Braveheart gay

Braveheart (1995)

Braveheart, released by Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox in 1995, tells the story of William Wallace, the Scottish hero recognizable for his rebellion against Edward I, also known as Longshanks. The story takes place in the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth centuries, a time when England ruled over Scotland with a stern, iron fist. It highlights Wallace’s amorous , political, and military ventures in his fight against English tyranny. Braveheart’s interpretation of William Wallace is loosely based off Blind Harry’s poem The Wallace, published in the late-fifteenth century, chronicling the actions of Sir William Wallace for Scottish independence. Directed by and starring Mel Gibson, Braveheart comments on sexuality and different national identities in critical way: the distinction between the Scottish and English are noticeable, as it is quite distinct which side the filmmakers intended the audience to admire. Braveheart portrays the English in a weak and feminine light, while showcasing the Scottish as strong, masculine, and moral.

The operate of costume and wardrobe is one way in which the filmmakers expressed the masculinity in Scotsmen and femininit

I knew that'd become your attention! :) I've often seen Edward described as 'England's only openly gay king' or something similar, and it seems to be taken as historical fact that he was lesbian. This is based at least in part on the previously-mentioned Hollywood motion picture Braveheart, where Edward appears screamingly camp and correspondingly incompetent, in a conduct I for one find disturbingly homophobic and unpleasant. His lover even gets thrown out of a window by Edward's father (this didn't happen in reality). A much more sympathetic portayal can be seen in Derek Jarman's 1991 adaption of Marlowe's play - I find the film a rather wonderful piece of work. However, this also over-simplifies the situation, and Edward and his lovers Gaveston and Spencer are shown simply as the victims of homophobia, with the English nobles simply unable to cope with the king's different lifestyle. An important thing to remember is that it's only been fairly recently in history that people have defined themselves as gay, heterosexual or multi-attracted . Whoever Edward slept with, he couldn't have thought of himself as gay: so it is really possible to argue today that he was, when his society had no con

Braveheart: Longshanks throwing the aide out the window

quote:
I just re-watched it for the first time in about 10 years. I never connected the dots that they were both buddies like that and that's why the King gave him the heave hoe. I thought he was just doing it because he was a d*ck. Makes sense now.

Yeah, I mean it's super clear. Not trying to be a dick.

Listen to the narrator during the marriage scene between him and the French princess. It goes along the lines that "It was said that if the princess was to conceive then Longshanks would own to do it himself, and that may own been the goal all along."

He didn't slay Philip because he had an epiphany that his son was involved with him, he did it as a punishment because his son was not interested enough in running the kingdom. He removed a distraction.

Also, Philip was giving him "advice" on how to deal with Wallace, which may have pushed him over the edge. His son was weak and easily influenced, someone using his attachment to rule via proxy was dangerous to the future of his kingdom.

This post was edited on 2/4/22 at 10:00 am

History vs Braveheart

Did William Wallace really look like the photo above? No, not at all. The 5'11, small statured, scrub shaving Mel Gibson doesn't view like the well over 6', large statured and bearded William Wallace of history. Released in 1995, Braveheart brought foward the story of William Wallace to an international noteriety. Starring Mel Gibson as Scotland's greatest ever Patriot hero and written by Randell Wallace, the film did very well, winning 5 Academy Awards including Best picture (1995). I myself enjoyed the production, as a FILM. As a historian, I'm less pleased by it. As usual with Hollywood when portraying the story of a historical character, the movie had its innacuracies, some bearable, some ludicrous. Gibsons portrayal was in one way, good, as in he put a lot of effort into it and did portray Wallace's dedicated and patriotic warrior side. However Gibson at times was far too one dimensional and pshycotic, in other words, at several times in the movie, Gibson looked like his Lethal Weapon ethics Martin Riggs in Drag with his screaching and screaming. Also, would it have killed Mel to grow a beard for the role? Still, the movie itself brought William Wall