Michael Collins...The 'Movie'

SpitfireIV

As we approach the 90th aniversary of the Easter rising of 1916 we will be seeing a lot of parades, ceremonies, documentaries and such.....and yet again, 'that' movie is to be shown by RTE, 'Michael Collins'.

That movie angers me, I cant understand how Neil Jordan, an Irishman could make a movie about probably one of Ireland most important figures and riddle it with blatant historic inaccuracies and dramatise it for an American audience. Yet the movie is shown and those not in the know take it as the gospel truth. Jordan could have made a masterpiece had he actually done some research on Collins, yet he argues that it was all about symbolism and getting as much into the movie as possible, hmmm.

Just thought I'd mention that here, in the history forum as I'm sure some of you guys and gals have noticed a thing or two wrong about the particular movie. Any thoughts?

CroppyBoy1798

tbh

its just a movie, like braveheart, or the patriot or the doors or JFK. Based on history, manipulated to make a better story. The least you can hope for is that it inspires people to do a bit of research. You say that people take it as the gospel truth - but then, you don't, and neither do I. So maybe give people some credit. The people who take it as gospel, well, you're probably never going to reach them on the level you want to. btw, it was on TG4 last night.

Since when has any movie been completely and uttely historically correct.

SpitfireIV

tbh wrote:

its just a movie, like braveheart, or the patriot or the doors or JFK. Based on history, manipulated to make a better story. The least you can hope for is that it inspires people to do a bit of research. You say that people take it as the gospel truth - but then, you don't, and neither do I. So maybe give people some credit. The people who take it as gospel, well, you're probably never going to reach them on the level you want to. btw, it was on TG4 last night.

Tis just a movie, yes, but a movie about a VERY important Irish man of recent times. Braveheart was set hundreds of years back, no one really knows anything about the real William Wallace or his exploits, so a certain amount of poetic licence is allowed, and 'The Patriot', 'The Doors' and 'JFK' were made for Americans by Americans, so naturally they'll be dramatised and flawed.

A lot of people, when they think of Collins they refer to the movie 'in the movie he did this, or he did that', believing something that isnt true, when equally Jordan could have made a perfect movie with the budget he was on, but he's so big headed about it. And I am giving people credit, I said those not in the know take it as gospel truth, not everyone that watches it.

Cheers for the comments, appreciated

CroppyBoy1798

SpitfireIV

Deleted User wrote:

Since when has any movie been completely and uttely historically correct.

Very true, yes, do you want me to list the inaccuracies in Michael Collins?

tbh

I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's supposed to be a historical documentary. like, I don't think anyone has ever said "yeah, I was going to do a load of research on the founding of the Irish state, y'know, go to the central library, dig out all sorts, but then that movie came on the telly, and I got all I needed from that".

If someone only knows about MC from the movie, then chances are, if they didn't see the movie, they'd know even less.

croppyboy1798 wrote:

VERY important Irish man of recent times

while I agree with you 100%, thats kind of a subjective sentence. It's hard to argue that MC wasn't important in an Irish historical context, but Irish history is only important to Irish people. And not even all Irish people at that.

Johnmb

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Tis just a movie, yes, but a movie about a VERY important Irish man of recent times. Braveheart was set hundreds of years back, no one really knows anything about the real William Wallace or his exploits, so a certain amount of poetic licence is allowed...

With Braveheart, there was more than just "a certain amount of poetic licence". People who aren't too bright will take movies based on history as totally factual, but who really cares what those people think? People who are interested, and have some cop-on will use those movies as starting points to learn more about the subject.

Prufrock

Deleted User wrote:

Since when has any movie been completely and uttely historically correct.

"Downfall" was historically accurate. The "Rise of Evil" aswell. Michael Collins is just all over the place. It would have been more entertaining if they had stuck to the facts.

JohnnySideburns

There are a number of inaccuracies in the film, but from reading Neil Jordan’s book on the making of the film and other books on Collins and related areas, here are my conclusions that justify some of the accuracies

Ned Broy was not tortured to death the night before Bloody Sunday:
but two of Collins men were. These characters were all combined to make the story easier to follow. Does it really matter? The important thing was that the true nature brutality of British was expressed in the film.

In Croke Park on Bloody Sunday, there was no armoured car and it was debatable who fired first:
but in other incidences of the War of Independence, a typical Black n’Tan reprisal was to go into an area of population, burn buildings and fire into the crowd from behind an armoured cars.

The days leading up to Collins death are fictional:
but the fact is very little is known of what happened in those few days. This is simply Neil Jordan’s own conclusion of what happened. However the underlying message of the film is accurate, being DeValera forced Collins to negotiate the Treaty and then created a Civil War which he couldn’t control, making it inevitable that Collins would be killed.

SpitfireIV

JohnnySideburns wrote:

Ned Broy was not tortured to death the night before Bloody Sunday:
but two of Collins men were. These characters were all combined to make the story easier to follow. Does it really matter? .

I do think it matters when Ned Broy WASNT killed by the British in real life, he lived a full life and went on to join the new Irish police force, so a bit different from the movie.

Here are some of the inaccuracies listed below for your reading pleasure : (I've highlighted the more important ones)

1. At the start of the movie you see them all fighting in the GPO, all of a sudden they stop fighting walk out and surrender. In reality the GPO had been evacuated the night before, when the rebels occupied houses in an adjopining street and after making unsuccsesful attemps to break through the lines began surender negotiations.

2. After the surrender you see Collins standing beside DeValera, in fact DeValera post didnt surrender until the day after the general ceasefire. Also after the surrender the rebels where brought to the Rotunda, which is not just across the road from the GPO as potrayed in the movie.

3. Collins was released on Christmas eve 1916, not May '16 as shown in the movie.

4. The spy in Dublin Castle 'Ned Broy' is shown sneaking Collins into the file room of the castle, there is no way in hell Collins would have got into Dublin castle!! because Ned Broy didnt work in Dublin Castle, he worked for Dublin Metropolitan Police and he showed Collins the files they kept, which wouldnt be anywhere as important as those kept in the castle. Ned Broy is also potrayed in the movie as having been tortured, hung and killed by the British, no such thing ever happened!! Ned Broy went on to live a full life!!

5. Another death in the movie is that of Harry Boland, Collins best friend, he is shown escaping the 'free staters' and then shot in the canal, then his body is plunked out as Collins arrives.
Harry Boland was wounded fighting in the Gresham Hotel, while under going an operation he died in hospital, Collins never seen him.

6. Shelling of the Fore Courths is shown as starting in th emiddle of the day with Collins giving the order, in reality the shelling didnt begin until 4am, Coliins wasnt there!!

7. Bloody Sunday, when the armourer car burst through the gates paused and started shooting, along with the black and tans, in fact the black and tans locked the gates, scaled the walls and continued picking off civilians for a number of hours.

8. His death, in the movie he just decides to go to Cork! he was in Cork at that time on an inspection tour he had to return home for the funeral of a good friend of his (Arthur Griffith) then he went back again, he didnt just decide to go on the spur of the moment. Joe Oreilly is shown going with him, Joe Oreilly was NOT!! with him in Cork or at his time of death the man that was with him was Emmet Dalton. I wont go into the facts but ALL the circumstances of his death are seriously flawed, Bealnablath (the ambush site) is very different to that potrayed, the convoy, the type of rifle used, the wound....EVERYTHING!!!

9. Tom Cullen the man who the Brits capture in the ware house and hang him after the burning of the Customs House, in fact Tom Cullen wasnt hung or killed in any warehouse, he went on to leave for many years later!!

10. When Harry Boland and Collins go to England to free DeValera, DeValera is shown as the only one escaping, in fact another man escaped with him and Collins did NOT travel to England to free them another man went with Boland.

11. At the same time as Collins death, Kitty is seen shopping for and trying on wedding outfits, hhhmmmm a bit weird for a woman who was supposed to get married a couple of weeks previous to his death, but he posponed it, he knew that the Civil War was pretty serious and said he wouldnt make any woman a widow.

12. The car bombing of the Northern Police Chief..........NEVER HAPPENED!!!! There was no such killing of this man and especially not in the grounds of Dublin Castle, besides car bombs hadn't even been invented at that time nor where they used!

13. Collins men smashing open the widows of Bewleys cafe and firing indiscriminately into the crowd just to kill one man!!!! a bit reckless dont you think, besides it didnt happen, 13 British secret service men were bumped off but not in that fashion.

14. Collins is potrayed in the movie as the only man to travel to London for the peace talks, and potrayed as the leader of the delegation team. Aurthur Griffith led the delegation team, and it wasnt Collins who split the country in two and started the Civil war as this film shows.

15. DeValera is shown as a very weak and evil figure in the movie, and it is also suggested that he had a part in Collins death and that he stayed near Collins and in a way gave the order to have Collins killed. There is NO evidence what so ever to suggest that DeValera had anything to do with Collins death nor is there any solid proof that he was in Cork at the time.

16. On the take over of power in Dublin Castle, Collins arrives in his touring car....no such luxury I'm afraid, he really arrived in an LSC taxi!!

17. His death, in the movie they stop at a pub to ask directions, then a group of men run out the back and start firing at this stopped convoy which is puzzled as to what is going on. For one, Beal na blath is nothing like that shown on the film, there are no cliffs or steep hills just a gently sloping one and a stream, second the men didnt just run out and take up posistion, they had learned that Collins was in the area and had set up an ambush in the early morning, by evening when the convoy didnt seem to be arriving the ambush party of about 20 finished up and went back to the local pub, five men were left behind to clear up, disconnect the mine and remove the cart, it was then the convoy approached, and as they turned a corner a burst of fire hit Collins car (they didnt stop in amazement a shown in the film and they werent all clumped together as shown in the film) To make a long story short, after about a hours fighting Collins left the cover of the armourer car, went around a bend on the road and thats where he was found a couple of minutes later with a gaping wound in the back of his head, in the movie the wound is on the wrong side and Joe OReilly is seen with him, joe was NOT THERE!!!



As suggested by Prufrock, this movie would have been a whole lot better if it had of stuck to the facts. There is one decent Irish movie about those times, 'The Treaty', great movie, very true to history, and why isnt it ever shown? Because its not dramatised and messed about historically like 'Michael Collins'.

CroppyBoy1798

tbh

Croppy, the whole point is: it's not a historical document, it's a movie. It's not intended to be taken literally - I really think you are underestimating most people - most people, I would imagine, take it for what it is. As has been said already, the people that treat it as gospel are not the type of people to really care one way or the other, and it may actually help by getting people interested in the subject matter and researching further.

for example:

At the start of the movie you see them all fighting in the GPO, all of a sudden they stop fighting walk out and surrender. In reality the GPO had been evacuated the night before, when the rebels occupied houses in an adjopining street and after making unsuccsesful attemps to break through the lines began surender negotiations.

intended message: There was a rising, and the Irish lost.

11. At the same time as Collins death, Kitty is seen shopping for and trying on wedding outfits, hhhmmmm a bit weird for a woman who was supposed to get married a couple of weeks previous to his death, but he posponed it, he knew that the Civil War was pretty serious and said he wouldnt make any woman a widow.

intended message: MC and Kitty were close, and probably would have been married if it hadn't been for the war.

relax man, it's just a movie. you're taking it more seriously than most

Aedh Baclamh

Prufrock wrote:

"Downfall" was historically accurate. The "Rise of Evil" aswell. Michael Collins is just all over the place. It would have been more entertaining if they had stuck to the facts.

The Rise of Evil historically accurate???

Presume you are joking with that one.

Aedh Baclamh

Ned Broy was not tortured to death the night before Bloody Sunday:
but two of Collins men were. These characters were all combined to make the story easier to follow. Does it really matter?

Of course it matters because he wasn't killed! People will think he was killed, when actually he went on to live to a good age and had a major role in the Gardaí.

SpitfireIV

tbh wrote:

relax man, it's just a movie. you're taking it more seriously than most

If it were a movie about Joe Bloggs or whom ever I'd wouldnt mind, but the point is its about Michael Collins, and it was directed by an Irish man, Neil Jordan, he made a mess of it, pure and simple. I'd sooner see historic fact, be it boring or not, rather than pumped up Hollywood drama.

I'll say no more on the topic, but its been a long time since I seen that movie and I wont be watching it again, and for those reading this who have not yet had the pleasure of seeing it.....DONT BELIEVE IT

Thanks for the comments, been interesting

CroppyBoy1798

DublinWriter

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Here are some of the inaccuracies listed below for your reading pleasure : (I've highlighted the more important ones)

You also forgot the scene where Collins escapes from the exploding Death Star in a Tie-Fighter, when in reality it was an X-Wing.

Aedh Baclamh

Do you write comedy pieces?

SpitfireIV

DublinWriter wrote:

You also forgot the scene where Collins escapes from the exploding Death Star in a Tie-Fighter, when in reality it was an X-Wing.

Emmmm........that didnt happen, sorry mate you have the wrong movie

Hermione*

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

5. Another death in the movie is that of Harry Boland, Collins best friend, he is shown escaping the 'free staters' and then shot in the canal, then his body is plunked out as Collins arrives.
Harry Boland was wounded fighting in the Gresham Hotel, while under going an operation he died in hospital, Collins never seen him.

For one, Beal na blath is nothing like that shown on the film, there are no cliffs or steep hills just a gently sloping one and a stream, second the men didnt just run out and take up posistion, they had learned that Collins was in the area and had set up an ambush in the early morning, by evening when the convoy didnt seem to be arriving the ambush party of about 20 finished up and went back to the local pub, five men were left behind to clear up, disconnect the mine and remove the cart, it was then the convoy approached, and as they turned a corner a burst of fire hit Collins car (they didnt stop in amazement a shown in the film and they werent all clumped together as shown in the film) To make a long story short, after about a hours fighting Collins left the cover of the armourer car, went around a bend on the road and thats where he was found a couple of minutes later with a gaping wound in the back of his head, in the movie the wound is on the wrong side and Joe OReilly is seen with him, joe was NOT THERE!!!

CroppyBoy1798

Ah, for a start, many of the inaccuracies you mention are really quite trivial, and hardly make a great deal of difference to the story on film, whatever about on paper. To have dramatised the story with all the personalities as it actually would have been very confusing, therefore Jordan exercised editorial license to simplify the story. He wrote the screenplay, that's his perogative. It's not a historical source, it's a dramatisation. So for example, he didn't introduce a new character for fifteen minutes at the end just to accompany Collins to Cork.

Harry Boland was not shot in the Gresham, he was shot in a hotel by the sea. But Jordan couldn't find a period hotel by the sea to use as a location, so he had to improvise. Otherwise, you'd be complaining that the hotel was too obviously modern :rolleyes: The death of Boland is still tragic and essential to the story, no matter how it occured.

The reason why Beal na mBlath is not like how it's portrayed on film is that they didn't shoot those scenes in Cork, they shot them in Wicklow. Having been to Beal na mBlath, I don't imagine it's the easiest place to set up a film crew, but I think they actually chose Wicklow for budgetary reasons, ie, the cost of moving the film crew down to Cork. In fairness, Irish hills are Irish hills, there were ambushes everywhere in that period.

What I find most absorbing about the film is the quality of the acting (Julia Roberts being an obvious exception). Rickman in particular is a revelation as de Valera.

SpitfireIV

Hermione*, if I were being trivial I'd say that the scene were Boland was shot, a 'free stater' shoots about 8 rounds within 10 seconds from a Lee Enfield.......not possible! , now thats trivial.

But the fact is Harry Boland DID NOT get shot in a canal and get plucked out just as Collins arrived, I dont care what Jordan tried to symbolise, he could have done it correctly if he wanted, but it was just more appealing to a viewing audience to potray it the way he did which is wrong.


You'll probably wonder why I have such a dislike for this movie, but the fact is, that I have a great respect and admiration for Collins, and the one movie they made about him was a piece of Hollywood drama, its a disgrace!

The final scenes of the movie show the following lines:

"It is my opinion that in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Michael Collins and that greatness will be recorded at my expense." Eamonn DeValera

Maybe sometime a filmmaker will take up the challenge and make a masterpiece of a movie about Collins, and that'll be worth waiting for, because as far as I'm concerned 'Michael Collins' isnt it.

CroppyBoy1798

PHB

The film as a whole, isn't totally inaccurate.

The minor trivial things, like where things happened, Broy (who is an amalgamation of several characters, some of whom were killed) are really irrelevent.

It captures the story pretty well, the only real issue I have with it is the portrayal of Dev. While I firmly believe that this is an accurate representation of the man, it is pretty biased, almost over the top. Infact, one other inaccuracy that really bugs me is that Collins headed up the team to Britain, when he didn't.

Otherwise, it's fairly good.

BrianCalgary

Anyone for the Canadian perspective?

I saw a part of the movie once. Enjoyed, but fell into the trap of thinking it was historically accurate. After all why wouldn't it be?

Thanks Croppy for pointing out the inaccuracies. Next time I see it I will recognize the movie for what it is. An historical dramatisation based on events as interpreted by the film maker.

It is too bad that the makers did not produce an accurate film that could have been enjoyed by many people and gave them a better understanding of history as opposed to an inaccurate view.

After all there isn't much out their by way of Irish history with an Irish point of view.

Aedh Baclamh

I agree with CroppyBoy completely. I cannot understand how people can say that most of the inaccuracies are trivial. Jordan used the name Broy, so you can forget about your idea of an "amalgamation of several characters". If he uses another name, fair enough (although this would also be inaccurate).

Béal na mBláth looked nothing like that unfortunately. And casting Julia Roberts? Come on!

Hermione*

In fairness croppy boy, anybody who wants a real portrayal of Collins can just read any one of the many books available.

A film is essentially a piece of art, not a historical document. Otherwise it's be a documentary, and how many Hollywood actors would want to get involved in a documentary about a war in Ireland which a signficant poart of our own population aren't too bothered about. I didn't say there was a symbolic purpose top the portrayal of Boland's death; since they were unable to find locations to portray his death as it occured they had to come up with their own depiction of the event.

Most historicals films have inaccuries; very often the inaccuracies are inserted because if the event was shown exactly as it happened it'd be too uninteresting to attract a mass audience. It's the nature of the beast imo, it's the price paid for bringing history to a wider audience.

DublinWriter

Hermione* wrote:

A film is essentially a piece of art, not a historical document.

But I think we all agree directors should have a 'care of duty' when dealing with historical events.

For example, JFK was a joke and did more damage than good.

SpitfireIV

In fairness croppy boy, anybody who wants a real portrayal of Collins can just read any one of the many books available.

They can yes, I never disputed that fact, its the movie that I am relating to.

A film is essentially a piece of art, not a historical document.

True too, but this is a movie about Michael Collins, not Joe Blogs. There are facts when it comes to Collins, what he did, when he did it, events he was or wasnt involved in, so why stray away from them and change history for the purposes of a movie?

since they were unable to find locations to portray his death as it occured they had to come up with their own depiction of the event.

But what so hard about showing him getting wounded outside a hotel? They built a period city and blew it apart. Right, maybe they did have to come up with there own depiction, but why do it the way they did it??....the way it DIDNT happen without bearing at least some form of resemblance to the way it did happen.

Most historicals films have inaccuries; very often the inaccuracies are inserted because if the event was shown exactly as it happened it'd be too uninteresting to attract a mass audience.

I'd doubth there are that many which have blatant inaccuracies as Michael Collins, 'The Downfall' as already mentioned in this thread was more or less correct, it was about three and a half hours long, and focused on the last hours of Hitlers life, not the most interesting movie it has to be said, why? Because it stuck to the known facts. There were many actors in it, some only for a few minutes, but they played the roles of people who were there at the time, the director didnt use the same person to do the roles of 2 or 3 people so as not to confuse the audience, he assumed that the audience could handle it and understand it themselves, why? Because it was directed at a European audience. Michael Collins was directed toward an American/Irish audience, thats where it went wrong I strongly believe.


"I wanted to make this story as accurate as possible without killing it dramatically and I think I have. It is a very true film." Neil Jordan

CroppyBoy1798

silverharp

one good thing for me was, I actually went out after and read dev's and mc's bios. They obviously managed to kill any passion about this in school.

MC=rocks!
Dev=scumbag!

funktastic

Tim Pat Coogan was an advisor on the film of 'Michael Collins', and the film goes along with his book where he eulogises him. He's style of writing is very readable, strongly nationalist and journalistic, having been editor of 'The Irish Press'.. His other biography of De Valera more-or-less damn's him and is not the most academic of books.

An independent movie of Collins would have been able to go into greater depth about his character/the treaty and not have to build up the inaccuracies so as to gain an audience and re-coup the budget. It is the nature of the film industry.

JohnnySideburns

silverharp wrote:

one good thing for me was, I actually went out after and read dev's and mc's bios. They obviously managed to kill any passion about this in school.

MC=rocks!
Dev=scumbag!

I have also read a number of books about the fight for independence since Michael Collins was released. Before that, the Irish Education System made me anything but interested. So a little bit of dramatisation and simplifying of the story is not such a bad thing.

Outcast

Well although some of the historical indescrepancies are pretty bad does anyone think that the film as a whole is just portraying this overly-romanticised view of Collins?

I mean how many times can they use the phrase "Jesus Mick" before we start to get skeptical. It isn't an accurate depiction of Ireland at all, there's some terrible accents and the language is way overdone.

He's painted as this larger than life, funny, friendly character but in reality although he was probably a good laugh was he really that go lucky?

They make this big thing about how romantic he is and how much he loves Kitty but conviently avoid mentioning all the other girls he was with, the chap got around!

This whole obsession with peace and ending the fighting. I can't help but think that's pure rubbish. He was a soldier, and a guerilla fighter at that, peace can't have been that high on his list of priorities.

And the contrast between him and DeValera is a disgrace. Dev is painted as such a villain, and Collins a hero but that's not how it was. Collins, because he died young etc. was the hero-figure in the War of Independence but Dev kept at it for over fifty years, he's possibly the single most influential figure in Irish politics.

I'm in school now and people have such a bull**** idea of Michael Collins and Eamon DeValera because of that film. It's an alright yarn but I think it's a bad job overall.

walrusgumble

collins = legendary,fearless,and clever solider.
De Valera= genuis political mind

why the hell did the film make de Valera out to be the villian etc. fair enough history, with the likes of Coogan's book or Robert Kee's Green flag of Ireland a history of irish nationalism, will taint him especially during the treaty negoiations. Yes dev shout the "rivers of blood" but he was a republician although not a doctrainaire one, even to the day he did he hated the oath and the symbols impuged into the treaty and Constitution of 1922. THERE WERE MORE INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE WHO WENT MENTAL OVER THE TREATY. Cathal Brugha, Austin Stack,Oscar Trainor and Liam lynch, Rory O'Connor. remember them. there was a point in time and maybe no different to now, when the old IRA disregarded the government. DEV WAS A POLITICIAN HE HAD DAMN ALL INFLUENCE IN THE ARMY. it was hurtful to portray dev as having some connection with collins death, jordan was careless, strangely enough i dont remember any of his surving family say much.

Dev =scumbag? ye he messed up not going to the treaty and leaving the House in Irelands time of need, but ya should check his record, and forget this romantise crap bot collins, thinking dev was useless.

i use bang my head off the desk when the teacher played that film, one problem is that some people see how great collins was (and he was) but then debate whether the treaty was right then there all pro treaty boys without identifing why the anti treaties took action yet they have no problem ranting about u know what up north.

to be fair i agree which wat alot of ye said. i was 11 when that film came out was already into history, then hooked after the film. the film did well in conveying the struggle ireland went between themselves and britain to achieve freedom, and that mattered. as for the inaccuracies well at least people can go out get thye books and do their researh and make their own opinions on collins and co. it makes us aware of our past, discuss it, our history afterall gives us a sense of identity and helps us not to make the same mistakes in the future.

walrusgumble

Trying to end the war, yes and no.

he did try to speak to dev ie collins dev electoral pact only to be cease after craig kicked a stink. he didnt want to fight against his own men

but its on record that collins may have repudiated the treaty and that he ordered teachers in the north to ignore the northern ireland authoirity and that he would ensure that civil servants would be paid from free state sources, and that he was planning to send arms up there. also look closely at the scnce where collins and boland last meet alive, collins confessed that if he got statrted he was afraid that he wont know where to end, then boland told him to tear up the treaty.

some one brought out a book bout all the women collins had, fair play to him real man lol, the church mightn't have liked that if it was in the film.