IN THE basement screening room of a New York hotel, a small group of international journalists – Scots, Russians, Japanese, Germans and Australians – is waiting for Mel Gibson to arrive. We've just watched Braveheart (a Blu-ray version will be released on 2 November, exactly 15 years after the original), witnessing Gibson's William Wallace slashing and burning his way through English subjugation and straight into the heart of Scotland's iconography.
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Interview-Mel-Gibson.5762142.jp
Mel's interview is interesting. He doesn't add much to the story that we don't already know but Scottish nationalism undoubtedly owes his film a debt of gratitude of some sort.
Not because it was historically accurate (it wasn't, the battle of Stirling Bridge, is missing er... a bridge) but because it raised the profile of William Wallace Scotland's greatest historic hero who laid the way for Robert Bruce's ultimate victory at Bannockburn.
Is that still relevant? Yes, because if we had been beaten then, then the union would have been brought forward by 400 years and it wouldn't have been a union but a total annexation. We might now be sitting in a country called England.
The viewpoints at the end are disappointing, my remarks are in brackets:
Viewpoint Pat Kane: Musician and writer
Is Scottish independence worth it if its narrative is face-painted blue, bares its collective arse at all critics, dreams fondly of its own guerrilla movement and renders the English as collectively either doltish, sadist or effete?
(Yes, independence is worth it no matter what any film says and to imagine that the film in any way reflects modern Scottish nationalism is both absurd and ridiculous. It's a piece of entertainment and yes it reflects a crude sense of humour at times but so what? The political boost was raising awareness of our history and historical figures. Yes at times in our history Scots had to fight to gain independence. Without that win, there would have been no Declaration of Arbroath and possibly less civil rights around the world. For the first time Scotland said, we are in charge, not the King. Considering the times it was declared this is utterly remarkable.)
Every time the SNP does one of its dumb appropriations of Mel Gibson's neo-fascist tartan epic, even an independence supporter like me sinks lower in his chair.
Gibson has subsequently shown himself to be one of the weirder Hollywood movie-makers, seemingly in love with blood sacrifice, one way or another. Isn't it time we consigned the brutal dualisms of this movie to the dustbin of Scottish memory?
It's no surprise that European and American neo-Nazis take it as an inspiration. And as Scottish independence – if and when it comes – will be a matter of mastering the complexities of politics, law and economics, the last thing we need is the stench of Gibson's macho and xenophobic version of national liberation in our nostrils. Sorry, compatriots: Braveheart no more.
(To compare today with any historical movie is absurd, and it is just a film, after all. Let's remember that the real William Wallace was fighting for Scotland in very different times and he actually died for our nation. Mel's film might not entirely reflect the man but it does offer a moving tribute to his spirit. It deserves some respect for that.)
Viewpoint T M Devine: Sir William Fraser professor of Scottish history and palaeography, University of Edinburgh
One thing is certain, the movie has dramatically raised Scotland's international profile and place on the world map, for good or for ill. The Wallace Monument at Stirling, for decades neglected and virtually ignored, is now one of the nation's star tourist attractions. drawing visitors from across the globe. Americans may be still uncertain about where Scotland actually is, but they do know it is the land of Braveheart, which has now become as famous a part of the Scottish iconography
Then there is the extraordinary impact of Braveheartism in Europe. Scottish festivals abroad have become a veritable growth industry, booming from almost zero activity in 1990, from Moscow to Amsterdam. An event in the German city of Leipzig draws nearly 20,000 people annually. For the first time, in 2007 thousands of Russian 'Scots' paraded in full Highland dress in front of the Kremlin. The most recent count suggests that there are now at least 160 of these fantasy events scattered across Europe.
Not all this of this has come about only because of Braveheart, but who can deny that the movie has done much to renew the remarkable world-wide romantic appeal of a fictitious Scotland. Mel as the successor to Ossian and Scott?
Viewpoint Neil Davidson
Senior research fellow, University of Strathclyde
Freedom is a noble thing, but what kind freedom did Braveheart offer us? In a telling scene, Edward I throws his son's gay lover to his death. Edward is the pantomime villain – he hates Scots and gays: boo, hiss. But here's the point; the scene is played for laughs, and the audience does laugh.
As this suggests, the politics of the film are those of the right-wing, rifle-wielding backwoodsmen who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan commie and the NHS exists to kill your granny. Is this the kind of freedom we want for Scotland?
(So one scene means the whole film represents modern American politics right down to their current views on the NHS? Mr Davidson hates Scots independence, that is his political agenda.)
The film famously ends on the eve of Bannockburn, but long before then, before Wallace's death even, the Wars of Independence had become a struggle to see which gang of French-speaking, Latin-writing feudal banditti would exploit the Scottish peasantry. "Our" side won: fantastic. But freedom? As the Eagles used to sing: that's just people talking.
(It's a strange type of Scot that couldn't care less who won at Bannockburn. Yes 'our side' won, Scotland!)
Viewpoint Hannah McGill
Director, Edinburgh International Film Festival
Braveheart's position in Scottish film culture is as wobbly as Mel Gibson's on-screen accent. It has more sentimentally invested in the idea of Scottishness than any other film, but its own racial profile is notoriously all over the place: Australian star/director, American screenwriter, English leading lady and – most controversially of alI – some Irish locations.
(I think it's international flavour is actually its greatest strength. I don't think anyone else would have made it, it needed an Australian to look at Scotland's past and see the potential for a blockbuster.)
So, is it invalid as an icon of Scottish cinema? Not if you view it as what it is: one of the few big, fat, populist films to take Scotland as a subject, and as cross-bred, cobbled together, cynical and inconsistent as big fat populist films almost always are. Along with its more obviously 'authentic' contemporary, Rob Roy, Braveheart lent Scotland a presence in Hollywood as an inspiration and as a location. If Ireland got some temporary business out of Braveheart, Scotland – for better or worse – got its own permanent movie myth.
(I think this probably genuinely sums up the impact of Braveheart, certainly it helped put Scotland on the map internationally. It had obvious flaws but most big budget blockbuster films do. It also had confidence however and was unambiguous in supporting Scots independence. Something no film did before or since. I find the only people who really detest the film are British nationalists who would prefer no-one had ever heard of William Wallace and would prefer Scotland had no voice on the international stage at all. JOE)
