Is it horrible to love Braveheart? - Page 2

Maybe it's my Oirish-as Paddys-Pigs heritage talking Spike, but when you had an empire you're nation did a fair whack of damage to native cultures around the globe to be fair mate.

Hell, the English spent centuries perfecting fucking other peoples up effectively.

I can see why you'd be annoyed at their portrayal in historical films, but they were the most successful bully on the block through history so are you really that surprised?

It isn't "horrible" to like it. Not at all.

The overpowering urge to decorate the screen with the contents of your stomach is, though.

Pffft, go watch Gunga Din, Wee Willie Winkie or any other classic Hollywood movie set in India. Hell, even Temple Of Doom. The way the movies show 'em you'd think oppressing Indians was fucking curing cancer or something.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17205...y-ok-guys.html (last one at the bottem)

I have to say I can't stand "Rob Roy" either. Like "Braveheart" it has nothing to do with historical innacuracy. I expect that. The problem I have with the movie is Neeson, who I have never found convincing in any film I've seen him in. The swordfight scene with Roth in which he lumbers around like a rhino shot with a tranquilizer dart whilst towering over his opponent to me is one of the most unintentionally comedic in cinema.

"Braveheart" is so sweetly sentimental I can feel the enamel stripping from my teeth. The title alone is enough to induce diabetes.

The Dutch and French had colonies too. It wasn't like Britain was the only country which started to landgrab in the 17th and 18th Century. It's genuine racism and these films always skirt away from the genuinely great things Britain did for the world. Every other historical situation is expected to showcase things from an objective viewpoint, but English History is often used as an excuse to create an easily definable villain. Of course as someone with Irish ancestry you'll never be able to accept that maybe History is a little more gray than 'English soldiers raped the shit out of us'

Maybe thats because english soldiers DID rape the shit out of us.

Im not saying the English were the only empire on the block, I'm saying in many ways they were the most successful - ever - and with that came some pretty fucking horrible actions to be the biggest kid in town. Sure you gave the world some positives, but somehow I don't see the Irish, Scottish, Australian aborigine, Indians, large swathes of Africa, North American Indians, the Chinese in Hong Kong and the Maoris of New Zealand to name a few, would necassarily agree.

You don't have to like it Spike but history's fuckin history mate.

Africa was fucked over equally by at least three different empires, the aborigines are an Australian problem, and Hong Kong is a really weird example to use. Because on one hand you had the Boxer Rebellion and all, but on the other hand British colonialism allowed Hong Kong to prosper whilst the Social Revolutions decimated mainland china.

And History isn't History because American filmmakers, and the scots, and the Irish and the Welsh are all intent on dragging up shit and just focusing on their poor oppression.

...and Im sorry but ignoring the sharp end of the aquisition of empire just to make yourself feel better about your own history doesn't mean the Brits acquired the vast amount of colonies and geographical aquisitions they did over their centuries of Imperial ascendancy through tea and cucumber sandwiches.

I'll happily admit the Brits had the largest empire if you're seemingly able to concede they fucked over a shitload of that empires original owners to get there.

Peace Love and Understanding was not the motto of Rule Brittania.

Yes the British Empire did horrible things, but so did Robert the Bruce, so did Ghenghis Khan, so did the Dutch colonials, so did the Japanese expansionist forces and yet Britain seems to be the only country out of those who still have to deal with being the punchlines to mindless jingoism.

I cannot stand this film.

I have a very mixed heritage (including being a 1/4 Irish, some French, Romany gypsy and some African.) So I never claim to be English. But as I sat there watching it I couldn't help but think it was one of the most one sided portrayals of a historical event I had ever seen - not to mention how inaccurate it is.

But the thing that gets me every time (and for the life of me I can't understand how no one else spots it), is the final shot of all the troops rushing towards the camera. How can you not see the obviously cardboard axe being carried by one of the actors? Its waiving about in the wind like a friggin flag.

Again, Im not talking about how they're portrayed in movies, if anything, post WW2, the Brits have been portrayed pretty positively unless you want to bring up fantasies like Star Wars. Yeah you've got your The Patriots and Bravehearts but for every one of them I reckon I could reply with a Great Escape or even a Bond franchise.

Now, if you want to take issue with the historical films like Brtaveheart, In the Name Of The Father or Michael Collins or even Ghandi, yeah they take liberites but I'd still argue go read a history book on the subjects in question and you'll see that there was more than enough justification in portraying the British Empire - NOT ALL ENGLISH PEOPLE - as villains in those situations. Hell I'd argue, that the 'Empire' fucked over it's own lower classes as much as any other indiginous culture it decided to obliterate under the guise of 'civilizing'.

As far as the Brits being 'punchlines to mindless jingoism' in American movies, well Spike, if you were of Russian heritage you may have a case, but as it is I think you're massively overstating the issue.

The ‘Empire’ was one of the first nations to adopt a constitution protecting the rights of the everyman, it led the way towards social and political change with the Industrial Revolutions and essentially helped redefine the parameters of the working class. We practically invented upward mobility, so I definitely don’t agree with you saying that we screwed over our own working class and even using the examples of poor conditions in Victorian Mills is faulty seen as they were because of proto objectivist Middle Class mill owners exploiting laissez faire capitalism rather than direct government intervention, the government at the time desperately fought to educate the lower classes and create a minimum wage.

Brits in historical cinema, from Last of the Mohicans to Once Upon A Time In China, are perennial villains and it’s almost like filmmakers in developing countries (USA) or colonies (Hong Kong) have some sort of grudge against a superpower which has been declining for seventy years. It’s like in an attempt to set themselves up as a new Super Power the US film business took it upon itself to retroactively undermine the old European powers and its something which shows itself not just villainous brits but in the reappropriation of historical fact (U-571) and under-represenation in general in World War Two films.

Adding to my above statement, during the golden age of Hollywood filmmakers were fucking falling over themselves to show England as the good guys, and it was in their interest to do so as at that time the WASPs were still a vocal pissed-off majority, with the KKK in full force and Anglophilia raging. In Captain Blood they even go out of their way to support William Of Orange over King James. The only guy who was able to occasionally get away with a negative portrayal of the Brits was John Ford, and even he had to make a "Man, India sure is better off with the British army there!" movie.

Beyond that, Biblical villains are almost always played as British. Dr. Zaius in Planet of the Apes has a British accent. Movies hate the British!

Look at the original 'Star Wars' films; all of the bad guys have a British accent, except Vader.

As I read your post, I couldn't help but think of the episode of "The Simpsons" where Lisa is Joan of Arc. As she exhorts her fellow Frenchmen to attack she yells something along the lines of "Attack the English! Their concept of individual human rights undermines our beloved tyrrany!"

Sweet Jesus Spike you're making it really fucking hard to not give me a terminal case of the "Gimme a fuckin breaks" over here. All I could see was Tim Brooke Taylor in his union jack waistcoat with Land Of Hope And Glory playing in the background.

Britain was one of the most socially stratified societies in the 'civilized' world, and none of the benefits and wonderous achievements you mention applied to any of the original occupants of land the crown deemed was thiers regardless of who may have already been living there or not. So all these wonderous great leaps forward you're citing only applied to white english men.

Even up to World War 2 but definately through The Great War and wars previous, the social system was such that inbred aristocracy got to play privaleged officer while the social classes below them were shoved in front of machine gun and canon fire en masse (along with my own countrymen and any other 'subjects' they could get their hands on).

You seem to essentially be cherry-picking social reforms initiated by the empire while shrugging off any imperial atrocoties and tyranny because "all empires were doing that". My argument is the reason the British Empire spanned as far and wide as it did is because they happened to do it better than everyone else - and that isn't a good thing.

You almost seem tp be saying the British Empire saved the rest of the world from themselves or something. Are you just trying to get one-up in a discussion or is your view of your nations history really that skewed?

Again, there are easily as many examples one could cite that would balance the ledger you're seemingly unwilling to even mention let alone concede. There's a grudge going on here alright Spike, but it's seemingly yours mate.

Sorry Raindog, but as a history student I'm finding the popularly held opinion on England to be very tiring and quite trite. Whilst you might hate us damn English for having the temerity to invade you, at a time when everyone was invading everyone, the fact you think my country wasn't doing good things is kind of insulting. It's ridiculous that to have national pride I've had to become an utter historical revisionist but really my first year studying history has really opened my eyes to different schools of thought on British history and unfortunately I don't feel like bursting into tears and apologising at the feet of all you embittered little colonials.

No probs Spike, forgive me if I don't see the British Empire as it existed for a few centuries as some wonderful guiding light of peace, justice and social evolution in the world. I'm not saying your country didn't do good things - especially for itself, but if you look at the big picture of how it behaved, I just have a pretty hard time seeing it as some exemplar of civilized virtue.

I'm sure it was just dandy and wonderful to it's own people, shame about the vast majority of others it thoroughly fucked over to the point the world is still dealing with some of the fallout of its imperial expansion a almost a century after it shut up shop.

We "embittered little colonials" actually had this whacky thing called a right to exist and prospor as well. You're not the only one with the hitorical moral high ground to feel insulted, regardless of the gem like factoids you want to cherry pick.

Your country did wonders for Africa and India, Spike!

So what was the good that came from the Empire illicitly importing opium into China? For the actual people of China?

Okay, but we all agree that this doesn't matter to the film, right? A movie can accurately portray events or the goodness of a nation and be horrible, or it can get everything "wrong" and be great. Or vice versa.

I dunno about that, what if a film was brilliantly made yet portrayed the Nazis running the death camps as poor misguided souls who only wanted to do good?

I mean, Zulu is a very well made film that I enjoyed as a kid, but I have trouble watching it now after I learned the full history of the Zulu Wars. It's hard to muster up much sympathy for those poor outnumbered British white men for me personally.

I have to agree with that for the most part. While there is a certain amount of simplifying that gets done for movies, which pretty much has to happen, there's only so far that a light can go to portray something.

It would indeed be difficult, maybe impossible, to portray the characters in that hypothetical film as poor misguided souls. But is that because of history, or is that simply because the characters are running death camps? (i.e. would it be any easier to create sympathy if the story were a sci-fi/alternate history with fascists who were fictional but just as bad?)

I honestly don't know. But I think that, in general, artists shouldn't be beholden to any kind of "accuracy." (And I want to say they never should be. But then again, the "should" applies to what they are allowed to do more than what will make a good film.)

Das Boot? Maybe it's situational and character-based.

Rain Dog wins simply by virtue of his Goodies reference.

What about a very well made movie that portrays Martin Luther King as a secret spy for the Soviets, or funding the bombings of government buildings?

What about a film where Abraham Lincoln sells poisoned milk to school children?

Where do you draw the line between 'accuracy' and simply deadset lying about the facts of history and portraying them as truth?

I thought of this, but they weren't Nazi's by ideology. Remember the look they gave those Germans trying to Heil Hitler?

Black Book was the closest I've ever come to feeling bad for Nazis.

Not much stuff works in coked-up-beyond-belief Cross Of Iron, but one thing that does is the humanization of German soldiers.

Me? Just a guess, but probably Inglourious Basterds. Or Ilsa.

Oh my God, I gotta watch that movie again. I loved that.

I like what James said about being beholden to accuracy and all. What you all were saying about painting a historically acknowledged group of baddies like the Nazis as sympathetic, or at least shedding them in a different light (I don't want to say 'human' because that's a little broad), is challenging and sometimes brings fresh realizations to arguments on the big perspective we as the viewers take.

I think The Reader's a good example of how that doesn't always work though. But there was a lot more than a convoluted message coming from that movie, and that's best saved for The Reader thread.

Just to clarify, I'm on the side of the artistic licence of cinema trumping historical accuracy. We have books for the real deal.

Birth of a Nation, Gunga Din, The Searchers, Zulu, The Deer Hunter, etc.--the people railing against them, have usually missed the point, or are uptight and boring.

Look at something like Turner's Gettysburg or Gods & Generals. Very (for the most part) accurate, but in the end, soulless historian wankery.

The book's good.

The books are good.

True.

But then there's The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, which loses nothing for it's exacting historical accuracy. I'd be willing to bet most viewers (if there can be "most" of 2) don't even realize that nearly every scene is taken from period accounts.

Rain Dog, you are really taking the fast train into Crazy Town with a whistle stop in Stupid Land. I understand you have pride in your heritage and that Spike's gotten under your skin, but really, you're not doing yourself any favors at this point.

Thats the thing Im all for playing fast and loose with the facts in a hitorical film (it always always has to be a good story first and foremost) - within reason - but what about out and out lies and fabrications?

What about a film venerating the KKK? Or the Martin Luther King example I used above?

Where do we draw the line exactly?

A bit harsh Rath - why exactly?

Because both the Nazi analogy and the KKK analogy are fucking dumb, and make no sense to the argument at hand. Spike's argument about the way Brits are portrayed in film has basis in fact. The ones you're describing don't.

Also, there was a film made venerating the Klan. It was called Birth of a Nation.

Well at this stage we're having a couple of different discussions seemingly as this is an evolving sharing of ideas at this stage. You seem to be combining them.

Firstly, Spike and I were discussing the merits or otherwise of the British Empire in general and how that may pertain to their depictions in both historical films and the borader depiction of the English in American films in general, while the two ideas overlap, they are definately somewhat seperate issues in my opinion.

This has since kicked off the further ideas of how much accuracy should be needed or required in filmic depictions of history in general, causing me to wonder out loud at what point being loose with accuracy becomes historical misrepresentation and where people personally draw the line because I find the concept fascinating.

At no time am I trying to use my two examples to somehow apply to Spikes particular grudge against mainstream American cinema. If I was I could definately see how you would think I was "really taking the fast train into Crazy Town with a whistle stop in Stupid Land", but I'm not.

Okay?

So, how about that scene where Mel talks about the rain falling "slightly to the side, like so" was that historically accurate? I mean one minute it's raining fucking diesel trucks the next he and his lady friend are perfectly fucking dry. Must have been one hell of a long ride.

Sorry for derailing the "Brits - Yay or Nay" discussion, but I have serious shit to talk about.

Obviously, that was Verhoeven's point (one of them, at least).

This, and an ending that goes on about 15 minutes too long, are my only quibbles. It isn't the Greatest Story Ever Told, but I usually suspect people who hate it of "putting on airs."

When I'm working and at our shop we leave Cinemagic on in the background sometimes because, well, everyone loves listening to it. But out of almost every score that's played, Braveheart is one of the only ones that makes me want to drop what I'm doing and watch Braveheart.

I got reminded of that because the score just played and I now I want to watch Braveheart.

Well it would be kind of odd if hearing the score from Gremlins made you want to watch Braveheart. Although hearing the score from Aliens sometimes makes me want to watch The Wrath of Khan. But that's because they're almost the same score.

That is just sad. As a 'history student' you do know that the Nazis got the ideal for concentration camp from the British treatment of the bores. No one get to be ruler of an Empire the sun never set on by being nice guys. Only true bastards get to have empires of such size. It not the rest of the world fault that you have some kind of guild, about how your ancestors were bastards.

Oh Jesus. I've never heard this bit of info, and now I wish I hadn't. Ugh. Why?

Well, I applaud the Brits - all boring people should be exterminated.

Once again, not saying we weren't horrible. But colonialism stained a lot of countries, not just the United Kingdom.

True it stained every country, and there were countries that were probably worse like Belgium, and Portugal.