Rob Roy

[macwilkin]

When you watch a movie sit down suppend reality and enjoy, you are there to be entertained not to learn.

Not necessarily. I understand the specifics of the movie business just as anyone else does, but I think you can be entertained and learn something at the same time. There are some very good movies that are entertaining and educational; Disney's recent take on the Alamo, for example, complete with the Piper, John MacGregor.

But, I, in general, do not watch the so-called "fantasy" movies; real life has just as many thrilling stories, and the very fact that they did happen to real people makes them more compelling.

Regards,

Todd

[bubba]

I recall Randall Wallace, the author of Braveheart, said in an interview, " I never let the facts get in the way of the truth". My reaction to that statement was "HUH????"

[Mike1]

Remember THIS ONE?

[Panache]

This has certainly turned into an interesting thread, Snake Eyes seems to have a talent for starting them.

Somethings that work in a history book just don't work as a movie. So, do you not bother? Or do you make the story work as entertainment at the sacrifice of the origins of the story? I think this question is older than movies and books. It started back when people gathered around the fire and the storyteller would speak of days before. To keep the interest of the group or to teach a lesson the storyteller would slightly change the characters and events. Thus the history became altered with each telling. Eventually the history turned to a legend.

I remember a line from an old western The Man who shot Liberty Valance .

"This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Cheers

[MacWage]

I recall Randall Wallace, the author of Braveheart, said in an interview, " I never let the facts get in the way of the truth". My reaction to that statement was "HUH????"

I've SEEN it said 2 ways (as I said on page 3 of thread):
"Of course, what else would you suspect when Randal Wallace (writer of Braveheart) says "I never let the facts get in the way of a good story" (now sometimes rephrased as "way of the truth")."
(Nice link Mike!)

Back to topic:
Rob Rob was MUCH better from a look/feel/personality/ stand point.
My question is how it relates to the ACTUAL life events of Robert Roy MacGregor (Campbell).

[macwilkin]

This has certainly turned into an interesting thread, Snake Eyes seems to have a talent for starting them.

Somethings that work in a history book just don't work as a movie. So, do you not bother? Or do you make the story work as entertainment at the sacrifice of the origins of the story? I think this question is older than movies and books. It started back when people gathered around the fire and the storyteller would speak of days before. To keep the interest of the group or to teach a lesson the storyteller would slightly change the characters and events. Thus the history became altered with each telling. Eventually the history turned to a legend.

I remember a line from an old western The Man who shot Liberty Valance .

"This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Cheers

Jamie, I use that quote every semester to start my discussion of the history of the American West and the "Frontier Thesis" of the historian Frederick Jackson Turner. Great minds think alike, eh? :mrgreen:

T.

[Warhoover]

The portrayal of the Bruce in Braveheart was one of the few things I was comfortable with about the movie, because they showed him as he was; Most forget (or were unaware of) that Bruce sided with the English when it suited him, and was not the "super-nationalist" that myth portrays him today.

I think you have hit on why I said I felt "uncomfortable" with the portrayal of the Bruce. Knowing he did side with the English when it suited him and they did bring this out in the movie, but at the same time the writers seemed to want to also perpetuate the Bruce legend as well. Its all perception I guess.

I have to laugh at myself now because I am falling into the "trap" that I spoke against earlier. I am picking apart a MOVIE with reguards to history.
"My hypocrisy only goes so far."

[macsim]

I have a book....either it was a history of Rob Roy or more likely it was Highland Manners and Customs (or something like that) by Sir Walter where it mentions that there was actually a (near) duel between Rob Roy and someone named Cunningham though the circumstances were different. It says that Rob Roy actually fled the field rather than fight if I remember correctly. I'll have to dig it out of the dust bins.

[Woodsheal]

This is the best history of Rob Roy, and highland life during his period:

http://www.amazon.com/Rob-Roy-Macgre...e=UTF8&s=books

A great read...!

[SnakeEyes]

This has certainly turned into an interesting thread, Snake Eyes seems to have a talent for starting them.

I really don't try to, sir

In relation to the discussion above about Robert the Bruce, and his portrayal in Braveheart... I wonder what kind of reception he would have gotten if they'd shown him backstabbing his rival... in church! Or at least thats how the story goes.

In all honesty, Robert the Bruce is one of my favorite characters in Braveheart, probably only second to Stephen of Ireland. The scene with this dialogue...

Robert the Bruce: Lands, titles, men, power... nothing.
Robert's Father: Nothing?
Robert the Bruce: I have nothing. Men fight for me because if they do not, I throw them off my land and I starve their wives and children. Those men who bled the ground red at Falkirk fought for William Wallace. He fights for something that I never had. And I took it from him, when I betrayed him. I saw it in his face on the battlefield and it's tearing me apart.
Robert's Father: All men betray. All lose heart.
Robert the Bruce: I don't want to lose heart. I want to believe as he does.

... is seriously heartwrenching. I get teary-eyed every time I watch it.

Wait a second, weren't we talking about Rob Roy?