by Chris Marshall:
What is it about films directed by Mel Gibson? They always
seem to feature loving depictions of torture[1].
I’m not sure exactly what that says about Mr. Gibson, but it can’t be anything
good. Of course, maybe I only think that way in light of his behavior in recent
years. Still, it’s something that occurred to me while watching the closing
scenes of Braveheart.
It’s somewhat stunning to think about what has befallen
Gibson’s career. When this film was released in 1995, he was at his apex. At
that point he had made three Lethal
Weapon films, three Mad Max
films, Hamlet, Pocahontas, and a favorite of mine as a kid, Maverick. Then came Braveheart,
and he was no longer merely a popular star; he was a critical darling.
He never achieved that same level of success again, but over
the next few years, he still starred in a series of moderately popular films.
Then, after the 2004 release of The
Passion of the Christ, everything went off the rails, both for his career
and his public image. Although Apocalypto
was not a terrible film, it came out during a time when Gibson was facing considerable
scrutiny, and he did not direct or act in another film for four years.
In the meantime, it really became apparent that he was a
pretty awful person. I’m sure everybody knows the basics, but if not, just
check out his Wikipedia page. When you have subheadings for alleged homophobia,
alleged Anti-Semitism, alleged sexism and domestic violence, and alleged
racism, that means you’re not doing it right. That’s like hitting the
superfecta of hatred.
Anyway, this post is about the movie, not the man. It’s just
hard to believe how precipitously he’s fallen in the past decade. Braveheart is not a bad film, and in
many places, it’s very enjoyable. I think Gibson is a very skilled craftsman
behind the camera. It’s a shame that the messages he promotes are usually not so
savory.
 |
| Gibson auditions for Blue Man Group. |
I have virtually no knowledge about William Wallace outside
what I known from this film, so I can’t make any judgments about its historical
accuracy. I somehow doubt that Wallace was quite as heroic or virtuous as he’s
portrayed in Braveheart, but that’s
beside the point. It’s a very well made war film/historical epic, and many of
the battle scenes in particular are awe-inspiring in their scope.
They’re also breathtakingly violent. Gibson has never shied
away from blood and gore in his career, and this is no exception. I haven’t
seen this many spill their guts since Oprah was still on the air. During the
major battles, one guy after another gets his head smashed open by a mace,
impaled on a sword, struck through the eye with an arrow, etc. It’s quite a
sight to behold.
Gibson is a convincing actor, as well as having solid
directorial chops. His Wallace is confident, dignified, inspiring. Not only is
he able to rally his troops to action, he also leads them in battle. At his
command, his Scottish forces are available to defeat much more well-equipped
and well-trained armies. I was happy to see Peter Mullan as one of the
soldiers; this is the third movie I’ve seen this year that he’s appeared in,
following Tyrannosaur and Trainspotting. I really enjoy his work,
even if he did only have a minor role here.
I can understand why Braveheart
is such a popular movie in many circles. The action scenes are brilliantly
done. The speeches are inspiring. There’s even enough comic relief to make the
tragedy more bearable. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s much depth to it
beyond that. Nevertheless, it is a well-made action epic starring Mel Gibson in
his prime, and that combination yields a better movie than most others can.
No comments:
Post a Comment