Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Michael Collins...The 'Movie'

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    without a doubt the one man irish history has neglected is Arthur Griffith. there is alot of inacurate discriptions of him. some say he he was a pacafist(not entirely true) or a monarchist (it was just an idea) he was the founder of sinn fein. it should for very different things in 1905 than it did from 1918 onwards. if your bothered check out his book by brian maye of griffith college.

    what i am trying to say (i am sure ye are aware of this) but collins and dev are not the only fathers of this nation


  • Options
    #33
    Outcast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭Outcast


    Yeah, one of the worst scenes in the film is in the Dail when Griffith is shown as Collins' little spokesperson.


  • Options
    #34
    JohnnySideburns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnnySideburns


    Outcast wrote:
    Yeah, one of the worst scenes in the film is in the Dail when Griffith is shown as Collins' little spokesperson.

    As far as I'm aware, Griffiths Dail debate in the film was based on what was really said. He really did say "Mr Collins, the man who won the recent war" to a very mixed reaction.


  • Options
    #35
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    oh ye you are right arthur idolised collins, very supportive of him. they kind of fell out over the collins de valera pact, but other than that, they were fiends.


  • Options
    #36
    Outcast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭Outcast


    The point I'm making is that Griffith is shown as being a henchman to Collins when he was actually so much more than that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Hermione*
    Registered Users Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭Hermione*


    Actually, the role of spokesperson was ideally suited to Griffith. He was essentially a very talented journalist and propagandist. He deliberately backed away from leading a political organisation more than once. He prefered to work in the background, and he did so very well imo.


  • Options
    #38
    Villaricos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 212 ✭✭Villaricos


    debates over movies about history always amuse me.
    Are your forgetting that Neil Jordan is a film maker first and foremost? A completely accurate account of Collins and his dealings wouldnt have made all that great or entertaining a movie.

    yes i did say entertaining. No one is presenting 'Michael Collins' as historical fact, as Hermione previously mentioned.
    Aside from the obvious inaccuracies surrounding the character of Ned Broy most the other incidents mentioned arent that crucial. Most of it Jordan would have been relying on symbolism. At the beginning he wanted to show Collins and Dev together - he needed to set up characters. He wanted to show Collins giving the order to start the civil war, or see Boland die. its all about the symbolism of the movie.Same with Kitty picking her wedding dress, it tugs on the right hearts strings makes a good movie. Same with setting Dev up as the villian - every movies needs its baddie.


  • Options
    #39
    SpitfireIV
    Registered Users Posts: 4,504 ✭✭✭SpitfireIV


    Villaricos wrote:
    A completely accurate account of Collins and his dealings wouldnt have made all that great or entertaining a movie.

    I beg to differ on that one, a movie an accurate movie of Collins would have been by FAR better and people might actually have learned something from watching it.

    Aside from the obvious inaccuracies surrounding the character of Ned Broy most the other incidents mentioned arent that crucial. Most of it Jordan would have been relying on symbolism.

    I think the most of the incidents that are inaccurate are crucial and blatant, you want to know why he put in that scene of the armoured cars bursting through the gates of Croake Park and opening fire? Because he said he needed a shot that took thirty second, so to hell with historical accuracy, we need something thats gonna fill a certain time and look damn cool.


    We all have our own opinions on the movie, and as ye know by now I think the movie is just wrong, and I would have thought that anyone who has any respect for Collins would have felt the same way about that inaccurate over dramatised portrayal of his life.

    CroppyBoy1798


Advertisement