Michael Collins (the movie)

paky

What do you make of Michael Collins as a historical source? Do you think it portrays the relationships of Dev and Collins accurately? There are some inaccuracies in the movie which need mentioning like the death of Ned Broy and Tom Cullen, and the Croke Park incident. Do you think these inaccuracies interfere with the depiction of these events and their impact on irish history?
The one thing that bugs me about this film is the portrayal of the anti treaty ira as the bad guys but other than that, I think its a brilliant movie and one of my all time favourites.

CDfm

I heard Alan Rickman - the ultimate baddie who is Snape in Harry Potter & Hans Gruber in Die Hard played DeValera. I heard him in interview on radio say that the portrayal of DeV was unfair.

You might like this .

Alan Rickman addresses DU Players

Submitted by admin on October 22, 2010 – 7:35 pmNo Comment
By Alex Towers
Renowned English actor Alan Rickman visited Trinity College last fornight, where he treated a small audience to an interview with Myles Dungan. Rickman entered the packed theatre to rapturous applause before answering questions about his life and career.....................................................
The actor spoke about his portrayal of former Irish Taoiseach and President Éamon de Valera in Neil Jordan’s 1996 film Michael Collins. However Rickman revealed that he was disappointed with the portrayal of de Valera in the finished film and expressed disappointment over the films original ending, which showed de Valera expressing regret over not being able to stop Collins death being replaced “Julia Roberts in a wedding dress”.
The actor finished his visit with a few audience questions before being awarded an honorary patronage of the Dublin University Players


http://trinitynews.ie/wordpress/archives/1612

R.Dub.Fusilier

it is a good movie as you say and a bit of artistic license was used, there was talk of the car bomb in dublin castle being inaccurate and the rivalry between Collins and Harry Boland over Kitty Kiernan being over played.

"The Treaty" staring Brendan Gleeson as Collins is better in many ways and BG plays a good Collins.

PatsytheNazi

I'm afraid experience has taught me, if your looking for historical accuracy - don't look for it in any movie. Cann't beat an auld book from a good aurthor.

Latchy

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

"The Treaty" staring Brendan Gleeson as Collins is better in many ways and BG plays a good Collins.

I thought so to ...

sgb

It was a movie not a documentry

paky

is it correct to say that the island was already partitioned when the vote for the treaty went ahead?
if this is the case, the part where they say de valera and ''his followers'' refuse to accept the treaty is quite misleading and fails to draw the contents of the treaty which is very important for understanding the context of the civil war

CDfm

I think it is easy for us to impose our outlook on the War of Independence and the Civil War as the concept of a nation state was accepted but democracy worldwide was in its infancy.

Democracy in Germany & Spain was bypassed.

You did not have universal suffrage either male or female pre 1918.

So winning elections was one thing and effective military victory something else.

IMO partition was part of the deal & inevitable and West Cork was one extreme during the war of independence and was an area where the British did not have effective control & Northern Ireland was the other extreme.

Burning out a landowning family that might have presided over evictions & dominated local politics was effectively the only way to get them to go. You could not burn out 60% of Ultster.

So either thru a war of independence etc or democracy the 6 counties were never really on the table from the British or achieveable militarily by the Irish Republicans.

Michael Collins in uniform would have been indistinguishable from a British Officer,



So militarily or politically it was not really achieveable to proceed without partition.

Simarillion

CDfm wrote: »

Burning out a landowning family that might have presided over evictions & dominated local politics was effectively the only way to get them to go. You could not burn out 60% of Ulster.

I know this will bring the thread off topic, but you cannot justify burning landowners out! Why did they have to go? They were as Irish as anyone else in the country, why did they have to leave when the country became independent? Yes many of them were a different religion to the general population, and they were probably richer but so what! Plenty of people apart from landowners and the local gentry were loyal to King and Country. Most landowning families in Ireland would have stayed had they not been targeted by IRA burnings.

paky

Simarillion wrote: »

I know this will bring the thread off topic, but you cannot justify burning landowners out! Why did they have to go? They were as Irish as anyone else in the country, why did they have to leave when the country became independent? Yes many of them were a different religion to the general population, and they were probably richer but so what! Plenty of people apart from landowners and the local gentry were loyal to King and Country. Most landowning families in Ireland would have stayed had they not been targeted by IRA burnings.

most of those who were targeted collaborated with the british during the war of independence.

sensibleken

its not a period of irish history that i have any particular interest in myself but I just wanted to say that that movie was terrible!

Paparazzo

My mates dad was in the army and he said the army historian that worked on it asked to be taken out of the credits when he saw it.

paky

at the beginning of the movie collins is shown raiding a barracks for weapons and organising flying columns. is there any evidence to suggest that he actually did this?

ejmaztec

paky wrote: »

most of those who were targeted collaborated with the british during the war of independence.

I often wonder whether there was a bit of score-settling in some cases, with a bit of looting thrown in for good measure.

I was standing in the grounds of a torched mansion in Kerry a few years ago, and asked an old local about the people who lived there, and what they had done to get burned out of their home. He told me that they were well-respected, and kept their heads down, but that the head of the household had been a magistrate, and most probably angered a few locals during his career.

Morlar

Many historical movies take dramatic liberties, bridge on the river kwai, schindlers list etc, etc,

I think in the case of Michael Collins it is historically accurate enough.

I was not overly happy with a few parts (the dev portrayal, the merging of characters and the car bomb part) overall however it is a fine film and was long overdue.

I was an extra in some scenes (barracks burning with turf on hooks etc) also some scenes which did not make it into the movie (raiding of a quarry for explosives and something similair to the Soloheadbeg ambush). So what was in the script did not transfer perfectly to screen for a multitude of reasons, which I would imagine happens a lot with logistically big films.

I would like to see a more in-depth big budget/high production values kind of film covering specifically Collins/Squad role in the Irish War of Independence. Something like T Ryle Dwyers 'The Squad' would make a fantastic movie if done right.

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

I often wonder whether there was a bit of score-settling in some cases

Isn't that the point of a war of independence, to a certain extent at least?

CDfm

paky wrote: »

at the beginning of the movie collins is shown raiding a barracks for weapons and organising flying columns. is there any evidence to suggest that he actually did this?

I read an account of Michael Collins death where the sniper picked him as a target because he was dressed as an officer -rather than as a deliberate target.

So his lack of combat experience may have contributed to his death.

ejmaztec

brianthebard wrote: »

Isn't that the point of a war of independence, to a certain extent at least?

I'm thinking of private squabbles that may have had nothing to do with the war of independence, like career criminals getting revenge because they happened to get caught and sentenced in the past. People like this would be criminals whichever regime was responsible for law-enforcement.

Morlar

CDfm wrote: »

I read an account of Michael Collins death where the sniper picked him as a target because he was dressed as an officer -rather than as a deliberate target.

So his lack of combat experience may have contributed to his death.

I am not sure that deciding to wear the free state officer uniform equals a lack of combat experience.

I think there would have been many reasons behind his decision to wear the officer uniform. Or rather, not deciding to not wear it (seeing as he was a General in the army at that time).

It would have been seen as cowardly, divisive, and undermining the legitimacy of the freestate army for a General to travel in mufti.

Also he did have combat experience from the 1916 Rising, as well as risking his life daily during the war of Independence. He was known to show up armed, for example outside Dan Breens house one day in anticipation of a raid which never happened. The fact he was prepared to regularly place himself in situations which involved personal risk seems fairly evident.

CDfm

Simarillion wrote: »

I know this will bring the thread off topic, but you cannot justify burning landowners out! .

The comment I made on burning people out was one I heard from a veteran of the War of Independence. And you have to remember that things like the Carrignima Whiteboys, the Famine etc were ethched in peoples minds. 10% of the population in mudhuts etc.1870's mini famines.

It adds up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67179621&postcount=47

My point is that at that time you could hardly have burnt out 60% of Ulster. So not to have partition would have meant a huge change in mindset from the Unionist Community.

paky wrote: »

most of those who were targeted collaborated with the british during the war of independence.

I dont believe that.

Morlar wrote: »

I am not sure that deciding to wear the free state officer uniform equals a lack of combat experience.

I think there would have been many reasons behind his decision to wear the officer uniform. Or rather, not deciding to not wear it (seeing as he was a General in the army at that time).

Snipers were trained to target officers first -it is their job. So appearing in uniform he attracted fire .

It was wreckless. Thats not a value judgement -nowadays officers and men are indistinguishable in combat dress.

You cant look at things with todays value system.

NufcNavan

The film is good but it does not capture the reality of War in Ireland at the time.

'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' depicts both the War of Independence and the Civil War quite well. I know the film is not a biography of a character in a particular time, but it is still relevant nonetheless.

JustinDee

paky wrote: »

What do you make of Michael Collins as a historical source? Do you think it portrays the relationships of Dev and Collins accurately? There are some inaccuracies in the movie which need mentioning like the death of Ned Broy and Tom Cullen, and the Croke Park incident. Do you think these inaccuracies interfere with the depiction of these events and their impact on irish history?
The one thing that bugs me about this film is the portrayal of the anti treaty ira as the bad guys but other than that, I think its a brilliant movie and one of my all time favourites.

As usual, for 'dramatic effect', movie producers, writers and directors opt for loose and often incorrect retelling of historical events.
Very well made for sure but for an account of what happened or of him himself, pick up a book.

indioblack

I criticised the film when it came out - and then had the sense to actually watch it! I thought it was a good piece of historical drama.
It was flawed and there was artistic license used.
But it was of course the story of Collins first and foremost, and as such it conveyed the flavour of how I imagined those times were.

paky

were people of the opinion that dev was a snake before the movie came out? im not that old to remember!

CDfm

There have always been rumours that DeV was in the area when Collins was killed. Whether that was to negotiate or direct military operations is pure speculation.

It is fairly certain that the sniper did not know it was Collins when he fired.

There was also an ideological difference between DeValera & Collins over the latters agreement to partition.

Collins was appointed plenipotentiaryand there was a disagreement between the two over the terms of reference.

One did not trust the other and DeV was probably more into an all or nothing situation.

So it is a very biased portrayal against DeValera.

Now Collins was young and glamorous and spent his formative years in London & may have looked on DeV as an unsophisticated hick schoolteacher .

Intellectual vs practical and they had different world views.

brianthebard

paky wrote: »

were people of the opinion that dev was a snake before the movie came out? im not that old to remember!

official owner of the 'cute whoor' title.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

official owner of the 'cute whoor' title.

Does anyone ever have a good word to say about DeV or Willie Cosgrave.

wow sierra

I agree with other posters that The Wind that shakes the Barley or The Treaty are more balanced/accurate.

The Michael Collins film isnt too bad but it overstates Collins role in the War of Independence and completely misrepresents the strength of the Anti Treaty side in the Civil War. It could have been a truly great film if it had made a bit more effort to be historically accurate.

wow sierra

CDfm wrote: »

Does anyone ever have a good word to say about DeV or Willie Cosgrave.

DeV is often unfairly represented in dicussions today, like the claim that he wants a silly old fashioned land with comely maidens dancing at crossroads etc. The actual speech in context would be a good message against the greed that fueled the Celtic Tiger, and a bit of respect for the wisdom of old age is always a good thing.

The ideal Ireland that we would have, the Ireland that we dreamed of, would be the home of a people who valued material wealth only as a basis for right living, of a people who, satisfied with frugal comfort, devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit – a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens, whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of serene old age.

Discussions on the 1937 constitution seem to suggest DeV dreamed it up in a vaccum instead of it being a product of its time, and a fair representation of the values of the people at the time.

They say all political careers end in failure but DeV managed to die in office after a political career spanning generations. A proper study of history with an open mind would be a good idea for some of his critics. Diarmuid Ferriters book Judging Dev would be a good place to start.

MarchDub

wow sierra wrote: »

DeV is often unfairly represented in dicussions today, like the claim that he wants a silly old fashioned land with comely maidens dancing at crossroads etc. The actual speech in context would be a good message against the greed that fueled the Celtic Tiger, and a bit of respect for the wisdom of old age is always a good thing.



Discussions on the 1937 constitution seem to suggest DeV dreamed it up in a vaccum instead of it being a product of its time, and a fair representation of the values of the people at the time.

They say all political careers end in failure but DeV managed to die in office after a political career spanning generations. A proper study of history with an open mind would be a good idea for some of his critics. Diarmuid Ferriters book Judging Dev would be a good place to start.

Well said. And I agree the Ferriter book is excellent. It really is time to put Dev's historical perspective back in balance. And I too am tired of hearing the "comely maidens" speech quoted out of context. Most who quote that line have not ever read the entire.

And speaking as one who actually lived through the Dev period - the last 20 years anyway - I would take it back any day compared to the social chaos we have now.

To CDfm - before and after the movie there are people who still give Dev a lot of respect. The movie lacked balance and historical accuracy.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Does anyone ever have a good word to say about DeV or Willie Cosgrave.

Ah I'm not dissing him exactly but DeV was seriously crafty. As for Cosgrave he did some great work after the civil war on a limited budget and Ardnacrusha was the type of big thinking that has been sadly lacking in this country. Pity Liam T sullied the family name.