Braveheart (1995)
Every man dies, but not every man really lives.
THE SUMMARY: A rogue guerilla warrior avenges his wife, defies overwhelming odds, and dies a principled death, inspiring the Scots to defeat the English and win their freedom. It’s pretty much Scottish Patriot, or maybe The Patriot is American Braveheart, but that’s a good thing. It’s an excellent mix of action and philosophy that is rarely dull despite its three-hour runtime.
FROM MOVIE PICKER ‘THE EVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATIVE’: While not perfectly historically accurate, and with imperfect Scottish accents, there are few epic stories that can match the brilliance of Braveheart. The great Mel Gibson lights up the screen both in front and behind the camera. The characters are extremely well defined in their archetypal roles, allowing you to connect on many levels with the mayhem that ensues.
JAMIE AND JEANNE’S SHOW AI ART FOR THE WEEK:
Mel’s eye wasn’t quite this lazy
Looks closely - there are many Matts and Blondes
THE BEST:
The philosophy of freedom and death: There are fates worse than death - among them is slavery. Fundamentally, Braveheart is a reminder that to live under tyranny is not to live at all. There are several great moments in the scripting and performance to this lesson: Wallace’s rallying cry that the English may take their lives, but they will never take their freedom. Wallace reminding a pleading Isabella before his execution that if he were to submit to King Longshanks, he’d be dead already. And of course, Wallace screaming ‘freedom!’ rather than ‘mercy’ to end his fatal suffering.
The point? To sacrifice your freedom to tyrants is to submit to death regardless. A life without self-determination and agency is no life at all. Men of this generation have commonly forgotten this truth, preferring comfort and caretaking, even if it means someone else’s control.
The philosophy of proper government: Speaking of, what is the role of government? Is it, as the founders theorized, to secure the rights of free men? Or is it, as the soyjaks counter, to give you ‘free’ shit? This question is the difference between men rising to their potential as providers for families, and men deteriorating into domesticated servants of the state. It’s a point demonstrated when Wallace confronts the Scottish Nobles about a proper government: ‘there’s a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.’
My only dispute is a slight one with the phrasing - government doesn’t ‘provide’ freedom. It simply respects the freedoms that are inherent to men, but that’s something of a semantic point.
The philosophy of the warrior poet: This concept is the essence of manhood: not strong or smart, strong and smart. Pinnacle masculinity is having the strength to kill a guy with your bare hands, but the intelligence and moral restraint to understand that force’s application. The point is illustrated early in Wallace’s life when his uncle tells him to learn to use his brain before the sword. Notice the lesson is not learn to use your brain in place of your sword. It’s learn to use your brain so that you can use your sword. This is exactly what Wallace does in strategically faking a cavalry retreat to bait the stronger English army into attack to defeat them. He thinks intelligently before he applies the violence.
Don’t be a smartass slob. And don’t be a meathead idiot. Discipline yourself mentally and physically. Be a warrior poet.
The absolute brutality: I’m really glad I live in a time of guns and not blades, because if I actually do have to fight in the upcoming Gay War, I would way rather get shot than stabbed, slashed, or gutted. Braveheart is not for the squeamish, but it’s not supposed to be, and I appreciate that it doesn’t hold back. I like a reminder of how cushy modern life is. Sure, I may have complaints about inconveniences, but at least I don’t have to sprint at a thousand men with blades into certain dismemberment.
The best ones (not safe for work, of course): Wallace’s revenge on the magistrate, the icepick to the dome, the hand chop, and holy mother of God, the taint slice. I’ll gladly get shot in the face over any of these.
Not afraid to kill off the ‘safe’ characters: One of the reasons Game of Thrones is among the greatest shows ever made is because nobody is safe. Characters who seem obviously safe are abruptly and unapologetically killed off, and you rarely see it coming. Likewise, Braveheart has the… bravery… to do the same. I thought no way would they kill off Murron after Wallace saved her the first time. He’d just swoop in and save her again. Nope. Throat slit. Likewise, I expected some sort of resolution for Wallace in the end. Nope. Tortured and beheaded, Ned Stark style.
Life isn’t safe and predictable. The best movies aren’t, either.
Not afraid to mock the fruit: These days, GLAAD has overtaken Hollywood and grades studios based on how overtly homosexual their productions are. It’s not enough to have no gay characters. And it’s certainly not enough to have gay characters with otherwise negative qualities. Only homo heroes are allowed.
That’s why I appreciate the plot point about King Longshanks’ (very likely) gay son, Prince Edward. It’s not even an anti-gay thing. It’s just recognition that the gay lifestyle has its problems, and there’s nothing wrong with portraying them. Prince Edward is an incompetent narcissist coward who will end his father’s royal bloodline, enraging his father upon his death. Despite the propaganda, being gay ain’t all rainbows. Confusion and conflict often result.
The founding philosophy centuries before the founding
Freedom!
THE WORST:
Historically dubious: I wasn’t expecting a documentary, and I certainly don’t dock a Wicky for not meeting that non-expectation. But it must be acknowledged that Braveheart is very loose with its storytelling, historically. Yes, Wallace was a real 13th Century Scottish guy, and yes, he really fought the English, but per a good summary, major Braveheart plot points are just outright fabrications. Wallace wasn’t really a poor commoner - he was the son of nobility. The Battle of Stirling was completely changed from a bridge trap to the fake cavalry retreat, and the idea wasn’t really Wallace’s. Princess Isabella was a child in France at the time of these events, not Wallace’s new boo. And actually, Wallace’s torturous execution was worse. They cut off his genitals, and burned his guts in front of him while he was still alive. Then they put his head on London Bridge, and sent the four quarters of his dismembered body to four corners of England.
No thanks on the second romance: For reasons beyond its ahistorical fabrication, I’m not a fan of Wallace’s second romance with Isabella of France. Sure, Wallace’s wife is dead and Isabella’s husband is a butt pirate, so it’s not an infidelity thing- it’s just that this second romance cheapens the original one with Murron. Wallace goes from impregnating some new chick to seeing the ghost of his old chick in about five seconds, and it makes him seem more like an opportunistic womanizer than a man in true love.
Times were tough - I get it. Back then it was just a race to plant your seed before someone chops your head off. And of course I hate most movie romances anyway, so this one isn’t even especially terrible. I just don’t buy into either romance very much, because of Wallace messing around with the other.
A little heavy on the slow motion corniness: For all the action praise this movie earns and deserves, it is a little heavy on silly slow motion stuff. Horses charging, clubbing faces, chopping heads, etc. If many of these establishing or tension-building shots were played in real time, the movie might be closer to 2 1/2 hours instead of 3. You might argue the drama might suffer. Nah. We all know brutal violence is coming. Nobody is surprised by how slowly the swords are pulled out.
The first sex scene is so much better than this second one - the first one had moonlight forest side boob, bigfoot-style
Wallace gets revenge at a snail’s pace
THE RATING: 5/5 Wickies. For any minor flaws, Braveheart is a true masterpiece of the philosophy of manhood: skill, strength, and moral fortitude, with courage over death itself. If you truly believe in ‘liberty or death,’ it’s impossible to hate this one.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇ Note: if you get a notification saying you have already voted and you haven’t, this is because of an issue with iOS (Apple mobile devices). Try voting on a desktop or laptop computer.
NEXT WEEK: Se7en (1995)
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE! October’s movie nominations are from listener ‘The Evolutionary Conservative.’ Note: if you get a notification saying you have already voted and you haven’t, this is because of an issue with iOS (Apple mobile devices). Try voting on a desktop or laptop computer.
Want to be the movie nominator for the month? Here’s how - fill out the form below. Note: once you are entered, you are eligible for selection on an ongoing basis. One entry per participant - multiple entries will be rejected.