Revision as of 16:02, 2 June 2007 editArcayne (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,574 edits →Plot: rp← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:27, 1 December 2024 edit undoAP 499D25 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,482 editsm reverted edit(s) by User:24.8.240.62 - inappropriate use of a talk pageTag: Rollback | ||
(500 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{Article history | |||
{{FilmsWikiProject|class=B|importance=High}} | |||
|action1=PR | |||
{{Archive box|]<br>]<br>]}} | |||
|action1date=12:54:57 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Braveheart/archive1 | |||
|action1result=reviewed | |||
|action1oldid=938777851 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Film|core=yes|American-task-force=yes|Australian-task-force=yes|British-task-force=yes|War-task-force=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USFilm=yes|USfilm-importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|British=yes|Films-task-force=yes|Medieval=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Medieval Scotland|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Yorkshire|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
==References to use== | |||
==Historical Inaccuracies== | |||
<!-- ] 14:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC) --> | |||
The article ] points to a section called Historical Inaccuracies in this article but that section is no longer here. We should either remove that reference or reinstate that section here.] 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.'' | |||
:I just found out this is where the section was removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Braveheart&diff=131228189&oldid=131222556 ] 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*{{cite book | last=Anderson | first=Lin | year=2006 | title=Braveheart: From Hollywood to Hollyrood | publisher=Luath Press Limited | isbn=978-1-84282-066-7 }} | |||
I think they should be restored, but also cited. ] 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*{{cite book | last=Arendt | first=Elycia | year=2002 | chapter=From Blind Harry to ''Braveheart'': The Evolution of the William Wallace Legend | title=Braveheart and Broomsticks: Essays on Movies, Myths, and Magic | publisher=Infinity Publishing | pages=19–37 | isbn=978-0-7414-1233-1 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Bordo | first=Susan | year=1999 | chapter=''Braveheart'', ''Babe'', and the Contemporary Body | title=Twilight Zones: The Hidden Life of Cultural Images from Plato to O.J. | publisher=University of California Press | pages=27–65 | isbn=978-0-520-21102-5 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Edensor | first=Tim | year=2002 | chapter=Representing the Nation: Scottishness and ''Braveheart'' | title=National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life | publisher=Berg Publishers | pages=139–170 | isbn=978-1-85973-514-5 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Flynn | first=Arthur | year=2006 | chapter=Braveheart | title=The Story of Irish Film | publisher=Currach Press | pages=189–193 | isbn=978-1-85607-914-3 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Langford | first=Barry | year=2010 | chapter=1995: ''Braveheart'', ''Toy Story'' | title=Post-Classical Hollywood: History, Film Style, and Ideology Since 1945 | publisher=Edinburgh University Press | isbn=978-0-7486-3858-1 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Luhr | first=William | year=1999 | chapter=Mutilating Mel: Martyrdom and masculinity in ''Braveheart'' | editor1-last=Sharrett | editor1-first=Christopher | editor2-last=Grant | editor2-first=Barry Keith | title=Mythologies of Violence in Postmodern Media | series=Contemporary Film and Television Series | publisher=Wayne State University Press | isbn=978-0-8143-2742-5 }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=McArthur |first=Colin |year=1998 |chapter=''Braveheart'' and the Scottish Aesthetic Dementia |editor-first=Tony |editor-last=Barta |title=Screening the Past: Film and the Representation of History |publisher=Praeger |pages=167–187 |isbn=978-0-275-95402-4}} | |||
*{{cite book | last=McArthur | first=Colin | year=2003 | title=Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema | series=Cinema and Society | publisher=I. B. Tauris | isbn=978-1-86064-927-1 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=McCarty | first=John | year=2001 | chapter=Braveheart | title=The Films of Mel Gibson | publisher=Citadel | isbn=978-0-8065-2226-5 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Roquemore | first=Joseph H. | year=1999 | chapter=Braveheart | title=History Goes to the Movies: A Viewer's Guide to the Best (and Some of the Worst) Historical Films Ever Made | publisher=Main Street Books | isbn=978-0-385-49678-0 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Sanello | first=Frank | year=2002 | chapter=Braveheart (1995) | title=Reel V. Real: How Hollywood Turns Fact into Fiction | publisher=Taylor Trade Publishing | isbn=978-0-87833-268-7 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Storrar | first=William | year=1999 | chapter=From ''Braveheart'' to faint-heart: Worship and culture in postmodern Scotland | editor1-last=Spinks | editor1-first=Bryan D. | editor2-last=Torrance | editor2-first=Iain R. | title=To Glorify God: Essays on Modern Reformed Liturgy | publisher=Eerdmans Pub Co | pages=69–84 | isbn=978-0-8028-3863-6 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Toplin | first=Robert Brent | year=2002 | title=Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood | series=Culture America | publisher=University Press of Kansas | isbn=978-0-7006-1199-7 }} | |||
*{{cite book | year=2005 | chapter='Historians ... will say I am a liar': The ideology of false truth claims in Mel Gibson's ''Braveheart'' and Luc Besson's ''The Messenger'' | editor1-last=Utz | editor1-first=Richard J. | editor2-last=Swan | editor2-first=Jesse G. | title=Studies in Medievalism XIII: Postmodern Medievalisms | publisher=D.S.Brewer | isbn=978-1-84384-012-1 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Winchell | first=Mark Royden | year=2008 | chapter=One Hundred Politically Incorrect Films | title=God, Man, and Hollywood: Politically Incorrect Cinema from The Birth of a Nation to The Passion of the Christ | publisher=Intercollegiate Studies Institute | pages=260–261 | isbn=978-1-933859-56-9 }} | |||
*{{cite book | last=Witalisz | first=Wladyslaw | year=2008 | chapter=Blind Harry's ''The Wallace'' and Mel Gibson's ''Braveheart'': What do medieval romance and Hollywood film have in common? | editor-last=Sikorska | editor-first=Liliana | title=Medievalisms | series=Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature | publisher=Peter Lang | isbn=978-3-631-57217-7 }} | |||
What is the point of this section. The film is not a documentary or a history lesson. It is a portrayal of life/a work of fiction. The film is not an academic work.] (]) 08:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
==Ireland?== | |||
I don't recall Argyle taking young William to Ireland, as indicated ina recetn edit. It is presumed they left the area, and Wallace talks later of having knowledge of French and having been to Rome. No mention of Ireland, though. Can someone get back to me on that? I am going to edit it out for now, but I will gladly change it back if someone can cite the statement. ] 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
: I just watched it yesterday and I would have to agree with you. It seems to me that we are told he left the British Isles. During one of their first meetings as adults, Wallace answers the question about being Rome with the statement, "Aye, my uncle took me on a pilgrimage". So, I would take that to mean that he did some extensive traveling. He might've visited Ireland as a part of that pilgrimage but it would've only been a visit. ---> ] 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Since it isn't mentioned in the film, out it goes. Thanks or the confirmation. ] ] 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
==Peer Review== | |||
I think we that the article is shaping up pretty nicely (and might I say WOW on all the most excellent edits!). I think the article is ready for a Peer Review. they will give us some insight on maybe upgrading the aticle to ], and maybe see if we cannot get yourselves a ] rating. If not, then we will at least know what we need to work on still. ] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The peer review has received comments from an editor . Changes occurring are being made on the basis of that review. ] 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
==To Do List== | |||
:*Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation. Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history. Move Wikiquote template to External links section. | |||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
:*Rewrite Response and awards section as prose. Also, are there any other notable awards that ''Braveheart'' won? Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page. Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Misplaced Pages article, it may be acceptable. Other criteria should apply, though. As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films. | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070408081844/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/29/movie.battles/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/29/movie.battles/index.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807135603/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245 | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
:*Cultural effects section needs to be cited. There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about ''how'' it was shaped? | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
:*Historical inaccuracy -- give it the ''300'' treatment and avoid ]. Find references of historians criticizing ''Braveheart'' directly. | |||
Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion. Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of ''Braveheart'' on certain aspects of popular culture. | |||
== Languages Spoken == | |||
:*Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter. | |||
The article says, 'In addition to English, the film's primary language, French, Latin, and Scottish Gaelic are spoken.' Does Gibson speak briefly in Italian? At some point Gibson says something just before or after Rome is mentioned. I assumed he was speaking in Italian, but I do not know. Maybe it was Latin? | |||
:*External links -- there's two film reviews. I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception"). Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc. Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct. Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to ''300''. | |||
My vague memory suggests he was speaking to his present (or future) wife. She asks him if he has been to Rome just before or after he says something that is not translated. She asks what it means and he replies, 'Beautiful.' At least that is what I think I remember. | |||
:*Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed. | |||
-] ] 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 13:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I just found this dialogue mentioned on a different website which says Gibson responded to the Rome reference by speaking French. | |||
-Add a section for critical reviews, and list the Wallace monument as a subsection of the Cultural Effects. | |||
] (]) 13:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
-would recommend addressing the description of the film's ending. The ultimate fates of Robert the Bruce and Wallace's army are left vague; there is voiceover by Mel Gibson stating that, 'They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that the Scotish army won the fight and ultimately the war for their freedom (not supported by history); or, it can be interpreted that the Scotish were actually killed, having won their freedom by not submitting to the British, even at the cost of their lives (as William Wallace did earlier in the film). | |||
In the movie, Wallace knows his native language, Latin and French. He speaks latin and French to Isabel(?) particularly when there is a conversation between some English aide and her. He responds back to them in Latin then asks if they prefer French. ] (]) 08:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
==References for use== | |||
- historian review of movie <br> | |||
- Edinburgh newspaper discussing the real Wallace<br> | |||
- film review<br> | |||
- about the historical accuracy of the film, with a nod to the idea that no one really cares<br> | |||
- historians and history<br> | |||
- 10 reviews, awards listings<br> | |||
- film reviews, a plethora of material<br> | |||
- cultural influences?<br> | |||
- JSTOR reference that might need sorting out first. It looks useful, though<br> | |||
- scads of reviews here as well as box office info<br> | |||
Wallace asking whether Isabella prefers French is another historic fautlt of the movie since the English and Scottish nobility did not speak English at that time, but French (they may have understood the languages of the commoners, but not used them as first choice). Indeed, Henry V was the first English king to speak English at court. | |||
==The fate at the end?== | |||
(''the following was mis-posted tot he Peer Review. The poster is new to WP, and didn't understand the vagaries of where to post Discussion related material''). | |||
== External links modified == | |||
Address accuracy of the description of the film's finale. The actual fate of the Scottish army is not revealed; based upon Gibson's voiceover, it can be interpreted that the Scots won the battle and won their freedom, or that they were in fact killed, and remained free vecause they never surrendered. Either way, any interpretation should be left out, as a synopsis of the plot is not the right place for interpretation. A simple statement that the fate of the army is not seen on film, followed by a transcript of Gibson's voicover, would be more appropriate. (posted by User: 68.46.142.17) | |||
:*Sorry, that is not the job of the article. At all. It is a film article about a film. If, at the end, Gibson's (as Wallace) voiceover saying that the men charged the English at Bannockburn, fought like wattior poets, fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom, that's pretty much telling it as it is. They won. If history tells a different story, there is a historical innacuracy section to quote someone else pointing out the historical defects of the film. Not in the synopsis,a nd certainly not here. As this is a content issue, it shoudl be more appropriately addressed in the Discussion area of the article, and not in a peer review. -] ] 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
::I've got to agree with Arcayne here, the film makes it very clear that the scots win. ] 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:*That's a misinterpretation of the voiceover. Nowhere does the film state that they won battle or defeated the British. The whole point of the film is that Gibson and the Scots never give in to the British. If they had surrendered at the end, they would have lost their freedom ... refusing to surrender is how they won it, not by winning the battle (similar to how Gibson's character refuses to claim Longshanks his king while he is being disembowled, instead shouting, 'Freedom!' ... he won his freedom as well). Either way, I'm not arguing to change anyone's mind; my point is only that there is more than one interpretation of the ending. A statement that the Scots' fates are not shown onscreen, with a transcription of Gibson's voiceover, would be an accurate description of the ending, and not a reflection of the author's opinion. | |||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: | |||
"The whole point of the film" sounds a little strong to me. Another important point in the film was how William's efforts gradually changed Edward the Bruce's attitude, eventually freeing the Scots from the English, which the voiceover clearly states. To state things in the way you want would be a major distraction to the summary of the plot. Whether it is a voiceover or not is of little consequence, the fact is, that is what the film expresses, that is the way the plot goes. Historically, as well, Edward the Bruce did win the eventual war, and freedom, heart, legal rights, and all. They didn't just never surrender, they won. ] 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604232204/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1995/05/11/1995-05-11_gay_alliance_has_gibson_s__b.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1995/05/11/1995-05-11_gay_alliance_has_gibson_s__b.html | |||
:*The historical accuracy of the entire film is very questionable. The purpose of an encyclopedic plot summary is to report what happened on the screen. The voiceover states that they fought well and won their freedom ... NOT that they won the battle or won the war. Stating that they did so is interpretation (as is stating that they did not), and shouldn't have a place in an encyclopedic plot summary. | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. | |||
I am sorry, but that is an OR asssertion as to "the whole point of the film". I appreciate your concerns, but - and this is worthy of emphasis - ''we don't accept primary opinion resources here''. Here is the specific text of the voice-over (which is precisely how it appears in the novel by Randall Wallace): | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
<blockquote> | |||
:::::''"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."'' | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Now, perhaps I am being somewhat condescending in my next statements, but are you suggesting that: | |||
* A) the film is historically accurate, and doesn't condense events? and | |||
* B) that the intent of the method of the film's ending was not to imply that they did not defeat the English? | |||
== Edition Versions? == | |||
If you hold these rahter silly contentions, then perhaps you are imparting far too literal a historical view into a ''movie''. ] ] 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Are there different video releases, and if so, should they be mentioned? For example, what's the difference between "Limited Cinedition" and "Special Collectors Edition" and what I assume would be a "regular" edition? ] (]) 06:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
:But instead of belaboring the point back and forth, I created a new edit that reflects the intent of the film and addresses your concern. :) ] ] 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
I won't continue to belabor the point after this, because it doesn't seem as if you've actually read my postings. To answer your two questions: | |||
* A) I suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I believe that I mentioned specifically that the historical accuracy of the film is questionable at best. | |||
* B) Not to be condescending, but it's tough to fight through your double negative; I believe that you're asking my opinion as to what is intended by the ending. I don't think that's really important, because I agree completely that my opinion as to the ending has no place here or in a plot summary (and on reflection I shouldn't have argued that earlier). My point is simply that, nowhere in the film do they show you the results of that battle; nowhere do they state that the Scots won the battle or won the war. The voiceover at the end states only that they fought and 'won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that they won their freedom on the battlefield, or figuratively, that they won their freedom by never bowing to the Brits. Prior to the final battle, they seemed to be on the verge of losing their freedom by setting up the Bruce as a puppet king. Your belief that it is to be taken literally is only your opinion (unless you've seen or read interviews with Gibson where he states that the Scots did win that battle), and that's what's being presented on the main page. I'm not suggesting that my belief should be on the main page either, only that their final fates are not shown on the screen, so that readers can draw their own conclusions. | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
It's interesting that you find my opinions silly because I'm taking the film too literally, when my whole argument is that the last line does not need to be taken literally. | |||
I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. My apologies. I have altered the sentence so as to avoid the problem which you describe. Take a look and see if you can live with this. ] ] 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/68th-winners.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820010057/https://www.guardian.co.uk:80/film/2003/aug/11/religion.world to http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2003/aug/11/religion.world | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). | |||
== Murron's pic == | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} | |||
The picture of Murron is very dark. Can anyone fix this? ] 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
I could, but the point of the addition of the picture is to ensure it was not a copyright infringement. It is a DVD capture, and the lighting was not very bright. I hesitate to digitally alter it and risk copyright infringement. As Murron is still quite visibile, I've left it as a necessary evil. Even though dark, it is far better than the picture that was ther before. the pic itself might be moved over to Production once I upload it. Gibson speaks about how he tended to film her in slower than normal time because she "looked good slow." I hope that answered your question. ] ] 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Inadequate explanantion of the film/execution process. == | |||
I have the DVD. I wonder if I could capture a brighter picture. ] 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
This paragraph, "In London, Wallace is brought before an English magistrate, tried for high treason, and condemned to public torture and beheading. Even whilst being ], Wallace refuses to submit to the king. As cries for mercy come from the watching crowd deeply moved by the Scotsman's valor, the magistrate offers him a quick death if he utters the word, "Mercy". Wallace instead shouts, "Freedom!", and the judge orders his death. Moments before being decapitated, Wallace sees a vision of Murron in the crowd, smiling at him." is confusing. | |||
I placed another one at the right place in the article, the cast. It was deleted before by Arcayne, this one placed by him is terrible and is not linked with the writtings and must be removed. ] 04:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca | |||
Wallace refuses to submit to the king and he refuses mercy. Is asking for mercy submitting and if so then that needs to be better associated between the two. How does the hang, drawn and quartered figure into this. Why should he submit or ask for mercy when he gets decapitated at the end anyways? This paragraph is written by someone who understands the film and the process but does not get it across to the reader. I've seen the film upteen times. How is it played out in the film that by Wallace not asking for mercy is then punished by the executioner(s). How? Because there is no sense of duration of any of it from yelling "Freedom" and the judge ordering his death which I presume is decapitation? There is subliminal information not making it to the text.] (]) 08:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Yeah, no, it doesn't need to be removed. First of all, your contention that the image is terrible and not linked to the wrtitings is actually rather incorrect, especially since you are simply replacing a darker image with one that is small, grainy and totally unsuitable. Secondly, you were doing a bit more than just replacing a dark image of Murron. You were rearranging the pics of the cast. Totally uncool without discussing it here first. That's how edit wars get started. | |||
:Original Research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Find a Reliable Source. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I will upload a brighter image of Murron. If it gets pulled, I expect both you and Wrad to fight like hell to make sure it doesn't get cut as a copyright infringement. ] ] 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I agree that the film is confused in its handling of these issues, but we should be cautious about discussing this in the article without proper sources. ] (]) 01:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
These images were at that place (cast) for months,long before you came here. Uncool was your move deleting it. Murron image you placed is ridiculous, I'm sorry, we can't see anything (is it a joke?) and totally out of line in the article. ] 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca | |||
== Racism == | |||
Perhaps, you might stop edit-warring a little bit and give me a chance to upload a lighter version of the picture. Do you think you could wait just a bit, sweetheart? ] ] 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Why is there no mention of the widespread allegations that this film was racist in its portrayal of the English characters? (] (]) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)) | |||
Yes I can baby, but do not revert it again. Upload a pretty one, brighter, cleaner and place it at the right place, Cast. I think these war-edits ridiculous too :-)] 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca | |||
::Because, so far, all such WP:FRINGE type of un-Reliable Sourced blogs and so on, have not gained consensus. Until Reliable Sources find some sort of tread to gain from this sort of nonsense, it won't be in the article. ] (]) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Because a)Misplaced Pages isn’t neutral and accurate attempts to confirm anti English prejudice will always be attacked by the same who carry anti English bias and b) Misplaced Pages itself is prejudiced. Note how a mainstream, ordinary newspaper such as the Daily Mail is banned as a source by Misplaced Pages ] (]) 23:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Themes == | |||
:Finally. Now the new image is uploaded. As for the placement of these images, I am going to leave them where they are. However, I can tell you that their current placement makes them ripe for removal as "decorative". I've seen it happen in at least two other film articles. You folks might want to take a bit o' time and read up on Wiki-films project page. Keep in mind, Macho, you broke 3RR with your little edit-war. I'm going to cut you a break and not report you, because I'm in a good mood. You can say thank you. Now, play nice, from now on, please. ] ] 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
The article needs perhaps a ] section. Because there is a large criticism section, there should be some handling of the film's themes which claify some of the content in the criticism section. Some themes: The film is ], pro-], and ], and there is a substantial amount of criticism of the film from the British press and intelligencia of the films historical inaccuracy, but also of the film's themes named above, either directly or indirectly. | |||
Any simple refutations of the criticisms is also important. For example the criticism of the inaccurate wardrobe (kilts) is easily dismissed by directorial prerogative. -] (]) 09:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
No my friend , see the history, YOU broke 3RR first. But I'm im good mood too and you can say thanks to me. :-) Well, I think this new image awful too, but nevermind. The current place is perfect, not the older one where you've placed that unseen image before. Cheers. ]Machocarioca | |||
: We need sources that discuss the film's themes. Reviews are often a good place to look for sourced commentary, but academic sources are even better. ] (]) 03:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Heh. I guess we can both push back from the table then. Play nice, don't be prickly, and we will get along swimmingly. And do check out the Wikifilm thing I pointed out to you before. You might find enlightenment regarding what I was referring to there. ] ] 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Misleading Ethnicity == | |||
Fine, thanks ] 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca | |||
One of the biggest problems with Braveheart is the anachronistic portrayal of the ethnic groups involved. | |||
==Clean-up, questions== | |||
Since there seems to be some warring going on, I thought it best to only do a few minor edits (whitespace, etc) and bring my concerns with the article as a whole to the discussion page. First and foremost, there are many statements that require references, including several that are in the cast section. "The 10-year old actor reportedly spent weeks trying to copy Gibson's mannerisms for the film" and "Her name was changed from Marion Braidfute in the script so as to not be confused with the Maid Marian of Robin Hood note," notably. Speaking of the cast section, I'm confused as to why the actor and character descriptions/items of note are mixed in such a way. The two statements I quoted above can be moved to the Production section, for example, and that way the Cast section will better first a Characters section, since that is what it mostly pertains to. On a similar note, I find it odd not to mention more about the characters' origins, since nationality plays such a large part in the movie's major themes; nowhere is it mentioned, specifically, that Wallace is Scottish -- only that he grew up outside of Scotland and that he led the Scottish rebellion. Everyone should know and infer that the man and a majority of his followers are Scottish, but it's never clarified. The Princess is French, oui? Her arranged marriage was unhappy, but many circumstances of the film's plot is left unsaid. I recognize that the movie is ''long'', but the part about Isabelle's allegiance and love for Wallace rather than the English crown and the suggestion that she bears his lovechild and such is certainly of note. | |||
Both the 'English' and 'Scottish' aristocracy at this period were neither English nor Scots but rather Norman-French. Robert the Bruce was quite as French as Edward. | |||
I hope this helps direct the editing away from the images and more towards the content, which is in dire need. It's a great movie, and a great story, so it should definitely be done justice. I'll watch the article for a bit to see if there's anything I can do to help. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(] con])</small> 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Nor were the Scots all exactly 'Scottish'. The Highlanders were Scots to be sure. But the Lowlanders of whom Wallace was one were, despite being subjects of the King of the Scots, in fact predominantly Anglo-Saxons or 'English'. | |||
I think the matter with the images has largely been resolved. The other editor and I just pushed each other's buttons, and now we are apparently happy as clams now. I have been meaning to knock out the Production section for a while. As is usual, Life intervened. I will make sure something solid is up this weekend for everyone's perusal and tweaking. ] ] 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
To complicate matters even further the inhabitants of the South West of Scotland had historically been Welsh or Old British. And 'Welsh' seems to be the most likely origin of the surname Wallace. | |||
== Plot == | |||
Thus rather than being a simple Scots vs English conflict the events portrayed in Braveheart are really a complex mixture of a peasants revolt, a barons revolt and a Norman civil war. Cassandra. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Firstly, the trial and execution section needs altered because it implies that Wallace was guilty. In the film the point is clearly made that the trial is a sham and that Wallace is innocent. Wallace's argument (as in real life) was that he could not possibly be guilty of treason as he never once paid homage or made an oath of allegiance to the English monarch. Without wanting to labour the point, would you consider ] or ] to be treasonous in their actions? Secondly, the English army shown at Bannockburn is clearly not a 'ceremonial line', it's the full army. And the Scots didn't 'eventually' win their freedom, they won it back. I've made the necessary changes, cheers. ] 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
: The important thing is to explain how one would improve the article. Do any published secondary sources talk about this? ] (]) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
The main article here is ] (1296-1328). Braveheart is just a fictionalized depiction of it. | |||
You are operating from a number of OR misconceptions. The ''MOVIE'' doesn't say the things you want it to say. But lets look at the edits one by one which you are not discussing here beforehand: | |||
The ethnic backgrounds of the combatants are not that important. ] was ], and a descendant of both the ] and the ]. His hereditary claim to the throne was based on his descent from ] (reigned 1124-1153). | |||
* firstly, Robert the Bruce is more appropriately wikilinked in the Cast section, not in the plot. | |||
] represented a mix of cultures anyway. Scoto-Normans, Gaels, ], and ] were all part of its demography. The variety of ] spoken in Scotland would eventually evolve into the ]. ] (]) 13:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
* secondly, the term is 'unbeknownst', not 'unbeknown'. | |||
==Philip== | |||
* thirdly, in the film, Wallace doesn't argue the matter, save to say that he never swore fealty to Edward I. Your arguments comparing Ghandi and Washington to Wallace are immaterial, and not on point. As a matter of fact, Wallace was guilty of treason by prevailing law, and invading York was in itself a treasonous act against the English crown. If you truly think that Wallace argued the point before the English high court, please cite a reference that states such. It isn't present in the movie save for one line, and that is not enough to contravert the pre-existing edit: | |||
It's far from clear that the character of Philip, Edward II's lover, is even loosely based on ]. He might be loosely based on ], although he wasn't defenestrated by Edward I either. ] (]) 00:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
== 'Braveheart' == | |||
<blockquote> | |||
:::::''"Wallace refuses to admit his guilt and is brutally tortured to death in a London square, being alternately hanged, racked and finally ]d alive. Despite the agony, he refuses to declare his guilt, cry for mercy, or even cry out in pain"'' | |||
</blockquote> | |||
I have excised two references to 'Braveheart' being a name that applies to Robert Bruce. This is a post-'Braveheart' factoid, derived from a misreading of certain 19th century poems and retellings where Sir James Douglas is depicted as addressing Bruce's actual heart as he carries it in battle- (in themselves elaborations based on Sir Walter Scott's fictitous embroidering of an equally fictitious poem from the 15th century). It has no bearing on the historical character of Robert Bruce or his legacy. | |||
* fourthly,'' in the film'' the British forces arrayed at Bannockburn are in fact ceremonial, in that they are not expecting a fight. This is noted by the commander's snide commentary and the general dressiness of the forces arrayed (in comparison to those of the Bruce). | |||
] (]) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
* lastly, it has been pointed out that this battle was not the final one of Scottish independence, and was in fact only one of the last. ''In the film'', the Brits are in fact surprised when the Scots charge the lines. | |||
I would ask that if you have significant issues with this edit that you bring them here in the future. Discussion via edit summary is both uncool and unsatisfactory where it concerns content dispute resolution. - ] ] 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Arcayne, do you even understand the difference between 'English', 'British' and 'Scottish'? I suspect this is where a lot of your confusion is stemming from. ] 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm the same user as Golfer45 and am not attempting to use a sock to influence the discussion. ] 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
: I appreciate you clarifying the identity issue, KanGolf. And yes, I do understand the differences. What I guess I am not getting is why you chose to ask if I knew them. ] ] 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 07:27, 1 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Braveheart article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- Anderson, Lin (2006). Braveheart: From Hollywood to Hollyrood. Luath Press Limited. ISBN 978-1-84282-066-7.
- Arendt, Elycia (2002). "From Blind Harry to Braveheart: The Evolution of the William Wallace Legend". Braveheart and Broomsticks: Essays on Movies, Myths, and Magic. Infinity Publishing. pp. 19–37. ISBN 978-0-7414-1233-1.
- Bordo, Susan (1999). "Braveheart, Babe, and the Contemporary Body". Twilight Zones: The Hidden Life of Cultural Images from Plato to O.J. University of California Press. pp. 27–65. ISBN 978-0-520-21102-5.
- Edensor, Tim (2002). "Representing the Nation: Scottishness and Braveheart". National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Berg Publishers. pp. 139–170. ISBN 978-1-85973-514-5.
- Flynn, Arthur (2006). "Braveheart". The Story of Irish Film. Currach Press. pp. 189–193. ISBN 978-1-85607-914-3.
- Langford, Barry (2010). "1995: Braveheart, Toy Story". Post-Classical Hollywood: History, Film Style, and Ideology Since 1945. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3858-1.
- Luhr, William (1999). "Mutilating Mel: Martyrdom and masculinity in Braveheart". In Sharrett, Christopher; Grant, Barry Keith (eds.). Mythologies of Violence in Postmodern Media. Contemporary Film and Television Series. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8143-2742-5.
- McArthur, Colin (1998). "Braveheart and the Scottish Aesthetic Dementia". In Barta, Tony (ed.). Screening the Past: Film and the Representation of History. Praeger. pp. 167–187. ISBN 978-0-275-95402-4.
- McArthur, Colin (2003). Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots: Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema. Cinema and Society. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-86064-927-1.
- McCarty, John (2001). "Braveheart". The Films of Mel Gibson. Citadel. ISBN 978-0-8065-2226-5.
- Roquemore, Joseph H. (1999). "Braveheart". History Goes to the Movies: A Viewer's Guide to the Best (and Some of the Worst) Historical Films Ever Made. Main Street Books. ISBN 978-0-385-49678-0.
- Sanello, Frank (2002). "Braveheart (1995)". Reel V. Real: How Hollywood Turns Fact into Fiction. Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87833-268-7.
- Storrar, William (1999). "From Braveheart to faint-heart: Worship and culture in postmodern Scotland". In Spinks, Bryan D.; Torrance, Iain R. (eds.). To Glorify God: Essays on Modern Reformed Liturgy. Eerdmans Pub Co. pp. 69–84. ISBN 978-0-8028-3863-6.
- Toplin, Robert Brent (2002). Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood. Culture America. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1199-7.
- Utz, Richard J.; Swan, Jesse G., eds. (2005). "'Historians ... will say I am a liar': The ideology of false truth claims in Mel Gibson's Braveheart and Luc Besson's The Messenger". Studies in Medievalism XIII: Postmodern Medievalisms. D.S.Brewer. ISBN 978-1-84384-012-1.
- Winchell, Mark Royden (2008). "One Hundred Politically Incorrect Films". God, Man, and Hollywood: Politically Incorrect Cinema from The Birth of a Nation to The Passion of the Christ. Intercollegiate Studies Institute. pp. 260–261. ISBN 978-1-933859-56-9.
- Witalisz, Wladyslaw (2008). "Blind Harry's The Wallace and Mel Gibson's Braveheart: What do medieval romance and Hollywood film have in common?". In Sikorska, Liliana (ed.). Medievalisms. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-631-57217-7.
What is the point of this section. The film is not a documentary or a history lesson. It is a portrayal of life/a work of fiction. The film is not an academic work.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Braveheart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070408081844/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/29/movie.battles/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/29/movie.battles/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807135603/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —Talk to my owner:Online 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Languages Spoken
The article says, 'In addition to English, the film's primary language, French, Latin, and Scottish Gaelic are spoken.' Does Gibson speak briefly in Italian? At some point Gibson says something just before or after Rome is mentioned. I assumed he was speaking in Italian, but I do not know. Maybe it was Latin?
My vague memory suggests he was speaking to his present (or future) wife. She asks him if he has been to Rome just before or after he says something that is not translated. She asks what it means and he replies, 'Beautiful.' At least that is what I think I remember.
Mark W. Miller (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I just found this dialogue mentioned on a different website which says Gibson responded to the Rome reference by speaking French.
Mark W. Miller (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In the movie, Wallace knows his native language, Latin and French. He speaks latin and French to Isabel(?) particularly when there is a conversation between some English aide and her. He responds back to them in Latin then asks if they prefer French. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Wallace asking whether Isabella prefers French is another historic fautlt of the movie since the English and Scottish nobility did not speak English at that time, but French (they may have understood the languages of the commoners, but not used them as first choice). Indeed, Henry V was the first English king to speak English at court.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Braveheart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604232204/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1995/05/11/1995-05-11_gay_alliance_has_gibson_s__b.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1995/05/11/1995-05-11_gay_alliance_has_gibson_s__b.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Edition Versions?
Are there different video releases, and if so, should they be mentioned? For example, what's the difference between "Limited Cinedition" and "Special Collectors Edition" and what I assume would be a "regular" edition? JasonCarswell (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Braveheart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/68th-winners.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820010057/https://www.guardian.co.uk:80/film/2003/aug/11/religion.world to http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2003/aug/11/religion.world
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Inadequate explanantion of the film/execution process.
This paragraph, "In London, Wallace is brought before an English magistrate, tried for high treason, and condemned to public torture and beheading. Even whilst being hanged, drawn and quartered, Wallace refuses to submit to the king. As cries for mercy come from the watching crowd deeply moved by the Scotsman's valor, the magistrate offers him a quick death if he utters the word, "Mercy". Wallace instead shouts, "Freedom!", and the judge orders his death. Moments before being decapitated, Wallace sees a vision of Murron in the crowd, smiling at him." is confusing.
Wallace refuses to submit to the king and he refuses mercy. Is asking for mercy submitting and if so then that needs to be better associated between the two. How does the hang, drawn and quartered figure into this. Why should he submit or ask for mercy when he gets decapitated at the end anyways? This paragraph is written by someone who understands the film and the process but does not get it across to the reader. I've seen the film upteen times. How is it played out in the film that by Wallace not asking for mercy is then punished by the executioner(s). How? Because there is no sense of duration of any of it from yelling "Freedom" and the judge ordering his death which I presume is decapitation? There is subliminal information not making it to the text.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Original Research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Find a Reliable Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.206 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the film is confused in its handling of these issues, but we should be cautious about discussing this in the article without proper sources. PatGallacher (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Racism
Why is there no mention of the widespread allegations that this film was racist in its portrayal of the English characters? (86.163.135.87 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC))
- Because, so far, all such WP:FRINGE type of un-Reliable Sourced blogs and so on, have not gained consensus. Until Reliable Sources find some sort of tread to gain from this sort of nonsense, it won't be in the article. 50.111.25.206 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because a)Misplaced Pages isn’t neutral and accurate attempts to confirm anti English prejudice will always be attacked by the same who carry anti English bias and b) Misplaced Pages itself is prejudiced. Note how a mainstream, ordinary newspaper such as the Daily Mail is banned as a source by Misplaced Pages 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Themes
The article needs perhaps a themes section. Because there is a large criticism section, there should be some handling of the film's themes which claify some of the content in the criticism section. Some themes: The film is anti-aristocratic, pro-Scottish independence, and anti-British, and there is a substantial amount of criticism of the film from the British press and intelligencia of the films historical inaccuracy, but also of the film's themes named above, either directly or indirectly.
Any simple refutations of the criticisms is also important. For example the criticism of the inaccurate wardrobe (kilts) is easily dismissed by directorial prerogative. -Inowen (nlfte) 09:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- We need sources that discuss the film's themes. Reviews are often a good place to look for sourced commentary, but academic sources are even better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Misleading Ethnicity
One of the biggest problems with Braveheart is the anachronistic portrayal of the ethnic groups involved.
Both the 'English' and 'Scottish' aristocracy at this period were neither English nor Scots but rather Norman-French. Robert the Bruce was quite as French as Edward.
Nor were the Scots all exactly 'Scottish'. The Highlanders were Scots to be sure. But the Lowlanders of whom Wallace was one were, despite being subjects of the King of the Scots, in fact predominantly Anglo-Saxons or 'English'.
To complicate matters even further the inhabitants of the South West of Scotland had historically been Welsh or Old British. And 'Welsh' seems to be the most likely origin of the surname Wallace.
Thus rather than being a simple Scots vs English conflict the events portrayed in Braveheart are really a complex mixture of a peasants revolt, a barons revolt and a Norman civil war. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.49.237 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- The important thing is to explain how one would improve the article. Do any published secondary sources talk about this? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The main article here is First War of Scottish Independence (1296-1328). Braveheart is just a fictionalized depiction of it.
The ethnic backgrounds of the combatants are not that important. Robert the Bruce was Scoto-Norman, and a descendant of both the Anglo-Normans and the Gaels. His hereditary claim to the throne was based on his descent from David I of Scotland (reigned 1124-1153).
Scotland in the High Middle Ages represented a mix of cultures anyway. Scoto-Normans, Gaels, Norse–Gaels, and Anglo-Saxons were all part of its demography. The variety of Middle English spoken in Scotland would eventually evolve into the Scots language. Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Philip
It's far from clear that the character of Philip, Edward II's lover, is even loosely based on Philip Mowbray. He might be loosely based on Piers Gaveston, although he wasn't defenestrated by Edward I either. PatGallacher (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
'Braveheart'
I have excised two references to 'Braveheart' being a name that applies to Robert Bruce. This is a post-'Braveheart' factoid, derived from a misreading of certain 19th century poems and retellings where Sir James Douglas is depicted as addressing Bruce's actual heart as he carries it in battle- (in themselves elaborations based on Sir Walter Scott's fictitous embroidering of an equally fictitious poem from the 15th century). It has no bearing on the historical character of Robert Bruce or his legacy. JF42 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class film articles
- B-Class Australian cinema articles
- Australian cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the Australian cinema task force
- B-Class British cinema articles
- British cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the British cinema task force
- B-Class war films articles
- War films task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the war films task force
- B-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- B-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- High-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- B-Class Medieval Scotland articles
- Low-importance Medieval Scotland articles
- B-Class Yorkshire articles
- Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles