Braveheart vs. Michael Collins

Which tale of freedom from English oppression did you enjoy more and why?

I'm irish-American so I guess you can tell what my preferred film is. Never got why Braveheart was so popular in the first place.

Well, they're certainly very different stories, with the English as the common enemy.

They happened in different times, the main characters have different personalities and ways of interacting with others (whether they're friends or foes), and their battles (in various terms) are different.

That being said, I tend to look at Michael Collins a bit more seriously. Perhaps because there's no "They may take our lives, but they'll never take..." speech.

edited 14th Jan '14 4:49:56 PM by Quag15

I think we can all agree on one thing.

"Fuck the English."*

edited 14th Jan '14 4:32:05 PM by Ekuran

If you are from the US, Braveheart was released in the US. Michael Collins was a European release.

It was obviously a smash hit in Ireland.

So if you are from the US and Braveheart is a bigger thing then Michael Collins it is because it is much more well known and widespread here in the US.

Tell you what though. Now that I know about it I need to see if I can watch it along with the Korean movie someone introduced me to.

edited 14th Jan '14 5:09:33 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I don't think much of either, honestly. I took two courses on the relationship between film and history in university, and it was very illuminating as to how throughly films (and, at times, documentaries) can distort, misrepresent and oversimplify historical events for the sake of making them concise and exciting.

I mean, don't misunderstand me, I know that some amount of simplification is inevitable, and I appreciate the appeal of a film created for entertainment value . Thing is, if I watch a film purely for entertainment value, why would I want it to be about real people and events, when they're so thoroughly oversimplified that I'll learn next to nothing substantial about them? Films like that work much better with fictional characters and events.

And if I want to learn about a historical event, I'm certainly not going to do it solely from a Hollywood film that reduces it to 90 minutes and forces a typical narrative structure upon it. I'll watch a documentary or read a book if I want to gain any substantial knowledge about it.

Also, to return to the main two films, I really don't appreciate this trend in films of villanising the English. It's insulting and, quite frankly, it's clear that, for the most part, it's only done because it's trendy. Seriously, there's never any effort at complexity when the English are the bad guys in historical films. They're just evil bastards.

Michael Collins is a bit sketchier in this regard given that the events are far more recent, with more relevant consequences in the present day (especially in 1996). I find it easier to overlook Braveheart's lack of historical accuracy for that reason, but looking at it with the benefit of hindsight the numerous Gibsonisms are something of an issue.

I don't want to get involved in this one. My feelings are extremely tangled up on both the films and the men they portray and expressing them will cause problems so I'm holding fire.

Out of curiosity, are you British?

Scots Irish.

That's interesting. It tends to be British people who dislike these movies, for obvious reasons. Especially Braveheart. Man oh man do Brits hate that movie.

Then again, the British named Michael Collins the third greatest enemy of England a few years ago so I dunno what.

And I as an uninformed American keep wondering why you Brits hate our astronaut so much. He didn't mean to drop a camera in space! It was an accident!

edited 15th Jan '14 6:12:31 PM by Tuckerscreator

I'm Scottish and I hate Braveheart. It's just so bad, in fact, I find it pretty disrespectful to Scotland, because it seems to take the view that the real history isn't cool enough, and so they have to make shit up or alter it to be more Hollywood. It also comes from a noted font of bullshit, Mel Gibson, who seems to hate the English. Also, he can't play a Scotsman, at all.

I've not seen Michael Collins.

Michael Collins gets a lot of things wrong, but I love it anyway.

I don't really mind the problem with simplifying historical events and lifes. In fact, movies like El Cid manage to treat the main bits fairly well.

Braveheart is bad, because it was Hollywood-ified to a ridiculous extent (like the moment where Wallace is saying "FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!" as he's being tortured, which is kinda narmy and unrealistic - I would've made Gibson say something similar to an old Scottish dialect about Scotland itself, not freedom, since, you know, feudal regimes and so forth).

Michael Collins, while simplifying the political issues and perspectives a lot (and making some mistakes along the way), still shows a certain degree of respect for the life of the man (plus, Liam Neeson plays him well, in my opinion, since he shows a great energy and dynamic).

edited 17th Jan '14 9:58:31 AM by Quag15

Worth including The Patriot in this discussion. Gibson again but as an American. many of the atrocities, including the worst of all, were attributed to the English just to make Gibson's Yanks look better.

The cavalry units that Jason Isaacs' character led in the Patriot thingy were basically doing the sort of stuff that the Einsatzgruppen got up to in the Ukraine and elsewhere. Besides, the British DID burn a church, among other buildings, when they set fire to the town of Brunswick in North Carolina, though they didn't lock the folks inside the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Philip's_Church_Ruins has more details.