FREEDOM!

Desecrating the main memorial to Wallace with a
load of crap: Mel Gibson as William Wallace

Braveheart is without a doubt the absolute worst Best Picture Academy Award winner I've ever seen. Which means it beats Shakespeare in Love. It beats Titantic. Granted, I don't waste a terrible lot of my time trying to keep up with the Oscars' ideas of "best" pictures, & I know somebody who insists that David Lean's Bridge Over the River Kwai is worse.

As far as Oscars go, I think all you really have to do to explain the Academy Awards is look at the original recipients (yes, that's right: there were TWO Best Pictures in 1927): Wings, which won because it had loads of special effects & was a box office smash, & Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, which is possibly the best film F.W. Murnau ever made (& yes, I saw Nosferatu: A
Symphony of Terror) & is certainly nothing short
of a masterpiece. The respective labels bestowed by the Academy were "Outstanding Picture" & "Unique & Artistic Picture". (Apparently following the first year of the awards it was decided that having these two categories was redundant, to which I say HA!) But when a contestant buzzes in on Jeopardy! to question the answer "In 1927, this film won the first Best Picture Oscar", I'd bet ya twenty bucks they come up with "What is Wings?" (And actually, I myself didn't discover that Sunrise was so awarded until several years after my initial viewing of the picture.) ANYWAY, & YES, there IS a point, the Academy Awards long ago chose the path of consensus over true merit. Occasionally, the two collide (the most recent example would be The Return of the King); but rarely.

Still, it's quite an accomplishment to be the worst. And Braveheart is so resolutely terrible that I rather enjoyed it, not unlike Conan the Barbarian. Mel Gibson's cry of "FREEEEDDDDOOOMM!!!!" whilst splayed out in the classic Christ crucifixation pose moments before being beheaded AFTER being tortured, is friggin' hysterical. And the whole love scene with the princess is CLASSICALLY gratuitous & nonsensical.

But ALL I could think about, during nearly the entirety of the movie, was: how did these people cop squats? Like, if they were marching toward battle in a big field & there weren't any trees or large rocks, well, they'd just have to break out & do it, right? Were they so accustomed to that sort of thing that they didn't even bother with trees, even when they were there to be had? Were there outhouses in 1280 AD? Or did they have shit trenches? Did they wipe with leaves, or with their hands? Or did they have cloths like in "Frontier House"?

And what if they had to take a shit in the midst of a battle? I'd imagine you couldn't exactly say "Pardon me, I need to run over to the side here to relieve my bowels". So did they shit themselves or what? IS THIS WHY THE SCOTS WORE KILTS?

I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but I generally have at least one thought of this kind any time I watch something that takes place in the time prior to indoor plumbing. See, I *heart* indoor plumbing. I'm a fan. I cannot conceive of living in a time without flushing toilets & daily hot showers. Therefore, I tend to be obsessed with the thought of not having it.