Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 2 June 2007

Braveheart received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Film B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

/Archive 1: Pre-December, 2006 /Archive 2: 12/06 - 03/07 /Archive 3: 03/07 - 05/07

Historical Inaccuracies

The article William Wallace points to a section called Historical Inaccuracies in this article but that section is no longer here. We should either remove that reference or reinstate that section here.AmritTuladhar 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out this is where the section was removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Braveheart&diff=131228189&oldid=131222556 AmritTuladhar 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be restored, but also cited. Wrad 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland?

I don't recall Argyle taking young William to Ireland, as indicated ina recetn edit. It is presumed they left the area, and Wallace talks later of having knowledge of French and having been to Rome. No mention of Ireland, though. Can someone get back to me on that? I am going to edit it out for now, but I will gladly change it back if someone can cite the statement. Arcayne 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched it yesterday and I would have to agree with you. It seems to me that we are told he left the British Isles. During one of their first meetings as adults, Wallace answers the question about being Rome with the statement, "Aye, my uncle took me on a pilgrimage". So, I would take that to mean that he did some extensive traveling. He might've visited Ireland as a part of that pilgrimage but it would've only been a visit. ---> Benseac 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it isn't mentioned in the film, out it goes. Thanks or the confirmation. Arcayne () 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think we that the article is shaping up pretty nicely (and might I say WOW on all the most excellent edits!). I think the article is ready for a Peer Review. they will give us some insight on maybe upgrading the aticle to A Quality, and maybe see if we cannot get yourselves a Good Article rating. If not, then we will at least know what we need to work on still. Arcayne 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The peer review has received comments from an editor here. Changes occurring are being made on the basis of that review. Arcayne 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

• Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation. Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history. Move Wikiquote template to External links section.

• Rewrite Response and awards section as prose. Also, are there any other notable awards that Braveheart won? Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page. Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Misplaced Pages article, it may be acceptable. Other criteria should apply, though. As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films.

• Cultural effects section needs to be cited. There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about how it was shaped?

• Historical inaccuracy -- give it the 300 treatment and avoid synthesis. Find references of historians criticizing Braveheart directly.

• Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion. Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of Braveheart on certain aspects of popular culture.

• Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter.

• External links -- there's two film reviews. I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception"). Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc. Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct. Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to 300.

• Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed.

-Arcayne () 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

-Add a section for critical reviews, and list the Wallace monument as a subsection of the Cultural Effects.

-would recommend addressing the description of the film's ending. The ultimate fates of Robert the Bruce and Wallace's army are left vague; there is voiceover by Mel Gibson stating that, 'They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that the Scotish army won the fight and ultimately the war for their freedom (not supported by history); or, it can be interpreted that the Scotish were actually killed, having won their freedom by not submitting to the British, even at the cost of their lives (as William Wallace did earlier in the film).

References for use

1 - historian review of movie
2 - Edinburgh newspaper discussing the real Wallace
3 - film review
4 - about the historical accuracy of the film, with a nod to the idea that no one really cares
5 - historians and history
6 - 10 reviews, awards listings
7 - film reviews, a plethora of material
8 - cultural influences?
9 - JSTOR reference that might need sorting out first. It looks useful, though
10 - scads of reviews here as well as box office info

The fate at the end?

(the following was mis-posted tot he Peer Review. The poster is new to WP, and didn't understand the vagaries of where to post Discussion related material).

Address accuracy of the description of the film's finale. The actual fate of the Scottish army is not revealed; based upon Gibson's voiceover, it can be interpreted that the Scots won the battle and won their freedom, or that they were in fact killed, and remained free vecause they never surrendered. Either way, any interpretation should be left out, as a synopsis of the plot is not the right place for interpretation. A simple statement that the fate of the army is not seen on film, followed by a transcript of Gibson's voicover, would be more appropriate. (posted by User: 68.46.142.17)

• Sorry, that is not the job of the article. At all. It is a film article about a film. If, at the end, Gibson's (as Wallace) voiceover saying that the men charged the English at Bannockburn, fought like wattior poets, fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom, that's pretty much telling it as it is. They won. If history tells a different story, there is a historical innacuracy section to quote someone else pointing out the historical defects of the film. Not in the synopsis,a nd certainly not here. As this is a content issue, it shoudl be more appropriately addressed in the Discussion area of the article, and not in a peer review. -Arcayne () 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Arcayne here, the film makes it very clear that the scots win. Wrad 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's a misinterpretation of the voiceover. Nowhere does the film state that they won battle or defeated the British. The whole point of the film is that Gibson and the Scots never give in to the British. If they had surrendered at the end, they would have lost their freedom ... refusing to surrender is how they won it, not by winning the battle (similar to how Gibson's character refuses to claim Longshanks his king while he is being disembowled, instead shouting, 'Freedom!' ... he won his freedom as well). Either way, I'm not arguing to change anyone's mind; my point is only that there is more than one interpretation of the ending. A statement that the Scots' fates are not shown onscreen, with a transcription of Gibson's voiceover, would be an accurate description of the ending, and not a reflection of the author's opinion.

"The whole point of the film" sounds a little strong to me. Another important point in the film was how William's efforts gradually changed Edward the Bruce's attitude, eventually freeing the Scots from the English, which the voiceover clearly states. To state things in the way you want would be a major distraction to the summary of the plot. Whether it is a voiceover or not is of little consequence, the fact is, that is what the film expresses, that is the way the plot goes. Historically, as well, Edward the Bruce did win the eventual war, and freedom, heart, legal rights, and all. They didn't just never surrender, they won. Wrad 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The historical accuracy of the entire film is very questionable. The purpose of an encyclopedic plot summary is to report what happened on the screen. The voiceover states that they fought well and won their freedom ... NOT that they won the battle or won the war. Stating that they did so is interpretation (as is stating that they did not), and shouldn't have a place in an encyclopedic plot summary.

I am sorry, but that is an OR asssertion as to "the whole point of the film". I appreciate your concerns, but - and this is worthy of emphasis - we don't accept primary opinion resources here. Here is the specific text of the voice-over (which is precisely how it appears in the novel by Randall Wallace):

"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."

Now, perhaps I am being somewhat condescending in my next statements, but are you suggesting that:

• A) the film is historically accurate, and doesn't condense events? and
• B) that the intent of the method of the film's ending was not to imply that they did not defeat the English?

If you hold these rahter silly contentions, then perhaps you are imparting far too literal a historical view into a movie. Arcayne () 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But instead of belaboring the point back and forth, I created a new edit that reflects the intent of the film and addresses your concern. :) Arcayne () 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't continue to belabor the point after this, because it doesn't seem as if you've actually read my postings. To answer your two questions:

• A) I suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I believe that I mentioned specifically that the historical accuracy of the film is questionable at best.
• B) Not to be condescending, but it's tough to fight through your double negative; I believe that you're asking my opinion as to what is intended by the ending. I don't think that's really important, because I agree completely that my opinion as to the ending has no place here or in a plot summary (and on reflection I shouldn't have argued that earlier). My point is simply that, nowhere in the film do they show you the results of that battle; nowhere do they state that the Scots won the battle or won the war. The voiceover at the end states only that they fought and 'won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that they won their freedom on the battlefield, or figuratively, that they won their freedom by never bowing to the Brits. Prior to the final battle, they seemed to be on the verge of losing their freedom by setting up the Bruce as a puppet king. Your belief that it is to be taken literally is only your opinion (unless you've seen or read interviews with Gibson where he states that the Scots did win that battle), and that's what's being presented on the main page. I'm not suggesting that my belief should be on the main page either, only that their final fates are not shown on the screen, so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

It's interesting that you find my opinions silly because I'm taking the film too literally, when my whole argument is that the last line does not need to be taken literally.

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. My apologies. I have altered the sentence so as to avoid the problem which you describe. Take a look and see if you can live with this. Arcayne () 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Murron's pic

The picture of Murron is very dark. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I could, but the point of the addition of the picture is to ensure it was not a copyright infringement. It is a DVD capture, and the lighting was not very bright. I hesitate to digitally alter it and risk copyright infringement. As Murron is still quite visibile, I've left it as a necessary evil. Even though dark, it is far better than the picture that was ther before. the pic itself might be moved over to Production once I upload it. Gibson speaks about how he tended to film her in slower than normal time because she "looked good slow." I hope that answered your question. Arcayne () 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the DVD. I wonder if I could capture a brighter picture. Wrad 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed another one at the right place in the article, the cast. It was deleted before by Arcayne, this one placed by him is terrible and is not linked with the writtings and must be removed. Machocarioca 04:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Yeah, no, it doesn't need to be removed. First of all, your contention that the image is terrible and not linked to the wrtitings is actually rather incorrect, especially since you are simply replacing a darker image with one that is small, grainy and totally unsuitable. Secondly, you were doing a bit more than just replacing a dark image of Murron. You were rearranging the pics of the cast. Totally uncool without discussing it here first. That's how edit wars get started. I will upload a brighter image of Murron. If it gets pulled, I expect both you and Wrad to fight like hell to make sure it doesn't get cut as a copyright infringement. Arcayne () 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

These images were at that place (cast) for months,long before you came here. Uncool was your move deleting it. Murron image you placed is ridiculous, I'm sorry, we can't see anything (is it a joke?) and totally out of line in the article. Machocarioca 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Perhaps, you might stop edit-warring a little bit and give me a chance to upload a lighter version of the picture. Do you think you could wait just a bit, sweetheart? Arcayne () 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can baby, but do not revert it again. Upload a pretty one, brighter, cleaner and place it at the right place, Cast. I think these war-edits ridiculous too :-)Machocarioca 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Finally. Now the new image is uploaded. As for the placement of these images, I am going to leave them where they are. However, I can tell you that their current placement makes them ripe for removal as "decorative". I've seen it happen in at least two other film articles. You folks might want to take a bit o' time and read up on Wiki-films project page. Keep in mind, Macho, you broke 3RR with your little edit-war. I'm going to cut you a break and not report you, because I'm in a good mood. You can say thank you. Now, play nice, from now on, please. Arcayne () 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No my friend , see the history, YOU broke 3RR first. But I'm im good mood too and you can say thanks to me. :-) Well, I think this new image awful too, but nevermind. The current place is perfect, not the older one where you've placed that unseen image before. Cheers. MachocariocaMachocarioca

Heh. I guess we can both push back from the table then. Play nice, don't be prickly, and we will get along swimmingly. And do check out the Wikifilm thing I pointed out to you before. You might find enlightenment regarding what I was referring to there. Arcayne () 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks Machocarioca 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Clean-up, questions

Since there seems to be some warring going on, I thought it best to only do a few minor edits (whitespace, etc) and bring my concerns with the article as a whole to the discussion page. First and foremost, there are many statements that require references, including several that are in the cast section. "The 10-year old actor reportedly spent weeks trying to copy Gibson's mannerisms for the film" and "Her name was changed from Marion Braidfute in the script so as to not be confused with the Maid Marian of Robin Hood note," notably. Speaking of the cast section, I'm confused as to why the actor and character descriptions/items of note are mixed in such a way. The two statements I quoted above can be moved to the Production section, for example, and that way the Cast section will better first a Characters section, since that is what it mostly pertains to. On a similar note, I find it odd not to mention more about the characters' origins, since nationality plays such a large part in the movie's major themes; nowhere is it mentioned, specifically, that Wallace is Scottish -- only that he grew up outside of Scotland and that he led the Scottish rebellion. Everyone should know and infer that the man and a majority of his followers are Scottish, but it's never clarified. The Princess is French, oui? Her arranged marriage was unhappy, but many circumstances of the film's plot is left unsaid. I recognize that the movie is long, but the part about Isabelle's allegiance and love for Wallace rather than the English crown and the suggestion that she bears his lovechild and such is certainly of note.

I hope this helps direct the editing away from the images and more towards the content, which is in dire need. It's a great movie, and a great story, so it should definitely be done justice. I'll watch the article for a bit to see if there's anything I can do to help. María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter with the images has largely been resolved. The other editor and I just pushed each other's buttons, and now we are apparently happy as clams now. I have been meaning to knock out the Production section for a while. As is usual, Life intervened. I will make sure something solid is up this weekend for everyone's perusal and tweaking. Arcayne () 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Firstly, the trial and execution section needs altered because it implies that Wallace was guilty. In the film the point is clearly made that the trial is a sham and that Wallace is innocent. Wallace's argument (as in real life) was that he could not possibly be guilty of treason as he never once paid homage or made an oath of allegiance to the English monarch. Without wanting to labour the point, would you consider George Washinton or Mahatma Gandhi to be treasonous in their actions? Secondly, the English army shown at Bannockburn is clearly not a 'ceremonial line', it's the full army. And the Scots didn't 'eventually' win their freedom, they won it back. I've made the necessary changes, cheers. Golfer45 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are operating from a number of OR misconceptions. The MOVIE doesn't say the things you want it to say. But lets look at the edits one by one which you are not discussing here beforehand:

• firstly, Robert the Bruce is more appropriately wikilinked in the Cast section, not in the plot.

• secondly, the term is 'unbeknownst', not 'unbeknown'.

• thirdly, in the film, Wallace doesn't argue the matter, save to say that he never swore fealty to Edward I. Your arguments comparing Ghandi and Washington to Wallace are immaterial, and not on point. As a matter of fact, Wallace was guilty of treason by prevailing law, and invading York was in itself a treasonous act against the English crown. If you truly think that Wallace argued the point before the English high court, please cite a reference that states such. It isn't present in the movie save for one line, and that is not enough to contravert the pre-existing edit:

"Wallace refuses to admit his guilt and is brutally tortured to death in a London square, being alternately hanged, racked and finally eviscerated alive. Despite the agony, he refuses to declare his guilt, cry for mercy, or even cry out in pain"

• fourthly, in the film the British forces arrayed at Bannockburn are in fact ceremonial, in that they are not expecting a fight. This is noted by the commander's snide commentary and the general dressiness of the forces arrayed (in comparison to those of the Bruce).

• lastly, it has been pointed out that this battle was not the final one of Scottish independence, and was in fact only one of the last. In the film, the Brits are in fact surprised when the Scots charge the lines.

I would ask that if you have significant issues with this edit that you bring them here in the future. Discussion via edit summary is both uncool and unsatisfactory where it concerns content dispute resolution. - Arcayne () 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, do you even understand the difference between 'English', 'British' and 'Scottish'? I suspect this is where a lot of your confusion is stemming from. Kanaye 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm the same user as Golfer45 and am not attempting to use a sock to influence the discussion. Kanaye 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you clarifying the identity issue, KanGolf. And yes, I do understand the differences. What I guess I am not getting is why you chose to ask if I knew them. Arcayne () 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles