I swallowed my revulsion for Mel and watched Braveheart last night

[leftofthedial]

on Bravo.

Did anyone else note the similarity between Longshanks and his utter lust for wealth and power and utter lack of empathy and that of the neocons? It was also ascinating how they used leverage, deceit and religious differences to continually get people to act against their own best interests. Just like the neocons.

I tell you, neocons are the neo-aristocracy and we are just so much meat for their sausage machine. They believe they have a right to our money and our lives and we should thank them for the privelege. If we don't draw the line here and now, we are throwing away a thousand years of struggle and blood-won gains for freedom, equality and social justice.

[izzie]

1. I did not like the movie.

As I got older I found I just did not like to see blood all over the place. I re-watch old classics. Dull I guess but keeps me happy.

[leftofthedial]

6. Whether one liked the movie or not

I just saw the current repuke tactics echoed exactly in the movie's villain, the King, Longshanks.

[hlthe2b]

13. Me either... Neither my sister or I who came over to watch the video...

could finish the thing... I don't know where we ended it, but it was boring, bloody, and without redeeming quality, IMO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Gibson's idea of history is laughable

For instance, Longshanks's son, Edward II, didn't marry Isabella of France until after Edward I (and, of course, Wallace) had died. So don't take his portrayal of events as anything other than his fevered imagination.

That's not to say Edward I wasn't a power hungry monarch who conquered Wales, ending any chance of it being an independent nation, and did his best to turn the semi-independent Scotland into a complete vassal. But he also called the first important parliament in English history, thus starting to give some power to some other people (albeit only nobles and rich merchants at that stage).

Don't take your history from Gibson, that's all. He's full of shit.

[leftofthedial]

7. I didn't really view it as history

but the characterization of Longshanks was nearly identical to how many of us here would characterize the neocon leadership--amoral, driven only by lust for power, greed.

[GCP]

3. Human nature has been the same throughout history

You'll always have empty-souled empathy-challenged dick-wads who will stop at nothing in their lust for power, whether it was the monkey in the tree who wouldn't share the bananas, the cave-man who wouldn't share the fire and the food, or neocons who will rape and pillage the earth and to hell with global warming (oh sorry, climate change), and to hell with any country who gets in the way.

[leftofthedial]

10. I could see Longshanks (from the movie)

plucked out of medieval England and plopped right into today's White House and fitting right in.

It's not just that they are bad guys, it's the snese of noble entitlement, like they are a separate, superior species, that rsonates from Longshanks to the little bushturd.

[Sleepysage]

4. Also, he has an odd preoccupation...

...with torture and bloodshed. Nearly all of his movies have an odd Nordic sort of whacko self-sacrifice that usually ends in mutilation of some kind.

[leftofthedial]

9. S&M is a theme for his 'heroic" characters

odd.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Braveheart sucked.

Gibson was full of himself, as he often is.

I laughed out loud when one of the "bad guys" betrayed Gibson's character, creating all kinds of slaughter, and then went back to his castle and cried. What a hoot.

"Freedom!" That's right, Mel -- free us from really crappy movies.

[okasha]

12. No, Braveheart isn't history.

Wallace was one of the ruling class himself, the son of a landed knight, not a semi-destitute farmer. He had a background as a hell-raiser and outlaw well before he and Andrew Moray gathered their forces and took on the English army of occupation at Stirling Bridge. (No Moray, no bridge or river in the movie.) The legend that he was roused to fight the Sassenach by the murder of his wife was apparently invented by the poet Blind Harry; it can't be established with any certainty that Wallace was ever married at all. Blind Harry also started the tale that Wallace had an affair with/stole the heart of Edward Longshanks' wife, not his daughter-in-law. (Gibson's homophobia showing here.) And Bruce, as far as anyone knows, had nothing to do with handing him over to the English in the end.

That said, I think Angus MacFadyen as Bruce was a far more interesting character than Gibson's one-dimensional Wallace, and I loved Stephen of Ireland. (Historical character; no record of his having conversations directly with God, though.) I'd like to see a sequel, made by someone other than Gibson, with MacFadyen as Bruce and someone interesting as James Douglas.

Okasha

[ElkHunter]

8. Pat Buchanan is a big fan of Braveheart...

...which I never quite understood. Whether it was intended or not, Braveheart clearly shows that class interest is stronger than nationalism among the ruling classes. Obviously the character William Wallace never understood this and he paid for that mistake with his life. But regardless of Gibson's personal views I am a fan of this movie.

[leftofthedial]

11. I think it si a pretty good Hollywood "historical"-action film

But the point about the ruling class's class interest is germane now.

we are in a class war, not a war among factions of the "underclasses."

A very few neo-aristocratic oligarchs are trying to seize control of all.