A Good Tribute To William Wallace - But What's With Isabella?

Rating: 6/10 (6 April 2012)

As a tribute to William Wallace - one of Scotland's great national heroes in its ancient (and in some ways still ongoing) battle for freedom from England - this movie works very well. Wallace (portrayed by Mel Gibson) is a heroic figure in this. As a viewer you have no choice but to admire him for his courage and his fierce devotion to Scotland, and for his ability to rally the Scots around him. He certainly comes across as more consistently devoted to Scotland's freedom than, for example, Robert the Bruce (Angus MacFadyen) - which, in truth, he was. The title misleads, however. "Braveheart" was the name applied to Robert and not to William, and Robert, generally speaking, has received far greater acclaim in Scottish history.
There's a lot to like about this movie. The sets and costumes are wonderful, and there are some spectacular shots of beautiful Scottish scenery throughout. The battle scenes between the Scots and the English are marvellously choreographed, and Gibson's portrayal of Wallace is compelling. The last half hour or so, which revolves around Wallace's capture, torture and finally his execution at the hands of the English is fascinating for its look at some of the torture techniques of the day, and for the same reason, it's disturbing. One gains a sense of the conundrum faced by the Scots, with divided loyalties and shifting alliances among themselves.
There are also some things not to like in this, however. One could go on in great detail about the historical inaccuracies - and many have done just that. I have no desire to rehash them - but I will mention the one that really stood out for me: the depiction of the relationship between Wallace and Isabella. Let's first point out that Isabella was about 10 years old when Wallace was executed - making their relationship as depicted here quite unlikely, made moreso by the fact that the two never met, and that Edward I would have been unlikely to have entrusted a diplomatic mission (which is where the two are depicted as meeting for the first time) into the hands of a young female child. There's also the fact that Isabella didn't marry Edward II until 3 years after Wallace's death. For all those reasons, it was ridiculous to suggest near the end that Isabella implied to Edward I on his deathbed that she was carrying a child who was actually the son of Wallace. That portrayal mystified me and bothered me, and really detracts from the overall credibility of the story. It's dealing with a Scottish hero, so one expects dramatic licence and a bit of playing loose with history - but why this, which is so bizarre and so inaccurate? All it does is give a soap-ish feel to the story, while it adds nothing of any real significance.
That's my main criticism of this movie - and for me at least, it's a big criticism. It detracts a lot because of its extreme inaccuracy, and because of the amount of unnecessary time the faked relationship takes up in the film. And it adds exactly nothing to the story. So this is a good tribute to William Wallace, definitely portraying him in deservedly heroic terms, but that detour into mere fable is a huge problem. (6/10)