How the Film Braveheart Promotes National Identity Through Film

Introduction

Braveheart, although based on true events, is still very much a film which uses propaganda in order to promote national identity- or is it?

 

Braveheart, released in 1995, based on the poem written by Blind Harry, The Actes Deides of Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace ‘ is intended to represent the events which occurred at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. The Battle of Stirling Bridge took place in 11th September 1297, between the Scottish and the English. The Scottish were fighting for their freedom and won.

 Although this film has glorified the battle and encouraged tourism into Scotland it has also been highly criticised for its lack of accuracy.

The film has won many Oscars,  however, Professor Tom Devine states in the Herald that ‘ Scotland is in danger of becoming a national theme park for historic heritage.’ The truth is, that historians don’t actually know much about William Wallace, yet he is regarded as one of the most important heroes in Scottish history.

It is important to establish why the film makers decided to make William Wallace the way in which he is, and why they chose a certain narrative, and characters to describe the war.

What is propaganda?

The word ‘Propaganda’ has been mainly associated with Germany and Britain -when they used propaganda in order to excuse themselves for having a war. Propaganda is mainly recognized and used in political messaging and is associated with lying. Braveheart is a prime example of distortion of true events in order to depict evident stereotypes of heroes and victims

According to Taylor (2003) propaganda ‘...is a disease which somehow afflicts our individual and collective capacity to make up our own minds about what is happening in the world around us.’

It distorts the truth in order to manipulate its audience into believing a certain view.  

It could also be described as tactful persuasion. It is very similar to implicit messaging, except it is done to a greater extreme, to the point that it could be considered as lying, yet this fails to be acknowledged by the audience as they have consumed what is being fed to them.

What is National Identity?

National identity is the term referred to the shared beliefs of people who belong to a certain country. It is a sense of belonging and this can be influenced by the nations history, symbols, colours etc. The main influence that Braveheart has is, of course, the history of Scotland. Braveheart aims to establish some heroic identity, which Scots should take pride in.  The fact that William Wallace died for the freedom of the Scots represents the bravery of the Scots as a whole. The most famous line from Braveheart is William Wallace’s last words which are , “ You may take our lives, but you will never take our freedom”. This line is heroic in itself.

National identity is known to ‘aid in the form of ego formation’ (Caputi 1996). Thus, a film like Braveheart is definitely, intended to do so, with is rather bias view of events which tends to stigmatise the English national identity, as nasty and controlling. 

Braveheart’s Success and Following Effects

Considering that this film was so successful world wide ( possibly because of the role played by already famous actor Mel Gibson) it  has exploited the already underlying political tension between Scotland and England. In order to create a movie which captivates the audience, it is necessary for the audience to empathise with the hero and hate the villan. The more inhumane the English are portrayed the more reason there is for the loyal, innocent Scots to fight them. 

Demonizing the English

Fox’s analyses of the contrast between the heroic victim and the enemy can be applied to the narrative of Braveheart.

 There are many scenes in the film where the brutality of the English is evident. Such scenes include when the English intrude the Scottish wedding and sleep with the bride. 

This did not happen.(Tunzelman 2008) The Scottish are portrayed, as innocent, moral, fair and civil whereas  the English are portrayed as cruel, ruthless, godless and evil.

William Wallace is depicted as a poor man in the film, when in reality he came from a reasonably wealthy background and had a good education. ( Clann Tartan)

Although the aim of the movie was to entertain, it is also evident that it tries to demonise the English as well as make a mockery of them.

Some film critics have pointed out the inaccuracy of the portrayal of Edward the second. Edward the second is seen, in the film as a stereotypical ‘mincing homosexual.’ Using tactics such as  striping an English king of his masculinity, is making the English appear less threatening- a tactic also used in the war against Germany in Britain. A propaganda video was released at the time of the war, in Britain, which was a Hitler Speech dubbed by someone else, making him seem inferior and unthreatening. To make a mockery of the opposition allows  the opposition to feel more powerful and in control.

The dictionary describes propaganda as ‘information, ideas, or rumours deliberately spread widely in order to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation etc.’  - This statement can most definitely be applied to Braveheart.

It can be thought that Braveheart is simply mythologizing Scottish history. By mythologizing aspects of the history they  have managed adopt a sense of power. However, because Braveheart is also seen as a movie of entertainment, any criticisms are brushed off. This then prevents further questioning to whether the movie is propaganda or not and therefore the movie as a whole, has more power. (Dreadnought 2005)

Promoting Scottish Nationalism

Its is important to acknowledge at this point, that Mel Gibson was also the director of the film. It is questionable that his intentions were ‘pro Scottish nationalism’ when directing this film. Although it may appear as though this film is promoting Scottish history and creating awareness, in actual fact, it focuses more on portraying the English in a negative light. If this film is meant to represent Scottish nationalism, Scottish nationalists could actually be deemed ignorant because of the inaccuracy of the film.  It could be thought that Mel Gibson who originates from Australia created the film in order to demonstrate his own beliefs of the English after the English invaded Australia many years ago. Therefore instead of having a great understanding of the history of Scotland, he is somewhat using Scottish history in a way to demean the English and portray them negatively to the rest of the world. (Dreadnought 2005)

However, Braveheart, seemed to be a rather failed attempt at Scottish Nationalism. The main reason for this being that there were so many historic errors from the start to the finish of the movie. To other countries, who are not aware of the accurate history of Scotland, these mistakes could be missed, however to those familiar with the history, these mistakes are rather obvious.

 

Some of the mistakes that can bring shame to Scottish nationalists are as follows:

1. Princess Isabella who is impregnated by William Wallace ( as an adult), in reality, was only nine years old at the time. It is very unlikely that she had married King Edward the second in William Wallace’s life time. (Tunzelmann 2008)

2. King Edward the 1st ,in the film dies as William Wallace is being executed, when in reality, he didn’t die until around two years after William Wallace’s death. ( Clann Tartan)

3. The ‘Bridge Battle of Stirling’, in the film, is a battle held in a field- when in reality it was held on a bridge. 

Other than the ‘mistakes‘, Braveheart conforms to the general conventions of the propaganda that Britain and Germany generated in the days of the war.

For instance it demonstrates the fact that if the Scottish did not fight they would lose their heritage and national identity. Although this did actually occur, to glorify it in such an inaccurate way only insults Scottish nationalism.

There is one heroic character, and everyone else is either unworthy, evil or helpless. This was not the case, and it is rather insulting to ram Scottish heritage into an action packed, inaccurate war film, with Mel Gibson hogging the hero lime light. By creating such a heroic character, that is apparently flawless, to represent Scotland, this then suggests that Scotland, as a nation, are proud, victimised and brave. If Braveheart was deemed accurate and successful, this could have well been the case for some Scottish nationalists.

In conclusion, it is evident that Braveheart, although based on true events, tends to be a glamorised version of the past which conforms to stereotypes in order to sensationalise the events which occurred. It is apparent that there are two motives behind this. One motive is to promote Scottish heritage by depicting Scotsmen as heroes and flawless. The other motive is to exploit the underlying tension between Scotland and England and reinforce any anti-English beliefs by using mockery, and  when depicting the English army and demonizing them too.

References

http://nicolaa5.tripod.com/articles/Marian/Mbrave.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/jul/30/3

http://www.braveheart.co.uk/macbrave/movie/bhtrue.htm

http://celticfringe.net/history/brave.htm

http://monkeyfilter.com/index.php

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3792133

Barrow, G. W. S., "Wars of Independence," in Gordon Menzies, ed., The

Scottish Nation London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972).

Explicit and Implicit Ideologies

In order to establish whether a film has implicit ideologies or explicit ideologies it is important to firstly acknowledge the definition of the word 'ideology.'

According to the online Oxford Dictionary, 'ideology' is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.'

Similarly theorists such as Marx suggest that it is a 'production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness...politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics etc.'

 

Some theorists, such as Jonathan Rosenbaum suggest that what is created to makes people feel good at the movies is actually a reflection of their opinions of the world around them.

 

There are two ways in which ideologies can be expressed, implicitly and explicitly.  Ideologies which are expressed implicitly tend to ' tame down' the explicitness of the text in order for a larger audience to be able to watch it. Prime examples of such films are Disney films. Disney films aim to teach children morals, and in this sense, manipulate children, with implicit messaging. The lack of homosexuality in these Disney films not only is a prime reflection of the homophobia in American society today, but what is ‘not said in films’ contributes to the homophobia. Disney films tend designed to conform to ideologies of American society. There were complaints about the lyrics to the opening to the song of Aladin, Arabian nights, which had an Arabian singing “ when they cut of your ear if they don’t like your face, but that’s what I call home.” Yet still, the main character was an American accented, young man. This again expressed the racism in America at the time of the creation of the movie.

 

Similarly, Shrek, a Dreamworks animation, originally released in 2001, is famous for its innuendo and implicit messages. The censorship of this movie is a 'U' classification- which means anyone of any age is entitled to watch it. Not only has the film many rather obvious implications ( for the more mature audience to understand) it also has other underlying morals for children. These morals are not so obvious to the children. Morals, such as, ' it's not what's on the outside, it's what's on the inside that counts.' It also emphasises companionship, that friends should always stick together.

 

A more explicit ideological film is ‘V for Vendetta’ , a thriller released in 2006. This film approaches ideology in a different sense. Although the film’s main message, is loud and clear through the majority of the film- the government is not to be trusted- the irony is that the whole production of the film is governed by the logic of industrial capitalism. Although the theme of the film tends to be rebellion against the government, the film still uses other Hollywood conventions.

In this movie, a freedom fighter battles against the ruling government in order for justice to be served.  Therefore the whole concept of the narrative is blatant.  There is however, a side story line which is a romance. This does not override the main message of film.  

Refferences

Internet Movie Database

YouTube

Burlesque Review

Unoriginal, cheesy, with a couple of pop stars.

This film was most definitely a film created to boast Christina's singing abilities- ‘ Christina Does Burlesque’ would have been a more appropriate title. The general plot lacking originality, the characters lacking any sort of personality, Cher (Tess) lacking anything near a facial expression, are just some of the contributing aspects to this anti climax of a musical.

After the unforgettable, yet highly regrettable one hundred and eighteen minutes, sitting dazed at the screening of NINE, somehow, it was to be expected that could be quite as mind numbing. Maybe the lesson should have been learned then and there, that, just because a modern day, respected, (in some cases) singer is in a musical, does not for an instant make it a movie worthwhile seeing. Although given the choice, Christina Aguilera’s film is more tolerable than the movie starring the now puffy cheeked ‘Fergie’.

The film is everything you would expect from a Hollywood musical- full of cringe worthy stereotypes. Without the popstar names, it would most definitely be a flopp- Although cheesiness seems to be the new black these days with the likes of High School Musical, which seems to have vomited out the likes of Glee on to our poor television sets.

As for the general plot of the film all you need to do is take Chicago ( Rob Marshall’s 2002 production), add some Moulin Rouge, ( Baz Luhrmann’s 2001 production) stir them together and your Burlesque is complete. Oh dear, what's that?...the venue is being bought over? There's a love story?... and of course a young girl that would do anything to fulfil her dream. It is to be expected that such a film would comply to the stereotypes of a Hollywood musical, however, it would also be expected not to just take the narratives of two fairly recent musicals, join them together and then through in some already famous stars to give it some credibility.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that although using very similar storylines and camera work, the anticipation of some dark, emotion grabbing scene- which Moulin Rouge, and Chicago achieve, was again an anti climax. There were no surprises, the disequilibrium was so predictable that the film was not only just a copy of any other musical but ridiculously boring.

The story begins of a lost young girl who has just moved to the city to make it big. Her dream is to become a star-to be on stage and show off her talent- somehow ironic really. The Ewan McGreggor of the film- or should it be said, the hero of the film, is Cam Gigandet, who plays Jack. Jack is a barman with a hidden musical talent. Poor Ali, has nowhere to go and Jack ( although married) invites her to live at her house as a friend. But what kind of Hollywood film would it be if the two most aesthetically pleasing people in the film did not get together?

Jack gets her a job behind the bar at a Burlesque dancing venue. Each day young Ali, ( looking remarkably fresh faced for the likes of Christina Aguilera) watches the dancers and miraculously manages to remember all the moves-so when she does get her big audition- she knows every move of every dance.

The stubborn runner of the club ( Tess ) has been won over by Ali’s voice the most- and Ali replaces the main singer. This is when the main singer becomes jealous of Ali. At this point there is a threat that Tess will lose the club if she does not begin making more profit.

That is about as dramatic as the storyline gets. All ends well, everyone is friends; the club remains open and is not bought over, and of course Ali and Jack end up together.

Tess’ assistant, played by Stanley Tucci( Maranda’s assistant in Devil wears Parada)- plays pretty much the same character in both films.

There is a general lack of character development throughout the film, or maybe it’s just so clichéd that the audience already know the characters and the outcome of the storyline in the first five minutes, that there is no need for character development.

On the plus side it is cheaper to buy a ticket for the cinema than to buy a ticket to Christina Aguilera’s concert.

Counter Cinema

Counter Cinema refers to film makers and institutions refusing to comply to the ideologies of Hollywood cinema. It breaks away from the conventions of Hollywood cinema. Some standard conventions of Hollywood cinema may include, cohesive and linear narrative structure.  It can be argued that counter cinema should not be produced by a corporate company- however against this, is the theory that although a corporate company produced it, the film could still question today's society, make the reader question ones self or make a political statement- which could be considered as counter cinema.

One film that fails to comply with the standard conventions of a Hollywood film in terms of linear scale is The Butterfly Effect, released in 2004. Directed by Eric Bess and J. Mackyre Gruber, The Butterfly Effect complies to some aspects of Hollywood film conventions, by using already well known actors. For instance, the main character in this film is Evan- who is played by the extremely famous Ashton Kutcher. Although it follows hollywood structure in the sense of equilibrium, disequilibrium and resolution. The begining is the equilibrium - where Ashton Kutcher is the popular, good looking student with the girlfriend. However, the disequilibrium comes when Ashton begins reading diaries and has black outs and the whole stereotypical hollywood linear storyline is disrupted. Each time the character has a black out a new storyline is introduced and the character does not have the life that we have previously witnessed him having. The resolultion in this film is not so much the hollywood happy ending as the main character decides that the only way that he can survive is by killing himself. This is very similar to Brechts theory that people should be aware of the effect of the characters actions, which made lead to the evaluation of their actions in society today. It may encourage self reflection as the viewer themselves may be asking " What would I do in that situation?" It teaches us that all decisions have consequences.

Another film that defies the Hollywood linear structure is Inception. Inception, directed by Christopher Nolan released July 2010(also a high budgeted, recent film)applies to most Hollywood film conventions, in the sense of stereotypes and the casting of already famous actors. However Christopher Nolan has edited this film incredibly, in order for a complex story line to be understood by most ( not all) viewers. There are four different timelines, running in-sync with each other, with the same characters in each timeline- involved in the same storyline. Generating questions about today's society, it asks the reader if society is so unbearable that we use sleep as an escapism?  Although it does not show what, at this time, may be classed as realistic, it highlights the danger or power of the increasing advance of  technology. If technology advances to this stage, we could live in an ideological world but the question is- would we want that?Emphasizing the power of ones mind, it focuses on the importance of forming an idea and how easily one can be influenced by another. It's about manipulation of the mind.

References

Boxofficemojo

Newline

Inception Movie Database

Film Theory and Criticism, Mast Cohen Braudy, Oxford University,1992

What is an Auteur?

Auteurism was first recognized in the 1950s- however the general idea of Auteurism was already planted years before hand. Directors had already gained the same respect as writers and artists when cinema was deemed as a 'seventh art' however the title Auteur had not been suggested yet.

The Auteur Theory suggests that the director is solely the author of the film. There are many theories on auteurship and what makes an author of a film.

Andre Bazin stated in his article 'La Politique des auteurs' that auteurism was 'choosing in the artistic creation the personal factor of reference , and then postulating its permanence and even its progress from one work to the next.'

Barthes suggests that having an author of a film creates limitations on the film and believes that the meaning of the film lies with the reader, which entitles them to percieve the film the way in which they want to.

Franqois Trauffaut implies that films should not just be shot on the filmable aspects of novels.
He also suggests that a directors ability can be measured on their style which may include visual aspects, reaccuring motifs and reaccruing themes.
Similarly Peter Wollen’s theories are very much based on the focus on thematic motifs and style.
However Pauline Kael fails to agree, and suggests that reaccuring themes does not make someone an author. She states “ Their ideal auteur is the man who sings a long term contract, directs any script that’s handed to him, and expresses himself by shoving bits of style up the crevasses of the plots.”

 

Using the theories of Peter Wollen and Franqois Trauffaut, an example of and auteur would be Tim Burton. Born August 1958, Burton has had many film successes such as The Corpse's Bride, The Nightmare Before Christmas and Sweeney Todd. He distinguishes himself from other film makers by using recurring themes and styles.  His most evident theme in his films- is the theme of his main character being an outcast. In the likes of Sweeny Todd, Edward Scissor Hands and BeetleJuice, the main character can definitely be identified as an outcsast.

 It is highly evident when watching a film of Tim Burton’s that it is his film. This is seen as the director implementing his thoughts, his ideas and part of his personality into the film. His films always have a reoccurring gothic theme to them. The characters tend to be eccentric. Tim Burton manages to convey a sense of individuality to his characters by the choice of makeup used. It is felt that the main similarities are the style of the hair and the pale make up.

Below we witness the similarities:

The imagery of character and the narrative allow us to sympathise with the troubled,complex character in someway regardless of whether they are regarded as a villain in society or not.

However, it does leave the imagination to wonder if it is Tim Burton's personality showing- or whether it is a style he has just adopted. 

The question is, is he actually like any of his characters?

Pre 1930's Most Influential Films

1925- The Phantom of the Opera- Rupert Julian

The above clip from the film adaption to Gaston Lerox 'The Phantom of the Opera" is one of the most popular clips from the film. It is the unmasking of the phantom. Although there is no dialog- a defining moment in cinema pre 1930s was when we witness Lon Chaney's self applied make up. This was applied to create a horrific look in order to shock the audience. It can be suggested that this has influenced Hollywood horror movies today and the likes of Tim Burton seem to have diluted the whole "horror" appeal in order to create a less intimidating look yet still allowing the characters to remain dark and mysterious.

The clip we see here, is very similar to the film as a whole as far as lighting is concerned. Lighting wasn't very advanced and as we can see from this clip its almost done in black and white the lighting is so dull. However this adds to the enigma of the film as a whole.

Birth of a Nation- D.W Griffiths

This, now highly controversial film, released in 1915, is notorious for it's racial storyline and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. This film, based on the the novel The Clansman by Thomas Dixson, was classed as the first Hollywood ' blockbuster.'

It was highly appreciated as it, according to Roger Ebert, 'defined the film language, that taught audiences and filmmakers all over the world the emerging grammar of the shot, the montage and the camera.'  This film lasted a total of 159 minutes which is long in comparison to ' The Lights of New York'  which lasted just 57 minutes long.

The Battleship Potemkin 1925- Sergei Eisenstein

 The Battleship Potemkin- A film released in 1925, directed by Sergei Eisenstein, was deemed so dangerous that it remained banned many years later in some countries. It focused on the usage of certain editing skills, in order to convey some meaning. This idea can sometimes be referred to propaganda- and was adopted by the Nazis later on. Although it inspired negative actions it was a highly successful way of manipulating an audience. This was classed as the 'montage' theory. Propaganda still exists today in order to manipulate the reader of the text therefor this film proves to be a highly influential film of the pre 1930s.

Don Juan 1926- Alan Crosland

Don Juan, released in August 1926 by Warner Brothers was the first feature length film to use Vitaphone sound effects and musical soundtrack. Vitaphone is when the sound of the film is not printed on the film itself but instead created into a record which would be played in-sync to the showing of the film. Warner Brothers tended to use this in a lot of their short films prior to the premier of Don Juan. It is also suggested that the number of kisses in this film was a set record for its time. It has inspired many theatre productions of the film.

The Lights of New York 1928-Bryan Foy

The Lights of New York was released in 1928 by Warner Brothers. This was the first feature length film that contained dialog. There had been films prior to this that were partially dialog ( also released by Warner Brothers.) The success of this film then encouraged more filmmakers to produce all dialog films which were referred to as ‘talkies.’It is strange that dialog films are automatically expected in today’s society, as it has now become the norm for Hollywood films.  It was produced by Bryan Foy. It was also the film that created the crime genre. The running time was 57 minutes ( which is classed as a short time in today's films.)

References:

The Internet Movie Database- Lights of NewYork

The Internet Movie Database- Phantom of the Opera

Battleship Potemkin Archive

Roger Rebert Article

Filmsite.org