When is an historical movie not an historical movie? Well, according to the many historians and critics of this box office smash, when it is Braveheart as directed by Mel Gibson. There were accusations of flagrant Anglophobia and a reworking of historical fact that was just not accurate. One critic pointed out that the film consisted of hairy Scotsmen charging across the Highlands brandishing spears five hundred years too late, wearing tartan kilts five hundred years too early. The film seems to take the often erroneous perception of the ancient Scottish histories and stitch them together without a hint of accuracy in the needle. Dates are wrong, characters are either completely fictional or taken from another time and place entirely - such as Isabella of Spain, for example, who had never trodden on Scottish soil without her husband - and even the events filmed so epically were wrong; the Battle of Stirling Bridge a case in point, since no bridge was to be seen in the finished film.
The film turned out to be more than an epic with questionable historical accuracy however; it also spawned a worrying rise in the instances of Anglophobia, and a renewed effort in Scotland to break free from the British crown. What had previously been a fringe political issue became a full blown campaign that was dubbed "The Braveheart Effect" by the media, as Scottish people began to feel that, as the film suggested, they had been oppressed for centuries by their English neighbors, and that it was high time this practice came to an end. Gibson was criticized for the film's portrayal of Edward Longshanks as a man with no sensitivity or kindness in him; although notoriously ruthless, he was also a lover of and patron to the arts, and a generous and benevolent man who gave richly and often to charity and the poor. Rather than passing away in his sleep, as the film suggested, he died on the battlefield, alongside the troops he commanded. Whilst underplaying Edward's military prowess and undoubted courage, Gibson completely exaggerates the battle front record of Wallace, who participated in battles against the English, but was aided by generals and noblemen whose participation in action was completely ignored by Gibson.
As a historical film it is an abject failure and has been given the dubious honor of standing among the most historically inaccurate films of all time. As an epic adventure, it was well received by the public, which in terms of what Gibson had been aiming for can probably seen to have the greater importance.
