Skip to main content

The trouble with Scotland is that it’s full of Scots.

Braveheart
(1995)

(SPOILERS) With some Best Picture Oscar winners, it's difficult to conceive the precise conflation of circumstances that compelled Academy members to plumb for a particular contender. So it is with Mel's ridiculous medieval martyrdom epic. My objections to Braveheart, however, aren't to do with its historical inaccuracies, be it the woad, the plaid, the facts of William Wallace's life, or the Battle of Stirling Bridge not taking place on a bridge; with the biopic (in its loosest sense), fidelity tends to fall away as a source of vexation if the overriding content passes muster. The problem with the picture is that it simply lacks the sensibility to fill the shoes it clearly wants to; if Eastwood's passage to director takes in the Siegel tradition, Gibson's goes via the Lethal Weapon route.


Which is a shame, as Mel's a much more talented filmmaker than Clint. But where the latter directs with reserve that sometimes verges on indifference (or torpor), Gibson cannot hide his passion for his material, and with projects like this or the recent Hacksaw Ridge – ironically, or tellingly, also nominated for Best Picture – tends to overspill into shameless melodrama, clodden clichés and brazen audience manipulation. The result is the most audience-baiting of '90s winners this side of Titanic (with which it shares a gag-inducingly evocative Celtic-tinged score from James Horner, apparently one of the best-selling soundtracks ever). It makes me think Gibson should stick to foreign-language movies going forward, as whatever I may think of The Passion of the Christ (not a lot) or Apocalypto (a near-masterpiece), there's a coherence to them that comes from a focus on visual storytelling rather than the slackening of grip that seems to ensue when characters are able to indulge overt, and corny, emoting.


Maybe Mel shouldn't have played Wallace (he had to really to get financing, and even then, it was a struggle). As soon as he made the decision, he brought the baggage of his star persona. It's not that he can't fit well enough into a period piece, in the the way Chuck Heston does in Ben-Hur or Kevin Costner does in Dances with Wolves; it's that by this point, he inevitably moulds it around that persona (compare and contrast with Gallipoli). So Walllace is now a designer Scotsman by way of Thunderdome with an uber mullett to match (the same one he has as a kid – no wonder Wallace grew up with such attitude, having to carry such a horrifically-coiffured burden on his shoulders all those years). At times with such accompanying laddish abandon, there's a feeling this is not so far from a very violent, thirteenth-century Police Academy, with Mel in the cheeky Steve Guttenberg role and Patrick McGoohan as Lieutenant Harris, taking exception to his disrespectfulness.


With that kind of sensibility, the reveal that Wallace, very much the man of the people and not the nobleman Wallace actually was, is also a cultured man of the people (and an artist to boot), one versed in Latin and French, who has even been to Rome, so as to show up those snooty, snotty English, is simply very, very cheesy (the cumulative effect is one of Bruce Willis in Hudson Hawk when he orders a menu item in perfect Italian before asking "Oh, and bring me a bottle of ketchup, will ya?" but minus the wall-to-wall irreverence for everything). Wallace also wants the quiet life ("If I can live in peace, I will") until poor dear Murron (Catherine McCormack) has her throat slit by the English bastards (Mel's determined to make you hate the English even if you are English).


At times, Gibson's so sincere, his approach verges on parody, such that dream sequences pock the narrative in very literal fashion, one of which segues into a silly bit where he rides a horse into Alun Armstrong's bedroom and then leaps into a moat; it's designed to feed into Wallace the myth, but because it's depicted as actually happening, there are times you half wonder if you're watching The Princess Bride. Then there's the – surprise, surprise – repetitive Christ imagery, from Wallace raising his hands (before raising a sword), to being dragged through the streets and spat on, to being tied on a cross board (before being thoroughly emasculated). 


So what's there to like about Braveheart? Well, you can't make any headway at all without first making a caveat, but McGoohan – let's not forget Mel was considering a big screen The Prisoner at one point – hoodwinks you into believing you're in a much better film whenever he appears, despite a fake hooter that occasionally looks like it's in competition with Peter Sellers' dentist disguise in The Pink Panther Strikes Again (an Academy Award for Best Make-up right there). 


Yes, his King Edward I is a two-dimensional Disney villain, and much of his time is spent disapproving of his son (Peter Hanley), a stereotypical mincing queen despite Mel's protestations that he wasn't being homophobic, honest. But he's such a splendid rotter, you can't help but experience the picture meeting its full cartoonish potential whenever he opens his mouth. Apparently, Gibson was bewildered that anyone would find Edward's murder of his son's lover funny, but you don't have the king establishing a setup of "Then tell me, what advice would you offer on the present situation?" before delivering the punchline of throwing Phillip (Stephen Billington) out of the nearest window before he gets to answer if you don't intend it to be funny; I bet Mel laughed his socks off in the editing room on every single playback). 


CommanderI beg your pardon, sire. Won't we hit our own troops?
Edward IYes, but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack.

There's an – how intentional, it's hard to assess – Alan Rickman quality to the villainy here (it was only four years since Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves). McGoohan quickly becomes the droll spur that hastens the proceedings, and it's highly enjoyable watching Longshanks storming into any scene in utterly unreconstituted fashion, whether it's insulting the Scots, the Irish (McGoohan's resigned "Irish…" when they change sides on the battlefield is perfection), the opposite gender ("That's what happens when you send a woman" he scoffs of Sophie Marceau's Princess Isabelle giving away the gold), or his blasé attitude to casualties among his own men. And he kind of wins, even if it's on his death bed, so if you're on board with McGoohan's performance, Braveheart almost has a happy ending.


Also on the plus side, even at this early stage in his directorial career, Mel's grasp of action choreography – he had good tutors in the likes of George Miller, Peter Weir and Richard Donner – is very impressive. Perhaps more so with the smaller scale catharsis of avenging the loss of Murron than later battle scenes, but he knows what he wants, and what he wants is viscera (although, having said that, there are a surprising number of obviously under-connecting blows in the picture).


The cast are mostly very good too. William's broadly colloquial camaraderie with his men 
is very watchable, thanks to the likes of Brendan Gleeson (who, incredibly, looks quite young), Brian Cox (who also managed to star in that year's other historical Scottish epic, Rob Roy), David O'Hara (as the Mad Irishman caricature – although all the characters are caricatures, so he's just one that stands out as wacky), Tommy Flanagan and Peter Mullan.


There's also Ian Bannen in some dodgy leper makeup (remember that Academy Award?) as Robert the Bruce's duplicitous father, and the Bruce himself (Angus Macfadyen – apparently, a sequel is planned with Macfadyen reprising his role). The Bruce is an intriguingly conflicted character, but Macfadyen never really has a chance to dig into him – all Mel really wanted was to cast someone who comes across as a bit weedy, because Wallace is all man.


In general, Braveheart doesn't have the vision, poetry or mythmaking of a true epic; it's rough and ready in tone, the aforementioned Lethal Weapon in a period setting and on a broad canvas, not even Peckinpah-esque in relishing the queasy beauty of violence. Mel's charm is very contemporary, and he doesn't shrug that off for something immersive, probably consciously, irrespective of the other anachronisms. What you’ll remember are the limbs being hacked, genitals sliced, buttocks pierced and skulls caved in. And hanging, drawing and… well we didn’t get to see the quartering. And that Mel may as well have got Rowan Atkinson as the battlefield nobleman who meets a nasty end, so risibly chinless is he. He really doesn't like those English.  You'll remember Mel's impassioned imploration for freedom, of course, and his supreme sacrifice for nationalism and shrugging off the English yolk. What you won't encounter is coherence over and above the grisly moments and odd rousing speech; even that other actor-turned-director Costner, in his much derided (latterly) Best Picture Oscar Winner Dances with Wolves, had that.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…