Paul MacLean wrote:
A masculine warrior who loses his family, and longs to be reunited with that family, and has a vision of that reunion as he lays dying, executed at the hands of a despot. Both films also feature an effete prince who hated his father -- a father who considered him a weak and unworthy successor.
Are you seriously arguing that that plot is original to Braveheart?
You've combined the storyline description (a hero fights etc.) with character details (effete prince), which one could do to no end if one is trying hard to force a thesis. Like this:
A masculine warrior (what other kinds are there in action movies?) who longs for freedom for himself and his people leads a rebellion against those in power. As this rebellion grows, it is suppressed until the finale, in which the masculine hero is executed at the hands of a despot. The film features sexually-ambiguous figures only on the villains' side, schematically-designed battle scenes, and much talk about freedom.
I've just described the plot of Spartacus. Sound familiar?
Paul MacLean wrote:Gosh, where do I begin...
James Horner's score does not for the most part consist of drones (unless you are referring to the multiple tubes found on Uillean pipes, which are called drones). Honer's score contains several, well-devoped and highly melodic themes. Gladiator is the score which contains more minimalist drones.
I guess we're hearing two different scores. The battle scenes in Gladiator, the climactic cue leading up to the final battle, the ethnic music in the slave scenes, the Wagnerian Roman music.
Braveheart's battle scenes sure sound droney to me, as does his minimalist love theme.[/quote]
Paul MacLean wrote:Braveheart's battle scenes are among the best ever put on screen. They unflinchingly depict the carnal savagery of that kind of warfare, in which men were literally hacked to pieces. I find the battle scenes quite horrific and effective. I don't see how anyone cannot.
That's a perfectly acceptable emotional reaction. So was mine, whether you can see it or not. I laughed at how Hollywood these scenes are, which simply cannot compare to similar scenes in Seven Samurai, Mohicans, Private Ryan (a movie I didn't care for), Paths of Glory.
Paul MacLean wrote:Other than Wallace being good-looking and having long hair, where are the similarities to Last of the Mohicans?
I wasn't thinking about cute actors but a slo-mo scene in the woods that, again, had me laughing out loud at its direct steal from Last of the Mohicans.
Paul MacLean wrote:I don't see where Braveheart borrows from off the Christ story.
Gibson was portraying an ultra-idealized saint figure, which is in the cartoony tradition of Hollywood portrayals, but when he was going through the quasi-scourging at the climax, it's blatantly obvious what he's thinking. I mean, come on--a few years later he extended this climax into a whole movie.
You don't have to agree with the comparison, but you can't see how someone else could see it in the extended torture scene? Really?
Paul MacLean wrote:True, Wallace is a martyr for his cause, but so are many historic figures. In the film Wallace is not crucified like Christ, he is drawn and quartered (which is in fact what happened to real Wallace).
One doesn't have to literally follow another story point by point to be referencing it, so saying he wasn't tortured slowly to painful death (by a despot) by being drawn and quartered doesn't mean the connection isn't there. By the above logic, you've dismissed every one of your claims that Gladiator was copying Braveheart--the Crowe character had a wife and child, not a new bride; the son of the king wasn't homosexual; Gibson's character imagined his wife in the crowd watching him, while Crowe had a vision of wife and son in the afterlife, etc.
Paul MacLean wrote:And of course Gladiator doesn't screw with history at all.
Except Gladiator was a FICTIONAL story, while Braveheart's makers claimed ad nauseum that this was the "true" story of Wallace.
Paul MacLean wrote:A number of years ago I made a documentary about a group of Roman reenactors/historians in England, and they mentioned to me they they were offered the chance to appear in Gladiator -- but turned it down. When I asked them what the they thought of the finished film, they pilloried it as "rubbish". (And these men are as close to the final word on the Roman legions as you can get in modern times.)
LOL The opinion of people who dress up to play soldier on weekend really doesn't matter a hill of beans to me, sorry.
Did you direct this documentary, btw? Is it available for viewing?
Paul MacLean wrote:Of course Braveheart takes considerable liberties with history, but there is a true story at its core. William Wallace was nevertheless a real man who defeated the English at Stirling, and fought to bring freedom to his people. I've been to Stirling and there is a huge statue of William Wallace there. There is no statue of Maximus in Rome, because Maximus never existed. Which film trifles more with history?
The one claiming to be the story of a real character which manufactures large parts of the "truth", not the FICTIONAL one.
This is like comparing Apollo 13 with Star Wars and bragging that Apollo 13 doesn't trifle as much with history.
Paul MacLean wrote:Well most revolutionaries ARE inspired to take up arms after those kind of experiences.
I'd love to see your evidence that most revolutionaries only take up arms after their wives are killed by teeth-gnashing brutes.
Paul MacLean wrote:If you are going to level this criticism at Gibson's film, then you have to admit Gladiator is also a long movie -- and every bit as violent.
I certainly do not have to admit any such thing, because it's not true. Gladiator wasn't nearly as violent.
Paul MacLean wrote:Why is Gibson always singled out for a "love of violence" when his films are no more bloody than those of Ridley Scott or Martin Scorsese (and nowhere near as gory as Tarantino's).
Because I don't agree with your subjective opinion. Just look at his movies--they revel in brutality, whereas Scott's movies depict brutality but don't show the sadistic pleasure Gibson so obviously (to me) gets--I mean, please show me where in Scott's films there is the equivalent of The Passion's two hours of torture?
Scorsese has never made a movie as bloody as Braveheart, and the violence in his movies doesn't have that childish fascination with the violent act itself--his movies show violence being brutal, sudden, painful and disturbing, and then we're out. We don't see the cosmetic-commercial cool lighting of the Lethal Weapon bare-chested electrocution scene, the HOURS of blood running in The Passion. And why bring Scorsese and Tarantino (whose work I don't even like) into a discussion of Gladiator and Braveheart?
Paul MacLean wrote:Do you really consider the opinion of an assistant professor of gender studies to be credible? Especially when discussing a film which glorifies masculinity, bravery and heroism?
You conveniently ignored that I said I didn't agree with all his points, then bring up that he's a gender studies professor after quoting a bunch of people who play dress-up as your outside witnesses?
Sorry to see you went right for the personal attack on the guy, and didn't discuss his points.
Paul MacLean wrote:I agree that Comodus is a "little worm" -- just like the English prince in Braveheart.
And countless villains in countless films. The two characters are nothing alike.
Paul MacLean wrote:As for the "cliched macho man" villain, Edward the Longshanks WAS, historically, a cruel conqueror. Historians don't call him the "Hammer of the Scots" for nothing. The ring of castles he built to subjugate Wales are massive, and remain to this day (I been in them).
You keep bringing in historical evidence when it's convenient, and casually dismiss the need for accuracy when it's also convenient, but more to the point--this is a film portrayal. The exact same actions taken by the real life character could be couched in countless performance styles. The filmmakers here chose a cliched villain. That's a filmmaking decision, and has nothing to do with history, because we have no record that can tell us the nuances that go into a performance of such a character. THAT is where one can have free reign in a historical film, because even the most "accurate" account of a person of whom we have, say, photos and films, is nowhere near the actual person. So the choices made in portraying this person are what's at issue.
Paul MacLean wrote:In Braveheart we see why Longshanks is a tyrant. We're shown how the Scots are persecuted. In Gladiator we never see why Comedus is "evil". Sure, he murders his dad, enjoys power and bumps off his opponents, but how is his ascension to the throne bad for the average Roman?
So you're now damning Gladiator for NOT being like Braveheart?
The reason Gladiator's screenplay is so much better is because it tells the audience what it needs to know more economically--we see the guy kill his father, ruthlessly kill his enemy's family, and show the senate he will roll right over them. Why do we need cliched scenes of villages on fire and women running with babes wrapped in swaddling, or whatever, when the whole point of the movie is that this is the START of something which Crowe's character wants to snuff out?
In my book, seeing a guy do what this guy does--killing his father, his enemies' family, and taking control from the people--is plenty to tell me he's going to be trouble. Why clog it up with the cliches of Braveheart?
Paul MacLean wrote:Zimmer's score has its moments, but it is little trite and shallow, and too synthesized. Bravheart again has the superior score, rife with memorable themes, skillfull orchestrations (by Horner himself).
"Trite and shallow" is a good description of Horner's love theme and the repetitive filler in between the already dated battle music.
Paul MacLean wrote:But ultimately, Braveheart is a more stirring film because it is about a man who faught for a cause, against tyranny, whereas Gladiator is more of a straightforward action movie. Maximus is a terrific character, but his plight simply isn't as moving as Wallace's.
[/quote]
Crowe's character is fighting against a tyrant before he can do to the people what he did to Crowe's family. Crowe's character had no idea of what was to come, and he is brought down as low as a man can be. He decides to toss his life away in meaningless violence, until he sees a way to gain revenge, while at the same time living up to those values which he'd lived his whole professional life.
Gibson's is quite satisfied to live under tyranny..."but now, it's PERSONAL!" and he goes right through the motions of ten million previous heroes who've "fought tyranny."
In one sense Braveheart reminds me of the james Bonds, which are all about showing action and shooting and sex, but say 'Oh, and he's fighting to stop a nuke!" Braveheart is no more about "tyranny" than Gladiator is, but Gladiator doesn't drone on and on about its pretentions. It is the far more honest film than Braveheart, which I would bet money no one every begins praising by saying 'I loved it because it's about fighting tyranny' but I WOULD bet almost everyone begins with "The battle scenes were AWESOME!"