail effects in the film, but im sure wallace and his peers would have dough indulged i sexuall activities. espesscly considering William Wallace was a worier / figure head.
in conclution i think that the reasion the lecturer went into so much detail about the film as apose to "brave Heart" was beacause the fikm is easyer to understand how teh sprit of William Wallace still lives on in scotland and still has the power to invoke the population of pathrothic Scotland..
Some people are getting mixed up too much between the film Braveheart and the facts of William Wallace. Jessica mentioned the film got it wrong by saying William Wallace started the rebellion because his wife was murdered and the facts say that he was never married there was one big reason why the producers of Braveheart done this and it was simply because of "MONEY" They had to put in a few false statements. There is no way this incredible film would of made as much money and won 5 Oscars in the academy awards including best films if they based the whole film on the facts it would of being a flop.
William Wallace was a hero he fought for freedom for his country. He was probly a bit ruthless in his ways of introducing conscription but thats what people had to do to get things done and thats it
Could you really say Wallace was that much of a hero? From the looks of it, he was a very conservative person. was he really fighting for freedom? or were things better for HIM under the King of Scotland, rather than King Edward? prehaps his motives were not totally un-selfish. Maybe by helping the rebellion in the name of the king he was hopeing for a little reward if he won, as well as "FREEDOM !!!" for scotland
It Doesn't matter though, the legend has inspired so many people im a way the truth never could. I do not think a story about a selfish conservative general, who was only looking out for number one would have inspired as much patroitisim as the movie.
hold on Chris there very strong accusations your making he wast that selfish alright thats why he is a Scottish hero he was only thinking about himself don't know were your getting your remarks from but have you got any evidence to back it up like if he was so much as a selfish man why would Scottish people have a statue of him in Aberdeen. ill admit he probably wast the hero the film made him out to be but he certainly wasn't that selfish as your saying ok. He was still witout doubt a patriot
all we have really got to go on about wallace is the legend, and after a few centuries, who knows how the story might have been changed? parts of the story might have been changed slightly by the storyellers to make it sound more interesting. nobody can seperate the man from the myth,so we do not actually know what kind of a person he REALLY was
well chris if thats the case your making then we could say nearly all the stories of history could be wrong ya no chris like serious just cause we dont know the exact facts of him we still no of him. alrite your taking this well over board if you show me facts or even a few myths of his selfishness i will listen ok
Post a Comment