roisinmoriarty

Although I enjoyed watching "Michael Collins" purely as another angle on the uprising and civil war, it would take an awful lot longer than just over two hours to get the whole story across. There have been so many men and women involved in the fight for Ireland's freedom that it would be impossible to do them all justice, or even mention all of them in passing, in the one film. Because the history of the centuries old fight for independence is so complex and involved, this film manages to give no more than a sketchy outline of one brief but extremely bloody period of that history. The only facet of Collins' character that is focused on is his bravery when he was also a shrewd and highly intelligent member of the Irish Republican Army. Even then, his toughness (from what I've read, quite brutish at times) is mostly skimmed over. I honestly don't think that big Mick Collins was quite the romantic that this film made him out to be. Also, De Valera seems to be portrayed simply as a political figure and his bravery in the fight is all but ignored. Remember, he was in that post office in 1916 too. It's a credit to Alan Rickman's professionalism (I'm assuming he researched his character well) that De Valera doesn't come across as the total villain of the piece because the script gave him nothing to work with in trying to instil any sympathy in his character.

The major flaw in this film is that many of its viewers, unaware of the full picture, would come away with a pretty cock-eyed, patchy view of what went on in Ireland in the first few decades of the Twentieth century. There is plenty of scene setting to give us an exciting perspective of the fighting itself but it seems to me that the Dublin portrayed is a lot glossier that the real thing at that point in the city's history. Where are the tenement slums and the people in rags? An all too real reminder of Britain's cruel dominance of the country and the devastating famine of the previous century. Anyone who isn't in the know might come away believing that the good citizens of Ireland's capital were used to taking high tea in the afternoon and lived in spacious, well-maintained buildings. Also, what is the point of mentioning in passing "G-Men", "Black and Tans" and "The Twelve Apostles" if nothing is done to explain to the viewer exactly who these people are and what their significance is in the plot? I remember my grandmother relating first hand accounts of the Black and Tans and she did more to bring to life the horrific brutality of these British volunteers than Neil Jordan's film managed. He also managed to leave out the far more dangerous "Auxies" altogether. From this film, you might believe that the only soldiers that the British government sent over the deal with the "Irish Problem" were the Black and Tans but they were just the first lot. When those veterans of the First World War failed to quell the uprising, the far more brutal and professional Auxiliaries followed them, long before the treaty of 1922.

Like I say, it would take a lot more time than Neil Jordan had at his disposal to really do his subject (by which I also mean the other characters and their struggle) justice. However, "Michael Collins" has probably done a good deal to bring to people's attention just how vicious the British could be towards the Irish. Accounts of the continuing troubles can often be very biased, with the only villains portrayed being the IRA. This movie, with its scenes of brutal slayings of crowds of innocent people, at least lets millions of people know that the British have been capable of atrocities that are every bit as bad as the Mainland bombings of the modern IRA. I could never condone either but I'm glad Jordan has taken the opportunity to show that such violence isn't as one-sided as the British press would have us believe.

Finally, if you really want to know about the history of Ireland's struggle for freedom, I suggest you turn to the many books that have been written on this subject and the biographies of the people involved. But if all you want is to see an entertaining and dramatic movie then watch "Michael Collins". It's heavy going at times but I think you might enjoy it.

Like a lot people unfortunate enough to see this film, I chose to watch it because Daniel Day Lewis was in it. I mean, I've seen this guy play Hamlet on stage; I know what he's capable of so what on earth possessed him to make such a breathtakingly terrible film? Come to think of it, what possessed Harry Dean Stanton, Joan Cusack and Laurie Metcalf? They're all good actors and I just can't understand why they had anything to do with such unadulterated tripe.

Thankfully I'd actually taped the film to watch later so I was able to stop and start and eventually just scan through it to see what the final outcome was. Needless to say, the conclusion to this truly lame movie was as bad as the rest of it.

If you're curious about "Stars and Bars" and are thinking that maybe you'll take a peek if you come across it just to see how bad it really is; do yourself a favour and don't bother. It's not even worth seeing for that reason.

As for Day Lewis, Dean Stanton, Cusack and Metcalf: hang your heads in shame people; you're all smart enough to know better.