Mel Gibson was absolutely correct.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

When he made a strong statement about horrific control, war and more, when he directed Braveheart, he accurately portrayed the British of the era.

[Swamp Rat]

1. Very magnanimous of you.

:D

[Celica Toyota]

33. Gibson's not an anti-Semite. But he has made anti-Bush comments.

Of course, the police and the press ALWAYS tell the truth when it comes to anyone who criticizes Bush.

[Swamp Rat]

35. Mel, is that you?

:rofl:

[im10ashus]

43. No.

That's his publicist. Damage control, you know. :-)

[frazzledmom]

39. Bwhahahaha that's pretty funny...

Let's see, directed Passion Of The Christ, refused to disavow his fathers statements that the holocaust didn't happen, went on a drunken binder screaming about those "fucking jews who cause all the wars". Not an anti-semetic bone in his body :eyes:

[still_one]

46. oh yeah, that's the first thing people usually do when picked up for DUI

make anti-Jewish remarks

[LostinVA]

47. Hello, Mrs. Gibson!!!

[Neshanic]

48. Mrs. Gibson is not going to heaven, Mel said so, She's a heathen.

[LostinVA]

49. No, she's a HERETIC

Get the crazy Traditionalist Church doctrine right...

[cali]

2. When did he do this ? n/t

[Orrex]

3. But he was wrong about Stirling

It was a bridge battle very different from his onscreen portrayal.

And the beautiful princess was a toddler at the time of Wallace's death. She probably didn't have much opportunity a jailcell visit before his execution.

:evilgrin:

[LNM]

4. ask a scotsman their opinion

My understanding is that the scots weren't too pleased with the movie.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. almost as pleased about Blair as the movie

They can't stand him. Wheni was there last year, they offered Blair for a even up trade with Bush. Then, after another drink, they reconsidered.

[sasha031]

9. not from what I heard

and my family is Scot,I also have friends from there.

that movie came out right before the elections for Scotland to get it's own Parliament, I heard it drove people to the poles.

I wonder where some info comes from, you tell me how I Scot would not think that was an important movie.

[LostinVA]

24. The poster is right in that Scottish historians

And Scottish reenactors loathed it for its horrible inaccuracies.

[MemphisTiger]

28. Who cares? If Gibson wanted to make a documentary he would

have but he made a movie instead. Go read a book if you want accuracy, if you want to be entertained go to the movies.

[Scout]

34. exactly correct

many people find "real" history to be BORING. If an entertaining movie makes people want to find out more about the real history, then I'm all for it.

How many people didn't know or care anything at all about Scotland and William Wallace before Braveheart came out?

If I want real history, I'll read books or watch documentaries. When I want entertainment, I go to the movies.

Besides, since the winners write history, how do we even know for sure that the books are correct?

[LostinVA]

36. Sorry, have to totally disagree

Then, he shouldn't call the movie "Braveheart" based on the story of William Wallace. I write as well as know my history, and a bit of fudging for entertainment purposes is okay, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

You can entertain and still stay accurate. Lots of movies have done it, many of them very entertaining... many more entertaining than "Braveheart." "Gladiator" is a good example of one... they actually even toned some of it down because they thought people wouldn't believe it. A friend is a Prof who teaches several classes on Ancient History, specifically the Greeks and Romans. He also does reenactment as a Roman Legionnaire. He was quite pleased with "Gladiator."

Many movies entice people to go read about it. THAT'S what an accurate, entertaining historical movie can do. Just look at bookstore sales after such a movie opens.

Lots of other ones, too. Hell... "Madagascar" was more accurate than "Braveheart" -- they got most of the lemurs right, and the Fossa really are cat-like creatures that eat lemurs. And King Julien really IS Self Proclaimed King of the Lemurs.

[MemphisTiger]

38. "based" on a true story is the key. Anyone who thinks a feature

movie is true history is a moron. Sure, "Madagascar" was accurate with penguins driving the boat.

[idgiehkt]

25. there was also a disturbing undercurrent of homophobia in it.

How nice of Gibson to shade it that way. Don't remember much about that movie, I tried to find out if it was accurate and was surprised to find that so little is known about the life of William Wallace that alot of that movie is speculation. But the hostility toward the gay heir and his lover, especially in the grisly way the lover is killed, is palpable. That was more than just a narration of events, that was a point of view being expressed. It was especially hard to stomach considering the close portrayal of the friendship between Wallace and the manly man best friend, which had a definite homoerotic charge to it. In fact, if you put these two side by side you can see Gibson's whole conflict with regards to homosexuality; it seems feminine men are bad and should be destroyed, but strong affection between he-men is okay as long as it is never expressed verybally and is kept under the table, or worked out in an agressive, manly way, for instance, by appearing in 'buddy' films.

[sasha031]

6. that was a brilliant movie

most of it was accurate, he could not have known the Princess at that time, but it did add to the story.

there are more important things going on than Gibson slipping.

I was shocked when I heard he was a republican, but now I don't know if he really is, I know he hates Bush and the cabal.

I wouldn't mind if he was on our side...

[JoDog]

16. I'm afraid not

I'm a medieval re-enactor and member of the Society of Creative Anachronism who has studied the early Celtic and Viking cultures. While I am far from an expert, I can assure you, along with others who have responded to this thread, that "Braveheart" was way off. The only things the movie probably got right were the names of the countries and the stubborn, independent nature of my Scottish ancestors. Dates, people, places and even clothing were altered from historical reality.

These websites go far deeper in detail:
http://www.answers.com/topic/braveheart (scroll down the page)
http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml

And frankly, at this point, I do mind if he's on our side. The comments he made while drunk, which he has admitted to making, confirm that he is trapped in the Stone Age with his Holocaust denying father.

[LibertyLover]

41. Off topic, but what Kingdom?

I'm in Atlantia, barony of Lochmere.

I enjoyed Braveheart as a story, but any resemblance to real history was purely coincidental.

[LostinVA]

22. Most of it was completely inaccurate -- COMPLETELY

One of my majors was European history, and I'm a student of history to this day, especially British and Irish history.

The mistakes are literally too numerous to list here... but, everything from Wallace's upbringing to the class of his wife to Gibson's so-bad Great Kilt, to the Queen's age, to NO BRIDGE at the Battle of Stirling Bridge... etc. etc. etc. etc.

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

Even the Right of First Night has been semi-discredited.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. I noticed the Battle of Stirling Bridge didn't have a bridge.

A scotsman asked him why he didn't include it and Gibson said, "it got in the way." To which the Scotsman replied, "the British noticed the same thing."

That movie was slightly more historically accurate than Conan the Barbarian. And Mel's a complete loon.

[cgrindley]

8. No he didn't

It was nonsense. Anachronistic, a-historical, illogical and asinine nonsense.

[cali]

10. crickets chirping and all that

So when did Gibson make this statement, or are you referring to his inebriated ramblings? Or, for that matter, is this a goof, just something to roil the waters? Inquiring minds.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. sarcasm, in an off-handed matter. Because,

we have Iraq falling apart.
we have Israel claiming to have 48 hours of no bombing, except where and when they want to bomb.
we have horrific heat across the nation, and not one word out of DC, Dem or GOP, about global warming.
We have billions in aid stolen by US companies AND a DOD who threatens anyone who investigates it with criminal charges of their own.
we have a FDA which refuses to accept science over religious theories
we have an EPA which ignroes science period
we have so many troubles, and what is on the news? besotted comments from a lame director who had a few hits on screen.

Think of this thread as a totally futlie gesture about the idiocy of our media and our world at the moment.

[cali]

11. self-delete dupe

[enuffs_enuffs]

12. Mel is absolutely an entertainer...

AND THATS IT!

Personally... I'd prefer to watch Mad Maxx 1, 2 and 3 for future historical accuracy.

[MemphisTiger]

29. Mad Max kicked a$$

and welcome to DU

[enuffs_enuffs]

31. Been a fan for years...

I started posting years ago... 2 posts about Coulters implied shrivled "pie."

Simply implied... not explicitly stated and my posts were deleted. That rather pissed me off. Now it seems DU is balls to the wall... and I like it sooo much more.

Thanks for the welcome!

[jobycom]

13. Great movie, bad history. What's with Prince Edward being a flamer?

Prince Edward was clearly gay, from all the texts about it, and just as clearly, no one cared. He was described by his friends and enemies as athletic, strikingly handsome, muscular, fierce in battle, noble of appearance, and basicly, very "manly." The barons who eventually had him executed did so because he refused to listen to their advice and ran the country into the ground while promoting his favorites over them.

Wallace died long before Edward, the princess and Wallace never met, the Bruce didn't so much betray Wallace as much as Wallace turned on him, and Wallace knew this before they went to battle.

But as a movie, it was still a thrilling ride, and Patrick Mcgoohan was a wonderful King Edward II.

As for Gibson's latest bit--so, he's a bad drunk. Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the rest are more hate-filled when they are sober. Gibson is being "Dixie-chicked" to send the message to America that you can't disagree with Israel. Gibson's words and actions were horrible, of course, but as the arresting officer said, pretty routine for a DUI stop. I just don't care one way or the other about Gibson--nothing he's done since Braveheart has even tempted me to go see it. I don't dislike him, I'm just not interested in his subject matter.

[Bassic]

18. That's not the only place that Edward II was depicted as gay,.

In "Les Rois Maudits", Maurice Druon made him gay as well. His close with relationship with Hugh le Despenser made pretty much everbody think he was gay at the time as well.

[jobycom]

19. I didn't say he wasn't gay, I said he wasn't a flamer

He was clearly gay. But he was not effeminate.

[Bassic]

21. Ah yes, well then you are right.

Apparently he looked just like his father, but lacked his brains.

[jobycom]

27. Historically

He may not have lacked Edward's brains, either. His father was a warrior king, and those were very popular in the Middle Ages. Richard the Lion-Hearted (his great uncle) is another example. But these kings were brutal to the economy. They taxed and sapped up the nation's resources and put them in debt for their wars, then when they died, their successors had to handle the debt. To pay the debt, their successors had to tax the nobility beyond reason, and the taxes went to pay off debt rather than to buy anything tangible, like more war. Thus, the nobles generally dislike these types of kings. Richard was followed by John, whom the nobles forced to sign the Magna Carta. John's biggest sin was trying to raise taxes to overcome Richard's squandering of the national wealth. Edward Longshanks was another of these military kings (think Bush and Reagan), and he left Edward II with his debt, and with a militaristic nobility who no longer had anyone to fight. They gave Edward II bad advice, and so Edward turned away from the nobility to people he trusted, and the nobility rebelled.

It's kind of like following a legendary coach in football. Someone like Jimmy Johnson builds a great team, mortgages the future to pay for it, and plays the team until he's gotten the best years out of it. He then quits, and leaves his successor with an aging team, low draft picks, no room under the salary cap, and inflated expectations. It's impossible to live up to that.

[Bassic]

30. That's true, but he definitely lacked the finesse to handle the nobility

In a better way. His reliance on the Despensers, his tolerance of pretty much whatever they wanted, and his complete lack of interest in the opinions of the nobility was a great mistake.

[LostinVA]

23. I disagree about him being "Dixie-chicked"

It's being publicized because: Gibson's father is a raving Holocaust denier and Jew hater extradinarire... and Gibson has refused to criticize his father's beliefs,, and has said, "My father has never lied to me about anything." TPOTC is clearly antisemitic, especially since it's main source material is NOT the Gospels, but the antisemitic "mediations" of Anne Catherine Emmerlich (sic). And finally, because he's a member of an ex-Catholic "Traditionalist Catholic" church that denounce Vatican II, including the whole "blood libel" crap against the Jews.

I see it as exposing a liar and hypocrite.

[jackstraw45]

51. Are you KIDDING?

It's being publicized because of what Gibson himself SAID!

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Gibson is not being "Dixie Chicked"

Gibson got drunk and allowed his anti-semitism to surface. You don't say things drunk that you don't think -- it just allows you to say things you're usual common sense would hold back.

I'm glad he apologized, but this is no otherwise noble guy making a small mistake. We just got a look behind the curtain of a raving bigot, is all.

I'm sure the Dixie Chicks would be just thrilled at your comparison, too.

[Zynx]

37. I'm not even touching the military inaccuracies

Well, more than this:

The Battle of Stirling Bridge is called that for a reason.

English bowmen did win Falkirk; it just wasn't nearly as close run as shown and required no treachery.

[bleedingheart]

53. entertainment that was awful history...

to be honest I was pleasantly surprised when Kingdom of Heaven had a version that you could play that had the "correct" facts about the subject matter...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. My Friend Is An Ad Junct Professor In History

and he said claims that the British rounded up colonists in a church and burned it to the ground with the people in in as depicted in "The Patriot" was bullshit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Yeah, that was total nonsense.

Apparently Gibson read about Vlad the Impaler and decided that would be good for something to Cornwall to do.

Now apparently the fighting in the wilderness areas did get ridiculously bloody and everybody, including the British, did away with their sense of Georgian rules of warfare. Real Apocalypse Now kind of stuff.

But the Patriot was a horrible movie. Historically horrible too.

[bleedingheart]

52. when I saw that scene....I told my husband...

"now if that had really happened, don't you think US history books would have had a field day with it?"

[noonwitch]

17. I still like his movies, if his sexist comments didn't bother me...

this won't. So, he's not perfect. He still makes very entertaining movies, for the most part.

[HEyHEY]

20. I thought you meant that female cop really did have nice tits

[godhatesrepublicans]

40. What REALLY sucks is his new movie sounded pretty good...

It's supposedly got a theme of how authority from above is terrible for the ones being led. I almost was willing to pay for a movie ticket, since that's a theme i can get behind, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Now it'll open and close in what, 3 theaters world wide?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

44. I don't remember Gibson criticising Israel.

Maybe I missed it when he was attacking all Jews everywhere.

[Taxloss]

45. My supervisor in medieval history at university just laughed when

Braveheart was mentioned. (It was released in my first year IIRC.) She said it bore little resemblance to the truth. The events of the film predate the period I studied, but I'm prepared to go along with her opinion.

[Orrex]

50. Even though I snarked about that upthread...

Really, historical accuracy shouldn't get in the way of one's enjoyment of a film unless one is looking to the film for its historical accuracy (which is, I guess, valid).

How many historically accurate period-piece films have there been, honestly?

Braveheart is good in some ways and not-good in others. I submit that it paved the way for Jackson's The Lord of the Rings because it showed that people were willing to sit for a three-hour movie about "the middle ages," or however else it might be identified in popular consciousness. But Gibson's commercial and critical success made the prospect seem a lot more appetizing, I think.