There is a good reason that BraveHeart won the academy award that year for best picture – it really was a masterpiece in the historical epic genre. The film is a story that takes place in 13th century Scotland during her struggle to gain independence from England. The main characters along with key battles portrayed in the film were all very historical: William Wallace, Robert the Bruce, King Edward I, The Battle of Falkirk, The Battle of Stirling.
That being said, the story of William Wallace has for centuries been been more “legendary” than historical. The story of the “legend of William Wallace” exploded onto our cultural landscape as Mel Gibson’s, BraveHeart. Gibson’s Wallace was a revolutionary leader characterized by fearlessness, self-sacrifice and a single-minded vision. Wallace was committed to one thing and one thing only, the freedom of Scotland from British rule and tyranny. Wallace as BraveHeart was such a heroic figure, and his battle for freedom is such a compelling story, that it’s easy to overlook the critical sub-plot to the film.
The sub-plot centers on the struggles of a certain Scottish Lord who is the heir to the throne of Scotland, Robert the Bruce. Robert the Bruce is a gifted and capable leader. He admires Wallace and he is devoted to Scotland, but unlike Wallace, he lacks the single-minded vision. Wallace is “black and white” and does not entertain compromise. In contrast to Wallace, the Bruce is cautious, calculating, and at times, conflicted. Robert the Bruce wants to be like Wallace; he wants to lead his people to freedom, but tragically, in a moment of weakness, he ends up betraying Wallace in order to cut a deal with the the king of England.
One of the reasons that I love this film so much is that I really identify with the character, Robert the Bruce, and his struggle for integrity. Like the Bruce, I too admire Wallace for his courage, his passion, and his uncompromising nature, but the reality is that like the Bruce, my life falls well short of the heroic and legendary. I admire the “legend” of William Wallace, but I relate to the story of Robert the Bruce, the man who is still very much in the process of trying to close the gap between his ideas and his actions. I relate to the man who is tired of living constrained by the fears and cynicism of the people around him. In a powerful and defining scene (I couldn’t find that clip), the Bruce’s father is chiding his son saying,”All men lose heart, all men betray”, but Robert the Bruce shouts back at him, “I DON’T WANT TO LOSE HEART!!!” Who among us can’t relate to that struggle?
Historically, as well as in the last scene of the film, Robert the Bruce eventually led Scotland into several strategic battles, which led to Scotland’s freedom and to his ascendancy to the throne. The following clip is a scene that shows some of the contrast between the two men; Wallace confronts the Bruce’s political equivocations, and he challenges him to take his rightful place as the leader and the King of Scotland.
I had never thought of the difference between Wallace and Bruce as that of single-mindedness and on the other hand “cautious, calculated… conflicted.” Makes a lot of sense though… even with Wallace, he doesn’t start fighting with single-mindedness until after his wife is killed (I guess that’s a little speculative- he may have fought anyway given the opportunity). The single-mindedness emerges from the desire of vengeance and patriotism coming together. It is a very powerful depiction of how we often trade comfort and pleasure for the riskiness of a truly good life that seeks the good of others over oneself.
As a pacifist (although a short-tempered pacifist), I always struggle with this film for the obvious reasons. It’s a powerful story of self-sacrifice and uncompromising fearlessness. Great flick and has been a favorite of mine. But it’s right on the line between “gritty-realism” that shows the horror of war, and glorifying violence in the name of ______. It really shows (in a non-ironic way) what nasty things we do to replace one tyrant with the “freedom” that usually ends up being just another tyrant. Even killing other Christians so we can have “our” tyrant in place! Really nothing to do with the points you brought up, but just some thoughts :).
Hey,
Regarding the problems associated with regime change that you refer to, trading one “tyrant (for) another tyrant:” I know you said your comments were an “aside”, but they’re just too relevant to the film and thought provoking to ignore.
You are right to say that in the pursuit of “freedom” people/countries justify and rationalize evil and tyranny, but I think its interesting to note how this film handles that issue. The issue in question, regime change, is uniquely embedded in Robert the Bruce and the trajectory of his development as a leader. Robert the Bruce could easily have fulfilled the axiom of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”, but despite the external pressures, personal weaknesses, and moral failure (betraying Wallace), he manages to avoid ultimate corruption and in the final scene of the film, he succeeds in vindicating a major theme of BraveHeart, “Good Leaders Lay Down Their Lives for the People They Lead.”
The political commentary of this film is not that nuanced when it comes to it’s message on the use of power and for that matter, the use of violence. In fact, I think you would agree that morally speaking, this film is very simplistic: “freedom is good and tyranny is bad” and “self-sacrifice good and self-preservation bad.” And as you noted, for BraveHeart, violence is portrayed as a necessary and justifiable response to political tyranny (I could see where this mentality is antithetical to pacifist convictions).
In light of the message of the film, the grizzly violence may have been graphic, but I didn’t see it as being gratuitous and I’m not sure that I understand where the “fine line” is that you refer to. This naturally seems to speak to the issue regarding “violence in the movies” as a whole, but the dangers I sense with that discussion is that it seems to be on the same slope as the Avatar “world-view” discussion.
I know you didn’t explicitly address some of these issues and I certainly don’t expect you to answer them, but I think the nature of film is really tricky when it comes to the things like: values, content, message, and censorship. Again, I know these aren’t your issue per se – I just saw them laying there and thought I’d pick’em up. I knew this series would be stimulating. btw is our numbering system backwards or is this a countdown?
FREEDOM and peace, C
My point isn’t so much that Robert the Bruce is portrayed as a tyrant… the movie goes to great lengths to portray him as thoughtful and sensitive and the English as thoroughly corrupt, top to bottom. My point is more exactly what you said… the film isn’t attempting nuance, but to make the situation as black and white as possible. Which is fine, I realize it’s not what the movie is even trying to do, but the real world is almost never that black and white. And we do some nasty things when we convince ourselves that it is, when all we have to do is get rid of those people. And art does influence us in that way- kids who watch violent movies and play violent video games are more violent.
That was really a side issue, and what I’m really trying to point out, however poorly, is how often Christians are not discerning when it comes to violence in movies. We’ll walk out of movies if there’s too much sex, but somehow glorified violence is rarely questioned.
As far as the “line” I mentioned: Saving Private Ryan… horribly violent movie trying to show the true cost of war. Kill Bill… horribly violent movie that is trying to capitalize on violence for its sheer entertainment value (though to be fair Tarantino sees that as itself an artistic expression). I’m not sure where the line is between the two, or where Braveheart falls, but I think we should think about it, and be discerning. I’d have to write a book to more clearly say what I mean, but hopefully you catch my drift. Not censorship, but discernment.
Really, I meant all of this as a footnote originally. Sorry to distract from what you actually brought up about the movie. It’s a pet issue of mine, I guess.
Hey,
Please no apologies. Your points are totally salient and completely relevant to this dialog. Yes, we concur, the “simplicity” which allows the film to do what it does, is certainly not reflective of the complexities of “real world politics”, but it’s a good character story.
As for the “lines” we draw in relation to screen stories: I have personally made a pretty radical shift in the last ten years – I used to be pretty heavy on the “battle for world-view”, which predictably centered on the moral corruption of the film and music industry (and of course with the moral indiscretions of Bill Clinton). Even with this shift of my personal lines, I still “catch your drift” (no book required) with regard to the issue of discernment, but if I lean toward Tarantino, have I gone too far (I’m pretty sure my wife thinks so at times)?
I’m sure you know by now how much I sincerely appreciate this dialog, along with the insights and viewpoints you share on this site. And as for being a distraction – get out of here with that crazy talk! This is a “thread” and a dialog, and thankfully you are the kind of person who is willing to mix things up a bit with your “pet issues.” No “clones” or “world-view cage matches” here!
Let’s keep it continuous!
C
I once worked with an English woman who HATED the movie because it portrayed her beloved England so negatively. Of course she never saw the movie, but only hearing the stories (“lies!” she would say), was enough to get her raging about it.
Funny, as I was watching the scene where Wallace gets beheaded, I thought of my old coworker. The English crowd in that scene only saw Wallace as the enemy, not someone fighting to defend his country. That’s why I thought of Jane. She will only see her England in one light – those that dare to condemn England are enemies indeed. I am that way about the L.A. Lakers, how can anyone hate them (though I know many do)? From my perspective, they are the greatest, and Kobe one of the greatest among basketball men.
And my point is? Well, I forgot. Maybe something about how black and white we see the world, and how our perspective usually reigns over all others. But anyway, good movie, and go Lakers!
You just love men who can hit a thirty foot jump shot, falling out of bounds, hand in the face, with time expiring to win the game – which of course explains why you love me.
get a room
Interesting stuff. Braveheart is one of my all time favorites. This is just a friendly comment on what ya’ll have said and I’m adding nothing new. Sorry if I murky up the waters.
This discussion reminds me of the hermeneutical issues that we are constantly facing even in our world of hollywood, internet, media, and blogs.. and more blogs. The analysis of content, authorial intent, and perception weigh in on us from all sides. I do find Chris’ review excellent. One that brings these hermeneutical elements into play and emphasizes the positive lessons to be learned even from a “secular” movie. These personal “lines” that shift in Chris’ life evidence his growth into being a “william wallace” of sorts. Being able to see the beauty of life even in an “R” rated film and applying that to your life shows in my estimation a healthy theology of culture.
Its ironic how Hollywood finds a way to profit immensely by portraying vividly the stuff of life that are fundamentally “real” and even SOMETIMES do a good job at pointing to the virtuous life.
I also appreciate Luke’s sharp mind in raising issues that sometimes go unnoticed or even ignored in our evaluation of culture to our detriment. Again in our hermeneutic of culture we also need that type of evaluation because it is a much needed perspective that challenges us to have a robust and wise discernment in our engagement of our cultures. Without that kind of discernment we may fall into the danger becoming too “worldly” and get sucked into the subtle “evils” that plague a fallen world.
And Go Lakers!!! In the Lakers case, there is no need for a fair hermeneutic. Life is unfair sometimes and it surely is black and white. Champions win and prospects dream. Beware of THE CLOSER!!
Joe, thanks for the vote of confidence, but honestly I’m not sure if my “shifting lines” are the result of “growth” – of course I would like to believe that’s the case, but as you noted, Luke’s call to “discernment” in our engagement of culture is important. I share your “ironic” view of how Hollywood somehow manages to provide us with really good stories and character studies which necessary for reflecting on our own lives and “stories.” Good to hear from you.
C
Maylannee,
I would like to think of the Cavaliers as 13th century Scotland, and the Lakers as Longshanks. Cleveland is the underdog, and been beaten down for many years by the evil Longshanks (like the Lakers). And LeBron is like William Wallace, he has come to free Cleveland from the evil tyranny of king Kobe Longshanks. And Shaq is like Robert the Bruce. He has a past relationship with the evil empire (LA), but is now considering fighting for the good guys (Cleveland). May God add His blessing to His word.
Scott, Scott, Scott… I feel for you, I can only imagine how difficult it is not having a winning team (historically speaking). That must get you down. And I understand its not just a basketball issue with you and Cleveland sports. Really, it must be hard. So I’ll give you your time in the limelight, since its so rare. Enjoy.
Since we’re engaging the NBA in a biblical sense. May I apply a text to the situation now that the Cavs have the best record in the NBA and are 1st place in standings. Text: Matthew 2:16 – “…the first will be last.”
Spoken as a scholar and as a prophet!
You guys are just jealous.