11.03.2014

Braveheart Movie Review


Gibson, Mel, dir. Braveheart. Writ. Randall Wallace. Paramount Pictures, 1995. CD-ROM.
         The movie Braveheart directed by and starring Mel Gibson portrays the life of William Wallace, a medieval Scottish war leader and rebel. The film illustrates the rise of William Wallace who incites a Scottish rebellion for freedom after his wife is murdered by an English solider whom she assaulted after he attempted to rape her. William soon after begins attacking English camps, killing all soldiers and declaring the need for Scottish independence. The tyrant English king, Edward I, is originally unable to defeat William and his men until William is captured and imprisoned by the English and tried for treason. He is sentenced to torture and death but only after winning the favor and respect of the Princess of Wales, Edward II’s wife. William is executed at the end of the film, but nobly refuses to beg the English crown for mercy, and instead utters his last dying wish before being beheaded: “Freedom!” (Braveheart).
           
        The film is seen as one of the more historically inaccurate films of the modern era, featuring many historical falsities. One of the more glaring inaccuracies within the film is the illustration of William’s social class. Throughout the film William is pictured as a poor peasant, wearing brown rags with a dirty face, living in a small hut made out of sticks, mud, and stone. This is a traditional Hollywood view of medieval peasantry, whereas historians know William came from a lower noble family, and not of the extreme poverty as shown in the film. Another inaccuracy portrayed in the film is the idea of ius primae noctis or “right of the first night”. This fictional idea holds that the rightful king of the land is allowed privileges to all of the brides within his kingdom on the first night of their marriage. This is shown in the film as Edward I attempts to solidify his domination over Scotland by declaring ius primae noctis . Upon William’s return to his home village, and after Edward had declared his right of the Scottish brides, an English army comes to the village and takes away the newest bride amidst the village wedding celebration. This is the first act of the English that anger the Scottish men. In the scene of the Battle of Falkirk, William gives a speech to his men before the battle, claiming the Scottish right to rebel. He shouts, “They may take our brides, but they cannot take our freedom!” (Braveheart). Throughout the film, the idea of ius primae noctis becomes one of the most important symbols of the robbery of Scottish rights. However, this practice is in no way historical, and was never declared by any medieval king.

       William as a boy, seen in brown rags, with his house (hut) behind him made of stone and straw.
            
       Although the film portrays many historical inaccuracies and glorified Hollywood ideals, the producers and costume designers were particularly precise in their creation of medieval fighting and armor. Much of the movie is dedicated to battle scenes, but the costuming proved to be quite accurate to the time period of Wallace and the Wars of Scottish Independence. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, mail was still a dominant form of body armor. The English soldiers were often portrayed in mail, while the Scottish were seemingly less sophisticated of a fighting force, and instead wore their daily medieval garb in battle. The English also were shown in conical steel helmets, with swords and lances. One of the battle leaders was even shown in a barrel helmet. The Scottish, conversely, in keeping with the theme of their lack of sophistication, rarely had swords, and instead fought with large warhammers and small axes. Some Scottish soldiers even held slings. Both the English and Scottish were shown with shields, both round and heater shaped, appropriate to the century. The English, in keeping with the history and tradition of the English army, were shown with their deadly longbow men yielding a deadly attack upon the Scottish.

      William with his army. Notice the weapons they hold: axes, blunt swords, and even large sticks.

            Also historically accurate was the film’s depiction of the manner in which battle was executed. The Scottish soldiers were depicted yielding a battering ram upon an English fortress to gain access in the Battle of Falkirk. In response to the Scottish invasion, the English throw hot tar and fire over the top of the soldiers from inside the fortress. Both of these events are highly exact depictions of siege warfare, and the importance of laying siege and protecting from it. Aside from the scene with the battering ram, all other battle scenes occur with face-to-face combat, where the rules of battle were greatly respected. Both the English and Scottish would meet at the battlefield and would not launch any surprise or sneak attacks until the priests had completed their prayers and both sides engaged one another.
            
      One of the central themes to the movie was the idea of chivalry and courtly love. Before the rebellion begins, William falls in love with a local village woman, Murron, and marries her in secret to avoid her being taken due to ius primae noctis . Shortly after their secret marriage, however, an English solider in the village attempts to rape Murron. Murron attacks the solider in response to his attempted rape, and is killed in front of the village as a punishment for confronting the English soldier. William is thereafter driven to rebel in response to Murron’s murder, and desires to avenge the death of his bride. He carries her handkerchief with him throughout the movie, only allowing it to fall after being beheaded. Courtly love is also demonstrated in the film, which holds that knights were so consumed with love for a woman, they would do anything for her. William’s entire journey to freedom is interpreted even by those around him as a response to his love for Murron and his desire to make her happy and proud, even in her death. In the execution scene, before his death, William sees Murron in the crowd, smiling, comforting him. This seems to signify that William had finally succeeded in his courtly love duties, and could finally go meet her in the afterlife.

William with Murron in the village before her death. William's love for her remained central to his cause throughout the entire film.

            Another central theme to the film was the idea of freedom and William’s rejection of politics. William is often confronted with both English and Scottish royals and nobles, yet he rejects their roles and instead believes each Scot should be free. In an exchange between Robert the Bruce, the rightful king of Scotland, and William, William discards politics and reveals his true thoughts about both men’s roles. He says, “There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it,” (Braveheart). Much of William’s desire for freedom appears to come from the childhood influence of his father who tells him before going to battle: “Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow it,” (Braveheart). The torture and execution scene, perhaps the most important scene in the movie, reveals William’s ultimate chivalry and bravery, as he is willing to die for Scottish freedom.

Robert the Bruce discussing Scottish freedom and politics with William. It is in this scene that William tells Robert he desires total Scottish freedom, and fights hard for it. 

            Overall the movie Braveheart, while not known for its historical accuracy, was an entertaining film that presented several medieval themes and ideas. The film’s use of armor and fighting was pleasingly accurate, as well as the notions of chivalry, bravery, and courtly love. While the film did buy in to popular culture’s ideas of medieval life and peasantry, it nonetheless presented an idea that is still important in today’s culture: the desires of Scottish independence from Britain. Even in the wake of the 2014 election, while Scotland voted to remain a part of the United Kingdom, there still remain supporters of William Wallace’s cause and love for independence and freedom. For this reason, Braveheart will remain a must-see for many people for many years to come.

10.30.2014

A Flaming Hot Topic

  In the spirit of Halloween I choose to take a little bit of a darker turn for this blog post and question the act of being burned at the stake. When thinking about someone burning at the stake who or what groups come to mind? For me, two groups of people come to mind: witches and heretics. Both were groups with long histories of being burned at the stake as punishments for their sins and crimes, mostly against the church doctrine. In relation to our class for this week, we have finally reached the point of our class where we are discussing Joan's sentencing and her death.
   Curious as to how the whole "public burning" went I searched YouTube and found a couple of clips. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCpTIn66Nd0. This first clip is from the movie Elizabeth and features three heretics being burned at the stake. Notice that there are two men and one woman, all of which have had their heads shaved. This brings me to my first round of questions: 1) How often were women burned at the stake and for what crimes? 2) Why would a woman's head be shaved?
     This second film clip is from The Messenger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYa4B8R6yY. You'll have to skip-forward to around the time 2:22 to get to Joan's burning. This clip brings up several questions also. First, this film choose not to shave the prisoner's head-was the act of shaving one's head who was to be burned true? Secondly, was it "standard practice" to tie one's hands to the stake as well as shackle their feet to the stake as well? We have read several sources that detail Joan being shackled in her prison cell so I am curious to as what you all think about this film choosing to show Joan being burned at the stake but also shackled to it. Do you think this was only used in Joan's case because the English were so "fearful" of her?
  While I know this is a morbid topic of sorts, I do think it is an interesting topic to address. Joan herself was burned at the stake for being deemed a heretic and several eye-witness accounts are provided in the Retrial book where many regret having witnessed the scene and fear they were wrong in burning Joan. Was Joan an anomaly for the time; meaning, was being a woman who was sentenced to be burned at the stake common during this time period?
  Sorry for having only presented more questions than answers in this post but on a topic like this I am curious to see what the opinions of others are.


Works Cited
"Joan of Arc-You Want to Confess." The Messenger. 1999. YouTube. 
"Bloody Mary Burns Heretics." Elizabeth. YouTube.
All images from Google. 


" Do it now, or else you will end your life today in the fire."

Our reading for tomrrow was about Joan and the convtrovisay about her death and how she was condemned to the stake. How were the authorities able to get her as a relapsed heretic? First lets examined the witnesses.

The Master Guillaume Erard said to her," Do it now, or else you will end your life today in the fire" (Retrial, 238). Out of fear, Joan said that she would rather sign it than to be burned. Our sources inform us that the authorities could not actually burn Joan because that punishment, the pain of fire were only application to a relapsed heretic (239). 

And although Joan was promised that she would not be punished, they sentenced her to perpetual imprisonment. Where the authorities kept an eye on her, out of fear that she would escape. So they sent her back to a secular prison (240). 

According to Jean Massieu, 
she was set up by the authorities. They thought if they could get her to resume men clothing then they could declare her as a relapsed heretic. He also said that Joan told him, they told her to " Get up", and stowed her woman's clothes in the bag. Then, as she told me, she put on the male clothing that they had given her (242).  And they wouldn't assist her until she changed back into the men clothing. 

According to Pierre Cusquel, 
People said that the sole cause of her condemnation was that she had resumed male clothes (243). But according to Joan, she wore it because she was fearful that the unknown soldiers would rape her in the middle of the night.

Overall, I found our reading interesting. It showed how desperate the authorities were to sentence Joan. And they pretty much forced her to a dead end and later she would soon discover caused her death.  

Source: Retrial Book 

Joan to the English: Seven Years Till Doom


Perusing the original seventy articles containing Joan’s responses, although not surprising to those familiar with typical Joan characteristics, there are some intriguing and bold replies on her part. In relation to her interrogator’s question in Article 21 regarding her heading of “Jhesus Maria” and the tone of her letters to different English authorities throughout her journey, she states, “I did not send the letters of which you speak in pride or in presumption, but by command of Our Lord...If the English had believed my letters, they would only have been wise; and before seven years are gone they will perceive it well enough.” Such a statement by Joan, although not unexpected, is still a significant testament to her unflagging confidence even in the face of capture, trial, and possible death. She actually goes as far to threaten the English when she literally can wield nothing against them but her words; her seven-year warning appears both prophetic and aggressive, almost as if she is suggesting the good tide in war she ushered in will not die with her.

 In Article 22, she repeats the very same notion, stating, “Before seven years are gone, they [the British] will feel the truth of what I wrote to them.” It is difficult to say if Joan chose seven years because she had received another specific revelation from her voices or she chose seven simply as a time in which she felt confidently the French would stand firmer yet against the English and Burgundians. Regardless, it is interesting given this statement from Joan that within five years after Joan’s death the Burgundians did sign a peace treaty with the French, thus giving the French an advantage against the English. Altogether, Joan’s words signal a certain sense of her own accomplishments, in that she had paved the way for further French gains. In essence, Joan exudes a knowing tone with the British, one in which she leaves a foreboding statement, neither shaken in confidence nor her ultimate objectives. Although clearly Joan was very serious, I can almost see a scene with her smiling knowingly and delivering her ‘Oh, just give it a few years, you will see” line to the unwise English as Joan labels them.
 
A picture of Joan praising the Holy Spirit
 
 Interesting representation of Joan with the heading of Jhesus Maria that Article 21 refers to.
Image Source:http://www.stjoan-center.com/
 

The Holy Oil of France


Within Jacque Rivette’s film Joan of Arc: The Battles, we are able to see a rather unique scene depicting the coronation of Charles VII at Reims. Within this nearly twelve minute long scene, one of the most humbling moments occurs at holy oil is placed upon Charles’ forehead and chest, following the French tradition of coronation. This oil, however, has an interesting history of itself, and is central to the identity of French kings.

Dating back to Saint Remi and Clovis I of the sixth century, the holy oil (also known as the Holy Ampulla) of France is said to have been delivered to Saint Remi (the Bishop of Reims) by a dove and was used in the baptism of Clovis I upon his conversion to Christianity. The Holy Ampulla was first used in the coronation of Louis VII in 1131 at Reims, where the anointing oil would then be kept in Reims for centuries, only once being taken to Plessis-les-Tours in 1483 when Louis XI was sick.

The Ampulla itself was a small vial consisting of a balm. This balm, or oil, was thus used for anointing purposes in coronations. However, the term Holy Ampulla refers to the vial itself, apparently two-thirds full of balm according to medieval sources. Alongside the ampulla was a golden needle used for mixing the balm, as well as a silver paten. This silver paten was a small and shallow metal plate upon which the mixed balm was placed before being anointed upon a king. In the coronation scene, Rivette illustrated the silver paten as the Bishop dabbed his finger in the balm on the paten before anointing Charles.

This Holy Ampulla was central to the French royal identity and Reims as a whole, seen as the only acceptable location for the rightful French king to be crowned. Thus, Joan’s insistence upon Reims as the location for Charles to be crowned was likely not only simple geography, but also seen as important considering the Holy Ampulla which was housed in Reims.

This illuminated manuscript dated 1335 from Flanders depicts the legend of the ampulla being delivered to St. Remi at the baptism of Clovis I on Christmas Day 496. Note the gold vial which contained the balm or oil. 



Sources:

Artwork:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Ampulla



10.29.2014

Voices = crazy or autism


                We recently discussed whether or not Joan’s voices may have come from being crazy.  But I wonder if it could have come from autism.  Her military leadership that was really successful and guided by voices sounds like a successful person with autism.  Temple Grandin is a professor of Animal Science at Colorado University and is diagnosed with autism.  It is widely believed that because of this she was able to become such a large success in the livestock industry.

                Temple Grandin, through her autism which made her light and sound sensitive, could see things from the livestock’s perspective and then construct and engineer new coral and alleyways to reduce animal anxiety.  Much to the astonishment of farmers and ranchers, Grandin’s design greatly reduced the stress in animals.  Grandin did not say that voices told her to do this but instead credits it to her autism.  Perhaps Joan was autistic and could see strategic ways to approach the enemy. 

                Grandin has achieved many honors for her contributions to the field of agriculture and autism awareness.  Joan received command of an army for her ability to show the king what he wanted/needed to see to let Joan lead his army.  Joan was often strict and perhaps she was a virgin because she did not really understand the relationship paradigm, she ended an arranged marriage.  Grandin has never married and does not have children saying "the part of other people that has emotional relationships is not part of me" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin). 

                These two both contributed highly to their causes.  One to military achievements of her country, the other to the field of agriculture and autism awareness. 



TempleGrandin.jpg
Temple Grandin                                                                                   Joan of Arc leading her men.

10.28.2014

The Name of the Rose - Review

                The Name of the Rose (1986) is a film which delves into the inner workings of a medieval abbey in the midst a crisis.  Set in 1327, the film follows Brother William, a monk of another order played by Sean Connery, and his apprentice as they investigate the death of a young monk to calm the minds of the frightened and superstitious local monks.  These two were summoned in preference to the ever-frightening, torturous, stereotypical walking death sentence that is the Holy Inquisition.  Almost Immediately, the two logically deduce from analysis of the scene that the cause of death was simply suicide, but they soon find that something more complex is happening as more deaths continue to occur.  The story begins to twist itself into a Sherlock Holmes-esque scenario as the protagonists leapfrog between clues and the potential criminals, but no understanding of motivation save for knowledge of the existence of a certain mysterious Greek book.  It culminates with a three party stand-off between the abbey's monks, William, and the Holy Inquisition in which this book must be found to truly answer who is to be rightfully punished.   
                The movie finds great success in many aspects of the film though some Hollywood flair managed to sneak its way in.  Particularly great was the entire presentation of the abbey's internal affairs, environments, and occupants.  Parts of the film were filmed outside of  a castle which had many features we might come to expect from studying Joan.  The sides of this, however, were not circular and instead consisted of many sharp angles, but this film was set nearly 100 years prior to Joan and perhaps these defenses were not state-of-the-art.  The monks themselves had clothing which, in general, was drab brown earthy robes and had the pious unkempt horseshoe haircuts.  On the arrival of the inquisition, more extravagant clothing consisting of white and red became prevalent as we would expect from the holiest of clergymen.  These men lived in buildings of stone and wood which the production crew lit appropriately with dim torches and gave subtle noises of creaking wood or footsteps which would be much more readily heard then than now.  The lifestyle of independence is made clear early in the movie as an animal is graphically butchered as a self sufficient people would have to do.
The protagonists investigation of the initial death in front of the castle.


                Not everything about the presentation of the monks is entirely believable.  A few characters of note are the hunchback and the creepy, pale, Uncle Fester look-alike.  Both appear as though they were put into the movie for nothing but misdirection of the audience and don't offer any historical value.  They're the slightly "off" outsiders which, to be fair, were grounded enough that they could be based off real people, but they were put in a context where they would sneak in and out of the scenes menacingly to give the protagonists someone obvious to point finger at.  The last of the non-conforming character base was the actual man who ran the abbey who was apparently blind in both eyes and adamantly faithful to the point where he refused to allow laughter in their work area.  Of course, with any of this character set, he has a pivotal role in the movie which, without spoiling the ending, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
                The film has some historic value which coincides with the Joan of Arc primary trial sources.  We see from Brother William a logic and reason based approach to answering the question at hand.  He does not ask question nearly as much as Joan's inquisitors, but instead relies most heavily on physical clues which he finds through searching.  Here we even get to see some possible cool old technology such as secret writing using lemon juice.  Many of these clues, as seen by other scribes of the time, were written in classical languages, specifically Greek.  Even with the reason as an integral part of the investigation, superstition still finds its way into the search.  Brother William at one point claims they are experiencing "Death by the book which kills or for which men kill", leading us to believe that it may be up in the air whether people are dying in a logical manner or if something more sinister and metaphysical is happening.

A great library is found during the investigation and
this appeared to be a form of the "wounded man".

                Upon the arrival of the Inquisition proper, the central theme of the movie shifts into a court-like manner where the inquisitors are accusing and seeking information through a "trial".  Just as with Joan, however, techniques were used to lead out answers which they sought.  Perhaps because the case had little political weight behind it, this team of inquisitors were much more inclined to gain answers through fear, pain, and torture rather than weighted questions and confusion.  In both cases though, there was a jury like construct to oversee the trial and some sort of ruling judge.  At one point there was even some sort of allusion to a higher court which unresolved issues could be brought to.
                They finally sentence to death multiple people by means of a burning pyre.  One of the individuals sentenced was a peasant woman accused of witchcraft.  This character, and those she represented and lived with, might have been the least believable part of the movie.  There was a brief side story of romance between her and the apprentice, but her limited ability to speak or even act in a human manner made it both awkward and confusing.  Her cognitive skills as a peasant were apparently equivalent to that of an infant or well trained dog.  While initially I thought she was another challenged character, comments were made suggesting she was simply one of the poor and uneducated peasants which lived outside the abbey in mud huts.  We learn through Joan that, at the very least, this character is not a good representation of much of the peasant class.  Joan was an articulate, spiritual and powerful peasant of which none of these traits were seen in any of the 'poor' class in this movie.            

In the few brief moments we see the local peasantry, a chicken defecates in this woman's eye.
She then hits her head on the ceiling.  
Classic.

                Overall, I think the movie is a wonderful Hollywood suspense or thriller for those who liked The Da Vinci Code or even something like National Treasure.  I do think it has more to offer than sheer entertainment value as the effort to create historical accuracy was obviously put forth.  In many ways this movie went above and beyond most others in building an interesting story in the confines of a not-so interesting place.  The end, to me, was not so brilliant with my take away for the primary motivation of the killer being something like, "When we laugh at god, the world descends into chaos", but the journey there was valuable and everything else wrapped up in a satisfying manner.


4/5 voices in my council approve.