Isn't Wallace supposed to be younger historically? Gibson was 38-39 at the time of filming and looked it (I actually thought he looked around 45 in the film).
-------------------------------------
OCD predator: www.goo.gl/0avZjB
It is not known when William Wallace was born, but about 1270 is historians' best guess. This would make him about 27 when he began to play an active part in the wars and about 35 at his death. So, younger than Gibson, yes.
But as the real William Wallace never wore tartan or a kilt, would never have gone around in rags or painted his face blue, and would have maintained a decent haircut and trimmed beard like every other Scottish knight of his time, Gibson's looking too old for the part is the least of the visual implausibilities. It's also true than people who live a physically hard outdoor life on less-than-optimal nutrition do tend to lose their youthful looks earlier than people who don't, and in the Middle Ages the fleeting nature of youth and beauty was proverbial; people just didn't look young for long.
Thank you for the quality response. =)
I also read after posting that Gibson himself admitted "he was a decade too old for the character".
-------------------------------------
OCD predator: www.goo.gl/0avZjB
Agreed Syn, and people who say that "movies aren't documentaries" and that people don't take them seriously should be reminded that everyone now thinks of General Patton as gravel voiced George C. Scott with great oration not the high pitched voiced real General Patton who spoke rather falteringly, and if I'm not mistaken a distinct impression of rhotacism- he seems to say "Bwest" rather than Brest- in this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4_47O2Pfy8
To me the real Patton sounds more like Elmer Fudd than George C. Scott!
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Gibson did look older than his character did. It’s one of the reasons he just wanted to be the director, not the lead. The studios basically made the call that he had to play William Wallace
share