Watching: Outlaw King

Over the weekend, I watched Outlaw King with Chris Pine, and I have Thoughts.  I've been waiting for this film since August, after reading a preview article in a magazine.  Braveheart was a huge movie for me (I went through a brief phase in high school where I wore warbraids in my hair as an homage), and sparked a love for Scotland that only intensified once I discovered the Outlander series sometime in 1998.  I wrote a Rather Long Paper on Robert the Bruce in college, so I've got a stake in the field, so to speak.

I did like Outlaw King--rather a lot.  Chris Pine's performance is wonderful and understated, and his Scottish accent is quite good.  Florence Pugh as his wife was an interesting choice, and I enjoyed her performance as well.  The chemistry between the two of them was fun to watch.

The film picks up approximately where Braveheart leaves off, but I would have appreciated a better line of succession between the two films, given how closely they are related.  One cannot possibly make a film about Robert the Bruce that picks up the story in 1304 without at least a nod to Braveheart.  I did read that there was more of the history in the original version of the film that showed at the Toronto Film Festival, but that director David MacKenzie trimmed about 20 minutes from the beginning to streamline the story, so perhaps there was more of a connection in the original film than what I saw on Netflix.  There is a bit about William Wallace in the text at the beginning of the film (all the text on screen was incredibly tiny and not on screen for very long--I'm not sure what the post-production people were thinking) and there is a plot point at the beginning that revolves around Wallace's execution, but I would have liked a better through-line.

My main complaint about the film is Billy Howle's slightly unhinged depiction of Edward II, as well as the choice to cast Stephen Dillane, who was almost unrecognizable as Edward I.  Edward I, known as the Hammer of the Scots, was a big man by the standards of the time and quite forceful; his other nickname was Longshanks.  Dillane is not a particularly imposing figure nor is he a scenery-chewing actor.  Truth be told, I think both men were miscast for these roles.  I love Stephen Dillane, so it pains me to say this.  Patrick McGoohan was so brilliant as Edward I in Braveheart, I confess, Dillane just didn't live up to McGoohan's portrayal.  Edward I of history is a ruthless, ambitious king, a man who brutally subdued both Scotland and Wales, instituted law and order rule, and had a fierce enough temper that a man once died of fright in his presence.  I saw none of that in Dillane's performance.  The script sidesteps Edward II's well-documented weakness, and his general unsuitability as king, choosing to portray him as an immature hothead, rather than the weakling later killed by his own nobles in a particularly gruesome way.  My research suggested that the Braveheart portrayal is closer to the real man, as Edward II was obsessed with frivolous things and focused heavily on his relationship with Piers Gaveston, caring little for war.  There is also little evidence that he and Bruce were childhood friends, as Outlaw King wants to suggest.

I did wish the film had a grander sweep, and that the stakes were a bit higher or better articulated.  Perhaps I am too well-acquainted with the story, but I was not surprised by what happened to Bruce's wife or the fate of Red Comyn (indeed, I was waiting for both events to occur).

What the film does well is to show the Bruce as a man determined retake Scotland from the English, and to demonstrate his brilliance as a tactician.  One of the points in my Rather Long Paper was that Bruce was extremely adept at taking current military strategy and adapting it in new ways.  He took the schiltron, or rows of wooden spikes, used to great effect under Wallace's campaign, and made them into rectangular mobile units, which was truly devastating to the mounted English.  I also posited that one of Bruce's strengths was in choosing battlefield sites that best suited the legendary Highland charge, rather than allowing the English to mow them down on flat solid ground.   In the Outlaw King, the pivotal battle scene is the battle of Loudoun Hill, and the geography and stationary schiltron are both used to great effect to beat back the English.  It must be said, the battle scenes in the film are very bloody.  I had to avert my eyes.  They are on par with Braveheart's battle scenes, and there are still parts of Braveheart that I can't watch.

Bannockburn was the final battle for Scotland's independence in the 14th century--Bruce chose the high ground and the Scots were able to come screaming from on high to terrify and defeat the British camped in the valley below.  I was able to visit the field of Bannockburn in 2005, and was gratified to see my theory held, based on the geography of the place and what we know about the troop movements in the battle, which was the final confrontation between the British and Scots before the Declaration of Abroath, which effectively declared Scotland's independence.

The film makes some interesting cultural choices that I appreciated, showing people singing songs together while working or marching or in domestic scenes, and the chanting in the churches is of the period and not simple Gregorian.  It all brought to mind the wool waulking songs on season one of Outlander.  Speaking of Outlander, Duncan Lacroix (Murtagh) has a small part in this film, as does Stephen Cree (the elder Ian Murray).  To which I say: Wherever you go, always take a Murgtagh with you.  I also liked the synchronicity of James Cosmo, who played Hamish's father in Braveheart, and also played Bruce's father in Outlaw King.  (I did play a little game of "Find the Scottish Actors from Braveheart" in this film; there were a few, I think).

In the end, I think it is a film worth watching, and an interesting take on Robert the Bruce.  I'll be curious to see how Angus MacFayden's Braveheart sequel compares.