Braveheart and Rob Roy are not documentaries, praise Orlanth

From: Loren Miller <loren_at_hops.wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 23:51:48 -0400


I read DC's rave review, saw Braveheart, and then read MOB and RR's hatchet jobs, and since I'm now quite drunk on cask-conditioned-ale (Yard's IPA, a superb and brand-new, draft-only, brew from the Manayunk section of Philadelphia) I had to write my own, hyphen-ridden piece...

I enjoyed -both- Braveheart and Rob Roy. I've heard plenty of complaints from the Tarantino=God-crowd about Rob Roy being too slow, and poorly paced, etc, and a few less about Braveheart being the same, and the ACT-UP Mel's-a-homophobe-for-portraying-Eddie-II-as-femme spiel, but IMO the movies were both pretty darn good for taking the pulse of ***Mythic*** Scotland. I admit that I found Mr. Gibson's 1st-time-director-over-reliance-on-the- slo-mo-sequence mildly irritating. BUT!!! I enjoy it when a movie takes its time to tell its story, instead of pandering to the supposed 90-minute-maximum- attention-span of most audiences, and so both of these made me quite happy. With both movies I was happy to experience the full story (however historically inaccurate it was, and who f*cking-well cares about historical accuracy anyway, what the bloody-bollocksy-balls is this a documentary?!) instead of getting a chopped up and incomprehensibly mangled version for Hollywood's target audience of morons (remember _Blade Runner_ and _Dune_, anybody?).

End of Glorantha Digest V1 #312


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail