XPost: alt.mexico, alt.movies, soc.culture.scottish   
   From: Clydeh@blahblah.ffs   
      
   "Jack Campin - bogus address"  wrote in message   
   news:bogus-611DFA.20180103012007@news.news.demon.net...   
   > >> "Braveheart" was a pile of lying bollocks motivated by some sort of   
   > >> psychopathic racial hatred of the English.   
   > > And the English treated the Scots well?   
   >   
   > Since when was racism directed at an entire people ever justified by   
   > what some elite ordered to be done? (and, as the links below explain,   
   > thinking in terms of the nation-state is wildly anachronistic for this   
   > place and period).   
   >   
   >   
   > >> Its history was so wildly wrong there is an ever-expanding website   
   > >> devoted to the booboos it makes its first five minutes.   
   > > Where can we see this?   
   >   
   > Not sure if a single site ever took off as planned, but there are quite   
   > a few along those lines to choose from:   
      
   No one, not even Mel Gibson, has ever claimed that "Braveheart" was   
   historically accurate. Truth be told, little is known of William Wallace.   
   Fact has given way to speculation, thus his story is open to interpretation;   
   however, to cite the movie as racist is akin to charging "Schindler's List"   
   with showing Germans in a bad light.   
      
   While Longshanks wasn't exactly on a par with Hitler, it's downright   
   delusional to suggest that the Scots were anything other than, to put it   
   extremely mildly, downtrodden. Show me one film based on a true story which   
   does not take liberties with artistic licence and I'll show you a liar. That   
   most of the film is based on a poem really puts into perspective how scarce   
   historical facts are.   
      
   Key facts:   
      
   1. Longshanks was a tyrant.   
   2. The two major battles and their respective outcomes were accurate, while   
   still taking liberties with tactics employed and whatnot.   
   3. Wallace was hung, drawn and quartered and his limbs were distributed as   
   described.   
   4. Bruce did defeat the English, although painting it as vengeance for   
   Wallace was obviously for the purposes of entertainment.   
      
   What I will say is that the movie was extremely creative with the timeline.   
   In the grand scheme of things, most of the discrepancies are utterly   
   irrelevant. Did Wallace speak a variety of languages? No evidence to suggest   
   so. Was he average height? Evidence apparently suggests he was closer to 7   
   feet tall. Was he motivated by the murder of his wife or lover? Again, no   
   evidence to suggest so.   
      
   What is key, however, is that Longshansk was a cold-blooded despot. No   
   amount of arguing will change that fact, nor will chipping away at the   
   film's credibility, as while it is a stretch to call "Braveheart" accurate,   
   it is equally foolhardy to call it a work of complete fiction.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)