Glorious epic and guts-directing at its best ...

Rating: 10/10 (28 May 2012)

Cinematically speaking, Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" is a triumphal homage to a kind of old-school entertainment that deserted the big screens during the cynical 90's. And I believe that the controversy surrounding its Best Picture win has more to do with the degradation of Gibson's public image, than the content of his film which is no better, no worse than some antagonist's portrayal found in Spielberg's movie..
Now, to "Braveheart': with this catchy title, Mel Gibson delivers a flamboyant epic that pays homage to one of the greatest Scottish heroes, William Wallace. Therefore, he finds the perfect tone required for such portrayals: it's grandiose without being over-the-top, it builds a legend but not a myth. Gibson, with a remarkable craftsmanship, draws the perfect line between historical accuracy and legend and the way "Braveheart" oscillates between these two aspects is the true measure of the film's greatness both in the form and in the content.
Indeed, when historical accuracy can be questioned, the film is immediately redeemed by some of the bloodiest and most realistic battle scenes ever filmed, and when the myth is too big to be believable, the story is elevated to a sort of abstract and hypnotic beauty, conveying the feeling of a myth that historians couldn't properly reach. "Braveheart" is like a "Gladiator" with a ferocious and passionate heart pumping and driving its dynamics, with a thrilling thirst of fights and battle, and what makes it superior than "Gladiator" rely on a famous quote from this film : 'Are you not entertained?"
Mel Gibson won two Oscars on that 1996, for Best Director and Best Picture. Both satisfy me, but the directing one, even more. Gibson's talent behind the camera literally implodes on our faces and is as much a revelation, as the existence of this William Wallace figure, now, a cinematic legend. Gibson is so talented that he doesn't even take for granted his story's material, after all, with a handsome hero who leads a revolt against an invader, you can't fail, just copy some respected epics, such as "Lawrence of Arabia", add some complexity on the character, make his handsome, and brave with a wound in his heart, and use the biggest part of the budget on the battles. Really?
If the recipe was so sure, there wouldn't be so many epics that sunk into oblivion, think of all the post-"Braveheart" films, the "Troy", "Alexander", not to mention the infamous "Vercingétorix', all these movies were probably less controversial than "Braveheart' but less memorable as well. Gibson doesn't do an epic for the sake of it, and it shows, he wants also to tell us a story and to make it believable. His battles are more than two crowds of soldier colliding for a bloody mess, there is military strategy in "Braveheart", warfare. If you pay attention, you may quickly realize that beyond the historical setting, "Braveheart" is also one of the greatest and most convincing war films.
And the storytelling extends the limits of the war. Wallace is not just a leader painting his face in white and blue, he's the exaltation of the romantic figure in such a modern way it can feel anachronic. He's the quintessential hero, charismatic as hell, handsome, sweet and gentle or ferocious and impetuous when duty calls but also vulnerable and overly idealistic. Mel Gibson signs an extraordinary performance on an Oscar worthy level. So when the film opens with these lines "You may call me a liar, but history is written by those who hang heroes", which is a subtle way to leave the benefit of doubt to the story. At the end, we're intelligent enough to make the difference and Gibson trusts this very intelligence.
Maybe Wallace was not that 'perfect', maybe Edward Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan) was not such a ruthless and evil man and his son an effeminate weakling, but these considerations hardly matter in a spectacular film like "Braveheart'. Yes, it's Manichean, yes it emphasizes the hero's value and demonise the villains but would have the film worked better on the field of political correctness.. By the way, to those who criticized the one-dimensional portrayal of British, I thought that the portrayal of the Scottish nobles as morally corrupted men was harsher than the British, who were only defending their interests.
Again, I suspect these critics are influenced by the many controversies that affected Mel Gibson's career recently. People are now so eager to prove that he's a racist bigot, that "Braveheart" is used as the most blatant alibi. What I see in "Braveheart" is not a racist film but the birth of a cinematic talent, free-spirited, independent and bold in its depiction of violence, in "Braveheart", the violence displayed in "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of Christ" are hinted. In an era where many acclaimed directors lose their touch like Scorsese and Tarantino, Gibson knows how to associate guts. Everything is efficient on every cinematic level, the cinematography, the editing, the beautiful music from James Horner and maybe more than that, the acting.
Every actor shines within the limits of his role and manages to transcend the conventions applying to their characters, McGoohan is magnificently evil as the demoniac King and while we're shocked by some of his lines and actions, we can't help but respect the Machicavellian genius, Sophie Marceau and Catherine McCornick are equally good in the two female characters who'll conquer Wallace's heart, while Brendan Gleeson is the perfect gentle brute sidekick. And Angus McFayden deserves a worthy mention as Robert the Bruce, the tortured man torn between his admiration toward Wallace and his ambition to get on the throne.
"Braveheart" is also an insightful journey into warfare, politics and Machiavellism, but more than that, transcended, by Mel Gibson's mind-blowing talent in both acting and directing, it's also pure entertaining and one hell of a film.