Braveheart
HISTORY
A brief synopsis of Scottish history of the period prior to that of the film would be
useful. Alexander II ruled Scotland from 1214 till 1249. He was succeeded by his
son Alexander III who suffered a fatal accident at Kinghorn in March 1286. During
this time Scotland was at peace with England, and after 1263 at peace with Norway.
Alexander’s immediate successor was his granddaughter Margaret (the Maid of
Norway), then three years old. She was in Norway and in poor health, but her claim
to the throne was upheld. The Scottish nobles established Guardians of Scotland until
Margaret reached her majority. In 1290 Margaret died, and the power struggle began.
The main contenders were the Baliol family and the Bruces. Edward I had made no
attempt to intervene in the succession prior to 1290 because his intention had been to
marry his son to the Maid of Norway. Since this wedding had only been mooted as a
possibility, the Scots were wary, but not hostile to Edward, and turned to him for
advice on whom to select as king. Amazing though this might sound, it is fact.
Edward had previously acted as honest broker over at least two other European
monarchies. He chose Baliol, a man whom history has treated roughly. John Baliol
genuinely seems to have tried to rule independently of England, but this was not on
Edward’s agenda. Edward wanted a puppet king, and when Baliol did not collude,
Edward ordered the Scots lords to support his invasion of France in 1294. Baliol,
among others, refused to go, and Edward sacked Berwick.
William Wallace was the second son of an Elderslie squire. How he sprang, full–
blown, into the national consciousness is not at all clear. One legend suggests that it
was as a result of his killing of the Sheriff of Lanark in retaliation for the murder of
Wallace’s wife. Other legends suggest that the Wallace family were already
disenchanted with Edward, as the Wallace name does not appear on the oath of
loyalty to Edward. Whatever the cause, the result was that between the spring of
1296 and the autumn of 1297 William Wallace became the leader of a guerrilla army
which took on and defeated Edward’s army, a formidable military machine. At
Stirling Wallace defeated Edward’s army at the bridge, not, as in the film, on an open
plain. He was appointed Guardian. At Falkirk he was deserted by the Scots lords.
He did invade England, burning and sacking in retaliation for Berwick. He backed
Baliol’s claim for the throne. Finally he was betrayed and executed in 1305.
Precisely what he did in the years between 1297 and 1305 is unclear. There is some
evidence to suggest he travelled abroad seeking support. Equally unclear is his
relationship with Bruce.
What is clear is that he had an extraordinary military genius, and a passion for
Scotland. It is also worth noting that, despite his power and support, it was not his
aim to take the throne for himself. He wished a Scottish king to rule in Scotland, and
he believed Baliol to be that rightful monarch.
NARRATIVE
The film is not historically accurate. The relationship with the princess did not
happen; the battle at Stirling centred on a bridge; and Wallace backed the Baliols, not
the Bruces.
It is not the business of media teachers to pick holes in the historical accuracy of the
film. In focusing on the narrative of the film, teachers of media need to look at how
the film has been constructed as a text, why these constructions have been made, and
their effect.
The strands of the narrative can be teased out. Firstly it tells the life of Wallace from
childhood to death. It presents his political shaping, his actions, and his private life.
Secondly it presents Edward’s drive to conquer Scotland from the re–introduction of
prima nocte until his death. Thirdly it follows the manoeuvrings of the Bruce family
for the throne until the death of Robert the Bruce’s father. The three deaths occur at
the end of the film, and the preceding two hours and forty minutes tell the
intertwining story which reaches this simultaneous conclusion. As with any text of
multiple narratives each plot has to be laid, then developed and intertwined until the
resolution.
The narrative is built on a series of parallels, which allows for an exploration of the
central issues of the text. As well as the three deaths at the end, there are three young
men, all with fathers, who are held as foils against each other. Wallace senior is
concerned about his son, and will not permit him to accompany him on what becomes
his fatal journey. The other two fathers, Edward of England and Bruce senior totally
disregard the needs and wishes of their sons in their obsessive desire for power.
The three mothers are also missing. If they were present they would, by their very
presence, muddy the paternal/filial issue. Their absence allows space for the other
females in Wallace’s life to emerge. Murrin and the Princess could not be further
apart socially, yet they are linked within the text when Wallace tells the Princess that
he sees Murrin’s beauty in her. Ultimately these women merge to develop the figure
of Wallace. The narrative parallels do not end there. There are three weddings, each
one very different from its counterparts, and consequently ideologically very
different.
Murrin’s funeral is very similar to that of Wallace’s father, and this semi–repeating of
the narrative reinforces the devotion of Wallace to these two figures.
The battles also are balanced, the victory by the defeat.
Many of the actual camera shots are also paralleled. At the end of Murrin’s death
scene, Wallace is positioned to the left of the screen, and this is echoed after Stirling.
The first marks his becoming an outlaw, the second his military power. The music
also helps to tell the story. ‘Murrin’s Theme’ is first introduced when she gives
Wallace the thistle at his father’s funeral. It is picked up again when he is reunited
with her, and again when he is with the Princess. The music is used to fuse Murrin
and the Princess into one.
There are other examples of parallels, which students will pick up. Fire is used
repeatedly to justify Wallace, from the sword scene early on to riding through fire
after Falkirk.
To sum up it is important that the students understand:


the use of parallels in the narrative to balance and contrast characters;
the strands of the plot being separately built, but moving to a unified
conclusion;
 the use of camera work and music to drive the plot.
Understanding of the narrative allows students to begin to explore the central
concerns of the text which are in summary:





the paternal/filial relationship;
the nature of freedom;
the role of monarchy;
where power ultimately lies;
nationhood.
The construction of Wallace as the hero, through all the devices employed, ensure that
he carries the ideology of the text. Because we see him as a whole, rounded figure,
and we see him suffering so badly as a child, we are positioned as sympathetic to him.
Thus his relationship with his father is held up as ideal, his desire for children natural
and desirable. His explanation that a home and children are worthless without
freedom, and that freedom as self–determination, not crumbs from the overlords,
becomes paramount. Kings who ride roughshod over people are the villains and,
although Wallace is executed, he has won the moral high ground. Furthermore his
message continues in the final scene when Bruce takes on his role. This scene
scotches any notion that the film celebrates Wallace as a revolutionary. Wallace says
he will follow Bruce, and Bruce ultimately leads the Scots to freedom. The final
message of the film is that kings are necessary, and indeed good when they allow their
sense of nationhood to override their class interests. Bruce will finish what Wallace
began.
Drawing out the threads of the narrative in this way is a skill familiar to English
teachers.
Moreover just as with a written text, the reader goes behind the narrative to consider
its central concerns. In the study of texts in English we tend to talk of the themes. In
media they are more usually termed the ‘central concerns’ or the ‘discourses’ of the
text. (It should be noted, that while there are subtle distinctions between a theme and
a discourse, as far as the English and Communication exam paper is concerned, the
nuances of these distinctions are not of significant importance).
IDEOLOGY
The central concerns/discourses of ‘Braveheart’ are:
 the nature of freedom;
 kingship;
 colonialism;
 the family;
 notions of masculinity;
 the role of women;
 class.
Close readers will also find others. But the six identified here are enough to satisfy
the requirements for Higher Still English and Communication Mass Media.
NATURE OF FREEDOM
Wallace is constructed as the hero and so his thoughts on freedom are significant to an
understanding of this text. Early in the film, his father is killed because he is fighting
for Scotland’s freedom. In the dream and through the sword (see below) he charges
young William to take up the challenge. This is picked up by his uncle who tells him
that education should take place prior to fighting (not instead of) (scene 7). Once
again taking up arms for freedom is constructed as right. Argyll tells young William
this juxtaposed against the line ‘outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes’, thereby
reinforcing the point.
As an adult Wallace wants a home and a family, but is drawn into the fighting as an
act of private revenge for the murder of Murrin. Once in the struggle, he takes on its
thinking, but goes further. After Stirling he says he will invade England, in a form of
pre–emptive strike.
He tells Bruce that the nobles are ‘scrabbling for scraps’ and that he is ‘for better –
freedom’. They do not know what freedom is.
Just before his betrayal he tells Hamish that ‘a home is nothing without freedom’.
Thus the discourse of family is reinforced in the fight for freedom. Finally, as he
roars ‘Freedom!’ at the end, the intercutting with Murrin makes it clear it has as
much, if not more, to do with her than it has to do with a political struggle.
Counter–posed against this is the position of Edward. Scotland’s freedom is
something not to be tolerated. As Edward is throughout constructed as the villain, the
position he holds is not the preferred reading of the film. The reader is no more
expected to see Edward as right, than Shakespeare wanted Claudius or Tybalt to be
the moral force of the texts in which they appear.
Nor are the Scots nobles positioned as the central force of the text.
Bruce senior is manoeuvring with Edward and he, like the English King, is working to
his own ends. He does not have the interests of Scotland or even the family at heart.
He is simply driven by the desire for power. Thus on two counts Bruce senior is at
odds with Wallace and is used not only as a plot device, but as a foil to Wallace.
Bruce junior is quite distinct from his father. He acts as a pivot between the force of
Bad and the force of Good.
Bruce junior is torn between the ideas he has been brought up with and the passion he
sees in Wallace. The last five minutes of the film are crucial to the message about
freedom, for they make explicit that although Wallace was killed, his ideas lived on in
Bruce who, according to the voiceover, in 1314 led the Scots to freedom. They are
also crucial to the discourse of kingship.
KINGSHIP
The film wants us to identify with Wallace’s position, and within the film he is no
revolutionary seeking power for himself or trying to establish a republic. He tells
Bruce at one point ‘Help me. If we win we will have what none of us has ever had
before, a country of our own’. At another point he says to Bruce, ‘If you would just
lead them they would follow you, and so would I’.
Thus his position, and therefore the discourse of the film, does not question the
rightness of monarchy. What it does question is the behaviour of one monarch, and
one would–be monarch. Edward rules without concern for others. He is determined
to crush Scotland, prepared to risk the death of his daughter–in–law to bring in the
French if necessary, and before the Battle of Falkirk says, ‘Send the Irish. They cost
nothing’. When the Princess returns from her first meeting with Wallace, saying she
has given away Edward’s bribe to the poor, he is furious until he sees the gain for
himself in PR terms. The film constructs Edward as arrogant and uncaring, but it
does not make that synonymous with monarchy. It is just Edward. Bruce senior is
also very self– centred: he betrays, lies and hates. His leprosy acts symbolically
showing externally the disease in his soul. His son has a moral code, which despite
deviations (Falkirk) finally wins through (after Falkirk and the coda scene). In the
final voice–over he is constructed as a good leader, and a winner. He has won his
internal struggle to emerge on Wallace’s high moral plain.
Thus the film finally says that a morally upright king is the route to freedom.
COLONIALISM
Tied up with all this is of course the notion of colonialism. Edward’s contempt for
the Irish, and his determination to overrun Scotland, are set up as wrong. This is
reinforced by the fact that he finally loses.
Set against this is Wallace’s struggle for a free Scotland, where people are able to live
peacefully. He does not seek power or glory for himself, just a home and self–
determination, which is at the core of all anti – colonialist wars.
THE FAMILY
Wallace fights for Scotland’s freedom, where he will be free to have a home and a
family. As the film progresses he is politicised, but his primary motivation is to
avenge the murder of his wife. Earlier on in the film the secrecy of the wedding is to
protect her from the horror of the prima nocte rights. His relationship with the
Princess is justified in family terms. He sees Murrin’s ‘strength in you’ (the
Princess). This is reinforced by the use of Murrin’s theme music when he is with the
Princess. Thus Murrin and the Princess are fused. More powerfully, the discourse of
family is answered through the pregnancy of the Princess. A ‘family’ has been
created which defeats Longshanks.
Interestingly there are three father/son relationships featured in this film. In all of
them no mother is present. Wallace senior is anxious to protect his son, and so would
not allow young William to travel on his fatal journey. In the hero’s family the
paternal relationship is of love. Wallace himself wants children, and in the execution
scene is drawn to the child in the crowd. The other two fathers totally disregard the
needs of their sons in their own interest. Edward despises his son and is driven by the
obsession of maintaining control. Bruce senior goes further. He ridicules and ignores
his son’s ideals, and finally betrays him in order that his son can become the king he
never was.
MASCULINITY
William Wallace is driven by the desire for a home and a family. He moves into a
fight for freedom. He is the hero, brave, strong, leading his men in the battles, ready
to avenge wrong, highly regarded, and attractive.
Edward, the villain, does not participate in the battles. He is afraid for his own life,
(scene 31), ready to sacrifice others (the Irish, the Princess), childishly bad tempered
(throwing his son’s friend out of the window), and lacking in any moral decency or
emotion. We also see him as violently homophobic.
By identifying what Wallace is and what Edward and the nobles are not, it is quite
clear how masculinity is defined in this text. Attention should be paid to the discourse
focusing on Edward’s son and his friend. It is too simplistic to see this film as
homophobic. It might appear so. Prince Edward has been cast as effeminate, and his
partner is almost pretty. Up to this point, we find ourselves quite sympathetic to the
Prince, forced into a loveless marriage, and with such a father, he is a sympathetic
figure. However he loses our favour in his narcissist behaviour (scene 24) and his
sneering at the Princess at the end. But all of this has to be seen against the conduct
of King Edward, when he assaults his son. The Prince has genuine feelings which
find no expression in that household. At his wedding he is a very lonely figure. Thus
the film is not so much homophobic, as using the Prince’s sexuality to display another
negative character trait of Longshanks.
WOMEN
‘Braveheart’ contains three weddings and a funeral which centre on women. It would
be easy to see the film as constructing women as victims, or territory for men to fight
over, but again that is too simplistic. The Princess is a very lonely figure. Forced into
a royal marriage with an unwilling partner, she falls in love with Wallace’s legend.
She then helps him, not for political reasons, but for love. At the end of the film we
see her power, when she tells the King not only that she is pregnant, but that his son
will not sit long on the throne – is she capable of murder? She has also told the jailer,
‘The king will be dead in a month. His son is a weakling. Who do you think will rule
this land?’ She had no arena to work in other than the private. Thus her revenge on
Edward is in the personal arena, but its nature is in fact political. She, like Wallace,
becomes politicised, out of love.
Murrin defies her parents to be with Wallace. She is seen as ‘of the land’, especially
in the wedding dress conjured out of nowhere, a dress which seems to owe much to
the wedding at the end of ‘Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves’. She is at the core of the
film’s discourse of family. At her funeral Wallace kneels before her parents, thus
taking on the rôle of the son.
At the first wedding, when the bride is taken away for the right of prima nocte, she
kisses her husband in a very sensual way. This is not only a statement of their
relationship – it is also an act of political defiance. Furthermore it must be contrasted
with the kiss at the royal wedding.
Thus the women are active within the terms of the family and their time. Perhaps this
is best seen by comparing it with ‘Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves’ where Maid
Marion is reduced to a shrieking wreck in a white gown by the end. The ‘Braveheart’
women defy the English forces in the only arena of power they have.
Lastly of course they are slim and beautiful. Interestingly the prima nocte bride is the
least attractive. Perhaps there is here a tie up with the discourse of class, or perhaps it
is simply because she is not the love interest of the hero.
CLASS
The ruling class in both countries is seen as self–seeking, arrogant, lacking in emotion
and isolated. As Bruce says, men follow him because if they don’t, he will throw
them off his land.
They are lonely figures, unenviable for all their wealth. Would any of us wish to be
in the position of Edward or the Bruces as it is constructed in the film?
Wallace has love, desire for a bride, family, friends, kinship, moral decency,
principles and passion. Wallace’s class is seen to have higher values than those of his
‘superiors’.
LANGUAGE
Just as in literature much of the meaning of a text is created by the language (the
word-choice, imagery, rhythm etc.) so in film much of the meaning is in the language
of film.
While this does involve the actual words spoken, the ‘language’ of film is really
concerned with the techniques of filming.
These are:
 the visuals;
 the editing process;
 the types of shots;
 the composition of the actors in the shot;
 the lighting;
 the sound.
Because film is visual, much of the construction of hero and villain is achieved
through what the viewer sees. This is termed the MISE EN SCENE. In its simplest
form it is the film equivalent of descriptive language. In ‘The Great Gatsby’ Daisy is
described as ‘in white’, with ‘her dress rippling and fluttering’, and with ‘a kind of
voice that the ear follows up and down’, while Myrtle is ‘in her middle thirties, and
faintly stout, but she carried her flesh sensuously’, ‘wearing a spotted dress of dark
blue crêpe de chine’, and continually ‘smouldering’.
These descriptions set their character and their action in the plot. Description of
location in literature is important to the action and the theme, for example, again from
‘The Great Gatsby’, the Valley of the Ashes, and Tom Buchanan’s home. (The
Valley of the Ashes – ‘a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges, and
hills of grotesque gardens with ash grey men’. Tom Buchanan’s home has a ‘high
hallway, a bright rose coloured space, fragilely bound into the house by french
windows at either end’. ‘A fresh breeze blew through the room’).
This is just the same on film. In ‘Braveheart’ Wallace’s men are presented as natural.
Their colours blend into the hillside. Their hair is wild and unsophisticated. Mel
Gibson’s eyes are the blue of Scotland. The face painting indicates that he means
business. It is as significant as it is in ‘Lord of the Flies’ although its meaning is very
different.
Wallace’s men are seen in poor housing, in small communities. The army is ragged,
with homemade weapons, while Wallace rides bear back.
At the end of the film Wallace is constructed as a Christ figure. He goes to his death
on a cross. His friends have their heads covered as if by a cowl, and the crowds are
silent while the religious music soars. There are echoes of 50’s Biblical films and the
crowd scene near the end of ‘Robin Hood Prince of Thieves’.
Edward, by contrast, is seen as well–groomed and expertly tailored. His men jar with
the Scottish hillside; a metaphor for their not belonging there. He is seen
predominantly inside a castle, heavily protected, and when he is at the battle he does
not participate. He gets no blood on him throughout the movie. He is apart.
Bruce junior is in–between the first two both in plot and in mise en scene. His hair is
less well–groomed than Edward’s, but his clothes belong more to those of the English
than those of Wallace. When we first see him, he is in a township, possibly
Edinburgh, but it is wooden, not stone built.
The Princess is layered and covered but as the film progresses, her hair and dress
becomes more natural, more ‘Murrin’.
Once these elements are identified, it is necessary to analyse how they have been
conveyed in each shot. It is a very long film so, as with a play or novel, a class should
study it broadly, then examine in close detail selected scenes which are crucial to the
text.
EDITING PROCESS
Much of the meaning is in the juxtaposition of scenes known in Media Studies as
MONTAGE. At the beginning of the film the Scots are constructed as politically
opposed to the English (PLOT), as natural and living in small supportive communities
(MISE EN SCENE). Then the film moves to England and the plot, as well as the
visual differences (MISE EN SCENE), are set up. The wedding follows the funeral to
construct the two nations through the role of the church.
Later on Wallace’s sending of the head of the Governor of York to Edward is
followed by Edward’s killing his son’s lover and beating his son. Thus we are led to
the idea that for all Wallace’s grisly behaviour, Edward is worse. Edward’s behaviour
is a knee-jerk reaction in his private world to his failure politically. Wallace is
fighting for freedom.
At Stirling, the battle has been edited together to stress the overwhelming odds in
Edward’s favour. The English army comes over the hill. We see the spears first. The
Scots stand silent and afraid. The shot/reverse-shot of the editing emphasises the
power of the English army.
As the charge begins the montage of the English horse to the Scots front line
emphasises the daring of the Scots and the courage it took to stand there as the
English cavalry charged. This is emphasised by the zoom shots on the Scots, but not
on the English.
Wallace’s revenge is edited against the Scots lords’ determination to get rid of him,
thereby raising the level of tension in the movie.
At the end the key players are brought together. Edward has had a stroke and cannot
speak, Bruce senior is dying and the Princess is occupying the position of power. The
editing suggests that all three people were present at Wallace’s execution. This, of
course is not true, but it allows all the narrative strands to be brought together.
TYPES OF SHOTS
Within the editing process are the actual shots. Each is composed and filmed to create
meaning. The camera is not just pointed at the action. Each shot has been designed.
In this film there is a great deal of slow motion. Each time a significant event takes
place, it is stressed by the slow motion shot. When Murrin is killed and Wallace
comes back it is slow. At Stirling the horses begin in slow motion. Wallace’s
revenge for Falkirk (scene 44) is perhaps the best example. By the use of slow
motion Wallace seems to be flying. He is nowhere constructed as more powerful.
The effect of this technique is emphasis (Stirling and the revenge) and building up of
tension (Murrin’s death). At the end slow motion is again used when the cloth falls
away signifying Wallace’s death.
At the other end of the extreme are fast cuts. They are used extensively at Falkirk to
convey the horror of battle.
Zoom shots are also used to emphasise emotion. The shot/reverse-shot of scene 31 is
reinforced by the zoom to show Prince Edward’s terror. The zoom shots at Stirling
combine with the pan shots to show the fear of the Scots, as they await the arrival of
the English army.
Mel Gibson, as the director, has used a number of unusual shots, particularly those
involving horses (scenes 15 and 44). This may be to offset his own lack of height.
Certainly these shots emphasise Wallace’s power. None of the villains have their
very real power displayed through these visually stunning shots.
The aerial shot (scene 45) is used to emphasise the dialogue behind. Wallace is a
legend in this very recognisable representation of Scotland.
There is also soft focus for the love scenes. Soft focus softens shots, and its use in
scenes 13 and 48 is obvious.
COMPOSITION OF SHOTS
Each shot has to be composed to make its meaning clear. Apart from the PLOT, the
mise en scene and the TYPE OF SHOT, the placing of the actors in the frame has to
be examined.
Scene 8 is the Wedding of the Prince of Wales. He turns to the man behind. The
camera focus is shifted, the King turns, and without a word spoken, we know the
situation. The gay relationship is set up. The prince’s misery is evident. The king’s
determination (he will impregnate the Princess himself if need be) is explicit.
Scene 7, shows Argyll (Wallace’s Uncle) leaning on the sword which is rising,
phoenix–like, from the fire. He leans on it in such a way that the visual echo is of a
monk. This is reinforced by the prayer. It is clear from this shot that Wallace’s
actions later are moral and are grounded in religious belief.
Perhaps the best example of this is comparing scenes 15, 28 and 59. After Murrin’s
death (scene 15) and Wallace’s revenge, he is an outlaw. This is shown by him
positioned at the left of the scene. He is against a strikingly blue sky and the sword of
vengeance is on the right.
After Stirling (scene 28) this shot is echoed. The sky is duller and Wallace is blood–
stained. He has emerged as a fighter. He throws the sword and it stands alone against
the very blue sky. He faces the camera and, in his eyes, we see there is no turning
back. That blue sky is used again as the cloth falls at his death. (scene 59) The mise
en scene of the blueness, and the position in the shot chart the plot. (English teachers
should have no difficulty with this idea of how images and language are paralleled to
deliver the plot for example: Holden Caulfield’s hat, and ducks, in ‘Catcher in the
Rye’).
LIGHTING
Many of Edward’s shots are filmed inside, yet when Wallace is interred instead of
being in a dark dungeon, it is lit most sensitively to emphasise his goodness. He is
praying, (echoes of Jesus after the last supper), and it highlights the relationship with
the princess.
Edward’s lighting is harsher.
Blueness is used for the dream sequences, as they give an unreality to the film, which
sets the section apart as a dream. Early on the blue is of the horror movie which
makes sense of Wallace’s horror at what he has seen (scenes 1 and 5).
The execution at the end takes place in dull weather, whereas Wallace’s earlier return
is in sunshine, which is dulled down when the soldiers appear. At the beginning the
weather is dull, prior to Wallace seeing the bodies hanged, but his first act of defiance
in throwing the stones at the soldiers is on a glorious sunny day. Murrin’s death goes
without saying, as does Stirling and, in contrast, Falkirk.
The love scenes (scenes 13 and 48) are beautifully lit to convey the intensity and
richness of the emotions. The lighting of the hands is crucial to the meaning of the
shot. Prima nocte would never get lighting like that.
SOUND
Sound on film is always used to convey meaning. It is a very powerful way of doing
so. In this it has some similarity to poetry.
The tune we first hear when Murrin gives Wallace the thistle is picked up, and used
repeatedly, to emphasise his feelings for Murrin and then to blend her into the
Princess. It comes to represent love.
A drum beat introduces key scenes of vengeance; after Murrin’s death, and after
Falkirk. It begins before the accompanying shots, and works to herald what is to
come. It is in tandem with the slow motion and the horse shots. Irish pipe music is
used in the early scene (scene 7) as it has a more plaintive sound than the military
bagpipes of the Scots.
At the execution the music is not far off a Gregorian chant. All of these devices are
the language of film, and are the visual or sound equivalents to what English teachers
are familiar with in the printed word.
ICONS
In literature we are familiar with symbols. In film they are called ICONS. There are
quite a number in ‘Braveheart’ but it is necessary to analyse only the most prevalent:



the thistle;
the sword;
fire.
As with many symbols (Mrs Morel’s gloves, Holden Caulfield’s cap) they echo the
plot, and a tracing of them tells the story.
The thistle first appears when Murrin gives young William a thistle at his father’s
funeral. It is given with affection and no affectation. Young William is touched by
this, clearly evidenced by the close–up shots. As the thistle passes from one to the
other, the music swells and the thistle is highlighted by a shot to itself. It is set up as
important. Wallace keeps it throughout his years in exile, and its reappearance
cements their love. As it disintegrates, the cloth it was carried in comes to represent
it, and is used in the betrayal of Wallace. Bruce has the cloth after Falkirk, and uses it
as a mark of his trust in inviting Wallace to Edinburgh.
After the cloth falls from Wallace’s hand at the execution, Bruce once again acquires
it. Thus he is Wallace’s moral successor. (The cloth of course has to replace the
thistle in film, because a disintegrating thistle lasting 20 plus years is not an attractive
item. In print, the thistle could have remained.)
The sword belongs to Wallace senior, and when Argyll takes Wallace into his care he
tells young William that he ‘must first learn to use this (his head), and then use this
(the sword)’. The sword is visually set up as a Cross (scene 7) and this is echoed in
the Crucifixion visual allusions. The sword is used at the avenging of Murrin, and by
implication on one of the nobles. (scene 43 and 44). A sword is also used to swear in
‘Wallace as one of the Guardians of Scotland. The sword is clearly seen as a force of
good. (It should be noted that Wallace’s sword is a vital component of the film,
precisely because it still exists. A huge rise in the number of tourists visiting
Wallace’s monument at Stirling since the release of ‘Braveheart’ attests to how this
film has touched the audience and this in turn is channelled on to the one reputedly
extant item of the time – the sword).
Fire is used as a weapon against the English. It cleanses and frees Scotland. The
warm glow of fire lighting as a nurturing force (as it is used in ‘Rob Roy’) is not part
of this film. Wallace’s anger is tied to the icon of fire, particularly in the scene when
he rides through the fire to take revenge for Falkirk. (scene 42) Like the sword, he
too has risen phoenix–like.
REPRESENTATION
Representation is a Media Studies concept which identifies the idea that when
something is presented over and over again in the same way, it comes to take on that
presentation as truth. Spain is said to be represented as flamenco and bullfighting,
Australia surfing and kangaroos.
The representation of Scotland and England is constructed through:





the PLOT;
the MISE EN SCENE;
the IDEOLOGY;
the LANGUAGE OF FILM;
the ICONS.
Scotland is presented as essentially rural. Wallace’s community is small and tight–
knit. Bruce and the other Scottish nobles live in bigger communities, but their
wooden buildings lack the grandeur of the stone Norman castles in which Edward I of
England is located.
The representation of Scotland is maintained through aspects of the mise en scene.
Wallace and his men are dressed in homespun clothing, in natural colours, their hair
wild and uncluttered. Blue is used extensively throughout the film to signify
Scotland.
The music too is that of the pipes, (usually Irish, because of their more haunting
sound), but after the funeral of Wallace’s father, we are reminded of the significance
of the pipes when we are told the Scottish bagpipes play ‘outlawed tunes on outlawed
pipes’.
Wallace and his army are brave, loyal, honest and honourable. They take revenge
when betrayed, and in Wallace himself there is a romantic hero of the most
swashbuckling Tinseltown kind.
The second group of Scots are the nobles. Scots in name, but beyond that there is
little similarity between their aims and those of Wallace. They are the ruling class,
and this is made clear in their visual similarity to the English. Clean, barbered and
dressed by tailors, they are associated with town–like communities. In Bruce the
clash of interests is personified. He is a lord, but he admires Wallace, the guerrilla
leader second son of a lowland squire. Thus the representation of Scotland is divided,
along class lines. Wallace’s Scots are constructed as ‘real’ Scots, while the Scots
nobles balance their bidding for the Scottish crown against maintaining their lands in
England.
England is set up as more advanced technologically through the weaponry of the army
and the castles. The ordinary English man is given no place in the film. He is
subsumed into the treachery, absence of love, cruelty and violence displayed by
Edward I.
REPRESENTATION OF THE HERO AND VILLAIN
The hero is constructed as outlined above. In summary, he is the winner, albeit that
he is executed for he wins the moral high ground, and his ideas and beliefs live
beyond him. (This is the same idea as the deaths of Romeo and Juliet bringing about
good through the ending of the feud). Wallace is natural (MISE EN SCENE), has the
most advantageous shots and the gentle music. This is emphasised by the shots of the
grandeur of the mountains and lochs. He is also the star. Mel Gibson arrived in this
film from ‘Gallipoli’, (moral winner but loser), losing his wife (Mad Max I) and a
troubled moral hero (Hamlet). (‘Mad Max with a kilt!’ was not so wide of the mark.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE VILLAINS
If Edward I were the only villain, the film would be very simple. There are at least
three other individual, or groups of, villains – the English soldiers, the Scots lords and
Bruce senior. Bruce junior will be dealt with separately.
THE ENGLISH
Edward is constructed as both treacherous and lecherous. His plan of dispatching the
princess to Wallace is evidence of his treachery. ‘If she is killed’, he says, ‘it will
bring France in’ (on his side). Close–ups of Edward at the beginning and at his
reinstituting of the rite of prima nocte are not only political manoeuvrings. They
indicate lecherous thoughts about his daughter–in–law. This is emphasised by the
voiceover spelling out that Edward himself may have to take on responsibility for the
succession, the close–ups on Edward and the princess, and the point–of–view shots
when he is announcing prima nocte.
It is clear he despises his son. His throwing out of the window his son’s lover has to
do both with homophobia, and with despising his son’s weakness and military
ineptitude. His clothing and setting are Norman, his carriage imperial. He is a villain
to be reckoned with.
Edward is seen, both politically and personally, as a dangerous man.
At the other end of the social scale there is the villain who attacks Murrin. In short he
is gross. The previous wedding scene closed with him watching Murrin, so it is no
surprise when he returns to stalk her. He is drinking, he is hideous, and when he gets
on top of her the camera moves to a close up of his tongue, a detail which is designed
to revolt every person in the audience. The soldiers’ clothing, like that of the nobility,
jars with the scenery. It, and they, do not belong in Scotland. This scene triggers
Wallace’s reaction which makes him an outlaw.
BRUCE SENIOR
Bruce’s father is an interesting figure. In some ways he is the most villainous of the
villains, for he is unseen by everyone except his son. We first become aware of him
when Bruce talks about his father being away in France, and then glances upward to
where we later learn his leprous father is hiding. Bruce senior is a king–maker. His
sole concern is to put his son on the throne. When Bruce says he wants to be like
Wallace, that he admires Wallace, Bruce senior brushes this aside. Power lies through
courting Edward’s support, and this he does ruthlessly to the point of betraying the
promise he made to his son. Bruce senior is the real villain of the story – Wallace
knows he is up against Edward, but never once does he allude to the existence of the
man responsible for his betrayal. It is not accidental that the filmmakers have stressed
Bruce’s leprosy. As he is eaten away externally, so is he internally. He has no
honour, no loyalty; only hate.
THE SCOTS LORDS
Lastly the Scots lords. They cannot agree amongst themselves about the rightful
monarch. Bruce or Baliol? This is clear in the scene when Bruce is made Guardian.
When they side with the English at Falkirk, Wallace takes reprisals. They are afraid
of this powerful leader in their midst, who has changed the rules of warfare and of
power brokering. We see this early on in the deer hunting scene. A fifth columnist is
among Wallace’s men. Paid by whom? Edward? Hardly! Bruce senior or the Scots
nobles? Wallace has in the Scots lords the enemy within; for they are primarily not
Scots, but lords, whose class interest is more important than their national interest.
The final shots of the Scots army at Bannochburn show how little the ordinary people
trust the nobility.
BRUCE JUNIOR
Bruce junior is constructed in an unusual way. He is a lord, and a potential contender
for the throne. As a member of a very powerful family with a claim to the throne this
would have been instilled in him since childhood. At the beginning of the film, we
see he is not averse to the idea of becoming king. Indeed he goes along with his
father’s machiavellian behaviour enough to collude in the lie that Bruce senior is in
France. However Bruce admires Wallace. He tells his father ‘I want to believe as he
does’, and after Falkirk says ‘I never want to be on the wrong side again’. Wallace’s
passion attracts Bruce, and this is in direct conflict with the thinking of his class, most
clearly exemplified by his own father. Wallace has a mission to free Scotland, the
villains pursue self interest, and Bruce occupies the space in the film, of the hero with
an internal struggle.
From this conflict he emerges on Wallace’s side, and thus becomes a hero. Wallace
himself ensures that. For the bulk of the film Bruce admires Wallace, and this is used
as a device to construct Wallace’s heroic qualities and his moral centrality to the text.
Before Falkirk Wallace asks Bruce to lead the Scots and become king. Wallace thus
paves the way in the audience’s eyes for Bruce to become king, and thus Bruce, as
king takes on the mantle of Wallace rather than the moral vacuum of his own father.
Thus Bruce’s reaction to Wallace’s betrayal is essential in his eventual passage to
hero status. At Bannockburn we know he will lead the Scots, not betray them.
History tells us this, and for the audience not versed in Scottish history, the voiceover
tells us if we were to doubt Bruce’s own words. The language of film tells us also.
The sidelong looks of distrust of the Scots who were Wallace’s friends and
companions at Stirling and Falkirk is followed by the shamed looks of Bruce, and the
fingering of the cloth in which Wallace had carried Murrin’s thistle. One of the icons
has passed to Bruce, and with it Wallace’s blessing. Any lingering doubts of Bruce’s
honour are dispelled in our minds by the soundtrack, and the cutaway shot to the
reaction of the noble.
REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
This should be clear from the section on plot which looks at the rôle of the women in
the story. In summary it is as follows.
Trapped by society into only having power in the personal arena, at least two of them
use this power in a political sense.
The ‘prima nocte’ bride kisses her husband in a defiant manner. Murrin defies her
parents (personal arena), fights off her attacker (personal arena) but is used as a plot
device to politicise Wallace. The princess moves from Royal victim to a defiance of
Edward in her liaison with Wallace, announcing her pregnancy and the hint that she
could seize power. In Edward’s death scene she says to him, ‘Your son will not sit
long on the throne, I swear it’.
Their clothing symbolises their role in the narrative. As the princess’s acts of
defiance build, her clothes become more free and her hair is loosened. The three
women all have long hair, and are slim. The first bride is the least attractive – which
may be part of the discourse of class, or may be because she is not the love interest of
the hero.
GENRE
This film followed hard on the heels of ‘Rob Roy’, so it would be easy to see these
two films as belonging to a genre entitled Scottish History or Scottish Heritage
History or, if ‘Robin Hood Prince of Thieves’ is included, perhaps the genre is
‘British Heritage History’. This misses the point. The film draws on the conventions
of a number of different genres:


it is a love story (PLOT, MISE EN SCENE, LIGHTING, SHOTS);
it is a western (SHOT 10 and 12) and perhaps the painted faces at Stirling.
(Here the ‘Indians’ win);
 it is the individual battling against the superior forces of corruption and evil
(PLOT, IDEOLOGY);
 it is the history of people, not pomp and ceremony. Branagh’s Henry V broke
from Olivier’s film and also stripped away the veil of the ‘niceness’ of the past.
(PLOT, MISE EN SCENE, CAMERA WORK, LIGHTING, IDEOLOGY).
While it is not part of the Mass Media component of Higher English and
Communication to look at AUDIENCE and PLEASURE, (they being part of the
Media Studies paper itself), it would be worth discussing these with a class. This film
has deeply affected a huge number of people, and it would be germane to
understanding this film if the class discussed whether or not their attitude is entirely
generated by the techniques of the text, or whether it is related to something outwith
the film which triggered the national reaction. Considering the effect of a text is very
important in the Media Studies option. Each member of the audience reads it in his or
her own way, and takes away the meaning that he or she has read. Discussion of this
nature has a place in the personal stance element of the Critical Essay.