1. Braveheart is a suitable text for the Mass Media section of the Higher English paper. Film
and Representation are specified as areas of study, and in this article Myra Armstrong and
Margaret Hubbard examine the representation of Scotland, of heroes and villains and of
women, as well as ideology in the film Braveheart.
As a film „Braveheart‟ has had a considerable impact on Scotland. Abroad William Wallace
is now a name people recognise. While we are still too close to the release date of the film for
its long term effects to be estimated, in the short term, the tourist trade in Scotland has
markedly increased. A Braveheart shop has appeared on the High Street of Edinburgh.
Braveheart tee shirts proliferate in the shops of the monuments of Historic Scotland.
In this article we intend to look at Braveheart‟s representations of Scotland, heroes and
villains, and women, and then pull this together ideologically. As with the analysis of Rob
Roy in MEJ number 21, the locus of the depth of analysis is the mass media section of Higher
English.
Representation of Scotland
Scotland is represented as essentially rural. Wallace‟s community is small and tight knit.
Bruce and the other Scottish live in bigger communities, but their wooden buildings lack the
grandeur of the stone Norman castles in which Edward I of England is located.
The representation of Scotland is maintained through aspects of the mise en scene. Wallace
and his men are dressed in homespun clothing, in natural colours, their hair wild and
uncluttered. Blue is used extensively throughout the film to signify Scotland. The music too
is that of the pipes, (usually Irish, because of their more haunting sound), but after the funeral
of Wallace‟s father, we are reminded of the significance of the pipes when we are told the
Scottish bagpipes play outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes.
Wallace and his army are brave, loyal, honest and honourable. They take revenge when
betrayed, and in Wallace himself there is a romantic hero of the most swashbuckling
Tinseltown kind.
The second group of Scots are the nobles. Scots in name, but beyond that there is little
similarity between their aims and those of Wallace. They are the ruling class, and this is made
clear in their visual similarity to the English. Clean, barbered and dressed by tailors, they are
associated with town-like communities. In Bruce the clash of interests is personified. He is a
lord, but he admires Wallace, the guerrilla leader second son of a lowland squire. Thus the
representation of Scotland is divided, along class lines. Wallace‟s Scots are constructed as
“real” Scots, while the Scots nobles balance their bidding for the Scottish crown against
maintaining their lands in England.
Much of the representation of Scotland rests on its very difference from England. Castles,
chain mail, cavalry and the long bow abound. Treachery, absence of love, cruelty and
violence are the values Edward I displays. Montage is used throughout to define Scotland
differently.
History
A brief synopsis of the history of the period prior to that of the film would be useful.
Alexander II ruled Scotland from 1214 till 1249. He was succeeded by his son Alexander III
who suffered a fatal accident at Kinghorn in March 1296. During this time Scotland was at
peace with England, and after 1263 at peace with Norway. Alexander‟s immediate successor
was his granddaughter Margaret (the Maid of Norway), then three years old. She was in

2. Norway and in poor health, but her claim to the throne was upheld. The Scottish nobles
established Guardians of Scotland until Margaret reached her majority. In 1290 Margaret
died, and the power struggle began. The main contenders were the Baliol family and the
Bruces. Edward I had made no attempt to intervene in the succession prior to 1290 because
his intentions had been to marry his son to the Maid of Norway. (A wedding was cheaper
than a war with the same result!) Since this wedding had only been mooted as a possibility,
the Scots were wary, but not hostile to Edward, and turned to him for advice on who to select
as king. Amazing though this might sound, it is fact. Edward had previously acted honest
broker over at least two other European monarchies. He chose Baliol, a man whom history
has treated roughly. He genuinely seems to have tried to rule independent of England, but this
was not Edwards‟s agenda. Edward wanted a puppet king, and when Baliol did not accord,
Edward ordered the Scots lords to support him in an invasion of France in 1294. Baliol,
among others, refused to go, and Edward sacked Berwick.
William Wallace was the second son of an Elderslie squire descended from a Welsh family.
How he sprang full blown into the national consciousness is not at all clear. One legend
suggests that it was as a result of him murdering the Sheriff of Lanark in retaliation for the
murder of Wallace‟s wife. Other legends suggest that the Wallace family were already
disenchanted with Edward (possibly because of Edwards crushing of Wales), as the Wallace
name does not appear on the oath of loyalty to Edward.
Whatever the cause, the result is that between the spring of 1296 and the autumn of 1297
William Wallace became the leader of a guerrilla army which took on and defeated Edward‟s
army, a formidable military machine. At Stirling Wallace defeated Edwards‟s army, centred
on the bridge, not, as in the film, on an open plain. He was appointed Guardian. At Falkirk he
was deserted by the Scots lords. He did invade England, burning and sacking in retaliation for
Berwick. He backed Balliol‟s claim for the throne. Finally he was betrayed and executed in
1305. Precisely what he did in the years between 1297 and 1305 is unclear. There is some
evidence to suggest he travelled abroad seeking support. Equally unclear is his relationship
with Bruce.
What is clear is that he had an extraordinary military genius, and a passion for Scotland. It is
also worth noting that despite his power and support it was not his aim to take the throne for
himself. He wished a Scottish King to rule in Scotland, and he believed Baliol to be that
rightful monarch.
Representation of the hero
The heroes are constructed as essentially Scottish. This is emphasised by the grandeur of the
mountain and loch setting, against which they are often seen. This, incidentally, is historically
inaccurate, as Wallace hailed from near Paisley, and he waged war in the Lowlands of
Scotland and the North of England. The heroes are often associated with pipe music, referred
to by Wallace‟s uncle as outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes, another historical inaccuracy as
the bagpipes did not exist in that form in Wallace‟s day and were not banned until more that
400 years later! The use of tartan plaids to construct the Scottishness of the heroes is no more
authentic, as men of this time would have worn belted tunics made of rough greyish-brown
cloth.
These Scottish heroes are constructed as members of a close and caring community, in stark
contrast to the villains who are disloyal, treacherous, and constantly fight among themselves.
The heroes come together to support each on sad occasions like funerals. A strong sense of
community is conveyed by the sad music as the men gently wash the body of Wallace‟s

3. father; by the slow motion and point-of-view shots at the funeral itself; and by the close-ups
of the distraught family at Murrin‟s burial.
They also gather together for happy occasions like the wedding, in which the open air setting,
the music, the dancing, and the natural clothing are all reminiscent of the celebrations held by
the heroes in both „Robin Hood Prince of Thieves‟ and Rob Roy‟. The lively music, the
dancing, and the close-ups of smiling faces construct the heroes as a sociable crowd who,
even when times are hard, know how to enjoy themselves. Furthermore, all ages are involved,
from the very young to the very old, another contrast with the world of the villains in which
children are conspicuously absent.
Indeed, the heroes are constructed as protectors of women, children and the family, while the
villains are seen as a danger to all three. In the first scene, where the young Wallace
witnesses the bodies of those murdered by the English dangling from the barn roof, we see
the villains as murderers of children: when Wallace‟s father comforts him, the heroes are
constructed as protectors of children and of the family. A similar sense of family commitment
is suggested by the warm glow illuminating Wallace and his uncle as they eat together. The
strong father-son relationships of Wallace, Hamish, and their respective fathers contrast
dramatically with the uncaring way in which Edward and Bruce wield power over their sons.
Women are treated no better by the English: Murrin is beaten, raped and has her throat cut;
the princess is sent to negotiate with Wallace even though Edward mistakenly thinks she may
be harmed. Wallace, by contrast, is constructed as a lover, and as a defender of women, first
attempting to save Murrin, but finally able only to avenge her. His behaviour towards the
Princess is chivalrous, and he is protective of her in their last scene together. Despite the
absence of a wife for most of the film (and a construction at times reminiscent of the lone
hero of cowboy films) Wallace comes across as a family man in his oft-stated desire for a
home, a family and children, and the close-up of the child in the execution scene is a
reminder of this.
Associated with the desire to have a family is Wallace‟s desire for peace. However, he makes
it clear before both Stirling and prior to his betrayal, that a peaceful life is of no value without
freedom, a point powerfully emphasised in the slow-motion close-up when he shouts,
„Freedom!‟ near the end of the film. Wallace, like Rob Roy, is seen as fighting because he
has to, fighting for Scotland, not for personal gain. And while in history the Scots were as
brutal as the English, reportedly flaying the English Cressingham, after Stirling and carrying
pieces of his skin as tokens of freedom, within the narrative of the film any Scottish violence
is seen as justified. This is achieved through montage. For example Wallace‟s first attack on
the English is preceded by the brutal murder of Murrin, and followed by her funeral. The
close-ups of Murrin, emphasising her youth, beauty and vulnerability, highlight the callous,
gratuitous nature of English violence. In the murder scene, the shots of Murrin in her veil-like
shroud are a reminder of her recent marriage. In the funeral scene, the close-ups of her
distraught family stress the enormity of this killing, and the repetition of the style of
Wallace‟s funeral emphasises the extent of English violence. Similarly, when Wallace
appears to go beyond acceptable bounds, sending the kings nephews head to him in a box,
montage is again employed when immediately afterwards we see the king throw his son‟s
„military adviser‟ out of the window. The message is clear. Wallace may use violent methods,
but these are necessary against people who are so callous and ruthless they use such violent
methods against even their own.

4. Wallace is not only a brave and competent fighter; he is also clever, a tactician skilled in
working out strategy. His father tells him, „It is our wits that make us men‟, a point reinforced
by his uncle who says he must first learn to use his head, before learning to use the sword.
But his powers go beyond this. He is seen as almost superhuman, one man succeeding against
seemingly impossible odds, when he takes on the English single-handed in his first attack, or
when he jumps Bond-like on horseback from a window into the moat far below! At times
these powers are constructed as supernatural, as in the ghostly scenes where his father and
Murrin talk to him, and also when he insists of Murrin, I know she‟s watching me.‟ Indeed in
the execution scene he has the power to see Murrin‟s spirit, and the suggestion is that the two
lovers are finally united in death.
The view of the hero as Christian and morally good is evident throughout the film. Wallace‟s
father and Murrin are given funerals which are explicitly Christian; Wallace‟s wedding is
conducted by a priest beside a cross; and the heroes, who are seen crossing themselves at
various points throughout the film, are blessed by a priest before Bannockburn. Like Rob
Roy, who refuses to bear false witness against Argyll, Wallace used biblical language when
he tells the Princess he will not play Judas. However, it is in the mise en scene of the
execution sequence that the religious references are most fully developed. Wallace‟s journey
through the hostile crowd is reminiscent of Christ‟s journey to Calvary. The execution table
is cross-shaped, and when his hands are tied, the camera rises, emphasising the similarity to
the crucifixion, as do the close-ups of his two friends in the crowd which bring to mind the
disciples present at Christ‟s death in the biblical epics of the 1950s.
Associated with this goodness, is the hero‟s strong sense of honour which he maintains till
the end, chiding the Princess, If I swear to him, then all that I am is dead already.‟ It is his
moral strength and sense of honour that make him such an impressive figure. He has the
power to inspire a whole army at Stirling. This is conveyed by the close-ups as he delivers his
patriotic speech in defiance of tyranny, by the thundering sound of the approaching English
army and the rapid cuts to the orderly, still Scots, transformed from the rabble they were
before Wallace appeared. Perhaps most dramatic of all is Wallace‟s effect on Bruce. Long,
still shots of Wallace emphasise his shock at Bruce‟s treachery at Falkirk, and it is this scene
which is a turning point for Bruce who declares soon after it, „I will never be on the wrong
side again‟. The powerful effect he has on Bruce and others is stressed by the cross-cutting
from shots of Wallace being tortured, to close-ups of the crowd, the Princess, Bruce, and
Wallace‟s comrades.
His power is seen to extend beyond the grave. Wallace may be dead, but his legacy lives on.
For it is Wallace‟s name, not Bruces, that the Scottish warriors chant at Bannockburn, and the
two icons associated with Wallace throughout the film (the thistle and the sword) are
prominent at the end. Bruce himself holds Wallace‟s thistle, and Wallace sword is thrown
into the air as battle commences, a symbol of Scottish strength and independence.
Women
The representation of women in Braveheart has been criticised, the women in the film having
been described as little more than territory to be fought over by men. However, examination
of the text suggests something different.
The silent, nameless bride in the wedding celebration appears at first a stereotypical woman.
She is like the passive Maid Marion in the second half of „Robin Hood Prince of Thieves‟ in
her natural flowing clothes and woodland head dress. Yet she is brave in confronting the
soldiers, and clever in the way she saves her husband from them. Her power is conveyed by

5. the haunting music, the slow motion shots, and the silent mouthing of her comforting,
reassuring words to her husband.
Murrin, too, is mostly a silent figure. She says little when alive, and even less when she
reappears in ghostly form (on one occasion in a scene which appears to show signs of
borrowing from a Scottish Widows ad!). However, like the bride she is stronger that she first
seems, defying her parents by secretly marrying Wallace. She puts up a spirited fight against
her English attackers and, though clearly afraid, remains impassive in the lead up to her
death. However, despite these strengths, she is a victim, and, like the stereotypical heroine,
has to be avenged by the hero. Yet in the end what we are left with is an impression of her
strength which has the capacity to transcend even death.
This strength is emphasised in the way her character and that of the Princess are merged. The
writer has drawn on the Blind Harry legend of Wallace and the Princess, partly to satisfy the
demands of the historical romance by providing a love interest after Murrin‟s death.
However, the Princess is also useful in providing narrative solutions. The hero has to be seen
to win in the end. She enables Wallace to win against Edward in the short term (while the
ending of the film with Bannockburn enables him to win against the English in the longer
term.)
At first the Princess is constructed as a vulnerable figure, lonely and unhappy, trapped in a
loveless marriage, living in a foreign land. A sense of restriction is conveyed by the head
dresses in which she is wrapped, the bands of precious metal round her forehead, and the hair
coverings which look like metal grilles. She is also constructed as romantic, falling girlishly
in love with the idea of Wallace before she sets eyes on him, and falling in love with the man
himself immediately she does.
However, she is also seen as a sexual being, frustrated by her passionless marriage, and
finding fleeting fulfilment with Wallace. She is brave and independent, going willingly to
meet and negotiate with a man considered a savage by the English. She is clever, giving away
the bribe provided by Edward, telling him she has give it to ease the suffering of the poor in
York! The main way in which she differs from the stereotypical heroine, though, is that she
drives the narrative, enabling Wallace to win when she whispers to Longshanks that she is
carrying a child not of his line.
A problem with the introduction of this storyline is that Wallace obviously cannot be united
with this heroine at the end of the film. Given his construction as loyal, Scottish and a man of
the people, it is much more appropriate that he is finally re-united with his wife. The
difficulties this causes are circumvented by the merging of the two female characters. The
first indication of this is in the montage when the Princess first visit is preceded by the
ghostly dream of Murrin. It is almost as if she is giving this relationship her blessing from the
grave. The merging continues when Wallace says to the Princess, I see her strength in you.‟
When he tells her, „Open your eyes!‟ it echoes Murrin‟s call to Wallace to wake up. Both the
dream and the meeting with the Princess are accompanied by Murrin‟s Theme, another link
between the two characters.
The same music accompanies the love scene between Wallace and the Princess which has
strong echoes of Wallace‟s wedding scene. In both, there are nightime woodland shots, with
the characters illuminated by moonlight; the women are both in flowing dresses, their long

6. hair hanging loose; and the camera shots are similar, showing the couple in profile embracing
each other.
Like Murrin, the Princess ends up having to be protected by Wallace. In the scene in his cell,
although it is he who is about to be tortured to death, it is she who needs comforted and
protected by his pretence that he has taken the pain-killing drug she has brought him.
Ultimately, though, as with Murrin, we are left with a sense of her strength, her power over
Edward, and her contribution to the solutions at the end of the film. Equally powerful are the
reminders of Murrin – the slow motion shots of her spirit and the close-up of the thistle cloth
– showing that both she and Wallace live on beyond their deaths.
Representation of the villains
If Edward I were the only villain, the film would be very simple. There are at least three other
individual or groups of villains – the English soldiers, the Scots lords and Bruce senior. Bruce
Junior will be dealt with separately.
The English
Edward is constructed as both treacherous and lecherous. His plan of dispatching the princess
to Wallace is evidence of his treachery. If she is killed, he says it will bring France in (on his
side). Close ups of Edward at the beginning and at his reinstituting of the rite of prima nocte
are not only political manoeuvrings. They indicate lecherous thoughts about his daughter-in-
law. This is emphasised by the voice-over spelling out that Edward himself may have to take
on responsibility for the succession, the close ups on Edward and the princess, and the point-
of-view shots when he is announcing prima nocte.
It is clear he despises his son. His throwing out of the window his son‟s lover has to do less
with homophobia, than with despising his son‟s weakness and military ineptitude. His
clothing and setting are Norman, his carriage imperial. He is a villain to be reckoned with.
At the other end of the social scale there is the villain who attacks Murrin. In short he is
gross. The previous wedding scene closed with him watching Murrin, so it is no surprise
when he returns to stalk her. He is drinking, he is hideous, and when he gets on top of her, the
camera moves to a close up of his tongue, a detail which is designed to revolt every person in
the audience. The soldiers clothing like that of the nobility jars with the scenery. It, and they,
do not belong in Scotland. This scene triggers Wallace‟s reaction which makes him an
outlaw.
Bruce senior
Bruce‟s father is an interesting figure. In some ways he is the most villainous of the villains,
for he is unseen by everyone except his son. We first become aware of him when Bruce talks
about his father being away in France, and then glances upward to where we later learn his
leprous father is hiding. Bruce senior is a king maker. His sole concern is to put his son on
the throne. When Bruce says he wants to be like Wallace, that he admires Wallace, Bruce
senior brushes this aside. Power lies through courting Edwards‟s support, and this he does
ruthlessly to the point of betraying the promise he made to his son. Bruce senior is the real
villain of the story – Wallace knows he is up against Edward, but never once does he allude
to the existence of the man responsible for his betrayal. It is not accidental that the
filmmakers have stressed Bruce‟s leprosy. As he is eaten away externally, so is he internally.
He has no honour, no loyalty; only hate.
The Scots lords
Lastly the Scots lords. They cannot agree amongst themselves about the rightful monarch.
Bruce or Baliol? This is clear in the scene when Bruce is made Guardian. When they side
with the English at Falkirk, Wallace takes reprisals. They are afraid of this powerful leader in

7. their midst, who has changed the rules of warfare and of power brokering. We see this early
on in the deer hunting scene. A fifth columnist is among Wallace‟s men. Paid by whom?
Edward? Hardly! Bruce senior or the Scots nobles? Wallace has in the Scots lords the enemy
within; for they are primarily not Scots, but lords, whose class interest is more important than
their national interest. The final shots of the Scots army at Bannockburn show how little the
ordinary people trust the nobility.
It is interesting to note that there are in the film three father/son relationships, and in all of
them no mother is present. Wallace senior is anxious to protect his son, and so would not
allow young William to travel with him on his fatal journey. In the hero‟s family the paternal
relationship is of love. Wallace himself wants children, and in the execution scene is drawn to
the child in the crowd. The two villainous fathers totally disregard the needs of their sons in
their own interest. Edward despises his son and is driven by the obsession to maintain
control. Bruce senior goes further. He ridicules and ignores his sons ideals, and finally
betrays him in order that his son can become the King he never was.
Bruce Junior
Bruce junior is constructed in an unusual way. He is a lord, and a potential contender for the
throne. As a member of a very powerful family with a claim to the throne this would have
been instilled in him since childhood. At the beginning of the film, we see he is not averse to
the idea of becoming king. Indeed he goes along with his father‟s Machiavellian behaviour
enough to collude in the lie that Bruce senior is in France. However Bruce admires Wallace.
He tells his father „I want to believe as he does‟, and after Falkirk says „I never want to be on
the wrong side again‟. Wallace‟s passion attracts Bruce, and this is in direct conflict with the
thinking of his class, most clearly exemplified by his own father. Wallace has a mission to
free Scotland, the villains pursue self interest, and Bruce occupies the space in the film of the
hero with an internal struggle.
From this conflict he emerges on Wallace‟s side, and thus becomes a hero. Wallace himself
ensures that. For the bulk of the film Bruce admire Wallace, and this is used as a device to
construct Wallace‟s heroic qualities and his moral centrality to the text. Before Falkirk
Wallace asks Bruce to lead the Scots and become king. Wallace thus paves the way in the
audience‟s eyes for Bruce to become king, and thus Bruce, as king takes on the mantle of
Wallace rather than the moral vacuum of his own father. Thus Bruce‟s reaction to Wallace‟s
betrayal is essential in his eventual passage to hero status. At Bannockburn we know he will
lead the Scots, not betray them. History tells us this, and for the audience not versed in
Scottish history, the voice-over tells us if we were to doubt Bruces own words. The language
of film tells us also. The sidelong looks of distrust of the Scots who were Wallace‟s friends
and companions at Stirling and Falkirk is followed by the shamed looks of Bruce, and the
fingering of the cloth in which Wallace had carried Murrin‟s thistle. One of the icons has
passed to Bruce, and with it Wallace‟s blessing. Any lingering doubts of Bruce‟s honour are
dispelled in our minds by the soundtrack, and the cutaway shot to the reaction of the noble,
who had hoped for collusion with the English.
Ideology
Ideologically the film is nationalistic and populist. It is nationalistic in its elevation of loyalty
to Scotland above all else, and populist in that its celebration of the common man is
undermined by the belief that there are those born to lead, and indeed those born to be king.
The Scottishness in the film is established by the use of an instantly recognisable (though
historically inaccurate) highland setting of mountains, glens and lochs. The film also employs
easily understandable icons of Scotland such as the thistle, saltire, pipes and kilts, some of

8. which are anachronistic, all of which contribute to the films Scottishness. What is then
presented to us is a simple conflict between Scotland and England, even though the historical
reality was more complex, with Scots fighting on both sides and Scots Lords owning land in
England. In this conflict the Scots are seen as good, the English as bad.
It is, however, the ordinary Scots who are constructed as heroic. The nobles are
dishonourable and treacherous, whereas Wallace, the hero, is of the people. This ideology of
the common man has an obvious resonance with audiences in America. There is also an
appeal to the Scottish market in the film‟s nationalism and its „A man‟s a man‟ ideology. This
is clear in the presentation of Wallace‟s army as akin to a football crowd with saltires painted
on their faces, baring their backsides to the opposition! One of the main pleasures of the film
is seeing these underdogs take on and defeat Edwards formidable military machine.
Yet this is not a film which ends up asserting the power of ordinary people. For Wallace,
even after his magnificent victory at Stirling, offers to follow Bruce if he will lead the fight
for freedom. What the film leaves us with is a sense of the necessity for leaders. It is crucial
to the ideology that in the end the solutions lie with Bruce, a noble and the future king. This
shift is possible partly because Scottish identity is seen to be of supreme importance. At
Bannockburn it overrides Bruce‟s class loyalties, and it is this sense of nationhood which is
portrayed as having the power to unite Scots of all classes.
The construction of women is similarly complex. All three female characters are undoubtedly
stronger than the stereotypical heroines of historical romance. The two Scottish women are
brave and emotionally strong, while the Princess is courageous, independent, and even drives
the narrative. In many ways these women, like Mary McGregor in Rob Roy, are reminiscent
of the strong women we read of in much Scottish literature. However, despite their strengths,
they still remain players in the private domain, with even the Princess, who at the end
provides one of the narrative solutions, engaged in a private vendetta against those who have
made her unhappy.
It is the male characters alone whose actions are in the public domain, and it is through the
representation of heroes and villains and the use of montage, that the ideology of justified
violence is conveyed. Wallace in today‟s terms would be described by the English as a
terrorist, but in Braveheart he is constructed as a selfless fighter for freedom.
© 2001MEJ/Margaret Hubbard and Myra Armstrong
Margaret Hubbard, Craigroyston Community High School, Edinburgh and Myra Armstrong,
Firrhill High School, Edinburgh
http://www.mediaed.org.uk/content/view/20/128/