1995--Braveheart, Mel Gibson

 

1995—Braveheart, Mel Gibson

Nominated: Apollo 13, Babe, The Postman, Sense and Sensibility

Should Have Won: Braveheart

Be sure to see: Kids, Rumble in the Bronx, Species, Toy Story

“Fight and you may die. Run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they'll never take our freedom?!”--William Wallace

     The opening monologue for Braveheart informs us that history is written by those who have hanged heroes. I find that disheartening because I would hope history is written by the heroes. Maybe it is saying when a hero faces a brutal end, his name will go down in history. If that is the case, William Wallace's certainly went down with a vengeance.

     1995's winner, like the winner two years before it, is certainly one of the Oscar winners that was a sure bet; I couldn't imagine any of the other nominees—or any other movie from that year—topping it. It tells the story of William Wallace, a man who leads a rebellion against King Edward the First in thirteenth century Scotland. The movie follows him from childhood to his role as the leader of the Scottish rebels, and there are very few films to depict a character as devoted and brutal as Wallace was, though the featurette for the movie details monumentally brutal actions of the real Wallace not found in this picture.

     Braveheart has many aspects to make it a superior film. The weather added to the mood; Wallace's love for Murron, a local girl who he had known since childhood; the camaraderie of his fellow Scottish army; the score; and the cinematography. But I found two in particular that makes it stand out. One is Patrick McGoohan as the cold-hearted king, known commonly as Longshanks. You might recognize him as the judge in A Time to Kill. Every action he made, every line he gave made me hate this guy, which is what you are supposed to do with a villain. My two favorite scenes involving Longshanks are when he throws a man out the window for claiming to be a brilliant battle planner and my other is a line depicting his cruelty. In one of the fantastic battle sequences he orders his archers to shoot into the fight, even though his troops are in the mix, noting that even though his troops will be hit the arrows will hit the others as well, and they have reserves. Or in a different battle when he find out the Scottish reserves are nowhere nearby, he instructs his army commander to use the Irish and save the arrows because arrows cost money and the dead cost nothing. What a bastard.

     I'd say Longshanks is my favorite character but Wallace is the focal point to the story. His various personalities polarize each other because on the battlefield he is ruthless, unflinching, and barbaric. But we also see his tender side with Muran, his love since he was child, and his devotion to his friends.  All of the men who follow him are warriors, either bread that way or strive to be because they respect Wallace so much. There is an Irishman who joins them who both the men and we the audience are unsure about trusting at first. The moment we know he can be counted on is another great moment in the movie. As is Wallace's revenge on those who murder his love. Here we see the perfect example of the two sides of the character. We see his tenderness with his new bride but a few minutes later (screen minutes) people learn not to get on his bad side.

     I've beat around the bush here but need to move on to the second thing after Longshanks that make the movie stand out, the battle sequences. Jumping ahead for a moment, in 2000's winner Gladiator, there is a massive battle at the beginning which would be impossible to not compare to Braveheart's battles. You can read my take on that movie's battle later but I'll say now that that movie tries but gets it wrong. To me its battle scene seemed mostly auditory like the sound editors had a field day in the editing room, but Braveheart's are visual. The first battle is the Battle of Stirling which begins in one of the most intensely framed scenes of all time. With English troops charging on horseback, the Scots hold...and hold...and hold until the right moment. What comes next is a whirlwind of violence so cleverly done it fooled many animal rights activists. The dummy horses built for the scene are impossible to spot, even when you know what to look for. From an entertainment standpoint, the battle is fierce, intense, and violent. After watching it I went back and viewed it again from a technical standpoint looking for bloopers obvious acting from the extras. The editing and sound is so spot on it looked like it could have been a real battle and the extras make do with the situation as well. One particular kill, a bash to the head, looked grotesquely authentic, even in frame advance.

     The second battle is the battle at Falkirk which begins with a surprise on who is siding with whom. The battle is also intense and we again see Longshanks' cruelty. But along with the battles, the camaraderie, the romance, the score, Longshanks' actions, and moody cinematography, the movie gives us a moving and brilliantly shot final act depicting Wallace's outcome which I wouldn't dare spoil. The final few lines of dialogue in the film are emotional as well. I realize it seems like. It is a very good movie and the only thing I could possibly think of that could blemish it is if historians debunk it. If it is eventually revealed William Wallace is nothing like the movie depicts, I would be disappointed. Until that happens, I'd say I'd let Wallace lead me anywhere.