Home Movies

One of the most historically inaccurate Oscar-winning epics of all-time battles back against its tainted legacy

Does there need to be a separation of artist and art, or is it just a bad movie?

braveheart
via 20th Century Fox

Filmmakers are well within their rights to play fast and loose with the facts so that they don’t get in the way of telling a good story, but Braveheart came under greater fire than most, for the sole reason it found huge levels of success that many people didn’t think it deserved.

Recommended Videos

If you were to indulge in a quick internet search for the “worst Best Picture winners ever,” then there’s a distinctly high possibility that the sweeping action-packed tale of rebellion would feature on almost every single one of them. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie, but there is a sweeping sentiment that maybe it wasn’t worthy of scooping the biggest prize the industry has to offer.

That’s entirely a matter of taste and personal preference, though, something that’s been hammered home even further by a since-deleted Reddit thread questioning why Braveheart is so widely-disliked among certain circles. While some were shocked to discover the 13th Century saga has vociferous detractors, others pinpointed one reason above all; director and star Mel Gibson.

The only thing more questionable than the fallen A-lister’s personal beliefs and highly-publicized unsavory opinions is the accent he uses for William Wallace, one that’s enough to send a shiver down the spine of Scots everywhere. At the end of the day, though, Braveheart made $213 million at the box office, landed five Oscars in total, and pumped millions of tourism dollars into the Scottish economy, so maybe it’s time to separate the artist from the art.

Exit mobile version