"Braveheart Reconsidered" Topic

…Twenty-five years ago, the Best Director and Best Picture awards went to a strikingly different feature film. That year, Mel Gibson captured both for his epic film Braveheart. Gibson also starred in the film as the freedom-loving, kilt-wearing William Wallace. Based on the legendary 13th-century Scottish warrior, the film was less about kindness and hope and more about unquenchable violence avenging evil and injustice…

Daily Beast: link

Sorry, but I'm not signing up with anyone, just to read an article.

But on the second try I got through. Go figure.
All I have to say is that anyone who takes this piece of junk seriously is an omodhaun.

John, are you referring to the junk article or the junk original film ? Or possibly both ?

Couldn't get to the article either, obviously desperate for readers.

John,

If you remove the poorly connected history bit, it does make for a nice film.

Oh. The Daily Beast. Really should be re-named "The Daily Bigot."

Junk article, indeed.

Seems like a well reasoned article with many factual citations. There is a reason the SBC is in a tussle for its leadership . The moderate element has apparently won the first round, but I suspect it is far from over. The Wallacians will not step aside calmly.

It is also probably true that if a man has to join a group to assure his manliness, he's probably got issues.

One man's junk can be another's treasure, is apparently a true statement.

Bigoted and anti-Christian…lovely.
Imagine that from the modern media.

Joe Collins

Wow, it is obvious the author of that "article" hates white Christians. Cant imagine how much more vitriol is in his book.

The vitriol in this thread actually made me interested enough to read the article. Sadly, it was much ado about very little, if not quite nothing. A boring article exaggerating the impact of a rather silly movie.

Maybe it's just a movie. From what I remember I liked it. As for historical inaccuracies; of course, it's cinema, not a documentary.

TheDrake, I see no indication that she hates white christians. She reports on quoted statements, activities that no one denies, and some obvious support the film has had from some Christians. I'm not sure evangelicals represent all Christians , or are even a majority of them, in the world, or the US. As for them being white, I'm pretty sure not even all Evangelicals are white. As for hate, I see no such indication. It is an observational article on the behaviors of a subset of Christians and is argued with a number of references which are found in the public record. She's a published university professor and aware of academic requirements.

I'm not sure that one has to agree with her premise,but it would be better to argue facts than easily disproven claims. BTW Azul, it is less about the impact of the movie than an exploration of the movie's demonstrated appeal to certain sect's socio-political views.

As for bigoted, that legally requires an action that deprives a religious group of the ability to assemble, or punishes them either economically or politically for their beliefs, and/or denies them the ability to worship. To my knowledge, she has done none of this or advocated those actions. She has merely recorded the actions of a group and it's motivations.

Maybe it's just a movie.

True. I laughed my ass off at its silliness and utter disregard for history.
The knigget's armor was surprisingly like Robin Hood Men in Tights. The thing is, Braveheart was a "serious film" (!), while RHMIT was a Mel Brooks farce. Mel comes out ahead on points for historical accuracy. As Martin says on the Try videos, "Fancy that!"

Mel has a history of claiming "historical accuracy" for his movies. "The Patriot" is another absurd example.
Hey. He was fantastic in "Gallipoli". But then he was just a handsome guy with no influence over the overall production. I worked with a German girl who absolutely drooled over him. I don't blame her. I can say that and be secure in my masculinity.

Just a standard anti-Christian bigot pissing on Evangelicals. Typical of the morons that populate academia and the media these days. Sad, tired tropes and arguments that fool folks of low to moderate intelligence.

It is all so tiresome.

Joe Collins

@lkmjbc3

Bigoted and anti-Christian…lovely.
Imagine that from the modern media.

Just a standard anti-Christian bigot pissing on Evangelicals. Typical of the morons that populate academia and the media these days. Sad, tired tropes and arguments that fool folks of low to moderate intelligence.

Dr. Kristin Kobes Du Mez teaches at Calvin University and is a member of the Christian Reformed Church which is one of THE most intellectual churches. How could she be bigoted, anti-christian/anti-evangelical, or a part of the media?

She has a podcast but that does that qualify her as a member of the media? She is analytical, conscientious, well spoken and well written, is that your definition of a moron?

"…the film was less about kindness and hope and more about unquenchable violence avenging evil and injustice . . ." Now THAT'S entertainment!

Popcorn movie. Look for anything else and you're wasting both our time.

Oh, good. Another smug misandrist, racist, anti-religious bigot who feels the need to inflict her opinion on the world just because she has a PhD behind her name. Awesome.

Regarding Braveheart, it was entertaining but often missed the mark, about like most of Hollywood's historical epics.

Wikipedia defines evangelicals as sharing "…the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement. Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message…"

Further: "In 2016, there were an estimated 619 million evangelicals in the world, meaning that one in four Christians would be classified as evangelical. The United States has the largest proportion of evangelicals in the world. American evangelicals are a quarter of that nation's population and its single largest religious group. As a trans-denominational coalition, evangelicals can be found in nearly every Protestant denomination and tradition, particularly within the Reformed (Calvinist), Baptist, Methodist (Wesleyan-Arminian), Pentecostal and charismatic churches."

Monty Python's Holy Grail had more accurate costumes than Braveheart.

And this isn't about religion Bill ?

Another smug misandrist, racist, anti-religious bigot who feels the need to inflict her opinion on the world just because she has a PhD behind her name

Racist?

She does discuss male evangelical aggression as a role model, so…

In any case, I dont see her as anti-religious and dont see where you would get this from?

She is trying to explain a phenomenon and offering a solution. If a critique is going to be automatically reacted to as as an extreme attack without considering the merits of the analysis, it tends to confirm and not dispel the theory.

The fact that anyone thinks there needs to be a "solution" regarding this is troubling in and of itself.

The fact that anyone thinks there needs to be a "solution" regarding this is troubling in and of itself.

I rather think some of the reactions on this thread prove she's touched on a "live wire"

However, it does seem like not a few just want to get annoyed over an idea. It would be more interesting to discuss it rather than pretend it isn't worth considering. Incidentally, she didn't invent this topic, it is rigorously discussed among the evangelical intelligentsia.

It's a pity really. It could be that many Americans dont know what a discussion actually is. I get the impression that they either think whomever broadcasts first is the winner or that irritating ideas need to be shut down. Additionally, anything that questions, challenges and pushes back on here is very often claimed to be a personal attack.I think the concept of personal attack on here is far too hare trigger. In any case, it's a rather odd behavior from the land of unfettered free speech.

I've noticed something similar with negotiating, a lot of Americans cant negotiate or think the idea is to low ball and walk away if the bid doesn't get accepted. Maybe it's a form of paralysis.

It is interesting that folks who call for tolerance tend to be the most intolerant when faced with any sort of disagreement. They inevitably attempt to shut down the discussion by dismissing any other opinions.

BTW, a low ball could well be a fair price for what is offered.

It is interesting that folks who call for tolerance tend to be the most intolerant when faced with any sort of disagreement.

Wait, I thought that's what I said?

They inevitably attempt to shut down the discussion by dismissing any other opinions.

Then you've noticed it too?

BTW, a low ball could well be a fair price for what is offered.

Certainly, in a world of all possibilities but the ones who can only low ball, can't (or won't) negotiate.

@Au pas de Charge: Yes, racist. Look again at the title of her book.

Then again, there are some completely blinded by their own hate.

No, what little I read of her hateful tripe defines her as a moron. Further her spew is just old, worn garbage that has used to attack Christians for centuries. One would think that some one as intellectual and well spoken as reported could at least come up with something new and clever. Nope. Maybe she is just another academic halfwit vomiting what others of her class want to hear?

Yep.

Joe Collins

For someone who is supposed to love their neighbour Joe, you are spouting a lot of hate. Calm down before you have a heart attack.

Javelin, it's racist to examine the behavior of a group such as white evangelicals? Many of the theological schools are doing that at this very moment. One of the great arguments within the Baptist churches is precisely about scripture and mission, vs politics, aggressive and nationalistic Christianity. Try to keep up.

"Based on the legendary 13th-century Scottish warrior, the film was less about kindness and hope and more about unquenchable violence avenging evil and injustice…"

In reality, the 13th-century was chock full of violence & I don't think kindness would have gotten you far. However, I will watch the remake of Braveheart where they make him into a peace-loving hippie (who doesn't love a comedy? ;-)

And this isn't about religion Bill ?

It's about a movie.

"to examine the behavior of a group such as white evangelicals" would best be done on the Blue Fez.

The article is about the movie but also about white male evangelical role models and it is a fascinating theory supported by lot of evidence.

What is also fascinating are some of the emotional, angry, non-analytical reactions by posters claiming that the professor is the angry, emotional…moron.

One of the more annoying spin-offs spawned by the Gibson fillum is the spate of 'revelatory' pronouncements that have appeared hither and thither online, stating that not only is the fillum innaccurate for x, y, z reasons but aha "what you probably don't know is that the real 'Braveheart' was Robert the Bruce" (due to the post-mortem adventures of his pickled coronary pump in Spain) which is as big a load of cojones as those in the Gibson ouevre itself.

White evangelists- weren't they all white evangelists in 1300 Europe? Except, of course, for those pesky Moslems, etc.