Braveheart is a suitable text for the Mass Media section of the Higher English paper. Film and Representation are specified as areas of study, and in this article Myra Armstrong and Margaret Hubbard examine the representation of Scotland, of heroes and villains and of women, as well as ideology in the film Braveheart.

As a film ‘Braveheart’ has had a considerable impact on Scotland. Abroad William Wallace is now a name people recognise. While we are still too close to the release date of the film for its long term effects to be estimated, in the short term, the tourist trade in Scotland has markedly increased. A Braveheart shop has appeared on the High Street of Edinburgh. Braveheart tee shirts proliferate in the shops of the monuments of Historic Scotland.

In this article we intend to look at Braveheart’s representations of Scotland, heroes and villains, and women, and then pull this together ideologically. As with the analysis of Rob Roy in MEJ number 21, the locus of the depth of analysis is the mass media section of Higher English.Representation of ScotlandScotland is represented as essentially rural. Wallace’s community is small and tight knit. Bruce and the other Scottish 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.

Much of the representation of Scotland rests on its very difference from England. Castles, chain mail, cavalry and the long bow abound. Treachery, absence of love, cruelty and violence are the values Edward I displays. Montage is used throughout to define Scotland differently.HistoryA brief synopsis of the 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 1296. 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 intentions had been to marry his son to the Maid of Norway. (A wedding was cheaper than a war with the same result!) 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 who to select as king. Amazing though this might sound, it is fact. Edward had previously acted honest broker over at least two other European monarchies. He chose Baliol, a man whom history has treated roughly. He genuinely seems to have tried to rule independent of England, but this was not Edwards’s agenda. Edward wanted a puppet king, and when Baliol did not accord, Edward ordered the Scots lords to support him in an 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 descended from a Welsh family. How he sprang full blown into the national consciousness is not at all clear. One legend suggests that it was as a result of him murdering 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 (possibly because of Edwards crushing of Wales), as the Wallace name does not appear on the oath of loyalty to Edward.

Whatever the cause, the result is 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 Edwards’s army, centred on 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 Balliol’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.Representation of the heroThe heroes are constructed as essentially Scottish. This is emphasised by the grandeur of the mountain and loch setting, against which they are often seen. This, incidentally, is historically inaccurate, as Wallace hailed from near Paisley, and he waged war in the Lowlands of Scotland and the North of England. The heroes are often associated with pipe music, referred to by Wallace’s uncle as outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes, another historical inaccuracy as the bagpipes did not exist in that form in Wallace’s day and were not banned until more that 400 years later! The use of tartan plaids to construct the Scottishness of the heroes is no more authentic, as men of this time would have worn belted tunics made of rough greyish-brown cloth.

These Scottish heroes are constructed as members of a close and caring community, in stark contrast to the villains who are disloyal, treacherous, and constantly fight among themselves. The heroes come together to support each on sad occasions like funerals. A strong sense of community is conveyed by the sad music as the men gently wash the body of Wallace’s

father; by the slow motion and point-of-view shots at the funeral itself; and by the close-ups of the distraught family at Murrin’s burial.

They also gather together for happy occasions like the wedding, in which the open air setting, the music, the dancing, and the natural clothing are all reminiscent of the celebrations held by the heroes in both ‘Robin Hood Prince of Thieves’ and Rob Roy’. The lively music, the dancing, and the close-ups of smiling faces construct the heroes as a sociable crowd who, even when times are hard, know how to enjoy themselves. Furthermore, all ages are involved, from the very young to the very old, another contrast with the world of the villains in which children are conspicuously absent.

Indeed, the heroes are constructed as protectors of women, children and the family, while the villains are seen as a danger to all three. In the first scene, where the young Wallace witnesses the bodies of those murdered by the English dangling from the barn roof, we see the villains as murderers of children: when Wallace’s father comforts him, the heroes are constructed as protectors of children and of the family. A similar sense of family commitment is suggested by the warm glow illuminating Wallace and his uncle as they eat together. The strong father-son relationships of Wallace, Hamish, and their respective fathers contrast dramatically with the uncaring way in which Edward and Bruce wield power over their sons.

Women are treated no better by the English: Murrin is beaten, raped and has her throat cut; the princess is sent to negotiate with Wallace even though Edward mistakenly thinks she may be harmed. Wallace, by contrast, is constructed as a lover, and as a defender of women, first attempting to save Murrin, but finally able only to avenge her. His behaviour towards the Princess is chivalrous, and he is protective of her in their last scene together. Despite the absence of a wife for most of the film (and a construction at times reminiscent of the lone hero of cowboy films) Wallace comes across as a family man in his oft-stated desire for a home, a family and children, and the close-up of the child in the execution scene is a reminder of this.

Associated with the desire to have a family is Wallace’s desire for peace. However, he makes it clear before both Stirling and prior to his betrayal, that a peaceful life is of no value without freedom, a point powerfully emphasised in the slow-motion close-up when he shouts, ‘Freedom!’ near the end of the film. Wallace, like Rob Roy, is seen as fighting because he has to, fighting for Scotland, not for personal gain. And while in history the Scots were as brutal as the English, reportedly flaying the English Cressingham, after Stirling and carrying pieces of his skin as tokens of freedom, within the narrative of the film any Scottish violence is seen as justified. This is achieved through montage. For example Wallace’s first attack on the English is preceded by the brutal murder of Murrin, and followed by her funeral. The close-ups of Murrin, emphasising her youth, beauty and vulnerability, highlight the callous, gratuitous nature of English violence. In the murder scene, the shots of Murrin in her veil-like shroud are a reminder of her recent marriage. In the funeral scene, the close-ups of her distraught family stress the enormity of this killing, and the repetition of the style of Wallace’s funeral emphasises the extent of English violence. Similarly, when Wallace appears to go beyond acceptable bounds, sending the kings nephews head to him in a box, montage is again employed when immediately afterwards we see the king throw his son’s ‘military adviser’ out of the window. The message is clear. Wallace may use violent methods, but these are necessary against people who are so callous and ruthless they use such violent methods against even their own.

Wallace is not only a brave and competent fighter; he is also clever, a tactician skilled in working out strategy. His father tells him, ‘It is our wits that make us men’, a point reinforced by his uncle who says he must first learn to use his head, before learning to use the sword. But his powers go beyond this. He is seen as almost superhuman, one man succeeding against seemingly impossible odds, when he takes on the English single-handed in his first attack, or when he jumps Bond-like on horseback from a window into the moat far below! At times these powers are constructed as supernatural, as in the ghostly scenes where his father and Murrin talk to him, and also when he insists of Murrin, I know she’s watching me.’ Indeed in the execution scene he has the power to see Murrin’s spirit, and the suggestion is that the two lovers are finally united in death.

The view of the hero as Christian and morally good is evident throughout the film. Wallace’s father and Murrin are given funerals which are explicitly Christian; Wallace’s wedding is conducted by a priest beside a cross; and the heroes, who are seen crossing themselves at various points throughout the film, are blessed by a priest before Bannockburn. Like Rob Roy, who refuses to bear false witness against Argyll, Wallace used biblical language when he tells the Princess he will not play Judas. However, it is in the mise en scene of the execution sequence that the religious references are most fully developed. Wallace’s journey through the hostile crowd is reminiscent of Christ’s journey to Calvary. The execution table is cross-shaped, and when his hands are tied, the camera rises, emphasising the similarity to the crucifixion, as do the close-ups of his two friends in the crowd which bring to mind the disciples present at Christ’s death in the biblical epics of the 1950s.

Associated with this goodness, is the hero’s strong sense of honour which he maintains till the end, chiding the Princess, If I swear to him, then all that I am is dead already.’ It is his moral strength and sense of honour that make him such an impressive figure. He has the power to inspire a whole army at Stirling. This is conveyed by the close-ups as he delivers his patriotic speech in defiance of tyranny, by the thundering sound of the approaching English army and the rapid cuts to the orderly, still Scots, transformed from the rabble they were before Wallace appeared. Perhaps most dramatic of all is Wallace’s effect on Bruce. Long, still shots of Wallace emphasise his shock at Bruce’s treachery at Falkirk, and it is this scene which is a turning point for Bruce who declares soon after it, ‘I will never be on the wrong side again’. The powerful effect he has on Bruce and others is stressed by the cross-cutting from shots of Wallace being tortured, to close-ups of the crowd, the Princess, Bruce, and Wallace’s comrades.

His power is seen to extend beyond the grave. Wallace may be dead, but his legacy lives on. For it is Wallace’s name, not Bruces, that the Scottish warriors chant at Bannockburn, and the two icons associated with Wallace throughout the film (the thistle and the sword) are prominent at the end. Bruce himself holds Wallace’s thistle, and Wallace sword is thrown into the air as battle commences, a symbol of Scottish strength and independence.WomenThe representation of women in Braveheart has been criticised, the women in the film having been described as little more than territory to be fought over by men. However, examination of the text suggests something different.

The silent, nameless bride in the wedding celebration appears at first a stereotypical woman. She is like the passive Maid Marion in the second half of ‘Robin Hood Prince of Thieves’ in her natural flowing clothes and woodland head dress. Yet she is brave in confronting the soldiers, and clever in the way she saves her husband from them. Her power is conveyed by

the haunting music, the slow motion shots, and the silent mouthing of her comforting, reassuring words to her husband.

Murrin, too, is mostly a silent figure. She says little when alive, and even less when she reappears in ghostly form (on one occasion in a scene which appears to show signs of borrowing from a Scottish Widows ad!). However, like the bride she is stronger that she first seems, defying her parents by secretly marrying Wallace. She puts up a spirited fight against her English attackers and, though clearly afraid, remains impassive in the lead up to her death. However, despite these strengths, she is a victim, and, like the stereotypical heroine, has to be avenged by the hero. Yet in the end what we are left with is an impression of her strength which has the capacity to transcend even death.

This strength is emphasised in the way her character and that of the Princess are merged. The writer has drawn on the Blind Harry legend of Wallace and the Princess, partly to satisfy the demands of the historical romance by providing a love interest after Murrin’s death. However, the Princess is also useful in providing narrative solutions. The hero has to be seen to win in the end. She enables Wallace to win against Edward in the short term (while the ending of the film with Bannockburn enables him to win against the English in the longer term.)

At first the Princess is constructed as a vulnerable figure, lonely and unhappy, trapped in a loveless marriage, living in a foreign land. A sense of restriction is conveyed by the head dresses in which she is wrapped, the bands of precious metal round her forehead, and the hair coverings which look like metal grilles. She is also constructed as romantic, falling girlishly in love with the idea of Wallace before she sets eyes on him, and falling in love with the man himself immediately she does.

However, she is also seen as a sexual being, frustrated by her passionless marriage, and finding fleeting fulfilment with Wallace. She is brave and independent, going willingly to meet and negotiate with a man considered a savage by the English. She is clever, giving away the bribe provided by Edward, telling him she has give it to ease the suffering of the poor in York! The main way in which she differs from the stereotypical heroine, though, is that she drives the narrative, enabling Wallace to win when she whispers to Longshanks that she is carrying a child not of his line.

A problem with the introduction of this storyline is that Wallace obviously cannot be united with this heroine at the end of the film. Given his construction as loyal, Scottish and a man of the people, it is much more appropriate that he is finally re-united with his wife. The difficulties this causes are circumvented by the merging of the two female characters. The first indication of this is in the montage when the Princess first visit is preceded by the ghostly dream of Murrin. It is almost as if she is giving this relationship her blessing from the grave. The merging continues when Wallace says to the Princess, I see her strength in you.’ When he tells her, ‘Open your eyes!’ it echoes Murrin’s call to Wallace to wake up. Both the dream and the meeting with the Princess are accompanied by Murrin’s Theme, another link between the two characters.

The same music accompanies the love scene between Wallace and the Princess which has strong echoes of Wallace’s wedding scene. In both, there are nightime woodland shots, with the characters illuminated by moonlight; the women are both in flowing dresses, their long

hair hanging loose; and the camera shots are similar, showing the couple in profile embracing each other.

Like Murrin, the Princess ends up having to be protected by Wallace. In the scene in his cell, although it is he who is about to be tortured to death, it is she who needs comforted and protected by his pretence that he has taken the pain-killing drug she has brought him. Ultimately, though, as with Murrin, we are left with a sense of her strength, her power over Edward, and her contribution to the solutions at the end of the film. Equally powerful are the reminders of Murrin – the slow motion shots of her spirit and the close-up of the thistle cloth – showing that both she and Wallace live on beyond their deaths.Representation of the villainsIf 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 EnglishEdward 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 voice-over 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 less with homophobia, than 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.

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 seniorBruce’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 Edwards’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 lordsLastly 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 Bannockburn show how little the ordinary people trust the nobility.

It is interesting to note that there are in the film three father/son relationships, and 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 with him 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 two villainous fathers totally disregard the needs of their sons in their own interest. Edward despises his son and is driven by the obsession to maintain control. Bruce senior goes further. He ridicules and ignores his sons ideals, and finally betrays him in order that his son can become the King he never was.Bruce JuniorBruce 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 admire 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 voice-over tells us if we were to doubt Bruces 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, who had hoped for collusion with the English.IdeologyIdeologically the film is nationalistic and populist. It is nationalistic in its elevation of loyalty to Scotland above all else, and populist in that its celebration of the common man is undermined by the belief that there are those born to lead, and indeed those born to be king.

The Scottishness in the film is established by the use of an instantly recognisable (though historically inaccurate) highland setting of mountains, glens and lochs. The film also employs easily understandable icons of Scotland such as the thistle, saltire, pipes and kilts, some of

which are anachronistic, all of which contribute to the films Scottishness. What is then presented to us is a simple conflict between Scotland and England, even though the historical reality was more complex, with Scots fighting on both sides and Scots Lords owning land in England. In this conflict the Scots are seen as good, the English as bad.

It is, however, the ordinary Scots who are constructed as heroic. The nobles are dishonourable and treacherous, whereas Wallace, the hero, is of the people. This ideology of the common man has an obvious resonance with audiences in America. There is also an appeal to the Scottish market in the film’s nationalism and its ‘A man’s a man’ ideology. This is clear in the presentation of Wallace’s army as akin to a football crowd with saltires painted on their faces, baring their backsides to the opposition! One of the main pleasures of the film is seeing these underdogs take on and defeat Edwards formidable military machine.

Yet this is not a film which ends up asserting the power of ordinary people. For Wallace, even after his magnificent victory at Stirling, offers to follow Bruce if he will lead the fight for freedom. What the film leaves us with is a sense of the necessity for leaders. It is crucial to the ideology that in the end the solutions lie with Bruce, a noble and the future king. This shift is possible partly because Scottish identity is seen to be of supreme importance. At Bannockburn it overrides Bruce’s class loyalties, and it is this sense of nationhood which is portrayed as having the power to unite Scots of all classes.

The construction of women is similarly complex. All three female characters are undoubtedly stronger than the stereotypical heroines of historical romance. The two Scottish women are brave and emotionally strong, while the Princess is courageous, independent, and even drives the narrative. In many ways these women, like Mary McGregor in Rob Roy, are reminiscent of the strong women we read of in much Scottish literature. However, despite their strengths, they still remain players in the private domain, with even the Princess, who at the end provides one of the narrative solutions, engaged in a private vendetta against those who have made her unhappy.

It is the male characters alone whose actions are in the public domain, and it is through the representation of heroes and villains and the use of montage, that the ideology of justified violence is conveyed. Wallace in today’s terms would be described by the English as a terrorist, but in Braveheart he is constructed as a selfless fighter for freedom.

© 2001MEJ/Margaret Hubbard and Myra Armstrong

Margaret Hubbard, Craigroyston Community High School, Edinburgh and Myra Armstrong, Firrhill High School, Edinburgh

http://www.mediaed.org.uk/content/view/20/128/