10 Film Biopics That Couldn't Handle The Truth

1. There's No History In Braveheart

Why did Australian Mel Gibson feel such an affinity with a 13th-century Scottish warrior? Who knows? There's no record of him being an anti-Semitic lunatic. But then Gibson clearly didn't look too deeply into all the facts about William Wallace, since his film is the most egregious misrepresentation of Scottish history matched only by the Independence Vote. There are so many historical inaccuracies in the film even the title of Braveheart wasn't actually given to William Wallace. In fact, it was the nickname of fellow Scottish legend Robert The Bruce. The film gets almost everything wrong: the Scots wear outfits that they couldn't have made in that time, and €œJus primae noctis€ (the right of kings to rape women) is widely regarded to be a myth. As for William Wallace himself, who Mel Gibson starred as? In the film he's depicted as a brave, lower-class warrior who manages to rally a revolution. In reality he was rich as balls, and it was his wealth that afforded him the resources and influence necessary to stage his uprising. Which means he almost certainly never painted his face blue. Sorry, Scottish football fans. What other famous movies totally ignored the truth? Share any we missed down in the comments.
Contributor
Contributor

Tom Baker is the Comics Editor at WhatCulture! He's heard all the Doctor Who jokes, but not many about Randall and Hopkirk. He also blogs at http://communibearsilostate.wordpress.com/