Furore After Liberal Historian Calls Mel Gibson's Braveheart 'Sadomasochistic Fantasy'

© AP Photo / Vianney Le Caer/InvisionActor Mel Gibson poses for photographers upon arrival at the premiere of the film 'Daddys Home 2', in London, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017
Actor Mel Gibson poses for photographers upon arrival at the premiere of the film 'Daddys Home 2', in London, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017 - Sputnik International, 1920, 29.06.2021
Subscribe
The historical fiction movie released in 1995 is based on the story of a 13th century Scottish warrior William Wallace, who led the country in the first independence war against England's King Edward I. Gibson, who directed and starred in the movie, has been repeatedly criticised for numerous historical inaccuracies.

A liberal historian has been blasted for her article in the Daily Beast, in which she described Mel Gibson's film "Braveheart" as a "sadomasochistic fantasy beloved by evangelical Christians, who wallow in its exaltation of violent, macho religion".

In an article published in the Daily Beast, Kristin Kobes Du Mez reflects on the legacy of the movie, which won five Oscars, noting that it has become a touchstone for a generation of American evangelicals, who loved it for its "righteous warrior motif, for its portrayal of rugged masculinity, feminine purity, and for its call to heroic action".

She argues that "Braveheart" offered a more vigorous model of Christian manhood, which then led evangelicals to choose militancy over kindness and transform "the Jesus of the Gospels into a ruthless warrior king who leads them into the battles of their own choosing".

The article prompted a strong backlash online, with users accusing the author of being woke and wondering what other films the left will attempt to cancel.

​Others said that the movie is loved by everyone.

​Many users noted that the movie has nothing to do with the religion.

​One user suggested that the article is an example of how the left is getting religion wrong.

​As mentioned earlier, the war drama has been repeatedly admonished for historical inaccuracies, in particular film critics and historians drew attention to the inaccuracies in dates and characters as well as the clothes worn by people in the movie.

One critic said the inaccuracy about kilts in the movie was tantamount to characters "wearing 20th century business suits" back-to-front in a movie about Colonial America. Gibson has dismissed the accusations of the critics.

"I'll admit where I may have distorted history a little bit. That's ok. I'm in the business of cinema. I'm not a f**king historian", he said.
Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала