Michael Collins Film

[Rocky]

There are plenty of inaccuracies in the film as you except from any 2 hour film of a six year period of a man’s life. The director doesn’t have any other choice. No film has ever been a 100% true because it’s impossible to do. However most of the errors are very minor and trivial. Does it really matter where the rebels surrendered in 1916? No. Does it really matter what’s in front of the GPO? No. Does it really matter where Collins looked at the British police files? No. These and many other inaccurate are very trivial and are the simple nature of making a film like that.

The only two I would have a real problem with is the car bomb and the fact that they make it seem like SF spilt over the North and an oath of allegiance to the King. Everything else is either very minor or like the death of Broy done for film making purpose and doesn’t really matter anyway.

I have watched the scene with Dev and the assassin loads of times and I can’t see how Dev can be blamed for the death of Collins. He talks to him, but he never says anything about killing Collins and as far as I can see the film states that they were acting on their own. Dev was in Cork at the time so that much is true.

The general base of the film is correct. Of course it portrays Collins in a very positive light, every film like that does that. You’re also not meant to be able to write an historical account of Michael Collins on it. However if someone who knew nothing about this period, watched it, it would give a good base and tell them about the main figures and the main events and most importantly it’s a entertaining to watch. Once again it’s not meant to be a historical source, in the same way that Braveheart isn’t meant to be a historical source, or Titanic or Black Hawk Down or Hotel Rwanda or whatever. There based on true stories and they give you the general background, the same as Michael Collins does.

Also to response to some of the Analyzer inaccuracies. I have never noticed Griffith in the 1916 scenes, if he’s there they keep him pretty will hidden and there is no reason to believe Collins is a senior figure in the 1916 rising from the film.

[The Analyser]

There are plenty of inaccuracies in the film as you except from any 2 hour film of a six year period of a man’s life. The director doesn’t have any other choice. No film has ever been a 100% true because it’s impossible to do. However most of the errors are very minor and trivial. Does it really matter where the rebels surrendered in 1916? No. Does it really matter what’s in front of the GPO? No. Does it really matter where Collins looked at the British police files? No. These and many other inaccurate are very trivial and are the simple nature of making a film like that.

The only two I would have a real problem with is the car bomb and the fact that they make it seem like SF spilt over the North and an oath of allegiance to the King. Everything else is either very minor or like the death of Broy done for film making purpose and doesn’t really matter anyway.

I have watched the scene with Dev and the assassin loads of times and I can’t see how Dev can be blamed for the death of Collins. He talks to him, but he never says anything about killing Collins and as far as I can see the film states that they were acting on their own. Dev was in Cork at the time so that much is true.

The general base of the film is correct. Of course it portrays Collins in a very positive light, every film like that does that. You’re also not meant to be able to write an historical account of Michael Collins on it. However if someone who knew nothing about this period, watched it, it would give a good base and tell them about the main figures and the main events and most importantly it’s a entertaining to watch. Once again it’s not meant to be a historical source, in the same way that Braveheart isn’t meant to be a historical source, or Titanic or Black Hawk Down or Hotel Rwanda or whatever. There based on true stories and they give you the general background, the same as Michael Collins does.

Also to response to some of the Analyzer inaccuracies. I have never noticed Griffith in the 1916 scenes, if he’s there they keep him pretty will hidden and there is no reason to believe Collins is a senior figure in the 1916 rising from the film.

He was used as one of the faces assembled outside the Mansion House. (I was there when they filmed that scene.) AFAIK he had no line of script to deliver.

I'm afraid you totally misunderstand how films impact. People unfortunately believe that films are accurate representations. Falsehoods in Gandhi about the man have now entered popular culture even in India as facts. In the 1950s a broadcast in the US about Parnell was condemned for showing an "inaccurate" picture of the man. Viewers said that Parnell had not a beard. They believed that because in the film about him in the 1930s Clarke Gable played him clean-shaven. Teachers come across kids who state in essays about the war of independence that car bombs went off in the courtyard of Dublin Castle, that someone called Broy was tortured by the British, that an armoured car opened fire from the pitch in Croke Park, etc. They constantly keep having to tell classes at the start "If you saw the Michael Collins film, forget everything you saw in it. It is rubbish. Now read the reality in your history books". (One newspaper last week, writing about the controversy over playing GSTQ in Croke Park, described Bloody Sunday there in the film version shown in "Michael Collins", not the actual version that really happened.)

Just as too many people believe what they read in websites, or in tabloids, so many people presume that "Schlinder's List" tells the true story of Oscar Schlindler, that "Gandhi" tells the true story of Mahatma Gandhi, or that " Michael Collins" tells the true story of Michael Collins. After every major history film, historians spend much of their time telling people that what they saw on the screen is not an accurate version of the story. But far too many presume that if they saw it on television/in film then it must be true. And that is the problem.

[Cael]

The Dev part in Collins death, as protrayed in the film was an absolute travesty. And, by the way it was not an assination by any definition of the word. The IRA attacked an enemy column passing through Republican territory. This is what armies do in time of war. If Collins decided to stand up in the middle of the road while all the rest of his column took cover, then this is more a case for suicide than assination. Dev was aware that Collins column was moving through Cork and he asked the Army Council to be allowed to take the opportunity to talk peace with him. However, he was over ruled, as his rank in the IRA was that of volunteer. I have no doubt that Dev was deeply saddened by the death of Collins and to suggest that he had anything to do with his death is pure garbage. Dev was well aware that with Collins death lesser men like O'Higgins and Cosgrave would push the war into the barbarity into which it decended.

[The Analyser]

Deeply tragic that Collins used this method on his best friend.

Collins didn't.

I wonder if Beal na mBlath was not suicide on Collins part. He stood out in the middle of the road firing at men with rifles on high ground and with excellent cover. Nobody could be stupid enough to do this by accident. Perhaps when he looked around him and saw his new free state army full of ex British soldiers carrying out even worse autrocities against Irish patriots than they did under the direct orders of the English Crown his old patriotism caught hold of him and he prefered to die in combat with his old friends and comrades in his native Cork rather than die in bed in Dublin an old and rich British lacky.

What a load of bullshiit. The reason why Collins stood in an exposed location was, according to the accounts of witnesses,

(i) he had no practical experience of ambushes and put himself inadverently into the line of fire. Before those experienced in dealing with ambushes could rescue him he was hit by a ricocheting bullet.

(ii) The guy had a bad cold. En route he stopped off to meet people in local assembly points, all of them pubs. Friends gave him hot whiskeys for his cold. By the time the ambush occurred he was pisssed on the whiskeys and as happens, drink made him take a risk.

Even by your standards of dillusion, and they are pretty spectacular, to think that Collins committed suicide is completely perverse. No-one, whatever their viewpoint, has ever thought that is what happened. It is simple: because of lack of on-the-ground military experience he made a tactical error, and because of the hot whiskeys for his cold he was jarred. And because of that mistake an extraordinary man lost his life.

[Rocky]

There are plenty of inaccuracies in the film as you except from any 2 hour film of a six year period of a man’s life. The director doesn’t have any other choice. No film has ever been a 100% true because it’s impossible to do. However most of the errors are very minor and trivial. Does it really matter where the rebels surrendered in 1916? No. Does it really matter what’s in front of the GPO? No. Does it really matter where Collins looked at the British police files? No. These and many other inaccurate are very trivial and are the simple nature of making a film like that.

The only two I would have a real problem with is the car bomb and the fact that they make it seem like SF spilt over the North and an oath of allegiance to the King. Everything else is either very minor or like the death of Broy done for film making purpose and doesn’t really matter anyway.

I have watched the scene with Dev and the assassin loads of times and I can’t see how Dev can be blamed for the death of Collins. He talks to him, but he never says anything about killing Collins and as far as I can see the film states that they were acting on their own. Dev was in Cork at the time so that much is true.

The general base of the film is correct. Of course it portrays Collins in a very positive light, every film like that does that. You’re also not meant to be able to write an historical account of Michael Collins on it. However if someone who knew nothing about this period, watched it, it would give a good base and tell them about the main figures and the main events and most importantly it’s a entertaining to watch. Once again it’s not meant to be a historical source, in the same way that Braveheart isn’t meant to be a historical source, or Titanic or Black Hawk Down or Hotel Rwanda or whatever. There based on true stories and they give you the general background, the same as Michael Collins does.

Also to response to some of the Analyzer inaccuracies. I have never noticed Griffith in the 1916 scenes, if he’s there they keep him pretty will hidden and there is no reason to believe Collins is a senior figure in the 1916 rising from the film.

He was used as one of the faces assembled outside the Mansion House. (I was there when they filmed that scene.) AFAIK he had no line of script to deliver.

I'm afraid you totally misunderstand how films impact. People unfortunately believe that films are accurate representations. Falsehoods in Gandhi about the man have now entered popular culture even in India as facts. In the 1950s a broadcast in the US about Parnell was condemned for showing an "inaccurate" picture of the man. Viewers said that Parnell had not a beard. They believed that because in the film about him in the 1930s Clarke Gable played him clean-shaven. Teachers come across kids who state in essays about the war of independence that car bombs went off in the courtyard of Dublin Castle, that someone called Broy was tortured by the British, that an armoured car opened fire from the pitch in Croke Park, etc. They constantly keep having to tell classes at the start "If you saw the Michael Collins film, forget everything you saw in it. It is rubbish. Now read the reality in your history books". (One newspaper last week, writing about the controversy over playing GSTQ in Croke Park, described Bloody Sunday there in the film version shown in "Michael Collins", not the actual version that really happened.)

Just as too many people believe what they read in websites, or in tabloids, so many people presume that "Schlinder's List" tells the true story of Oscar Schlindler, that "Gandhi" tells the true story of Mahatma Gandhi, or that " Michael Collins" tells the true story of Michael Collins. After every major history film, historians spend much of their time telling people that what they saw on the screen is not an accurate version of the story. But far too many presume that if they saw it on television/in film then it must be true. And that is the problem.

That's the fault of the people. A film is a piece of entertainment, that's all it's meant to be, although sometimes they have messages throw in there as well. A lot of films are based on true stories because true stories are often entertaining and generally they do give you an idea of the general story as Michael Collins does. They're not meant to do any more then that and if people think they are, then that’s there fault. It’s physically impossible for a film to do that anyway and fit into a two hour period and be entertaining.

[Cael]

Deeply tragic that Collins used this method on his best friend.

Collins didn't.

I wonder if Beal na mBlath was not suicide on Collins part. He stood out in the middle of the road firing at men with rifles on high ground and with excellent cover. Nobody could be stupid enough to do this by accident. Perhaps when he looked around him and saw his new free state army full of ex British soldiers carrying out even worse autrocities against Irish patriots than they did under the direct orders of the English Crown his old patriotism caught hold of him and he prefered to die in combat with his old friends and comrades in his native Cork rather than die in bed in Dublin an old and rich British lacky.

What a load of bullshiit. The reason why Collins stood in an exposed location was, according to the accounts of witnesses,

(i) he had no practical experience of ambushes and put himself inadverently into the line of fire. Before those experienced in dealing with ambushes could rescue him he was hit by a ricocheting bullet.

(ii) The guy had a bad cold. En route he stopped off to meet people in local assembly points, all of them pubs. Friends gave him hot whiskeys for his cold. By the time the ambush occurred he was pisssed on the whiskeys and as happens, drink made him take a risk.

Even by your standards of dillusion, and they are pretty spectacular, to think that Collins committed suicide is completely perverse. No-one, whatever their viewpoint, has ever thought that is what happened. It is simple: because of lack of on-the-ground military experience he made a tactical error, and because of the hot whiskeys for his cold he was jarred. And because of that mistake an extraordinary man lost his life.

I wanted to make a tragedy about a great man, but it seems, Anal-yser, that you want to make a comedy about a drunk, idiotic, Stage Irishman staggering around on a country road in County Cork and getting hit by a stray bullet.

[The Analyser]

Deeply tragic that Collins used this method on his best friend.

Collins didn't.

I wonder if Beal na mBlath was not suicide on Collins part. He stood out in the middle of the road firing at men with rifles on high ground and with excellent cover. Nobody could be stupid enough to do this by accident. Perhaps when he looked around him and saw his new free state army full of ex British soldiers carrying out even worse autrocities against Irish patriots than they did under the direct orders of the English Crown his old patriotism caught hold of him and he prefered to die in combat with his old friends and comrades in his native Cork rather than die in bed in Dublin an old and rich British lacky.

What a load of bullshiit. The reason why Collins stood in an exposed location was, according to the accounts of witnesses,

(i) he had no practical experience of ambushes and put himself inadverently into the line of fire. Before those experienced in dealing with ambushes could rescue him he was hit by a ricocheting bullet.

(ii) The guy had a bad cold. En route he stopped off to meet people in local assembly points, all of them pubs. Friends gave him hot whiskeys for his cold. By the time the ambush occurred he was pisssed on the whiskeys and as happens, drink made him take a risk.

Even by your standards of dillusion, and they are pretty spectacular, to think that Collins committed suicide is completely perverse. No-one, whatever their viewpoint, has ever thought that is what happened. It is simple: because of lack of on-the-ground military experience he made a tactical error, and because of the hot whiskeys for his cold he was jarred. And because of that mistake an extraordinary man lost his life.

I wanted to make a tragedy about a great man, but it seems, Anal-yser, that you want to make a comedy about a drunk, idiotic, Stage Irishman staggering around on a country road in County Cork and getting hit by a stray bullet.

The usual stereotypical rubbish from you. There is nothing comic about the death of a great man. Nor is the fact that the guy was inexperienced in ambushes (he was a planner, not someone who staged them) or that he had taken some whiskeys for his cold and was jarred, stage Irish. The fact that you think that simply reflects your own warped psyche. Collins had a heavy cold. That is recorded. His colleagues recorded that while he never drank while travelling around the country, because of his cold he agreed to take a couple of hot whiskeys when pushed to do so by friends concerned about the cold. His colleagues also thought that as he was in his native Cork he may have felt more at ease and at home, and thought of himself under less threat. By the time he left the last venue they record that he was "scuttered". One of them joked that Mick might finally get a good night's sleep, rather than being up to all hours working.

When the ambush by some republican idiots happened, they did not know who was in the convoy. They were just attacking a travelling convoy. Collins told the convoy to stop, overruling an order to "drive on, for fuuck sake." Those with experience of attacks assumed normal positions. However Collins had not had that experience during the War of Independence - his role had been different, as the brains, not the brawn, of the independence movement - and got himself into an exposed position. Because of the whiskey his judgment and speed of movement was flawed. One of the republicans fired on what they presumed was just a soldier. The bullet bounced and hit him on the back of the head, blowing open part of his skull. That is what witnesses on all sides said happened.

[Ciaran]

I don't know what the fuss is about, the IRA were perfectly entitled to attack a free state convoy regardless of who was in it, Collins, like any other soldier wheter free state or IRA was fair game. Conspiracy theories try and mask the reality that Collins died on a lonely Cork road because of British interference in Irish affairs, had they accepted the will of the people and indeed had Collins accepted it and fought to defend it he may have lived to be a great statesman, God knows he had better personal qualities than that ************************************ Dev.

[badinage]

had they accepted the will of the people and indeed had Collins accepted it and fought to defend it he may have lived

What a strange thing to say. Had the IRA accepted the will of the people and their endorsement of the Treaty, Collins would have lived also

[Ciaran]

The will of the people had already been stated, to force them to accept another will under the threat of war is by anybody's standards wrong and under today's international law illegal.