Possibly my least topical post ever, but that’s beside the point. Compare and contrast:
Guardian: “Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia”
American Spectator: “an anti-English diatribe from its opening”
Independent: “has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice”
Economist: “xenophobic and historically preposterous”
Guardian: “seemingly intended as a piece of anti-English propaganda”
Sunday Times: “The political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film.”
Alex Salmond: “That film had a profound effect. Things politically were already on the move, but it certainly accelerated change. There aren’t many films which are truly important, but this is one.”
Hat-tip: Tom Gallagher.
Halftime in America
18 minutes ago
It's a F I L M F F S
And your point is...?
Here are a few other quotes which I missed:
Sunday Herald: “After Braveheart's initial release, there were reports of a rise in anti-English prejudice north of the border and last year the Commission for Racial Equality asked the Scottish Office to establish a register of racist incidents after a series of playground attacks on English children.”
LA Times: “Maybe we're just hardened to it; an anti-English subtext pervades some of the most lauded films of the last 10 years. Take the xenophobic "Braveheart," surely the most crudely written movie ever to win a best picture Oscar.”
Scoop: “Braveheart may have been the most dangerous film ever made. Unlike Natural Born Killers, which merely presented mindless crime, Braveheart validated the infliction of terror by one nation or would-be nation (sold as goodies) over another nation (presented as unrelentingly bad).”
"Braveheart may have been the most dangerous film ever made."
LOL
Kind of tells you all you need to know about that critic.
“That film had a profound effect. Things politically were already on the move, but it certainly accelerated change. There aren’t many films which are truly important, but this is one.”
Salmond would appear to be right, here you are still crisis ridden & politicising over the whole thing, some 12 YEARS after it's release.
I think you secretly liked it didn't you AM2.
Your obviously still wound up by it.
Why do think the story would inspire an american production company to produce such a film?
I had the misfortune to watch it amongst a whole room of mid west americans, with the usual 'whooping and hollering'' that's common at the cinema in chicago.
Quite funny because the crowd was made up of white americans and europeans, blacks, latino's, chinese & asian europeans..
Everyone had a good laugh at 'Teddy' camping it up. and the 'laid on thick' English sneering.
"The problems with scotland......"
I suspect that the hilarious stereotypes in the film really got to you didn't they, otherwise you wouldn't be raising it now.
Is the film also anti-scottish in it's portrayal of scots as thieving barbarians, many with ginger hair?
Please.
Crude is the word. Braveheart is a Western with black and white, soldiers and Injuns, goodies and baddies. It just happens that it was supposedly based on Scottish history but historically inaccurate, supposedly based in Scotland but actually filmed in Ireland.
How else could it be with the extreme religious right-wing Mel as the inspiration behind it?
Anyone who had seen The Patriot, another historically inaccurate Gibson vehicle which glorified violence and encouraged anti-English emotions, could predict the course of Braveheart without seeng the film.
Anyway, Alex Salmond liked it, and if it was a bit anti-English, well, that's our so-called "civic" nationalism behind closed doors, is it not? As last week's thread proved.
Another excerpt from the Sunday Times piece:
“At one multiplex in Falkirk, managers had to phone the police when cinema-goers started shouting anti-English bile at the screen. Either by accident or design, the police control room managed to send the only constable in the central force who happened to be English. Cue two arrests for breach of the peace and assaulting a police officer.”
And these, from the Sunday Herald, are also revealing:
“In the US, the film has fallen into bad company, having been adopted by the Ku Klux Klan, among others. Many Klan rituals are thought to be corruptions of traditional Scottish clan ceremonies, with the burning of the cross taken to be a distortion of the clan call to arms. Mark Potok, editor of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama, which monitors the hardcore militia movement and the Klan, says: "It all gained momentum with Braveheart. That film is on the shelf of every white supremacist in America."”
“White supremacists and ultra-right gun lobbyists in the Deep South have championed the film,taking its flawed history seriously in order to justify their messages of freedom and the right to carry weapons. It is more than slightly disturbing that one of Scotland's most enduring national icons is being used to push racism and the AK- 47, but it serves to highlight the film's feverish hold on the public imagination.”
And how did the SNP seek to capitalise on the ‘anti-English’ emotions unleashed by this ‘xenophobic’ film?
Entertainment Weekly, 17/11/95:
“'Braveheart touched a great deal of emotion,'' says an SNP spokesman, Craig Milroy, who adds that campaign fliers bearing Gibson's likeness have been the ''most successful ever. Our offices are swamped.''”
Sunday Times, 24/7/05:
"The SNP was quick to cash in with party political broadcasts heavy on kilts and longswords. In the autumn of 1995 Alex Salmond, its leader, finished his party conference speech with three words: “Freedom. Freedom. Freedom.”"
The Independent, 1/9/95:
“Cinema-goers will receive leaflets urging them to join the SNP when the film goes on general release later this month.”
“The distributor, Twentieth Century-Fox, was alarmed by remarks made last weekend by Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, who is attending the premiere. At the annual Wallace rally in Stonehaven, near Aberdeen, Mr Salmond told sword-carrying kilted revellers he would "decapitate Michael Forsyth [the Secretary of State for Scotland] at the intermission".”
BBC News, 23/3/07:
“Dr Martin Farr, a lecturer in Politics at the University of Newcastle, said: "Braveheart is one of the most striking examples of a film influencing the real world. I went to a screening in Glasgow and the SNP were handing out leaflets. During the film, every English death was greeted with a huge cheer."”
The Independent, 9/5/99:
“Braveheart was ... florid and debased ... positing the Scot as the noble and tormented victim of an epicene yet sadistic race ... perhaps, the high point for nationalists.”
“Salmond ... regards it as his favourite film.”
Enough yet, Wardog? I'm sure I could find more!
anti-English, anti-Semitic...whatever...still, it's nice to know what you're against....
From Wikipedia...
"A leaked report revealed that during Gibson's July 28, 2006, arrest for driving under the influence, he made anti-Semitic remarks to arresting officer James Mee, who is Jewish, saying, "Fucking Jews... Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"[89] Gibson issued two apologies for the incident through his publicist, and in a later interview with Diane Sawyer, he affirmed the accuracy of the quotations."
Yep....My hero!
Puke....
Colin McArthur: “At the ideological level, Braveheart’s xenophobia is absolutely prototypical of those modern politico-military identity formations — discernible from South America, through the British Isles, the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent to the Philippines — characterised by utter indifference to the pain of their own ‘vilified Others’.”
Alex Salmond: “From a Scottish independence point of view, the film is good news for Scotland and for the SNP.”
Deary me, have I entered a time machine? Braveheart is so -well - 12 years ago.
I agree with (the blogger)Braveheart on this one. It was as much a Western as anything else with Mel Gibson (a revolting little man) getting to play John Wayne.
But to get back to the point Scottish Unionist. Racial incidents are monitored closely by the Police. Here (Glasgow) we have multi agency racial incident monitoring groups. I can assure you from professional experience, English people do not figure highly on the agenda.
I look forward to your denouncing the sort of media/films/television programmes that demonise muslims and asylum seekers, as these are the real victims of racist abuse in these parts anyway.
I would denounce anything that demonises anyone. Please don’t try to deflect from the topic.
Now, perhaps you could provide some statistics to back up your claim that anti-English racism doesn’t “figure highly on the agenda”. This 1999 article suggests otherwise:
“Last November, the Commission for Racial Equality asked the Scottish Office to set up a register of racist incidents after a series of attacks on English children in playgrounds north of the border. Reports linked a rise in attacks on English people to the success of Braveheart. The CRE discovered that most calls to its new Scottish helpline were from English people.”
Statistics on racist attacks are published.
The ethnic origin of victims of racist attacks in 2007/08 (latest data available) were as follows:
White (British, Irish, Other, Mixed) 1,779.
Asian (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Other) 2,751.
Black (Caribbean, African, Other) 677.
Chinese 117.
Other 290
Unknown 175.
I thought that Braveheart came out in 1995 making it 14 years ago!
Was Braveheart inaccurate on several issues. Very definately. It was however a good piece of "faction".
I agree with Joyce McMillan in an article she wrote a couple of years back when she reflected that the creation of Braveheart was part of the symptom of the Scottish cringe. To her Scottish TV types should have adapted Nigel Tranter's "The Wallace" which she argued was much more accurate and a lot less Holywood. However fears about offending the powers that be had stopped them from doing it.
On Observer's point about films doing negative stereotypes, there are many. Lets look at Braveheart's French cousin, "The Messanger" starring Milla Jovovich.
Now "Le Braveheart" was about Joan of Arc, who a) takes up arms against the English invaders b) gets let down by her fellow country men, especially the Dauphin (who sort of plays the Robert the Bruce part that was in Braveheart) c) English get hold of her and after she refuses to play ball is horribly executed.
In other words like Braveheart.
There is no positive English character in the entire film. They are all portrayed as either arrogant xenophobic Anglo-Nazi-type nobles or lewd murdering raping foot soldiers (er like Braveheart).
Mel, an Ozzie-Yank plays the lead role. Controversy.
Jovovich is an Americanised half-Serb Ukrainian of Russian stock.
So surely "The Messanger" is equally an evil film as Braveheart in SU's eyes.
(I might add that one actor appeared in both films - the guy who presides Wallace's trial and taunts him on the scaffold appears in The Messanger in similar mode with Joan being held in chains in front of the stake ordering "Burn the Bitch"!)
To move away from medeival times, what about the Dutch film "Soldier of Orange" about the Dutch Resistance. Again not a single positive German character - they are portrayed as a mixture of humourless, stupid, arrogant, always obeying, violent sadists. Even the Wermacht and the sole German civilian character in it.
And this is one of the most successful Dutch films in history.
Can you have "positive" German characters in WWII progammes/films. Well apart from Colonel von Strohm in Allo Allo, you have Major Brandt in the series that Allo Allo parodied, Secret Army.
SU the Scottish government publish statistics on racist incidents collected by the Police. They do this year on year. I don't really have time right now to google but as far as I can recall whites count for about a fifth.
I don't really get what you are getting at here.
Incidentally thanks for the pointer to Gallagher's article. It's up to his usual standard.
All very interesting, but the post was more about Alex Salmond than anything else.
Any idea what he meant by the following?
“Racism of any kind should never be tolerated, but there is a difference between unpleasant attitudes and racism. There are anti-English attitudes in Scotland just as there are anti-French and anti-German in England, we should be careful of thinking of them as more than that.”
SU
what he meant was:
If you attack black people or the Irish, that's racism. If I attack the English that's just, at worst, "unpleasant attitudes".
Nothing to get het up about... lighten up..only a joke pal, only a joke. See youse English, nay sensa humour...
ha ha ha ha ha - this has got to be one of the funniest threads I've ever been on, AM2 is rattled by a kids film.
Splendid
Scottish unionist calls Braveheart a‘xenophobic’ film
Yet no-one has sought to ban it, no one has even sought t to give it a rating over PG.
What exactly is it about the film that unionists find 'anti-english'?
The film won 5 oscars and features a plethora of very famous international actors and scottish ones too.
The public awaits your details AM2.
You've really went off the deep end on this one.
Sorry, am I missing something here?
Apart from the fabrication of 'prima noctis', what exactly did the filmakers do that made it xenophobic? Am I living in some strange parallel universe where the English never invaded Scotland at all?
Just because the English are the baddies in the film, doesn't make it xenophobic, for three reasons:
a) The film centres on a Scottish character, so is it so really unreasonable to think that any characters who try to kill the main character are portrayed as evil?
b) The English were the invading force, when the hell are invading forces ever portrayed as good in films?
C) It's a film! Grow up! I've never heard an English person admitting that world war II films are xenophobic because the Germans are portrayed as baddies.
So, will someone please enlighten me as to how Braveheart is xenophobic? I'm not joking, I really want to know.
PS I'm a unionist, not a nat.
Aye, and the Italian sword and sandal epics have *really* affected the Middle East peace process...
Wardog:
“AM2 is rattled by a kids film”
What a very strange thing to say.
“Scottish unionist calls Braveheart a‘xenophobic’ film”
Not so. I have merely juxtaposed and contrasted various quotes making that and similar claims with what Alex Salmond thinks. I have little interest in delving into the question of whether or not the film itself can legitimately be described as ‘xenophobic’. But it’s undoubtedly the case that it somehow brought anti-English feeling to the fore and created fertile ground for the SNP’s message. Why else would they have created leaflets referencing the film and distributed them outside cinemas, used Braveheart themes in party election broadcasts, etc?
“no one has even sought t to give it a rating over PG”
Actually, although it’s of no relevance whatsoever, the film has a ‘15’ certificate.
"Not so. I have merely juxtaposed "
What a cop out!
You've went to the nth degree to paint it as a xenophobic film otherwise you would have temepered your quotes with positive ones and discussed it rationally.
Isn't it time you stopped hiding behind others quotes AM2 and just said what you mean.
"But it’s undoubtedly the case that it somehow brought anti-English feeling to the fore"
Did 'anti-English' attacks 'peak' during the times that it aired for the first time on network tv or the subsequent public showings?
Your talking absolute mince AM2.
SU
You're right: probably your least topical post ever. You have wandered off the path and into the forest. What next? Wembley 1977??
I was going to make a serious point about the lack of teaching of Scottish and indeed British history in our schools. Something Lallands Peat Worrier covered really well in a recent blog. But this is not a serious thread. So I won't bother.
Braveheart was an OK film. Predictable, brash, a splash of cringe, twisted history, and the baddies - the English, not the Germans for a change - were really ugly. But, first time through, it was compelling viewing. Probably why it was oscar-winning. But let's not forget it was only a movie.
And Braveheart blogger..
"what he (Salmond) meant was:
If I attack the English that's just, at worst, "unpleasant attitudes"."
Get real.
SU it's a genre film. Think about it - it's not that different from ''Gladiator'' which was completely made up instead of partially made up. The best of the lot is of course Spartacus. It's about a people's hero standing up to the bad guys for liberty and justice. Etc. In that kind of movie the bad guys have to be, well, bad.
The best part of Braveheart was when Mel shouted "Freedom", it had me running to the ballet box and rubbishing anything remotely anglicised.
Silly article merits a silly response..
Well, that’s me told! Or not. ;-)
You’re either dodging or failing to appreciate the issue. I return to Alex Salmond’s comments about Braveheart:
“That film had a profound effect. Things politically were already on the move, but it certainly accelerated change. There aren’t many films which are truly important, but this is one.”
Why do you think Braveheart had such a “profound effect” in promoting nationalism?
And why do you think “a rise in attacks on English people” was linked “to the success of Braveheart”?
Finally, how — other than the film itself — were those two factors connected?
"in promoting nationalism?"
Where did Salmond say that AM2?
Your just making it up now, desperately squirming out of what has to be the lowest ebb of this blog.
"And why do you think “a rise in attacks on English people” was linked “to the success of Braveheart”?"
Really, can you show me where the statistics are before 1995?
Your out on a limb here AM2.
I might equally (and yes it would be stupid) say that 'The Great Escape' led to English hooliganism in Germany.
Utter tripe.
“Where did Salmond say that AM2? Your just making it up now...”
He didn’t, and nor did I claim that he did! If anyone’s making anything up, it’s you.
But what do you think Salmond meant when he said that “things politically were already on the move” and that Braveheart “certainly accelerated change”? To what was he referring?
“can you show me where the statistics are before 1995?”
Why would I do that? The claim that there was a rise in anti-English violence appeared in the Independent newspaper of 8th February 1999. Feel free to present fuller information if you doubt their account.
Your overall subtext here seems to be that you don’t think that Braveheart gave rise to anti-Englishness, or was used to promote Scottish Nationalism. If that’s the case, opinion is stacked against you:
Sunday Times, 2005: “Ten years on there is still a belief in the film’s power to whip a Scottish crowd into nationalistic fervour.”
Entertainment Weekly, 1995 : “Since its release last May, Gibson's movie about 13th-century Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace has increased talk of splitting from England and helped boost interest in the Scottish National Party (SNP), an organization that advocates independence.”
Edinburgh Guide, 2008: “Charles Martin Smith’s drama won’t stir nationalist fervour in the same way that a famous Australian director did with Braveheart.”
Sunday Times, 2007: “It is time to award the prizes in my Freakonomics contest - films with real-life consequences. Jennifer Haynes suggests devolution would not have happened if Hollywood hadn’t fired up nationalist fervour with Rob Roy and Braveheart.”
The Oxford American, 1999: “The SNP has used Braveheart-"shamelessly," according to some commentators-to whip up nationalist sentiment.”
The attempted comparisons with World War II films are also invalid. Are cinemagoers in the habit of cheering every German death? Have police ever needed to be called to a cinema after people have started spewing anti-German bile at the screen?
Now, please don’t just deny all of this and lash out at me. I’m entirely open to proper critique, if such is possible.
One I missed...
New York Times, 17/10/95: “In some theaters where Mr. Gibson's movie, "Braveheart," is playing, the audience erupts in cheers. The Scottish nationalists, distributing leaflets outside theaters, sign people up on the way out. "We got nine new members just last night," said Mae Sanderson-Brown from Elderslie. The movie may have a few historical inaccuracies, she acknowledged, adding with a sigh, "But, ah, it does stir the blood."”
And from the same article, Alex Salmond on Michael Howard: “What I would say is when he turned up at the premiere in his own constituency dressed like a shortbread tin with his kilt on, he got booed going in and out.”
I wonder who could have done such a thing? Another manifestation of ‘nationalist fervour’, perhaps?
Allow me just one more. From Hitler's Vienna: a dictator's apprenticeship, by Brigitte Hamann, Oxford University Press, 1999:
“Mel Gibson's Braveheart (1995) won the Oscar for best film. Set amidst glorious Highland scenery, it made an unashamed appeal to undiluted Scottish nationalist sentiment. Michael Caton-Jones' Rob Roy (1995) exploited another story from Scottish history and from Walter Scott's historical novel, on the same anti-English and anti-Establishment pitch.”
The audience stood and cheered when I saw Braveheart. So did I though in truth it was a crap film.
The dynamic of the film is easily understood - the little guy stands up against the big guy. It is the theme of countless Hollywood films, some historic, some not historic. It's a theme that sometimes literally passes from one film to the next - remember all the kids standing up at the end of Malcolm X saying I'm Malcolm X, I'm Malcolm X, I'm Malcolm X.
So Braveheart - a pretty crap example of the genre as I think most of us would agree, certainly nothing like as good as Spartacus or indeed Malcolm X, but played to the same tune.
What made people in Scottish cinemas stand up and cheer then? Because we were the little guy and we beat the big guy, as simple as that.
Ah, so you reckon it's as innocuous as Wembley 1977 and Murrayfield 2008. If that's true, why doesn't the SNP hang about outside sports stadiums ready to set up a recruitment stall if Scotland wins? ;-)
Erm because Scotland usually loses?
The ;-) indicated a lack of seriousness.
"gave rise to anti-Englishness, or was used to promote Scottish Nationalism"
That's the problem, you see both as the same.
Isn't it time you developed your single issue politicising into something that unionists can be proud of?
"The attempted comparisons with World War II films are also invalid"
LOL, Lord haw haw speaks
"Are cinemagoers in the habit of cheering every German death? "
You've lost the plot mate.
"Set amidst glorious Highland scenery"
It was filmed in Ireland, again, displaying the utter cack that passes for your critics views.
"why doesn't the SNP hang about outside sports stadiums ready to set up a recruitment stall if Scotland wins? ;-)"
"they are doing it on purpsoe"
You really the George Foulkes of the blogging community.
Baron AM2, has quite ring to it.
“That's the problem, you see both as the same.”
Not so, but there is undoubtedly a two-way causal link.
“Lord haw haw speaks”
A Nazi insult. Classy.
“You've lost the plot mate.”
Amateur remote psychoanalysis. Even better.
“the utter cack that passes for your critics views”
Scatological criticism. You’re really rsurpassing yourself.
“You really the George Foulkes of the blogging community.”
Many thanks. But you have delighted us long enough. Clearly I was wrong to lift your ban.
SU - it was a movie. It was a movie which, it has been demonstrated, is like many other movies. And even 'though poor old Wallace got hung drawn and quartered at the end it was still a feel good movie, the audience (globally) liked it, and it made the producers a stack of money - which was the object of the excercise, lest we forget.
Now how do we expect Alex Salmond to react to it? He grasped it with both hands, and as a certin film critic used to say - and why not.
It would be mucho bizarro if the leader of the SNP were to reject a movie about a Scottish national hero, however lacking in subtlety it was. I think you are reading far too much into this.
Hi SU,
What disappoints most about Braveheart was Mel Gibson's need to romanticise the story, with the particular over-emphasis on corny straplines. I think the story of William Wallace was fascinating & would most definitely stand up on it's own merits if it was produced in a realist way.
As for some of the reaction, I think you have to expect that some people will take the fervour a bit too far. It's just a shame a lot of them seem to be in the SNP ;-)
BTW, don't ban Wardog, I find him quite amusing, to laugh at, not with of course! Next time he posts, read it in the voice of Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.
Thank you Observer. And if Wardog is still reading, that is a critique.
LOL Luke!
Of course it was corny, it's Hollywood. Corny is what Hollywood does.
In fact the only other time I remember an audience cheering spontaneously was at the end of Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood when Richard the Lionheart returned – played by Sean Connery.
I think they cheered because it was Sean Connery not because it was Richard the Lionheart. (Personally I cheered because it meant we were near the end). Whereas with Braveheart they cheered because it was William Wallace not because it was Mel Gibson.
There is a theory of course that some of the legends of Robin Hood are based on the tales of William Wallace.
Braveheart was a risible travesty of history made by an odious anti-semite.
That it was described by Mr Salmond as his favourite film is all you really need to know about him and the sham 'civic' nationalism he claims to represent.
Mr Gibson's father is a rabid anti-Englsih religious bigot, Mr Salmond's father was so bitter he refused to set foot in Wetminster. The acorn rarely falls far from the tree....
Beneath the veneer of 'respectable' nationalism beats its pernicious heart of darkness - bigotry.
Hi Grahamski, seen any good anarchist films lately?
SU
Are you suggesting that Alex Salmond thought this was a landmark film for Scotland because it encouraged rascist behaviour toward the English? If so, you're way off the mark.
I don't know how old you are, but I lived through the seventies when xenophobia toward the English was rife. Braveheart might have encouraged a minority of idiots to violence, but the xenophobia was there long before Gibson twisted the Wallace story. And it wasn't limited to 'nationalists'.
And Grahamski..
Nice poetic last sentence. Guess it could be used for a number of groups. Probably more suited to the bigots that peddle sectarianism.
But how about this one (from the banned Wardog's blog)..
"My nationalism, fierce though it is, is not exclusive, is not devised to harm any nation or individual....internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact"
Mahatma Gandhi
Much more poetic, and from a legend too!
Grahamski,
what do you mean " Mr Salmond's father was so bitter he refused to set foot in Wetminster."?
“Are you suggesting that Alex Salmond thought this was a landmark film for Scotland because it encouraged rascist behaviour toward the English?”
No. What Salmond actually said was that “from a Scottish independence point of view” it was “good news for Scotland and for the SNP”, was “truly important”, had a “profound effect” and “accelerated change”. He was clearly thinking in terms of the film’s capacity to engender nationalist sentiment.
But there is also substantial, if anecdotal, evidence that large numbers of people watching the film took from it an anti-English message. To my knowledge, Salmond has said nothing about that, except that he doesn’t think that “anti-English attitudes in Scotland” necessarily constitute racism.
Grahamski dear. I think you mistake pere Salmond's views, I think it was Westminster that he objected to, not the English. There is rather a large difference between objecting to the construct of the British state and individual human beings. They should never be confused, and I have no evidence that Eck's da' did.
I agree with you that Gibson is a revolting snti-semite, but he happened to star in a film which pressed a lot of buttons. The film *wasn't* about being anti-English, I mean who is kidding who here? Have you seen it? It wasn't real, but given the scenario painted in that film is it any wonder that a la Spartacus the ''natives'' revolted?
There is a historically accurate film which I would love to see about Wallace, and better the Bruce, which shows the utter complexity of the entire period. But alas it hasn't been made yet.
Braveheart was a commercial MOVIE. Personally I prefer gangster movies,you can't beat a good gangster movie, but some like the good guy -v -bigger bad guy genre.
So Eck doesn't have good taste in films from my point of view. Well I'm not that much into Sandi Thom; each to their own.
Aye. Alex Salmond and Mahatma Ghandi... you can see the resemblance...
.. physical, obviously...
and intellectually..
and of course morally..
both giants...
yep..
you can see it...
yep...
can ye no' jist...
Braveheart
I think you picked it up wrong. Again.
One. I was comparing Grahamski's poetic language with Ghandi's.
And two: I see you have no ascerbic comment to make about Ghandi's 'nationalism'.
SU
"What Salmond actually said was that “from a Scottish independence point of view” it was “good news for Scotland and for the SNP”, was “truly important”, had a “profound effect” and “accelerated change”. He was clearly thinking in terms of the film’s capacity to engender nationalist sentiment."
I agree.
"But there is also substantial, if anecdotal, evidence that large numbers of people watching the film took from it an anti-English message."
I disagree. Most people understand that this was a movie, and not a historical account. Most people understand that it was seen through the eyes of a Scot whose land was being besieged by an invading army, a la Hollywood. This has all been done before in Hollywood - a familiar plot with huge marketing and sales potential because of the controversial nature of the story.
You have to remember that Scotland, at the time of the film's release, had been subjected to 16 years of Tory rule. Tory rule that Scotland had not voted for, and Labour politicians had been reminding us about this fact on a regular basis. So anti-English sentiment about governance was actually being promoted by a 'unionist' party. Only, in those days, they wouldn't have called themselves a unionist party.
"To my knowledge, Salmond has said nothing about that, except that he doesn’t think that “anti-English attitudes in Scotland” necessarily constitute racism."
Haven't we been down this alley before? Murray, Dalgliesh, McConnell? Much of this is covered by simple rivalry with a neighbouring nation.
One of the articles SU links to - the American Spectator one by Hal Colebarch - claims that anti-Englishness is present in many Mel Gibson films citing Gallipoli and the Patriot as well as Braveheart.
Mel Gibson may or may not be anti-English but I think the comments that Hal Colebatch makes are interesting. For example:
'It is claimed by some that Braveheart contributed to a significant increase in Scottish Nationalist sentiment before the general election of 1997 when the Scottish Nationalist Party doubled its representation in Westminster and a Scottish Parliament was set up. The results of this have been generally negative and divisive, and anti-English rhetoric, attitudes and even physical attacks on English people in Scotland have led to a growing anti-Scots backlash in England, to the point where serious commentators believe the English will not again accept a Scots-born Prime Minister.'
So he is arguing that devolution has been generally negative and divisive and has encouraged attacks on English people. Therefore it is not just the SNP that is in the dock for being anti-English - so are all the other parties because they support devolution. And on that basis of course SU himself is anti-English.
Andrew
so you weren't comparing Alex Salmond with Mahatma Ghandi. Very wise. A sound policy. Stick to it, is my advice.
I don't know a lot about Ghandi's nationalism.... but I believe that a million people died at partition... and even more when Pakistan broke up....
Mind you, he speaks very poetically.....
Once again, Indy, your logic deficit comes to the fore. Colebatch isn’t arguing that supporting devolution is inherently ‘anti-English’. And anyway, I don’t agree with that aspect of his thinking — although it remains to be seen whether any positive developments which the SNP administration may be able to introduce will, in the final analysis, outweigh the inevitable societal effects of their incessant negativity and divisiveness.
Observer said:
"It would be mucho bizarro if the leader of the SNP were to reject a movie about a Scottish national hero, however lacking in subtlety it was. I think you are reading far too much into this."
So in view of Alex Salmond's thesis quoted by SU at the outset, would it be true to say that AS was reading far too much into Braveheart?
Not my logic deficit SU - yours.
You made the connection between praising Braveheart and being anti-English.
So the comparison is valid.
Stupid (as is this whole discussion) but valid.
You've missed the whole point. Never mind.
No I haven't missed the point. If you like I cam spell it out.
You have cited Hal Colebarch's opinion that Braveheart was an anti-English diatribe from start to finish and that the film was connected to a rise in anti-English attacks as evidence that Alex Salmomd, in praising the film, is thereby connected to anti-English sentiments and a rise in anti-English attacks.
Colehatch goes on in the article to argue quite explicitly that the results of an increase in SNP representation and the Scottish Parliament being set up have been generally negative and divisive, and anti-English rhetoric, attitudes and even physical attacks on English people in Scotland have led to a growing anti-Scots backlash in England, to the point where serious commentators believe the English will not again accept a Scots-born Prime Minister.
Let's apply your crude logic to Colehatch's theory.
Braveheart = rise in anti-English feeling. Alex Salmond likes Braveheart = Alex Salmond anti-English.
Devolution = rise in anti-English feeling. Scottish Unionist likes devolution = Scottish Unionist anti-English.
Tut tut.
I am not surprised that you disagree with Colehatch's argument....
Incidentally I enjoyed Alex Massie's taking apart of the preposterous Tom Gallagher Harry's Place article linked to your hat tip. 'delusional nonsense' - that sums it up pretty well I think.
Stuart - I think it is fair to say that Alex Salmond is not one to let an opportunity pass him by.
Whether he read into it what he said he did is a matter for him to answer.
Personally I think the film made absolutely no difference to voting intentions or people's views on the English.
“You have cited Hal Colebarch's opinion that Braveheart was an anti-English diatribe from start to finish and that the film was connected to a rise in anti-English attacks as evidence that Alex Salmomd, in praising the film, is thereby connected to anti-English sentiments and a rise in anti-English attacks.”
*sigh*
Stop right there. Colebarch expressed two separate opinions: that Braveheart was “an anti-English diatribe from its opening” and that devolution has been “generally negative and divisive”.
I am studiously fence-sitting on his first opinion and have said that I don’t agree with his second, except in respect of the negative and divisive agenda of the SNP.
The more lucid nationalist posters quite rightly point out that this is just a film. Which is all well and good. However, if it was 'just a film' what on earth were the SNP playing at leafleting outside cimenas showing it?
What was their thought process here? Why would they think that a film portraying a cartoon version of an episode of Scottish history with the English being depicted as evil pantomime baddies would benefit the SNP?
They expect us to believe that the anti-English bigotry and historical myth-making which so blighted the nationalist movement in the past has been jettisoned in favour of a so-called inclusive 'civic' nationalism. If that is true why would they be so attracted to such a clumsy piece of anti-English propaganda?
Hi SU
"the negative and divisive agenda of the SNP."
You call it negative and divisive if you want. To me it looks very much positive, ambitious and internationalist.
Regarding Braveheart the movie: I think Anglophobia is regrettably a problem that has existed for a long time in Scotland. There is plenty of empirical evidence showing that this is a problem that transcends constitutional and party political loyalties (as discussed before). I'm not convinced that a Hollywood film will have aggravated those problems to be honest. In fact, if I remember correctly one of the defining moments in the film was the general public crying for mercy as Wallace was about to get publicly snuffed oot. That doesn't exactly fit the narrative of Anglophobia does it? In fact most of the "baddies" in the film were posh lords (Scottish and English) and royalty. In that sense one might argue Braveheart captured the contemporary anti-Tory mood of the nation. Clearly there was also excitement at Scotland featuring in such a big budget movie. Nevertheless the film was shite.
As I said before we would all do well to focus our attacks on the real bigots rather than trying for narrow party political reasons to slur people who disagree with us on constitutional matters.
Clearly some folk like to justify their own British nationalism by imagining all independistas as covert, slavering, rabid Anglophobes. I don't justify my constitutional preferences by imagining all unionists as variously Europhobic, sectarian, Asylophobic or racist just because some in your number have been shown to possess those attributes.
Let's leave the silly conspiracy theories and slurs behind and start debating the issues positively and maturely.
Social Democrat says:
"Let's leave the silly conspiracy theories and slurs behind and start debating the issues positively and maturely."
I couldn't agree more. However it does beg the question:
Does using the bombastic anti-English sentiments and symbolism in this movie as a campaigning tool count as a mature and positive contribution to the constitutional debate?
Grahamski - puh-lease!! That was the old SNP. The modern party would never even dream of using Scots history and culture to promote separatism.
I have not nor do intend to see Braveheart. I think Mel gibson is a good actor but from what I saw of him in the trailer..
I am genuinely surprised that the cerebral Alex salmond ould associate himself with such crude propoganda.
Rob roy was also rubbish,