Talk:Rob Roy (1995 film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Beck, Bernard (1995). "White Natives: 'Braveheart' and 'Rob Roy' as Colonial Victims". Multicultural Education. 3 (1): 31–33. ISSN 1068-3844. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Burwell, Carter (2000). "Steeping Yourself in the Culture: Carter Burwell on Rob Roy". In Morgan, David (ed.). Knowing The Score: Film Composers Talk About the Art, Craft, Blood, Sweat, and Tears of Writing for Cinema. Harper Paperbacks. pp. 164–166. ISBN 978-0-380-80482-5.
• Ewan, Elizabeth (1995). "Braveheart directed by Mel Gibson / Rob Roy directed by Michael Caton-Jones". American Historical Review. 100 (4): 1219–1221. ISSN 0002-8762. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Keller, James R. (1997). "Masculinity and Marginality in Rob Roy and Braveheart". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 24 (4): 146–151. ISSN 0195-6051. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Kennedy, Harlan (Jul/Aug 1996). "Kiltspotting: Highland reels". Film Comment. 32 (4): 28–32. ISSN 0015-119X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Kupfer, Joseph (1999). "Language, community, and evil in Rob Roy". Visions Of Virtue In Popular Film. Thinking Through Cinema. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-6720-0.
• Sorensen, Janet (2002). "Rob Roy: the other eighteenth century?". In Mayer, Robert (ed.). Eighteenth-Century Fiction on Screen. Cambridge University Press. pp. 192–210. ISBN 0521529107.

Cunningham

Resolved

 – Wrong site.

Archibald Cunningham should be Scottish not English. Cunninghams would have been Scottish well into late 18th century. See Clan Cunningham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 13:00, September 22, 2006

Not relevant here. This is a Wikipedia article talk page, for discussion of improving the article. It is not a message board for discussion about errors in the film. See IMDB.com's mesage boards. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Original soundtrack

There's no mention about the original soundtrack of the film -- rgawenda 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood racism

I have updated the 'plot' entry that now refers to Raibert's (Rob Roy) historical wiki entry and reflecting how this amongst many other American film shows how Hollywood practices racism.Twobells (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone is attempting to revert wiki links as 'OR & Opinion' when they are historical facts already on Wikipedia as well as other wiki entries on Hollywood racism and Anglophobia.Twobells (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to move to 'see also' but the Braveheart entry reflects ongoing Hollywood Anglophobia and is relevant especially to students who see these films and believe for whatever reason they are 'real'.Twobells (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Braveheart is not anti English. It was wrong the English King to invade Scotland. Is it anti English to talk about the Potato famine killing 2 Irish million people in the potato famine. Is it Anti German to make a World War Two movies that shows the Germans as the bad guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaerdeenThistle (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think your additions are appropriate for this page, especially in the plot section. Whilst you may have a point, the Braveheart link discusses the matter in particular reference to that film. What you should do, is perhaps use the Braveheart section as inspiration and write your own properly referenced section for this page. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked carefully at other wiki entries on these racist (also see Mel Gibson) movies and followed the same criteria after reading their discussions, subsequently I created a 'Anglophobia' entry laying out the historical evidence (via a wiki link) as well as referring the student to Hollywood racism articles, i will flesh out the entry myself tonight.Twobells (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay - for now, I've reverted your edits, which do not explain the point. Look forward to your appropriate edits later on. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "See also" section since the figure is not just tangential to the topic (being linked in the lead section). I endorse the exclusion of the other links since they were without merit. Based on brief research, critical analysis of this film is possible, though what exists is more about colonialism (a narrow perspective of it). See this and this as possibilities. I must advise a reading of WP:NPOV; one should not go about editing a Wikipedia article with a preconceived goal. It is more neutral to research the film in general and to identify what sub-topics related to the film can be discussed. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for Erik's comments before acting further, but I don't think you took his points on board regarding his comment "I must advise a reading of WP:NPOV; one should not go about editing a Wikipedia article with a preconceived goal. It is more neutral to research the film in general and to identify what sub-topics related to the film can be discussed."

Another point is that you may like to look at the Manual of Style as your edits don't seem to follow usual guidelines. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not find the new "Anglophobia" section to be neutral. Reviewing the references used, the section is pieced together to make a non-neutral presentation. It is very pointed, and we need to adhere to WP:NPOV in having an impartial tone when writing about the subject matter. The best way to accomplish this here is to strive for a "Historical accuracy" section; see WP:FILMHIST. There is discussion about Rob Roy's historical accuracy that is not just about Anglophobia. There is discussion about portrayal of the era, including colonialism, nationality, and ethnicity. Twobells, are you interested in collaborating to have a more well-rounded and even-handed section like this? Erik (talk | contribs)

12:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many international commentators view both 'Rob Roy' and 'Braveheart' as prime examples of Hollywood Anglophobia. As for 'pre-conceived goals', yes I had a goal of reflecting international criticism with 'Rob Roy', in that it is Anglophobic, this entry was made after an extensive trawl through the published articles.

The goal of Wikipedia is to reflect the facts, and the facts are that the film 'Rob Roy' is as commented on in international media both heavily biased, with many untruthful slurs against the English and it's historical accuracy. Just because some find the truth uncomfortable shouldn't be a reason for it's removal.

The suggestion that the Anglophobia was present in the film due to 'colonialism' is frankly ridiculous and just another example of defending the indefensible. Bernard Beck's book in relation to Rob Roy and Braveheart was about ethnicity not colonialism. No, the reality is that it was SCOTTISH leaders who decided Scotland's destiny lay with England, but there has always been a very vocal minority who blame the English for everything as reflected in this type of film.

The fact that I am unused to the wiki edit format does not make my edits any less important to the Rob Roy entry. If you wish to defend Anglophobia and how it pertains to Rob Roy then please go ahead. It is very difficult to offer up a more neutral pov when no-one will defend the discrimination in these films, the only entry I could find was when the inaccurate (no English involved in this story) bias was pointed out to the director by SCOTTISH historians, he said and I quote: "they (the English) can go fuck themselves." If you can find any reference to defending Anglophobia in the movie 'Rob Roy' then make the entry more neutral (in fact if you can find defenders of Anglophobia in the film Braveheart I am sure the editors would be most interested.) I expect there are many people who support Anglophobia privately but we are looking for published commentary. Other than that you will have to take your views up with the senior wiki editors who after much hatred, bias and anger decided on the format (see Braveheart) which I implemented here.Twobells (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed Wikipedia's policy of writing with a neutral point of view, and the "Anglophobia" section does not meet the following criteria: "It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." The article is underdeveloped with real-world context. It has no general reception section and an uncited production section. There should also be a critical analysis section, based on my research. The only references used in the article were for the "Anglophobia" section, so proportionally speaking, this section cannot belong. If any aspect of it is to be restored, it needs to be done in proportion to general coverage about the film. My research shows that Anglophobia is not a prevailing characteristic, nor is racism. Thus, it should not be such a prevalent aspect of this article at present. Rob, do you agree? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I created a "Historical accuracy" section per WP:FILMHIST and included the Scottish-English dichotomy based on the article from The Guardian. It's now mentioned in context of how the film approaches history (or doesn't, rather). I also added an "Accolades" section with a table of the awards and a "Critical reception" section sampling some critics' reviews of the film. There's also a "Further reading" section of references that I found that can be used in the article; I just cannot access them presently. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone took issue with the statement in the "Historical accuracy" section that read, "It asserted the Scottish portrayal as American-driven." This is based on the reference saying, "The baddies are English and queer, the goodies are Scottish and ruggedly hetero. And by 'Scottish', the film means 'American'." I changed "suggested" to "asserted", but is there another way to reflect this observation? Some use of "emulate"? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

Disney has released [1] this film on DVD now. So, at least a stub article about it is in order, and this page will need a hatnote referring to it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a hatnote? If we can create Rob Roy, the Highland Rogue, we can add it to the list at Rob Roy and specify the year and the director and the stars to disambiguate it from the 1995 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article exists already: Rob Roy, the Highland Rogue. It is properly listed with other items at Rob Roy. I don't think we need a hatnote; we just need to make sure the 1953 film's description is clear-cut. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a hatnote is pertinent, in case someone searches for "Rob Roy (film)". No harm in adding one. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

historical accuracy

This section is confusing, and is strange in the details it puts forth. It gives details, when it could just sum it up. This movie paints Rob Roy as better than he was. The main source for this section is an article that certainly has a grudge against the movie. So what if this movie was tailored for an American audience, what has that to do with historical accuracy? As for historical accuracy, I am sure Rob Roy was accused of robbing an church and striping its congregation and stealing their bibles, but that doesn't mean he did it. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The section uses one reference, but there is potential to use more (as seen above). These are print sources, though, so they are not as easy to access as the website. It may help to access these sources to flesh out the section better. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, I wasn't questioning the potential. anyway, I was thinking about rewriting the historical accuracy section, pretty much removing the whole Americanization slant. I think the globe article is kinda ridiculous for a couple of reasons, and is trying to make a bigger point about Hollywood and the residents of Kansas. anyway I think I will make a list of the important inaccuracies.

• Rob Roy was red-headed with hairy legs
• Cunningham is a fictional character, although Rob Roy did lose a duel to a foppish Henry Cunningham, a Scot know for his modesty and politeness.
• Neither Montrose nor his men were suspected of stealing the money
• Rob Roy was a thief, blackmailer, and leader of a group of cateran.
• the feud lasted years, and ended with Rob in prison. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth reading WP:FILMHIST. There will be an enormous amount of historical detail that won't be captured in film (and often contradicted). We want to stick with analysis specific to history and film. Otherwise, it is borderline original research to sit there with a history book, compare to the film, and provide original content. That's why I was encouraging use of the references above. It would take some effort to get to them and to cite them, but the payoff would be worth it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMHIST, "If ample coverage from secondary sources exist about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled 'Historical accuracy'". This section consists entirely of one film review by Alex von Tunzelmann, a young British woman (with a major chip on her shoulder, as seen here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/13/iran-argo-brits-sue-hollywood) who apparently dropped out of University without a degree. While she's written two historical books, neither are to do with this time period. Writing entertainment pieces for the Guardian, the tone of her article can best be described as "sneering", not the academic, unbiased source Wikipedia requires for NPOV in matters of historical accuracy. Further, she provides ZERO sources for her facts and even points to other legends as proof of historical error. Von Tunzelmann criticizes uprisings and battles missing from the movie that can't all be included in 2 1/2 hours or even relate to the central story being told--this doesn't qualify as "inaccuracy". The film itself, while taking storytelling liberties with fact and folk lore, was reportedly based on the meticulously researched book "Rob Roy MacGregor: His Life & Times" by W. H. Murray. MacGregor's supposed attack on a church isn't cited anywhere. Scholarly printed works on Rob Roy's biography or the history of Scotland would be credible sources to site historical inaccuracies, of which few are certain. This source amounts to an entertainment blog post by a pro-English-slanting history buff, with no academic source citations, steeped in speculation and personal dislike of the film itself. I'm replacing this section with better sources. WP:QUESTIONABLE72.204.154.234 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have drawn attention to the most blatant error - Montrose says the dying Queen Anne has not left a surviving child to comfort the King. Her husband Prince George of Denmark predeceased her by 6 years and in any event was her Consort and not the King of England or anywhere else. This is not a matter of opinion or open to argument - it is undisputed facts and hence I don't need a source. I am surprised no-one has noticed it before. The film makers may have been confused with Mary - Anne's sister who did die childless and her widower Husband William III was King but her death was some 20 years before the events in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.19.215 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Production

The first three paragraphs of this section are copied, word-for-word, from a book about Scotland in the movies. These paragraphs do not discuss the production of the film (that is, the process, locations, editing, etc). It is not original and not necessary; removing. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

The plot section is wrong. It is not Mary that talks to Argyll about arranging the duel. It is Rob Roy himself. Mary is against the idea of a duel. I just watched the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.114.255 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I do like the plot section as it is. I had seen the film in 1995, but now I did'nt remember but a few scenes of it. I had even forgotten the title. After a tedious and tricky search on the web, I eventually came across this WP entry, recognised it as "my" film, and appreciated the plot section accuracy, that recalled me all the train of events. I plead for it to stay unchanged, apart from possible error fixing. Vibraison (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)