Ok so, I know this is an old post but, I have to throw in my 2 cents...I know for a fact this movie was changed from theatre to print... upon print release & over the years Ive looked for info on this wanting 2 know why, to no avail. Hell, I just wanted 2 find anyone else who had the same complaint. Admittedly I havent looked that hard but, over 20 yrs ago one easily loses hope trying to find obscure info on the net. There just wasn't much out there back then in case you guys don't 'memba'' lol. (<Mad Max nod
I've checked on it from time to time & this is the 1st convo ive seen. Other than the comments Mel made about the film being changed to get a different ''less violence'' rating, I havent found much. I get most people's memory sucks but, I promise you mine is a steel trap. I have trained neurotically (as in EVERY DAY of my life, never waning) for decades in memory enhancement techniques etc...that being said, there are actually three major things that were censored or just outright changed from the theatrical version. Given the way society likes whine about violent films, games etc. can anyone really say this comes as a surprise? I saw Braveheart in theatre (obviously) in Manchester, NH & bought the movie on vhs as soon as it was released... I immeadiately I was all like WTF? OVER?, lol... My guess it went to theatre as intended. After it was criticized for whatever, they put together the different cut we have today to get the different rating b4 release... Just like what Mel said & unfortunately never releasing the original.
1. when murron is 1st escaping from the english on horseback-in theatre she gets full on smashed in the face with a SHOVEL...not the 1/2 ass scene of being hit (ambiguously) slightly below the face with a spear.
2. YES, in theatre you absolutely saw
in full frame just like the magistrate. This scene alone is what made such a drastic impact on me. Not only was it the entire undertone for Wallace's reprisals, it was also what made such a connection of love & deep empathy for his character. This impact wouldnt come for me the way it did if I hadn't seen Morruns' full frontal throat cutting.
These 2 scenes being ''toned down'' imo, fall right in line with each other. Im sure this due some crying liberal crap like usual but, & it doesnt surprise me, not sure why so many would refuse to think they wouldnt do this. It happens all time. Plus not to mention, if you just looked at it logistically, why on Gods green earth would Mel & crew only show the Magistrate's throat cut? Of course they would show both. If you show one, aside from someone whining about violence to women; why not the other? As if we girls are somehow saved from it all cuz the film police showed up... As if NOT displaying the way things truly used to be makes it not so. I think its obvious they intended for both to be blatant & powerful. That is until the ratings commission (or whatever they're called) showed up after the fact & complained due to public/gov complaints. Such as Britain (considering the cultural impact & for obvious reasons) wanting toned down- effectively RUINED it for everyone. Just like California's bs ruins so much for the rest of our country.
Now, ready for no.3? Cuz this one's really gonna mess w/u, lol
3. When Robert the Bruce comes back to his father's room the 2nd time after betraying Wallace & then sending Murrons' kerchief back to Wallace; calling for a meeting. Unbeknownst to the Bruce its a trap. The Bruce returns to his farther & is screaming at him to '' Why??'' & ''Die!!'' etc...then walks away, ''my hate will die with you'' -closes the door & done. In the theatre the Bruce throws his father right out the 2nd story window & kills him.
Why they either chose or were forced to change these integral parts is not that hard to figure out, albeit ridiculous. I've tried to find the original in the USA again, to no avail. My guess is the visualization of the realization of the brutalization of women & throwing leapers out of windows was too much for people to handle, lol.