The Blue Faces Were a Thousand Years Too Late (If They Existed At All) That’s how wrong it is to portray Wallace in a kilt.
Imagine watching a film about the American Revolutionary War in which George Washington crosses the Potomac in a three-piece 20th-century business suit. And while they do make for excellent theatrical viewing and conform to what the wider global audience expects from Scottish men, they look weird.
Brave 2 real movie full#
Kilts as we know them became popular in the 17th century, a full 300 years later.
There is some belief that Celts once wore what was more like a primitive kilt, but it would not have been the modern, pleated version worn in the film. No one during William Wallace’s lifetime would have worn a kilt – and certainly not to battle. Some see this fact as nitpicking, but it is a colossal error. It’s not enough that Gibson took his name, did he have to take Robert’s honor, too? 3. Additionally, he did not fight for the English at Falkirk, nor did he have anything to do with the eventual betrayal of William Wallace in Robroyston. Robert the Bruce comes off as a villain in Braveheart, but the nobleman also became another Scottish hero. Plus, there’s now been a perfectly lovely and accurate Hollywood film made about Robert the Bruce to glean inspiration from. So if the studio calls the upcoming sequel Braveheart 2, the name needs to refer to Robert the Bruce if they want to right the wrong. Hence, he earned the nickname brave heart. When the English executed Robert the Bruce, they cut out his heart, which then returned to Scotland. That posthumous nickname went to Robert the Bruce, a contemporary who does appear in the film. William Wallace never earned the nickname Braveheart. Braveheart Isn’t William Wallace’s Nameįirst of all, the title’s all wrong. There’s not enough space nor whiskey to break down all the inaccuracies, so let’s talk about some of the worst ones.
Brave 2 real movie movie#
It’s unlikely that anyone would get the details right, so how could Braveheart get them wrong? And how could it get them so wrong that the film might because “the most historically inaccurate movie ever made?” In other words, there is a much longer history of depicting William Wallace as a romantic folk hero and freedom fighter than there is a history of Wallace’s lasting accomplishments. Queen Victoria bought Balmoral in the Scottish Highlands, the court started wearing Bonnie Prince Charlie knick-knacks, and they constructed the National Wallace Monument. Blind Harry wasn’t alive during the time of William Wallace, so facts were tenuous at best.ĭuring the Victorian period, a new fascination with Scotland took off among British royalty. Back in 1470, his heroic escapades first made it into writing in The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie by the bard Blind Harry. William Wallace has enjoyed epic press over the 700-odd years since he died. There is little contemporary written record nor archaeological evidence that provides a clear timeline for what Wallace did and when. Here’s the problem with depicting William Wallace on the screen: no one knows much about him. The story is relatively simple, and Braveheart doesn’t deviate too much from the main plot. At the end of his life, he was betrayed by a friend, given over to the English, and then executed at Smithfield in London.
In his famous victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, he kept the English King Edward I out of Scotland but only for a few more months.
Best known as a freedom fighter, he fought two major battles and had a win rate of 50 percent. William Wallace was born in 1270 in Lanarkshire. William Wallace and Robert the Bruce were real people, and their fights for the kingdom of Scotland was also real. Braveheart Is a True Story with One Big Caveat So, in the face of Braveheart 2, let’s talk about where the original film deviated from the historical script.
0 kommentar(er)
