Reviews of history-themed movies on Guardian web site
- Hi all,
on the Guardian's web site, a film critic reviews history-themed
movies. This week, Braveheart is being dissected:
- A very good dissection of the low points of Braveheart. Although my
favorite piece of Braveheart dissection is still Sharon Krossa's 'Braveheart
Errors: Illustration of Scale'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- Katherine Throckmorton
> A very good dissection of the low points ofI still maintain that Braveheart is a good *fantasy*
movie - it has plot, and is fun, and has lots of nice
eye-candy. But it is *fantasy*, pure and simple.
I did a paper on this for my History of Civilization
class my freshman year in college. We had to take a
'historical themed movie' and discuss it. I had a
blast taking Braveheart apart - not very hard to do,
with a little library research. I ended it with the
phrase " 'Braveheart' may be a good movie, but it is
not good history!"
I think my personal favorite 'oops' of the movie is
that the princess who sleeps with Wallace was, in
actually, 4 years old at the time of his death.
Whoops. That and the battle that historically takes
place at a river and bridge is set in a broad field,
nary a creek in sight. We talk about it as the
Battle-Of-The-Missing-Bridge when we watch the movie.
[who goes back to work on her newest project since she
can't go to Pennsic]
- I had to stop reading after the Chinese nunchaku comment (it's
Okinawan), and after he said the lacof Stirling bridge
was "inexplicable". It's explained very well. They didn't have the
budget to build a medival bridge. I don't like the lack of bridge, but
it's hardly inexplicable. And he didn't use a nunchaku. Ever. Not at
all in the movie. And I remember Bruce Lee took a lot of heat for using
an Okinawan nunchaku in Enter the Dragon, as opposed to a CHinese 3-
Not defending the movie's accuracy any, but I found the critic to be as
badly informed as many of the movie's presented "facts"
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "ren_junkie" <ren_junkie@...>
> I had to stop reading after the Chinese nunchaku comment (it's
> Okinawan), and after he said the lacof Stirling bridge
> was "inexplicable". It's explained very well. They didn't have the
> budget to build a medival bridge. I don't like the lack of bridge, but
> it's hardly inexplicable. And he didn't use a nunchaku. Ever. Not at
> all in the movie. And I remember Bruce Lee took a lot of heat for
> an Okinawan nunchaku in Enter the Dragon, as opposed to a CHinese 3-as
> section flail.
> Not defending the movie's accuracy any, but I found the critic to be
> badly informed as many of the movie's presented "facts"Well, I guess they might have had the budget for a model of a medieval
bridge and maybe some blue box technology (or whatever they use
nowadays for this kind of stuff) to make it look like the battle took
part on a real bridge. They sure had the budget for those mechanical
horses and they advertised that they used these and did not harm any
real horses during the battle scenes!
So what would you call the thingy that Braveheart uses in that meeting
scene? Does this have a name at all in martial arts?
(BTW, Wikipedia claims that "Although the certain origin of nunchaku is
disputed, it is thought to come from China through the Japanese island
of Okinawa". I hope that makes it all right for Bruce Lee to have used
Also, the Guardian's film critic is a she, not a he :-)
- Actually on budget, I'm just going by what the movie makers said. A
blue screen on that scale at that time would have looked terrible.
Lord of the Rings was really the first to do big huge convincing CGI
battles in landscapes that were a mix of models, set, matte, and
CGI. The mechanical horses were peanuts compared to what it would
have cost to build Stirling bridge. And it couldn't be a model,
becaue you'd have to have horses pounding over it.
I'd assume it was just a threshing flail. Farming implement, same
tool that gave birth to military flails of various tyes all across
Euraisia. And even tho we all know Wiki is the most reliable source
out there, 'chucks are definitely not Chinese. At least not in a
martial arts sense. The tradition there is a 3-sectioned flail.
Rather a large device. The 'chucks as we all think of them come
from the karate heritage, which is Okinawan. It was just a regular
threshing flail. The Japanese ruled Okinawa, and the Okinawan
peasants were not allowed weapons, so they had to use stuff like
that. The sickles were also popular as they were a farming
implement. In fact, hinged and chained flails were used all over
Europe for military and civilian functions. Doubt in the movie it
was intended as a martial arts weapon.
No, the King Fu gurus of the time were all over Bruce about it. In
fact, when Jackie Chan did the sequel to "Enter the Dragon" (Bruce
was dead), he used the traditional Chinese flail.
She?...Oops, I suppose I failed to look at the name.