GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-09 > 0936171460


From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Fw: William Wallace
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:37:40 +0800


Dear Spencer,
How wise was it to tell a historical tale with such obvious fallacies?
We had it on TV here and after the bloodthirsty beginning I was asked
to turn it off. I don't mind small distortions of the truth but when lies
become part of the told story; this, in my opinion, is wrong. That
Shakespeare gave the son of the Duke of York the wrong mother, that was
simply being
economical with time---making people meet, who in fact never met, that is
fictionalising the whole story.

Telling lies to "the great uninformed masses" is wrong, because some of it
will
stick---like mud. Mel Gibson, apparently, created a great visual spectacle
based upon gross historical distortion. Now ask me about Mel Gibson as
Hamlet, I would ask Laurence Oliver to stay home and sulk. Mel Gibson, for
the first time, for me, made Hamlet come alive and Glen Close, too, was
absolutely great. They did not distort Shakespeare's story---but
"Braveheart"? I don't think I have missed much in not seeing the movie,
reading critiques exposing the wrong premises was enough. I believe there
was a play, or a movie, in which Elizabeth I meets Mary, Queen of Scots,
start suspending believe---great drama? Yes. Great history? No. And
suspending believe is what Mel Gibson's Braveheart also deserves, and when
so many factual things are wrong---how much more is wrong? Never mind the
visual splendour----
Give me "Lion in Winter" any time, that presented possibilites---Braveheart
only has impossibilities. Entertainment or not.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: D. Spencer Hines <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: William Wallace


> Dear Leo,
>
> I'm quite surprised that you would be so critical of a film,
> _Braveheart_, that you admit you've not even seen.
>
> Is that wise?
>
> Aloha,
>
> Spencer
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines --- "Demagogues, popularizers, whores and charlatans
> give people what they want. Statesmen, educators, friends and lovers
> give them what they need. [31 August 1999]
>
> Leo van de Pas <> wrote in message
> news:000901bef43e$143dd9a0$...
>
> > Dear Spencer,
> >
> > I am sticking out my neck because I have not seen Braveheart,
> but I am
> > afraid I disagree. Poetic license etc.? Nothing wrong with that.
> People can
> > 'embroider' on the truth without doing harm to the truth. I believe
> Mel
> > Gibson has done harm to the truth.
> >
> > For instance, I think in Henry IV, Shakespeare presents the Duke and
> Duchess
> > of York and THEIR beloved son. In reality the Duke was married
> > to his second wife NOT the mother of that son. I think that is
> acceptable
> > because there was no importance to that aspect, it did not alter the
> flow of
> > the story and having to explain that would waste too much time.
> >
> > I don't need to see Braveheart (which may well be a magnificent
> MOVIE
> > but not history) to say it is 'loony' when it implies there was an
> affaire
> > between Wallace and Queen Isabella, and that Wallace could be the
> father of
> > Edward III. In 1305, when Wallace died, Isabella was about 13, it
> would take
> > another three years before she married. And, seven years after
> Wallace's
> > death, in 1312, Edward III was born.
> >
> > Another example of 'Poetic license' I approve of, I heard there was
> an
> > English woman who for ten years went through archives, the British
> Museum,
> > castles and so on. She specialised in the period of 1500 to 1600.
> She build
> > up a card system in which she could tell who was where on a specific
> date.
> > Then she started to write historical novels, the "what was said by
> whom" was
> > all made up, but the facts, where they were and the happenings were
> all
> > correct. Before she died, I understand on their request, she willed
> her card
> > collection to the British Museum. She wrote under several names,
> including
> > Jean Plaidy and Victoria Holt.
> >
> > If Mel Gibson's film had stuck to the basic facts he still
> could/would have
> > made a great 'entertaining' movie, but without 'stuffing up'
> history.
> > The masses who see this movie will believe those "facts", because it
> was
> > displayed, but it is all fiction.
> >
> > As Barrie Wright from Adelaide pointed out to me, in the time of
> > Shakespeare, people, including Shakespeare, had very little
> possibility to
> > verify the truth of such displays but, today, that is different. And
> so we
> > can
> > forgive Shakespeare and by nasty to Mel Gibson. Two handed? I don't
> think
> > so.
> > Well, these are my thoughts on the matter.
> > Leo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: D. Spencer Hines <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 1:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: William Wallace
> >
> >
> > > Ho Hum.
> > >
> > > The dramatic impact of Edward Caernarvon, Prince of Wales, casting
> > > coquettish glances at his homosexual lover, Piers de Gaveston,
> during
> > > Edward's wedding to Isabella de France is marvelous.
> > >
> > > Edward II's contrast with Edward I is therefore presented in a
> > > strongly accented visual image that would take many words of
> dialogue,
> > > or text, to explain.
> > >
> > > It is a "Cinematic Moment."
> > >
> > > This is one reason why you'll never be a successful Hollywood film
> > > producer or director --- on your current track.
> > >
> > > The historical record shows that Edward Caernarvon [The _first_
> > > English Prince of Wales. How about those apples?] was betrothed
> to
> > > Isabella de France, daughter of Philippe IV, Roi de France, by the
> > > Treaty of Montreuil of 19 June 1299.
> > >
> > > According to the terms of the treaty, Edward I, the Father, would
> > > marry Philippe IV's young half-sister, Marguerite de France [which
> he
> > > did, in September 1299] and Edward, Prince of Wales, the Son,
> would
> > > marry Philippe IV's daughter, Isabella de France. Since, at the
> time
> > > of their betrothal, Edward Caernarvon was 15 and Isabella de
> France
> > > was seven or eight, the marriage was not celebrated until 1308.
> > >
> > > So What?
> > >
> > > Do you think the General Movie-Going Audience [GMA] wants to be
> led
> > > through all the historical details of that scenario? Of course
> not.
> > >
> > > Again, Mel Gibson was making a Movie --- a very great movie ---
> NOT
> > > giving a History Lesson.
> > >
> > > Many pompous academics and misguided simple folk, who are misled
> by
> > > the rhetoric of this sounder of academics, are quite willing to
> grant
> > > William Shakespeare, Samuel Clemens and Leo Tolstoy poetic license
> to
> > > shape and enhance their historical productions for dramatic
> effect.
> > >
> > > Why are they so quick to deny Mel Gibson the same artistic
> latitude?
> > >
> > > Because they are envious of his success and his talents --- pure
> and
> > > simple.
> > >
> > > And they have a heart-felt propensity to pontificate.
> > >
> > > D. Spencer Hines
> > >
> > > Lux et Veritas
> > > Exitus Acta Probat
>
>
>

This thread: