Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by ZappaSG, Sep 15, 2005.
What exactly is going on there? When Mel's up on that rack...what are they doing to him?
That ended the thread quick.
Draw and quarter him. 1) cut him open, 2) take out his innards, 3) cut off his four limbs (he's still alive at this point) 4) cut off his head, 5) put it on a pick for public viewing.
Good family entertainment by todays standards
I thought it was disemboweling him
Wait....you mean, like...completely?
How could he still be alive after that?
If you f**k with the bull, you get the horns!
Your last post came too fast - they take out his innards, but, I assume, leave his heart beating. He doesn't live too much longer after that. The beheading would take care of that.
The real execution of Wallace is generally believed to have gone as follows:
Dragged to the place of execution
Hanged by the neck (but not 'til dead)
Entrails burned before his eyes while still alive
Decapitated (Yes, he was dead after this point)
His head and limbs were then but on display at various locations.
The castration think pops in and out of different accounts. The positioning of the camera makes it look like this is happening in the film version, but it may have been simply the disembowelment, I suppose.
Either in the commentary or somewhere else I remember Mel discussing the filming of this. He said that they shot a lot of very graphic/explicit footage, but tests audiences were really turned off by it. I think this is one of those occasions where such a change-by-committe worked, in that your imagination is much more effective than anything he could have filmed. But, it does lead to some confusion.
I don't remember the end of the movie, but if some one is hanged, drawn and quartered that is what happens. I don't know if there is an official sequence of events. There may be variations prefered by individual executioners
Let's not talk about what happened to homosexuals back then. Edward II was not thrown out of a window.
And the ACLU thinks lethal injection is cruel and unusual!
Yes, it's drawing-and-quartering. I ket my eyes closed the first time I saw the movie...even without the details it's a very hard scene to watch. The sad reality is you can live for some time without your stomach and intestines.
And all of that barbaric activity is for what? To scare others straight? For humiliation? Because torture is fun?
What year was this set in?
What the hell were people thinking?!?
Definitive justice in the 1300's. Crime didn't pay.
The book "Discipline and Punish" by Michel Foucault, which I was forced to read in college - gets off to a rollicking start with several pages graphically detailing the drawing and quartering of a human being. Whatever faults we have today, I'm glad this has fallen out favor, mostly.
That's if you think Wallace was a criminal.
This is what happened to criminals, in general. I'm not commenting on Wallace's guilt or innocence. If you are a Scot - innocent; English - guilty. I have no opinion - it's all history to me.
I am having real Deja Vu as I write this....
I see know that you are from Scotland. You have, undoubtedly, studied this. How accurate is the movie? Gibson's Wallace is who most of us know.
AFA the "Scot - innocent; English - guilty thing", there was actually a contentious legal argument about what Wallace was actually guilty of. The sentence carried out was for treason, but Wallace maintained that he could not be guilty of betraying a Crown to which he never swore allegiance. Edward, for his part, would not allow a Scotsman to be considered a non-English foreign combatant, so treason it was.
Interesting! I may have to dig out my Fathers history books - he's fascinated by Kings and Queens of England and all that that entails.
Ooooooooooooohhhhh :thumbsdn: A person didn't want to cross the King back then. How could one win?
An excellent film is "A Man For All Seasons". It deals with Sir Thomas More and King Henry VIII.
Thank God for today's lawyers...
Now there's a statement that you don't hear very often!
Separate names with a comma.