I know what you mean about Braveheart. I haven't seen it since I got the dvd for it, but when I think about it I think about how cheap I must have been when I was 10 (which is when I first saw it).
I had this whole comment about the heroic saga and just how conscious of the archetypes we're using we need to be in order to create a "quality" story. For instance LA Confidential is ALL about them, it's characters are VERY stereotyped, but it knows *exactly* what it's doing and it does it mother effing well. I don't think Braveheart is conscious in that way; I think mostly it's barely conscious at all. I'm just not sure that unconsciousness negates everything it has to say to me about the archetypes (stereotypes) it uses. In slightly different terms, can the heroic saga be told without awareness that it's all been told before, that is without irony and without originality, and still be worthwhile? I'm not sure about the answers to these questions; perhaps you are.
Anyway I deleted that comment :o) What I really want to ask is: what's the homophobia you see in Braveheart? I have no doubt Gibson is homophobic. I have no doubt Gibson is a lot of crappy, despicable things, but I'm not sure they all show through in all his works.
I ask because one reason I loved Braveheart as a 10 year old was the friendship, betrayal, and twisted love between Wallace and Robert the Bruce in that movie. It made me feel funny! The same way that Bud White and Ed Exeley together at last made me feel funny. I mean, now I know I was totally slashing them, or pre-slashing them, or something; even if I didn't want them to have sex I was drawn to some extent by the homoeroticism in these relationships. And now I totally do slash them.
I should warn you I fail to see the homophobia in 300 as well. It's not that I don't think Frank Miller or the director are homophobic; I've seen other stuff of theirs and heard them speak and know enough about them to believe that they are. But to me 300 was one big orgy of homoeroticism and appreciation of the male body, with the ironic twist that the characters themselves didn't seem to realize they were all sleeping with each other.
Is it that I place so much less stock on authorial intent than some people? Or am I really just missing something?
Anyway, J, if I haven't convinced you 300 is homophobic, I'm not trying hard enough, but I do think that there is some ambiguity when you start to pare down intent and diegetic/non-diegetic context. But I'm curious to see what tinyholidays says.
Dude, God. There are so many films that make me question my childhood taste, perhaps none more than Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella starring Leslie Ann Warren. Later realized-FACT: just because someone shares your first and middle name does not make them inherently awesome.
You're right on about L.A. Confidential's use of archetypes. I hadn't thought about it like that before, but yeah, you could totally remove the names of all of those characters, replace the names with categorical types, and set them in motion, and they would still behave the same way. Hooker with a heart of gold (basinger), cynic makes good (spacey), etc. It's noir, and that's what noir does. In a way, genre films and fiction have more freedom within the restrictions of their defined traits. Perhaps that's one reason why L.A. Confidential's dependence upon archetype doesn't break the fourth wall for me, but Braveheart's does.
Okay, here's my take on the homophobia within Braveheart. You mentioned that it's been awhile since you've seen it, but do you remember the prince character? King Edward's son? He gets hitched to the gorgeous Sophie Marceau at the beginning of the film but doesn't pay her any attention, so she gets all hot and bothered by Gibson Wallace. There are a lot of thorny moments regarding that character, and he's made out to be gross and despicable. Now, I certainly don't think that any guy who prefers guys is inherently good. Gay characters as well as straight characters should be round. However, in this film, that character is bad because he is gay. It is the complete definition of his character and the reason why he is considered so irredeemably icky and horrible throughout the film. Authorial intent or not, I think a definite homophobic subtext is to be had there.
As soon as you said "King Edward's son" I headdesked. No, I agree with you completely. And I agree with K re: 300. With both films I hear "homophobic" and my mind goes straight to all the beautiful subtextual homoeroticism. I completely forgot about the prince. Back in the days when I loved it like whoa I did resent that aspect and wished every gay man didn't have to be a villain. Oops. And thanks!
genre films and fiction have more freedom
I still don't know how I feel about making fiction out of real people and events. (K often brings it up, re: Amadeus and Lawrence of Arabia.) If you make the distinction that something like Braveheart is about the legend of Wallace (which is considerable, since it spans centuries), instead of Wallace the real person, then conceivably the use of stereotype and certain tropes of the heroic saga might be okay. But I'm not sure that distinction is appropriate, considering we are talking about a real person. Maybe we have a responsibility to reality. Or maybe we have a responsibility to make reality unreal to suit certain needs. I don't know.
I've actually been thinking about the fictionalization of historical events this week also, but mainly regarding war. In modern war movies, for example, in which the point is to provoke thought in the audience, rather than to merely provide entertaining titillation, the subject is treated with much more responsibility than, say, a film about a "fictionalized war" from which the audience feels disconnected (300, Braveheart, etc.). Uh, I don't know if this actually has much to do with what you're talking about, but it's something that I've been pondering, particularly the archetype of the doctor figure in filmic depictions of war, wherein the doctor stands in for the consciencious objector. There's one in practically every modern war movie (or tv show -- MASH), and films in which that figure is absent, my hunch is, will tend to be the films that use the setting of war just to show excitement and heroic antics.
Responsibility to reality. That may be the point in which history turns into legend. Okay, now I'm just typing phrases.
I had this whole comment about the heroic saga and just how conscious of the archetypes we're using we need to be in order to create a "quality" story. For instance LA Confidential is ALL about them, it's characters are VERY stereotyped, but it knows *exactly* what it's doing and it does it mother effing well. I don't think Braveheart is conscious in that way; I think mostly it's barely conscious at all. I'm just not sure that unconsciousness negates everything it has to say to me about the archetypes (stereotypes) it uses. In slightly different terms, can the heroic saga be told without awareness that it's all been told before, that is without irony and without originality, and still be worthwhile? I'm not sure about the answers to these questions; perhaps you are.
Anyway I deleted that comment :o) What I really want to ask is: what's the homophobia you see in Braveheart? I have no doubt Gibson is homophobic. I have no doubt Gibson is a lot of crappy, despicable things, but I'm not sure they all show through in all his works.
I ask because one reason I loved Braveheart as a 10 year old was the friendship, betrayal, and twisted love between Wallace and Robert the Bruce in that movie. It made me feel funny! The same way that Bud White and Ed Exeley together at last made me feel funny. I mean, now I know I was totally slashing them, or pre-slashing them, or something; even if I didn't want them to have sex I was drawn to some extent by the homoeroticism in these relationships. And now I totally do slash them.
I should warn you I fail to see the homophobia in 300 as well. It's not that I don't think Frank Miller or the director are homophobic; I've seen other stuff of theirs and heard them speak and know enough about them to believe that they are. But to me 300 was one big orgy of homoeroticism and appreciation of the male body, with the ironic twist that the characters themselves didn't seem to realize they were all sleeping with each other.
Is it that I place so much less stock on authorial intent than some people? Or am I really just missing something?
Reply
Anyway, J, if I haven't convinced you 300 is homophobic, I'm not trying hard enough, but I do think that there is some ambiguity when you start to pare down intent and diegetic/non-diegetic context. But I'm curious to see what tinyholidays says.
Reply
Also, you said diegetic. If I could achieve a boner, that would have caused one.
Reply
Reply
You're right on about L.A. Confidential's use of archetypes. I hadn't thought about it like that before, but yeah, you could totally remove the names of all of those characters, replace the names with categorical types, and set them in motion, and they would still behave the same way. Hooker with a heart of gold (basinger), cynic makes good (spacey), etc. It's noir, and that's what noir does. In a way, genre films and fiction have more freedom within the restrictions of their defined traits. Perhaps that's one reason why L.A. Confidential's dependence upon archetype doesn't break the fourth wall for me, but Braveheart's does.
Okay, here's my take on the homophobia within Braveheart. You mentioned that it's been awhile since you've seen it, but do you remember the prince character? King Edward's son? He gets hitched to the gorgeous Sophie Marceau at the beginning of the film but doesn't pay her any attention, so she gets all hot and bothered by Gibson Wallace. There are a lot of thorny moments regarding that character, and he's made out to be gross and despicable. Now, I certainly don't think that any guy who prefers guys is inherently good. Gay characters as well as straight characters should be round. However, in this film, that character is bad because he is gay. It is the complete definition of his character and the reason why he is considered so irredeemably icky and horrible throughout the film. Authorial intent or not, I think a definite homophobic subtext is to be had there.
Reply
genre films and fiction have more freedom
I still don't know how I feel about making fiction out of real people and events. (K often brings it up, re: Amadeus and Lawrence of Arabia.) If you make the distinction that something like Braveheart is about the legend of Wallace (which is considerable, since it spans centuries), instead of Wallace the real person, then conceivably the use of stereotype and certain tropes of the heroic saga might be okay. But I'm not sure that distinction is appropriate, considering we are talking about a real person. Maybe we have a responsibility to reality. Or maybe we have a responsibility to make reality unreal to suit certain needs. I don't know.
Either way, thanks for pointing that out.
Reply
Responsibility to reality. That may be the point in which history turns into legend. Okay, now I'm just typing phrases.
Reply
Leave a comment