GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-09 > 0936169451


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: William Wallace
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:04:11 -1000


Dear Leo,

I'm quite surprised that you would be so critical of a film,
_Braveheart_, that you admit you've not even seen.

Is that wise?

Aloha,

Spencer
--

D. Spencer Hines --- "Demagogues, popularizers, whores and charlatans
give people what they want. Statesmen, educators, friends and lovers
give them what they need. [31 August 1999]

Leo van de Pas <> wrote in message
news:000901bef43e$143dd9a0$...

> Dear Spencer,
>
> I am sticking out my neck because I have not seen Braveheart,
but I am
> afraid I disagree. Poetic license etc.? Nothing wrong with that.
People can
> 'embroider' on the truth without doing harm to the truth. I believe
Mel
> Gibson has done harm to the truth.
>
> For instance, I think in Henry IV, Shakespeare presents the Duke and
Duchess
> of York and THEIR beloved son. In reality the Duke was married
> to his second wife NOT the mother of that son. I think that is
acceptable
> because there was no importance to that aspect, it did not alter the
flow of
> the story and having to explain that would waste too much time.
>
> I don't need to see Braveheart (which may well be a magnificent
MOVIE
> but not history) to say it is 'loony' when it implies there was an
affaire
> between Wallace and Queen Isabella, and that Wallace could be the
father of
> Edward III. In 1305, when Wallace died, Isabella was about 13, it
would take
> another three years before she married. And, seven years after
Wallace's
> death, in 1312, Edward III was born.
>
> Another example of 'Poetic license' I approve of, I heard there was
an
> English woman who for ten years went through archives, the British
Museum,
> castles and so on. She specialised in the period of 1500 to 1600.
She build
> up a card system in which she could tell who was where on a specific
date.
> Then she started to write historical novels, the "what was said by
whom" was
> all made up, but the facts, where they were and the happenings were
all
> correct. Before she died, I understand on their request, she willed
her card
> collection to the British Museum. She wrote under several names,
including
> Jean Plaidy and Victoria Holt.
>
> If Mel Gibson's film had stuck to the basic facts he still
could/would have
> made a great 'entertaining' movie, but without 'stuffing up'
history.
> The masses who see this movie will believe those "facts", because it
was
> displayed, but it is all fiction.
>
> As Barrie Wright from Adelaide pointed out to me, in the time of
> Shakespeare, people, including Shakespeare, had very little
possibility to
> verify the truth of such displays but, today, that is different. And
so we
> can
> forgive Shakespeare and by nasty to Mel Gibson. Two handed? I don't
think
> so.
> Well, these are my thoughts on the matter.
> Leo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Spencer Hines <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 1:22 PM
> Subject: Re: William Wallace
>
>
> > Ho Hum.
> >
> > The dramatic impact of Edward Caernarvon, Prince of Wales, casting
> > coquettish glances at his homosexual lover, Piers de Gaveston,
during
> > Edward's wedding to Isabella de France is marvelous.
> >
> > Edward II's contrast with Edward I is therefore presented in a
> > strongly accented visual image that would take many words of
dialogue,
> > or text, to explain.
> >
> > It is a "Cinematic Moment."
> >
> > This is one reason why you'll never be a successful Hollywood film
> > producer or director --- on your current track.
> >
> > The historical record shows that Edward Caernarvon [The _first_
> > English Prince of Wales. How about those apples?] was betrothed
to
> > Isabella de France, daughter of Philippe IV, Roi de France, by the
> > Treaty of Montreuil of 19 June 1299.
> >
> > According to the terms of the treaty, Edward I, the Father, would
> > marry Philippe IV's young half-sister, Marguerite de France [which
he
> > did, in September 1299] and Edward, Prince of Wales, the Son,
would
> > marry Philippe IV's daughter, Isabella de France. Since, at the
time
> > of their betrothal, Edward Caernarvon was 15 and Isabella de
France
> > was seven or eight, the marriage was not celebrated until 1308.
> >
> > So What?
> >
> > Do you think the General Movie-Going Audience [GMA] wants to be
led
> > through all the historical details of that scenario? Of course
not.
> >
> > Again, Mel Gibson was making a Movie --- a very great movie ---
NOT
> > giving a History Lesson.
> >
> > Many pompous academics and misguided simple folk, who are misled
by
> > the rhetoric of this sounder of academics, are quite willing to
grant
> > William Shakespeare, Samuel Clemens and Leo Tolstoy poetic license
to
> > shape and enhance their historical productions for dramatic
effect.
> >
> > Why are they so quick to deny Mel Gibson the same artistic
latitude?
> >
> > Because they are envious of his success and his talents --- pure
and
> > simple.
> >
> > And they have a heart-felt propensity to pontificate.
> >
> > D. Spencer Hines
> >
> > Lux et Veritas
> > Exitus Acta Probat

This thread: