Mel Gibson admits Braveheart inaccuracies!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Given how the Gibson family moved from the suburbs of New York City--where Mel was born and raised--to Australia forty years ago, as he was approaching draft age during the Viet Nam war, I have always taken his take on patriotism with a grain of salt.

I believe Mr. Gibson was 12 when, in 1968, his father moved the family to Australia. Mr. Gibson's older brother later joined the Australian Army and served in Vietnam. Mr. Gibson returned to the United States to pursue his acting career after the success of the Australian motion picture, MAD MAX.

That being the case, what causes you to question the sincerity of his patriotism? I fail to see how anyone could be considered to be a false patriot because as a child their parents moved to another country.

[Livingston]

I'm having trouble locating the Alley Oop tartan. Any suggestions?

The Alley Oop tartan came from the old and rare list. First you had to find a cave bear and shave it for one color, then a saber tooth tiger and shave it for the second color and finally a wooly mamoth which supplied the main color. There were only a couple of kilts made from this tartan since it usually ended up with the supplier loosing most of his staff.

[The Guy in the Kilt at UC]

I was not alive at the time, but could someone tell me if Viet Nam was seen as a big quagmire by 1968? I know it was very unpopular eventually, but when did that become the strong opinion that it was. Would it have been enough to leave the country for fear that your son would die in six years?

[thescot]

. . .Would it have been enough to leave the country for fear that your son would die in six years?

Maybe you should ask the mothers whose sons were at Guadalcanal. Or Dunkirk. Or Bunker Hill. Or Fort Sumter. Or any other war site.

It's the alternative that one has to consider when making a decision about whether to go to war or not.

The quagmire was as much a function of the news and politics as it was anything. Only by diciding to win can you win.

[escherblacksmith]

well, this is starting to not go well, back to the topic at hand.

Yes, we all agree that Hollywood does not have a great track record of accuracy. The point of this story is that Mel Gibson is not defending Braveheart as historical. After 15 years. That is the story.

That said, movies can been done with at least an attempt at getting the story right. As a for instance, I believe these are close to the mark:

Gettysburg
Gandhi
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Zulu
Master and Commander.

Now, none of these were 100%, and, frankly, couldn't be. But they reflect an attempt to make a gripping story and be accurate.

And, really, that is all I require, a worthy attempt.

[MuffinMan]

What about Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I seem to remember a college history teacher saying its very tongue in cheek but accurate.

MM

[Jack Daw]

Mel Gibson was only 17 in 1973 when the U.S. draft ended.

[Phil]

I do thnk that the movie sparked an interest in finding out the truth of what really happened. Anyway I think we all know that Hollywood has never been in the business of letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Look at the movie U-571, a total tissue of lies from beginning to end.

[McMurdo]

As the original poster has requested it this thread is now closed.