Braveheart

On its opening weekend, Braveheart grossed $9,938,276 in the United States and $75.6 million in its box office run in the U.S. and Canada.[2] Worldwide, the film grossed $210,409,945 and was the thirteenth-highest-grossing film of 1995.[2]

On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 76% and an average score of 7.30/10 based on 85 reviews. The site's consensus states: "Distractingly violent and historically dodgy, Mel Gibson's Braveheart justifies its epic length by delivering enough sweeping action, drama, and romance to match its ambition."[6] On Metacritic the film has a score of 68 out of 100 based on 20 critic reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[20] Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade A- on scale of A to F.[21]

Gibson won the Academy Award for Best Director for his work on Braveheart.

Caryn James of The New York Times praised the film, calling it "one of the most spectacular entertainments in years."[22] Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 stars out of four, calling it "An action epic with the spirit of the Hollywood swordplay classics and the grungy ferocity of The Road Warrior."[4] In a positive review, Gene Siskel wrote that "in addition to staging battle scenes well, Gibson also manages to recreate the filth and mood of 700 years ago."[23] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone felt that "though the film dawdles a bit with the shimmery, dappled love stuff involving Wallace with a Scottish peasant and a French princess, the action will pin you to your seat."[24] The depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge was listed by CNN as one of the best battles in cinema history.[25]

Not all reviews were positive, Richard Schickel of Time magazine argued that "everybody knows that a non-blubbering clause is standard in all movie stars' contracts. Too bad there isn't one banning self-indulgence when they direct."[26] Peter Stack of San Francisco Chronicle felt "at times the film seems an obsessive ode to Mel Gibson machismo."[27] In a 2005 poll by British film magazine Empire, Braveheart was No. 1 on their list of "The Top 10 Worst Pictures to Win Best Picture Oscar".[28] Empire readers had previously voted Braveheart the best film of 1995.[29]

The European premiere was on September 3, 1995, in Stirling.[30]

In 1996, the year after the film was released, the annual three-day "Braveheart Conference" at Stirling Castle attracted fans of Braveheart, increasing the conference's attendance to 167,000 from 66,000 in the previous year.[31] In the following year, research on visitors to the Stirling area indicated that 55% of the visitors had seen Braveheart. Of visitors from outside Scotland, 15% of those who saw Braveheart said it influenced their decision to visit the country. Of all visitors who saw Braveheart, 39% said the film influenced in part their decision to visit Stirling, and 19% said the film was one of the main reasons for their visit.[32] In the same year, a tourism report said that the "Braveheart effect" earned Scotland £7 million to £15 million in tourist revenue, and the report led to various national organizations encouraging international film productions to take place in Scotland.[33]

The film generated huge interest in Scotland and in Scottish history, not only around the world, but also in Scotland itself. At a Braveheart Convention in 1997, held in Stirling the day after the Scottish Devolution vote and attended by 200 delegates from around the world, Braveheart author Randall Wallace, Seoras Wallace of the Wallace Clan, Scottish historian David Ross and Bláithín FitzGerald from Ireland gave lectures on various aspects of the film. Several of the actors also attended including James Robinson (Young William), Andrew Weir (Young Hamish), Julie Austin (the young bride) and Mhairi Calvey (Young Murron).

Braveheart was nominated for many awards during the 1995 Oscar season, though it was not viewed by many as a major contender such as Apollo 13, Il Postino: The Postman, Leaving Las Vegas, Sense and Sensibility, and The Usual Suspects. It wasn't until after the film won the Golden Globe Award for Best Director at the 53rd Golden Globe Awards that it was viewed as a serious Oscar contender. When the nominations were announced for the 68th Academy Awards, Braveheart received ten Academy Award nominations, and a month later, won five including Best Picture, Best Director for Gibson, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Makeup.[34] Braveheart became the ninth film to win Best Picture with no acting nominations and is one of only three films to win Best Picture without being nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture, the other being The Shape of Water in 2017 and followed by Green Book the following year.[35][36][37] The film also won the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay.[38] In 2010, the Independent Film & Television Alliance selected the film as one of the 30 Most Significant Independent Films of the last 30 years[39]

American Film Institute lists

• AFI's 100 Years ... 100 Movies – Nominated[40]
• AFI's 100 Years ... 100 Thrills – No. 91
• AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains:
  • William Wallace – Nominated Hero[41]
• AFI's 100 Years ... 100 Movie Quotes:
  • "They may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!" – Nominated[42]
• AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores – Nominated[43]
• AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers – No. 62
• AFI's 100 Years ... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) – Nominated[44]
• AFI's 10 Top 10 – Nominated Epic Film[45]

Lin Anderson, author of Braveheart: From Hollywood To Holyrood, credits the film with playing a significant role in affecting the Scottish political landscape in the mid-to-late 1990s.[46] Peter Jackson cited Braveheart as influence in making the Lord of the Rings film trilogy.[47]

Sections of the English media accused the film of harbouring Anti-English sentiment. The Economist called it "xenophobic",[48] and John Sutherland writing in The Guardian stated that: "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia".[49][50][51] In The Times, Colin McArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It's a xenophobic film."[50] Ian Burrell of The Independent has said, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice".[52]

Tom Church's statue

In 1997, a 12-foot (3.7 m), 13-tonne (13-long-ton; 14-short-ton) sandstone statue depicting Mel Gibson as William Wallace in Braveheart was placed in the car park of the Wallace Monument near Stirling, Scotland. The statue, which was the work of Tom Church, a monumental mason from Brechin,[53] included the word 'Braveheart' on Wallace's shield. The installation became the cause of much controversy; one local resident stated that it was wrong to "desecrate the main memorial to Wallace with a lump of crap".[54] In 1998, someone wielding a hammer vandalized the statue's face. After repairs were made, the statue was encased in a cage every night to prevent further vandalism. This only incited more calls for the statue to be removed, as it then appeared that the Gibson/Wallace figure was imprisoned. The statue was described as "among the most loathed pieces of public art in Scotland".[55] In 2008, the statue was returned to its sculptor to make room for a new visitor centre being built at the foot of the Wallace Monument.[56]

Edward Longshanks is shown invoking Jus primae noctis in the film, allowing the lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity of his serfs' maiden daughters on their wedding nights. Critical medieval scholarship regards this supposed right as a myth: "the simple reason why we are dealing with a myth here rests in the surprising fact that practically all writers who make any such claims have never been able or willing to cite any trustworthy source, if they have any."[66][67]

The film suggests Scotland had been under English occupation for some time, at least during Wallace's childhood, and in the run-up to the Battle of Falkirk Wallace says to the younger Bruce, "[W]e'll have what none of us have ever had before, a country of our own." In fact, Scotland had been invaded by England only the year before Wallace's rebellion; prior to the death of King Alexander III it had been a fully separate kingdom.[68]

As John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett writes, "Because [William] Wallace is one of Scotland's most important national heroes and because he lived in the very distant past, much that is believed about him is probably the stuff of legend. But there is a factual strand that historians agree to", summarized from Scots scholar Matt Ewart:

Wallace was born into the gentry of Scotland; his father lived until he was 18, his mother until his 24th year; he killed the sheriff of Lanark when he was 27, apparently after the murder of his wife; he led a group of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian; Wallace's reputation as a military leader was ruined in the same year of 1297, leading to his resignation as guardian; he spent several years of exile in France before being captured by the English at Glasgow, this resulting in his trial for treason and his cruel execution.[69]

A. E. Christa Canitz writes about the historical William Wallace further: "[He] was a younger son of the Scottish gentry, usually accompanied by his own chaplain, well-educated, and eventually, having been appointed Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, engaged in diplomatic correspondence with the Hanseatic cities of Lübeck and Hamburg". She finds that in Braveheart, "any hint of his descent from the lowland gentry (i.e., the lesser nobility) is erased, and he is presented as an economically and politically marginalized Highlander and 'a farmer'—as one with the common peasant, and with a strong spiritual connection to the land which he is destined to liberate."[70]

Colin McArthur writes that Braveheart "constructs Wallace as a kind of modern, nationalist guerrilla leader in a period half a millennium before the appearance of nationalism on the historical stage as a concept under which disparate classes and interests might be mobilised within a nation state." Writing about Braveheart's "omissions of verified historical facts", McArthur notes that Wallace made "overtures to Edward I seeking less severe treatment after his defeat at Falkirk", as well as "the well-documented fact of Wallace's having resorted to conscription and his willingness to hang those who refused to serve."[71] Canitz posits that depicting "such lack of class solidarity" as the conscriptions and related hangings "would contaminate the movie's image of Wallace as the morally irreproachable primus inter pares among his peasant fighters."[70]

Isabella of France is shown having an affair with Wallace after the Battle of Falkirk. She later tells Edward I she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was a product of the affair. In reality, Isabella was around three years old and living in France at the time of the Battle of Falkirk, was not married to Edward II until he was already king, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.[72][7] The breakdown of the couple's relationship over his liaisons, and the menacing suggestion to a dying Longshanks that she would overthrow and destroy Edward II mirror and foreshadow actual facts; although not until 1326, over 20 years after Wallace's death, Isabella, her son Edward, and her lover Roger Mortimer would invade England to depose - and later murder - Edward II.[73]

Robert the Bruce did change sides between the Scots loyalists and the English more than once in the earlier stages of the Wars of Scottish Independence, but he probably did not fight on the English side at the Battle of Falkirk (although this claim does appear in a few medieval sources).[74] Later, the Battle of Bannockburn was not a spontaneous battle; he had already been fighting a guerrilla campaign against the English for eight years.[75] His title before becoming king was Earl of Carrick, not Earl of Bruce.[76][77] Bruce's father is portrayed as an infirm leper, although it was Bruce himself who allegedly suffered from leprosy in later life. The actual Bruce's machinations around Wallace, rather than the meek idealist in the film, suggests the father-son relationship represent different aspects of the historical Bruce's character.[78][79] In the film, Bruce's father betrays Wallace to his son's disgust, acknowledging it as the price of his crown, although in real life Wallace was betrayed by the nobleman John de Menteith and delivered to the English.[80]

The actual Edward I was ruthless and temperamental, but the film exaggerates his negative aspects for effect. Edward enjoyed poetry and harp music, was a devoted and loving husband to his wife Eleanor of Castile, and as a religious man, he gave generously to charity. The film's scene where he scoffs cynically at Isabella for distributing gold to the poor after Wallace refuses it as a bribe would have been unlikely. Furthermore, Edward died on campaign two years after Wallace's execution, not in bed at his home.[81]

The depiction of the future Edward II as an effeminate homosexual drew accusations of homophobia against Gibson.

We cut a scene out, unfortunately ... where you really got to know that character [Edward II] and to understand his plight and his pain ... But it just stopped the film in the first act so much that you thought, 'When's this story going to start?'[82]

Gibson defended his depiction of Prince Edward as weak and ineffectual, saying:

I'm just trying to respond to history. You can cite other examples—Alexander the Great, for example, who conquered the entire world, was also a homosexual. But this story isn't about Alexander the Great. It's about Edward II.[83]

In response to Longshanks' murder of the Prince's male lover Phillip, Gibson replied: "The fact that King Edward throws this character out a window has nothing to do with him being gay ... He's terrible to his son, to everybody."[84] Gibson asserted that the reason Longshanks kills his son's lover is that the king is a "psychopath".[85]

"MacGregors from the next glen" joining Wallace shortly after the action at Lanark is dubious, since it is questionable whether Clan Gregor existed at that stage, and when they did emerge their traditional home was Glen Orchy, some distance from Lanark.[86]

Wallace did win an important victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, but the version in Braveheart is highly inaccurate, as it was filmed without a bridge (and without Andrew Moray, joint commander of the Scots army, who was fatally injured in the battle). Later, Wallace did carry out a large-scale raid into the north of England, but he did not get as far south as York, nor did he kill Longshanks' nephew.[87]

The "Irish conscripts" at the Battle of Falkirk are unhistorical; there were no Irish troops at Falkirk (although many of the English army were actually Welsh).[88]

The two-handed long swords used by Gibson in the film were not in wide use in the period. A one-handed sword and shield would have been more accurate.[89]

The depiction of English cavalry and infantry soldiers using uniform dress and armor is historically inaccurate. In the feudal armies of the late 13th and early 14th century, cavalry would have been made up of nobility and knights all in their self-purchased armour and displaying their coat of arms on surcoats and shields. Also the armour shown in the movie, i.e. small metal plates sewn on a fabric did not exist and would have been ineffective since it could have been easily pierced by swords, spears, arrows etc. Indeed, knights of that time period would have worn mail chausses to protect their legs, a mail hauberk over a patted gambeson to protect the upper body and arms as well as a mail coif and a great helm to protect the head. Another layer of protection, the coat-of-plates would have been worn over the hauberk, but under the surcoat. Infantry would have looked very diverse utilizing any kind of armor they could obtain and afford. The Scottish fighters would have been dressed and armed in the same way as their English opponents.[90] Kilts appeared only in the 16th century, so two centuries after the events in the movie. However, the cavalry charge depicted at the battle of Stirling bridge (which did not take place at this battle) is a rare example where a movie maker correctly depicts the knights charging towards their enemies with laid in lances rather than drawn swords.