Ok. I get it. You hate Mel Gibson and, by extension, hate everything associated with him. We all knew you were going to hate this movie even before you saw it.

I have no interest in defending Mel Gibson--we have never met. But he has never beaten his wife or children, never molested anyone else's children, never taken a golf club to beat on a stranger's car, never taken money under false pretenses, never bailed a murderer from jail, never even broken in line with a glare and "Do you know who I am?" when someone complained.

Compared to the average Hollywood denizen, he is almost a paragon.

Yet there is probably not a murderer resting in prison that rates more hate from you. Interesting.

But a particular bit of unfairness on your part bears mentioning. Gibson directed the movie. He did not write it. So any perceived homophobia you see in the movie will be there because of Randall Wallace, the writer of the screenplay.

But did this alleged homophobia even originate with the writer, or did the homophobia originate from the times in which the story took place and the writer was just documenting it?

If, indeed, it was homophobia at all. Homosexuality was not openly tolerated by anyone in those days but it was not a capital offense. The Prince would have been OK, because he was the Prince. But even the Prince had to be careful about how open he was about it.

However, the Prince's lover was not chucked out of the window because he was gay. The movie makes it clear the the Prince's homosexuality was an open secret, known by everyone, even the king. Yon dude made the mistake of offering unsolicited martial advice to the king, implying that the king was making a mistake. Gay or not, this was a capital offense and had to be handled with the utmost, um, dispatch.

In fact, history doesn't indicate (iirc) that Prince Edward was gay. I can see two reasons why the writer made him gay. The main reason would be so that when Princess Isabella whispers "There is a child not of your line growing in my belly," the king had to know beyond a doubt that if she is pregnant, his son was definitely not the father. Doing this in any other way would have detracted from the story or would have made an already very long movie even longer..

The second reason is, now that the Prince is already depicted as gay, have the boyfriend commit some royal faux pas that gets his ass handed to him right away. Tossing the Prince's girlfriend out the window would have detracted from that side of Longshanks' personality that the writer wanted to bring out--not to mention that the audience would have to quietly accept the premise that a damsel was offing up military advice.

Hate the movie if that is your wish--and this movie has been criticized for a lot of good reasons. But at least be a little more subtle in your criticism. Something a little more coherent than "Oh my God! This movie, in which absolutely tons of people die quite brutally, shows a gay character getting killed. Homophobia!!!"

A retired software engineer who hates retirement with a passion. My hobbies are economics, philosophy and futurism.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Tomm Carr

Tomm Carr

A retired software engineer who hates retirement with a passion. My hobbies are economics, philosophy and futurism.