Braveheart, released in 1995, stars Mel Gibson as William Wallace, the famous warrior and leader of the War for Scottish Independence in the thirteenth century. The film is largely based on historical truths and folklore, with the occasional Hollywood exaggeration intertwined. There are several problems with the film that cannot easily be overlooked. One of the most obvious regards injury and health during the rebellion: the men in Wallace’s army did not have armor and were frequently and easily wounded. These injuries would, in reality, have disabled their receivers and caused significant loss of human capital and worth because in a village, to be disabled is to be a burden on others. There is also no allusion to common diseases that
…show more content…
Though I would argue that in the case of colonization, there are no benevolent colonizers because the principle of colonization is inherently immoral and unjust, the colonial officials in Braveheart embody the pinnacle of villainous colonizers. For the first part of the film, it does not seem as if the Scottish villagers are particularly distressed by their very status of being colonized. In fact, Wallace is one of the only characters to bring up the idea of freedom, and this may be because of his own status and privilege as an educated intellectual and world traveller. For the rest of the village, the primary focus lies on the everyday oppressive patterns of the British officials. For the villagers, the most horrifying of these oppressive practices was the law of Prima …show more content…
Wallace’s rebellion set the stage for future revolution in ways that Engels’s theory of rebellion could not predict. Not only did Wallace become a symbol of Scottish strength, power, and martyrdom, he created a weapon of empowerment that made the future Scottish rebellion possible. The Braveheart case illustrates the ways in which rebellions that have seemingly failed in the short-run can actually lead to success in, or at the very least have some effect on, the long-run. The Wallace insurgency taught Scottish villagers how to channel their pent up shame into rage and audacity that would one day allow the Scottish rebellion to succeed and gain independence from their colonial
Though I would argue that in the case of colonization, there are no benevolent colonizers because the principle of colonization is inherently immoral and unjust, the colonial officials in Braveheart embody the pinnacle of villainous colonizers. For the first part of the film, it does not seem as if the Scottish villagers are particularly distressed by their very status of being colonized. In fact, Wallace is one of the only characters to bring up the idea of freedom, and this may be because of his own status and privilege as an educated intellectual and world traveller. For the rest of the village, the primary focus lies on the everyday oppressive patterns of the British officials. For the villagers, the most horrifying of these oppressive practices was the law of Prima …show more content…
Wallace’s rebellion set the stage for future revolution in ways that Engels’s theory of rebellion could not predict. Not only did Wallace become a symbol of Scottish strength, power, and martyrdom, he created a weapon of empowerment that made the future Scottish rebellion possible. The Braveheart case illustrates the ways in which rebellions that have seemingly failed in the short-run can actually lead to success in, or at the very least have some effect on, the long-run. The Wallace insurgency taught Scottish villagers how to channel their pent up shame into rage and audacity that would one day allow the Scottish rebellion to succeed and gain independence from their colonial