Braveheart : Rethinking Braveheart? - history as a second thought

Before I start here, please just note that this is an idea of mine and I'm eager to hear what others think.
The general thought behind it is that Braveheart to me is not a film about William Wallace's fight for the independance of Scotland. Having watched the film carefully recently, it occured to me that maybe Braveheart is such a great film in my eyes because it isn't actually about the history and story, instead being a film purely about how revenge spirals out of control.

I have a lot of evidence here to support this so bear with me. Firstly, in History it is believed that the impetus for William to fight the English came from the death of his father. So the film flouts this idea almost straight away by having him go with his Uncle, and then refuse to fight when he returns home. It requires Murron's death to bring him to fight.
Murron appears to be the source of his anger against the English, not his father or Scotland, and this is further aluded to at other points in the film. Firstly the dream William has, where he doesn't dream of a free Scotland or the English running away, no. He sees Murron, and his primary desire in that dream is that she doesn't leave him. The presence of this scene would imply that what he primarily thinks about is Murron, and that she has gone. This is merely of course because the English killed her, but there is more to this.

William's actions following Stirling further suggest that he is occupied entirely by revenge and not Scotland's independance. To seek independance, William could have staked his support for a noble following his knighting, or used his resources to build up defences of Scotland's castles ready for Edward I's inevitable invasion. Instead, he opts for aggression. Robert the Bruce even says to him following the knighting that it sounds more to him like anger what William is doing. The intent of attacking York adds to this as it suggests William is drawing Edward I to fight him, a point he effectively confirms in his negotiations to Isabella calling on Edward to act like a man and fight him, "if he is man enough" is the exact phrasing.

His anger against the English is heavily apparent here, and his actions, particularly that of chasing after Longshanks during Falkirk rather than ordering his own men to retreat, adds to this general perception that William wants Edward I dead through anger. This anger can easily be linked to Murron's death through the ever present symbol of her cloth gift at the secret wedding.

This embroidered cloth is taken out by William at numerous moments through the film, but what is interesting is how this cloth is preferred over some symbol of Scotland, for example a cross of saint Andrew or the like. He prefers to associate his actions with Murron, alluding to the idea that he is fighting purely for her, finally shown by his clutching of the cloth at his execution. He quite literally can be seen dying not for Scotland but for Murron. Further to this is where he looks when the axe falls. He looks briefly at Hamish and Stephen, fellow fighters in the rebellion, but doesn't dwell on them at all and instead focuses on Murron, smiling as he dies.

The music adds a further level to this. The main theme and representative theme of freedom in the film can be heard here: https://youtu.be/7xxuLd_OutE?t=18s and is used as a motif for Wallace's fight for freedom throughout the film. The love theme of him and Murron is here, however: https://youtu.be/wUNSZEDfwu0?t=40s and it is this theme that accompanies Wallace as he is taken to the scaffold. The love theme accompanying Wallace to death implicitely suggests only one thing; he is dying for Murron not for Scotland.

For lack of space I'll stop here, but my point really is this. Braveheart on the surface very much appears as a historical epic; it has the story of William Wallace, the historical figures, and the key battles and events of the timeline. However, Gibson's treatment of history has been ripped apart so often that it begs the question as to whether History was a concern in the making of the film, skewing the effect of the film on the viewer.

If, however, you view the history as merely asthetic and a distraction from the real story of William Wallace's revenge, the disregard for history makes sense, because the history of the story is not the point of the film. The film explores the effect of revenge on one man and how that revenge consumes him to further battle, driving him to the scaffold so he can finally rejoin his lost love; freedom doesn't mean independance for Scotland, William shouts freedom because he is finally free from revenge.


Sorry about the essay. Please do let me know below how you think I'm overthinking it all and how I've really got it all wrong and they just didn't research enough before filming. This is merely my idea about what the film is really about.
B

I hadn't really thought of it from that angle, but after reading this, I can definitely see it. Excellent post.

I think they took a historic figure and the events surrounding him and made a film inspired by all of it, but took liberties to make it more fun to watch. In fact, I remember hearing Mel Gibson say in the commentary that they knew this or that wasn't the way that it really happened, but they added or changed things for entertainment value.