FOr this paper i was kinda confused with were i should start but so far it has been coming together fairly well.  i have had a few difficulties in finding a point at which i wanted to start out at.  Once i found a point it all started coming together.  the one thing that i am concerned with now is the citations in the paper.  because the piece looks at historical accuracy it is important that i keep the sources credible and well documented so it makes sense.  Also because it is important to have several sources in the paper to make sure that i am not straying from the truth like Mel Gibson and many others have done in the past. 

 Another concern i have is that keeping the paper on track for eight pages and not going away from the topic and using things that don’t apply to my thesis since there is so much inforfation that i could cover in the paper but i would rather have a few realy good facts and points that applied directly to my focusing question. then a broad approach that only skimmed the surface of my main points that i wanted to touch on.  I feel it would take away from the paper if i lost the in depth details and explanations of the events in the film.

Ok so I wanna hear what you guys think about this connection that I just made yesterday between the real history and the story in the movie.

At the begging of the movie we see the prince of England getting married to the princes of France.  The marriage doesn’t happen until much later in history, Wallace is accentually killed before the two even get married.  Now follow along in my thinking for a second.  I first though that the princess was only added in thicken the plot of the movie and make it more affective for the audience.  After a little thinking I put a few things together.  Around the middle of the movie when Wallace meets the Princess, he would have really been in Europe trying to find other countries that would join into the fight for Scottish freedom.  Well in Europe Wallace went to France to ask the French king for help in the fight against England, the French turned down Wallace’s, then imprisoned.  The king of France then offered to send Wallace to the England, but King Edward declined and told them to hold Wallace.  King Edward was actually looking for peace between the two countries at that time, and with Wallace out of the picture it seemed more likely to happen.  That is where the French Princes comes in the movie.  Her role was to show that the French had captured Wallace, just as she had captured his heart.  She then held onto Wallace and distracted him from fighting with the English.  But then was eventually released to fight against the English just as the French actually did.  Which means her Character in the film wasn’t historically accurate, but if you look at it as if she represented the French then her role in the film did actually portray history accurately.

In Andrew Fishers paper The Hunt For William Wallace he says, “According to this scenario, Edward, vicious and obsessive, had set out not merely to destroy Wallace’s body but also his reputation, to expunge his name from Scottish consciousness. In this objective, the king is seen as having failed. the truth may be otherwise. The facts, such as they are, suggest a different interpretation, both of the hunts for Wallace prior to his capture and on the question of his reputation after his execution.” I agree and disagree with this quote. The king does succeed in removing Wallace’s name from the Scottish conscience but only for the time. At the time of his execution The Scottish were done with their rebellion.  The people of Scotland were done fighting against the English.  They had given up and wanted to just go on with their lives.  So the death of Wallace took his name and story with him.  That took the memory of Wallace away, until historians brought back his legend. It lefts his story open for exaggeration, Historians and writers were able to twist his stay to inspire new masses against the English in several other situations.  So his tail would no longer be historically accurate but it would continue to inspire the people rebel and escape from oppression.  That means that the tail of Wallace was only lost for a short time but then revived to revitalize the will for independence.

the scene that i am first going to focus on is when King Long-shanks declares the doctrine of premanocta.  this scene occurs fairly early on in the film beings how it is almost three hours long.  it is right after the wedding of the prince of England and the princess of France.  The scene starts with King Long-shanks in a meeting with his lords discussing how to break the Scottish.  they are discussing how they are having a hard time fighting with the Scottish and that they need to do more to will them to honor the king.  We then see the newly married Princess walk into the meeting.  Long-shanks asks her why she came when he called for the prince.  she then states that the prince wanted her to come instead.  Long-shanks acknowledges her and then resumes on with the meeting.

He then introduces his plan to give his lords and captians the right of premanocta.  which gives them the right to take newly wed girls into their bedroom on the first night of there marriage and deflower them. 

The idea behind premanocta is that over time there will be no more pure bread scottish after time because the women will be pregnant with english babies.

I want to know if this was actually practiced at that time or if it was just added to the movie.  if it was just added i would like to know why; if it gives the movie more depth or what.

The focusing question that i have decided on using is.  Is the movie historical accurate?  If not what was changed and why was it changed?

The movie that i’m going to be applying this to is Brave Heart.  The movie is based in 13h century Scotland.  It  focuses on William Wallace a common man who wishes to remove the English rule from Scotland.  Williams desire to remove the English from Scotland is when his father and brother are killed by English nobility.  He then is raised by his uncle abroad, until he desires to move back home and live a simple peaceful life.  He desires to own his own farm and not get involved with any political actions.  He later reunites with his childhood love, eventually getting married.  soon after their marriage she is killed by an English officer who tries to rape her.  In a rage William seeks revenge.  He rallies the villagers together and kills every English soldier in the village.  knowing that his actions would not go unnoticed he leads the villagers on the lords outpost and burns it to the ground.  After he burns down the outpost is when he begins his fight to unite Scotland against the English king and remove them from their land.

Using the same focusing question as the one I used in Raising Arizona, Who is the Hero?  I can’t seem to find a hero that inspires change in the people from the part of the movie that we have seen so far.  Everyone in Oh Brother doesn’t seem to change through the movie or inspire change.  Everyone seems to be self centered and looking only for what they want and not worrying about the other people. That is why I could use some help coming up with an idea of who the Hero of the film was. 

Everet did change by the end of the movie but that was only because he got what his original goal was.  So really he didn’t have a change of heart.  He didn’t have an effect on anyone else either.

So who did have a change of heart?

It doesn’t seem like anyone really changed during the movie.  The characters all seemed to use each other for their own personal gains.   Pete and Delmar were definitely used for Evert’s own personal gain, which was even stated in the movie.  They also didn’t seem to ever change Evert’s outlook on life.

So what if the movie didn’t have a character that was a hero but used the music as a hero?

That would make a little more sense to me at least.  The music seemed to be the only thing that really made people change.  The music of the soggy bottom boys saved all of them from being fugitives; it made Evert’s wife agree to marry him; and it got them good jobs. 

This movie could be considered psychographic in the sense that it gives the viewer the idea of a criminal mentality.  many of the Characters in the film are very similar in the fact that they all don’t obey the law to the best of there abilities.  To Start off with H.I., he is a repeat offender at the same crime that he can’t seem to stop doing.  H.I. does want to make a difference in his life and leave his criminal ways behind him.  He develops into a better person by the end of the movie. 

                Next person in line is Ed.  Ed has the same sort of mentality as H.I.  Ed wants to make a change in her life.  She wants to be married and have kids and grow old with her husband.  At the beginning of the movie we see Ed crying because her fiancé ran off with another woman.  That is when H.I. steped into her life and offered her what she wanted.  Then finding out that she can’t ever have what she wanted unless she turned to H.I.’s old ways.

The next to people are the brothers that escaped from prison.  They both wanted to change their lives for the better because they were tired of living the locked up prison life. They wanted to be free and live extravagant lives.  That meant they needed to find money first.  So they decided to start robbing farmers for their government subsidy checks.

What makes a hero, the Webster dictionary says that a hero is, ”the central figure in an event, period, or movemeant.”  so that leads me to what my focusing question for the movie “Raising Arizona” is.  I asked who is the hero in the movie.  The common answer to that question would be Nicolas cahes character H.I.  The hero of the movie isn’t always the main character or focus of the film. 

Through the movie H.I.’s character does develop into a better person when he steals the Kid. H.I. wants to become a better person and escape from his criminal ways.  Although H.I. returns to his old ways by the time his life breaks down.  H.I. wasn’t the only character to change through the movie though.  Even H.I.’s friends from the prison developed a caring sense when they decided to steal Nathan Jr. from H.I. and return him to Mr. Arizona for the reward.  Mr. Arizona’s character even changed when Nathan Jr. was returned by H.I. and Ed.  M r. Arizona went from a person who meant business, and wanted the people who took his punished, to a person that understood why they had Stolen Nathan Jr. in the first place. 

The Person that i realy feel is the hero of the Movie is Ed.  The changes that she made had the greatest effect on the movie.  When she decided  to return Nathan Jr. it changed H.I.’s opinion on keeping Nathan Jr.  H.I. went from wanting to protect the baby and keep him, to understanding what he had done was wrong.

Hey Everyone My Name is Stephen Anspach, its fun to see how bad my name can get butchered by people.  I am a Senior and running start Student from Clover Park H.S.  this is my second year of running start and hopefully my last quarter until i get my AA.  I plan to go to Washington state university were i want to study either engineering or business management.

Just alittle about my hobbies.  I am a car audio junkie, I listen to alot of music, and way to loud. I used to be one of those people who got angry when i heard other peoples so my answer was to make them hear mine.  I also enjoy getting out and running.  It is a nice way for me to think and relax.  when I’m not working on my car’s radio or running, I’m probably working at the Grocery Outlet here in Lakewood.

Some of my favorite movies are movies that make you think.  One of my favorite movies is hotel Rwanda because of the compassion through the movie.  Another movie that I really enjoys last was Valkyrie and Defiance.  the two movies both told a great story that never lost my interest in them. 

Right now though the movies that i would like to go see the most are action film, just because a good one never leaves me unsatisfied.  what i one of my favorite action movies was Hot Fuzz.  The movie had everything that i could ask for in an action film.  It had car chases, a deep plot that is fairly unique to me, fist fights, foot chases,  crazy old people with guns, and a half hour long finale.  what more could you ask for in a movie, it touched on just about everything that i could want to see to keep me entertained.

What makes a good ending?  A good ending wraps up the story for me. An ending that leaves me hanging just ruins a movie for me.

I’m stephen and this is my blog.