History vs Hollywood

[beerbecue]

Now that Braveheart has taken its lashings.......

I caught a bit of Highlander, for the whos-know-what time, and noticed that, during one of the scenes with his young bride, Connor was wearing what appeared to be a filabeg..... I forget what year he was supposed to be born.... but for some reason that seemed out of place....

[Pour1Malt]

Now that Braveheart has taken its lashings.......

I caught a bit of Highlander, for the whos-know-what time, and noticed that, during one of the scenes with his young bride, Connor was wearing what appeared to be a filabeg..... I forget what year he was supposed to be born.... but for some reason that seemed out of place....

ah... Highlander... noo is thot the wan where

the ainly Scot in the film does a terrible Spanish accent? :rolleyes:

[macwilkin]

One thing that "Braveheart" did do right was its depiction of Robert the Bruce. The Bruce was, like Wallace, the Comyns, and other Scottish leaders, of Anglo-Norman ancestry, and was not quite the Scottish nationalist that some paint him today; in fact, Bruce did side with the English on a number of occasions.

The film also did not mention the defeat of the English at Roslin in 1303 by John Comyn, nor did it mention that Wallace was a committed Balliol man.

But, as a Comyn/Cumming descendant, I am a wee bit biased! :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Todd

ps: moved to off-topic section.

[Pour1Malt]

One thing that "Braveheart" did do right was its depiction of Robert the Bruce. ...

nay... the Bruce DIDNAE betray Wallace...

John Menteith did....

[An t-Ileach]

nay... the Bruce DIDNAE betray Wallace...

John Menteith did....

Funny, I was just going to say something like that.

[porrick]

An enjoyable thread

Haven't seen Braveheart for sime time now, but does it claim to be a true story? A historical film? A documentary, even? If the answer is "no", then I guess there is no need to criticize it for being inaccurate. It is, well, fiction.

Though, as you all point out, the history of the time is really interesting, and it is important to ensure that viewers of the film realise it is fictional (with a couple of real names thrown in for good measure).

To quote one of the scholars who have taken the Da Vinci Code apart: "It's historically inaccurate - but it's a damn good read!"

[Mike1]

Daz, you ar correct in saying that little is really known. When one of the best accounts of Wallace is that of Blind Harry (which does seem to stray into fancy more than once), then there are a lot of blanks that cannot be filled in.

[Freelander Sporrano]

I've had a look at some history Mag's I have here at home ..I found a list of the liberties Hollywood took with Bravheart

1: There is no evidence that Wallace's father was killed by the English in 1280- There was no war between the two countries between 1217 and 1296

2: There is no reason to believe wallace had a wife at all.

3: There was no such thing as Prima Nocta or Droit de seigneur until Victorian novelists invented it.

4: The costumes are abysmally inaccurate. Particularly the arms and armour. Scottish and English soldiers of the 13th and 14th centuries were visually indistinguishable from one another.

5: Nobody was ever the Earl of Bruce and nobody in Lowland Scotland was a member of a clan.

6: The battle of Stirling bridge took place at a bridge ..not a country park.

7: Wallace was not raised in a stone shed in the Highlands and Medieval Edinburgh did not consist of a fairy tale wooden tower and two hovels.

8: Isabella never met William Wallace she did not marry Edward II until January 1308

9: Wallace never supported the Bruce claim to the throne. He fought to restore John I.

10. Wallace did not paint his face blue. Nor did he weild a two-handed sword. The sword at the Wallace Monument is a 15th or 16th century artefact.

Source BBC history Magazine by Chris Brown

Recommended reading.. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...215182-3253463

Vist : http://www.nationalwallacemonument.com

[macwilkin]

nay... the Bruce DIDNAE betray Wallace...

John Menteith did....

If you'll read my message again, you'll see that I never made the claim that Bruce did, only that the movie did show Bruce's changing loyalties, including his "English" periods.

Reference: "Robert the Bruce's Rivals: The Comyns, 1212-1314" by Allan Young.

Cheers,

Todd

[macwilkin]

An enjoyable thread

Haven't seen Braveheart for sime time now, but does it claim to be a true story? A historical film? A documentary, even? If the answer is "no", then I guess there is no need to criticize it for being inaccurate. It is, well, fiction.

Though, as you all point out, the history of the time is really interesting, and it is important to ensure that viewers of the film realise it is fictional (with a couple of real names thrown in for good measure).

To quote one of the scholars who have taken the Da Vinci Code apart: "It's historically inaccurate - but it's a damn good read!"

True, but history teachers like myself have to clean up the mess that such movies leave, since most folks will take the "history" presented in the movie as "gospel" (no pun intended towards "The Da Vinci Code"!)

Sigh...but at least it's job security.

Cheers,

Todd