The idea that film is a medium in which a director can comment on the ills of society has been around since the first motion picture was made. The problem with this fact is that directors and producers often change the historical facts and even the attitudes of the characters in order stimulate public interest through the striking of some common chord that the public feels vigorously about. The story of William Wallace in the movie Braveheart while historically fairly accurate in the depictions of the battles while leaving out many important facts. Randall Wallace added some plot twists to make the story more appealing to the audience. All the plot twists and inaccuracies that were added in the movie Braveheart have several basic areas which include adding or deleting characters and inaccuracy regarding the lives and actions of nonfictional figures. William Wallace, Edward I, the Prince and Princess of Wales as well as many other minor players in the Scottish resistance to English domination of Scotland have some aspect of their lives fictionalized in the film Braveheart. In addition to the making up of people’s lives there also happens to be military inaccuracies.
The first example of historical inaccuracy is that of the Imation of Edward I, he would torture and murder anyone that bothered him. Edward I was in fact a man to be feared although the movie Braveheart portrays him as an incredibly cruel man who wanted nothing more than get rid of his enemies. He was incredibly generous but only when he was in a good mood. Edward I was very ambitious and his biographer acknowledges the fact that he was a, tough ruler who was firm to uphold his rights. While Edward I was most likely a cruel ruler, he was not as vicious as he is portray...
... middle of paper ...
...ary engagements were not very accurate most of the time. The few parts that weren’t inaccurate were those in which Scottish forces drew the better equipped English into deception. Most of the Scottish achievements were small battles in which guerilla tactics were used. The ambiguous battles in which the Scottish forces fought the English were illustrated incorrectly. The best example of Hollywood people incorrectly showing what a battle for Scottish independence looked like in 1297 is the battle of Stirling Bridge is. Scotland, however, enjoyed youthful and energetic leadership as well as unity of purpose in the minds of said leaders. The English leadership on the other hand was made up of several highly trained leaders who had a great amount of knowledge of Scotland, but on the other hand the troops had no respect for their leaders this made them very ineffective
William Wallace was so famous among the Scots that they made a movie about him. The movie was directed by Mel Gibson, and originally written as a book by Randall Wallace. Mel Gibson played William Wallace. In the movie, William goes on his rampage against the English after his wife was attacked by an English soldier. This epic drama was so well received that it won 5 academy awards. Of course like all movies based on historical events, it was filled with assumptions and exaggerations.
[1] Within the last few decades, we have generated a great number of “historical” films reaching the American public. With these “historical” films come the question of whether or not the film portrayed history in an accurate manner; if not, why were the facts manipulated the way that they were. Unfortunately, this question is usually answered in the negative, and the audience is left with a fictional account of a factual happening, thereby giving the viewing public mixed messages concerning the issues raised within the film. Film used in this manner can be a dangerous tool in the hands of powerful people with agendas and ulterior motives.
Wallace was fighting for his concrete beliefs and ideals. Although it was sparked by the murder of his wife and father. He was prepared to be a martyr, although all he really wanted was to have a family and a farm. He was willing to give his life for the future of his country, which says something about his character. He was finally betrayed again and handed over to the throne to be tortured and killed.
Within the very beginning of the film, the wonderful portrayal of William by Billy Crudup gives the audience a lasting impression by Burton of the blatant resentment and distain William has towards his father and his mythological stories. Wallace, while more subtle in his method to reveal the underlying anger of William towards Edward, does not make it any less apparent than Burton of the obvious indifference William feels towards his father. In Burton’s ...
A cinematic experience offers a false projection of the world that people have the desire to indulge in. In Guy Vanderhaeghe’s novel, The Englishman’s Boy, the portrayal of the film as a whole is consistent with Chance’s vision to rewrite the story of the Cypress Hills Massacre of 1873 as a mythic history of the settling of the American west. Film has the power to access an aspect of reality somehow absent in other media. One could argue that film brainwashes people and alters reality when it is both projected and screened. Vanderhaeghe’s narrative oscillation and use of common literary techniques often foreshadow his film (Besieged) in many ways.
The Final Scenes of Braveheart Film scripts are written in reverse so that everything we see at the end is led up to in the film itself. Braveheart, directed by its star. Mel Gibson, is a splendid example of this process. The last two scenes of the film show the public torture and the execution of William Wallace and the re-emergence of Scottish power as Robert the Bruce finally takes on Wallace's cause and leads the Scots. to victory at the Battle of Bannockburn.
What Stone points out that is very interesting and relevant to western culture is that the Indo-Europeans were always in continual conflict with not only the people of the lands that they invaded but between themselves as well. In Braveheart, the Irish and English were in conflict with each other and the English took over Ireland, both the Irish and English live in filth, in cottages where they raise their family, the men provide for their family and the woman are married off so they can find a man to provide for them, they are barbaric the way they live and the way they are perceived, this film also shows the patriarchal society and the misogyny ways of the Europeans and how they treat their women the king even made a law allowing their men to take and rape the Irish women even if they were married, the women had no say the kings son who was next in line to be on throne was gay and had to marry a woman to reproduce but the woman had no say and was not respected or shown in a powerful light. The main character William Wallace made his childhood love at night because he feared would tried to take her if they found out about the marriage and even still one of the English
Mel Gibson is " Bravehearts " director as well as the main star. This is a well made movie that I really enjoyed. The movie " Bravehearts " is an amazing account of one Scotsman that decided to fight the oppression of the English to gain his freedom. With this one mans vision an awesome movie is created. There is a scene for just about all audiences. There are war scenes, romantic scenes, and who could forget dramatic scenes.
...ctual roles, or adding in exciting events that revise the storyline. These changes are beneficial to producers because they engage a large audience and generate massive profits. In contrast, they do not always have a positive effect on viewers. Although they are entertaining which is an important aspect of theatre culture, they also are often misguiding. Many spectators take movies at face value, without considering that they may not exactly qualify as primary source material. Even when an historical event is fabricated to teach or enhance a moral message, it still doesn’t compensate for bending the truth. Moviegoer’s may have a positive experience and gain some skewed historical perspective, perhaps better than what they knew before the movie, but they loose out on the truth and therefore, a genuine understanding of the historical event, and its significance.
On the 14th of May 1264, the forces of Simon de Montfort, Gloucester and the Londoners were set arrayed against the loyalist forces of King Henry III, Richard of Cornwall and Prince Edward (later to become King Edward I). The loyalists suffered a massive defeat at this Battle of Lewes and among those captured, aside from Richard of Cornwall and perhaps the King (Prestwich indicates the unsure nature of the King's capture 46), were the northern barons (Scottish lords) of Balliol, Bruce and Comyn. (Jenks 132) Prince Edward also became a hostage as part of an exchange after the battle. These same men who fought together and were held captive by the de Montforts would war against each other thirty years later. King Edward I (whom will be referred to as Edward) was not set on instigating a war against Scotland, nor were any of these Scottish lords interested in battling against such a formidable opponent as England. So why did war occur if none of these men were initially motivated for war? A series of unfortunate, but potent events led to the chrysalis of war, which was then allowed to grow and fully develop into a war by the specific actions of individuals. This essay will attempt to draw attention to many of the events which gave rise to war and investigate the complex nature of the individuals who in the end caused war through their acts (intentional and non-intentional).
The only real way to truly understand a story is to understand all aspects of a story and their meanings. The same goes for movies, as they are all just stories being acted out. In Thomas Foster's book, “How to Read Literature Like a Professor”, Foster explains in detail the numerous ingredients of a story. He discusses almost everything that can be found in any given piece of literature. The devices discussed in Foster's book can be found in most movies as well, including in Quentin Tarantino’s cult classic, “Pulp Fiction”. This movie is a complicated tale that follows numerous characters involved in intertwining stories. Tarantino utilizes many devices to make “Pulp Fiction” into an excellent film. In this essay, I will demonstrate how several literary devices described in Foster's book are put to use in Tarantino’s film, “Pulp Fiction”, including quests, archetypes, food, and violence.
Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?
Throughout the course of time, adaptations of real events have been altered for entertainment purposes. This grand scheme has essentially influenced every single aspect of the industry to invoke emotion and drama to the viewer. Movies such as “The Fault in Our Stars”, “______________” and “____________”; These popular movies weren’t completely factual in fact most of the movie that are based on a true event are mainly fiction. In those few cases it’s understandable that the industry wants to engage a greater target audience to gain more monetary capital. Recently, the movie “Mississippi Burning” directed by Alan Parker faced similar scrutiny because the movie wasn’t based off complete true event. In many cases such as this one, changing historical
Pride and Prejudice, the beloved novel about the romance of Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy written by Jane Austen, has always been a favourite of film producers. Joe Wright, the director of the 2005 adaptation managed to fit the main story into a two-hour film, but unavoidably made some adjustments to the original novel. However, regardless of some lines and settings altered to fit the twenty-first-century audience, this essay holds the view that the 2005 filmed version in fact reaffirms gender hierarchies in the original novel by adding exact scenes and using special cinematic techniques.
Louis XVI and Charles I did a poor job ruling their country by starting wars and overspending to live extravagant lifestyles. These two monarchs were incompetent and tyrannical leaders whose actions and decisions led them to their own downfall. Similarly, Louis XVI and Charles I had once