‘Braveheart’: The Long and Sword of It

Thirteenth-Century rebellion is grisly. Bloody horrible. One giant gore-fest. And it’s long--at times numbingly so.

That’s how some are already assessing superstar Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart,” his nearly three-hour take on Scotland’s revolt against the heavy foot of England’s vicious, sadistic King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan). In his second directorial effort, Gibson dons the kilt as Scottish farm boy-turned-insurgent William Wallace, who led the pack of renegades, refusing to forfeit freedom for England’s gold.

Catherine McCormack plays Wallace’s wife and childhood sweetheart, Murron, who is gang-raped and murdered by British soldiers. Sophie Marceau plays the wicked king’s French daughter-in-law, Princess Isabelle, who has a fling with the young rebel. But it is revenge for his beloved Murron that spurs Wallace into his crusade for Scotland’s freedom, a cause that would make him one of Scotland’s greatest heroes.

“Braveheart” follows by only a couple of months another kilt-and-sword epic about a Scottish hero, “Rob Roy,” which starred Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange.

“This is a good picture, but it is extremely violent and the report from exhibitors is that it’s too long,” says John Krier, head of Exhibitor Relations Co. “But a lot of pictures this summer are very violent. . . . There wouldn’t be any movie business without violence.

“But this film in particular is about a legendary, romantic action hero. And maybe one reason the violence seems worse to some people is because of the weapons they had to use in that day. Swords and knives are always more personal than guns.”

Both Gibson and Sherry Lansing, chairman of Paramount Pictures, which with 20th Century Fox bankrolled the $70-million war epic, caution against dismissing “Braveheart” too quickly.

“I watched the audience [during test screenings] in Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta. No one got up and walked out,” Gibson says. “They stayed until the end, and most even stayed for the credits.” Several exhibitors who are knowledgeable about the screenings concurred, even though they still think it’s a bit long.

About that length: “I was always taught: ‘Don’t overstay your welcome.’ But [“Braveheart”] is a half-hour shorter than ‘The Sound of Music,’ ” Gibson says with a laugh. “Seriously, we were contracted for 2 hours and 15 minutes. We kept cutting it back, but Sherry and [Fox studio chiefs] Bill Mechanic and Peter Chernin kept telling me to add more.”

The original cut was reportedly four hours long.

And the carnage?

“The 13th Century couldn’t have been a picnic,” Gibson says. “I wanted to create something based on reality, but there is nothing I can show you that’s as bad as the hell of that kind of warfare.”

There were certainly no AK-47s around for a clean kill. The revolutionists had to use whatever was on hand for their slashing and skull-cracking--axes, picks, swords,chains, hammers and any farm tools handy.

“The brutality of that period is far worse than anything you can imagine. But I don’t believe the violence in this picture is gratuitous or excessive,” Gibson says. “It is historical, and it shows the lengths people will go to in warfare.”

He knows that carcasses and corpses hanging around can be tough to watch. The filthy, grungy look of the players certainly adds to that. But Gibson says that’s the point. War then was dirty, it was primitive, and it smelled.

Gibson says he tried to spare his audience some of the graphic torture that his character suffered at the hands of his British captors. “What they actually did to Wallace was unbelievable, but I chose not to show the disembowelment. It was too graphic.

“This man paid an incredible price,” Gibson adds. “But life without freedom is not worth having.”

At its current length and in its present state, the film certain ly is worth having for Lansing. In her eyes, the $55 million spent by Paramount and Fox (which will distribute the picture overseas), is well worth it. Gibson reportedly kicked in $15 million of his own dough by deferring his salary and producer fees until after the picture’s release Wednesday. Alan Ladd Jr., the other producer on the film, also deferred fees.

Lansing, in fact, compares Gibson’s directing in “Braveheart” to that of David Lean, the cinematic maestro who made such classics as 1962’s “Lawrence of Arabia.” Gibson’s directing debut was “The Man Without a Face” in 1993.

“This picture is not too violent,” she insists. “That is the way war was, particularly in those days. We didn’t change one frame and we got an R rating, so what does that tell you? It is very accurate historically and is probably one of the greatest love stories ever told on film.”

As for its length, she says, “A picture can be 98 minutes and seem like three hours. Or it can be three hours and seem like 98 minutes. This picture falls in that category.

“When we screened ‘Braveheart,’ it was the second-highest scoring in Paramount’s history, scoring one point less than ‘Forrest Gump,’ ” Lansing adds. “And women, by the way, loved it.

“I think this film is one of the best pictures Paramount has ever released. Mel is a giant talent that has been waiting to be discovered as a filmmaker.”