Fortnight Publications Ltd.

The Big FilmAuthor(s): Anthony O'KeeffeSource: Fortnight, No. 356 (Dec., 1996), pp. 25-26Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25559106 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 07:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.171 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:46:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

*~ COVER STORY I

could have survived to the 1960s (which conjures up a different-Dantonesque-mythological Collins!).

The Free State would have been heavily catholic, and slightly Gaelic. Relations with Northern Ireland and Britain might have been better, but Collins' domestic policies would probably have been more right-wing than de Valera's (Fine Gael became the party of the 'haves', Fianna Fail of the 'have nots').

The big question is whether the de Valera political success story, between 1926 (when he quit Sinn Fein) and 1948 (when he scraped the issue of parti tion out of the barrel of national grievances), would have made such an impact on the Irish state.

Most likely, Collins would have run de Valera a tighter race. It is unlikely that Collins a la Pilsudski

would have made de Valera even greater. The politi cal dominance of Fianna Fail, and slightly constitu tional republicanism, would have been less. And that

would have been good for all the people of Ireland, in the 1920s and up to today.

No doubt NeilJordan will continue to protest his worthy motives.

Michael Collins-with its message of unrelenting anti-Britishness-is now public property this side of the Atlantic. By their friends, so shall ye know them is a good political principle. NeilJordan's admirers have turned out to be the usual band of republican apologists and fellow travellers (and naive English critics). Does he welcome or reject this support? +

AL %Nft

TOE ic HA? A rw WOEFOL ECTIOWOk FOR

Hi5to itAtLY IIIACCORArc WORKS OF ART

Finauly, NeilJordan has come of cinematic age with Michael Collins. My problem withJordan has always been that I foolishly began by reading his flawless novella The Dream Of The Beast, and then set about

watching his films. The power and poetry of the novella was such that I was inevitably going to be disappointed by anything that he produced on cellu loid (The Company Of Wolves being the exception, but only after the fourth or fifth viewing). That is, until now. His latest cinematic offering arrives here at long last-having already won the Golden Lion at

Venice, for both Best Film, and Best Actor (Liam Neeson).

If anything, Venice was a little flattered at having a film of such quality as Michael Collins on which to bestow its Golden Lion. By rights, the film should have been shown in competition at the more prestig ious Cannes Festival, where it would surely have won the Golden Palm, instead of Leigh's gloriously cin ematic Secrets And Lies. Collins would have been the ideal successor and companion piece to last

year's winner there, 'Yugoslavian" Emer Kusterica's

DECEMBER 1996 FO R T N I G H T 25

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.171 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:46:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

* COVER STORY 0

Underground, itself a bold and expansive portrayal of epic confusion born of blind rebellion and implo sive nationalism.

Like Underground, Collins is afilum. Its big, broad brushstrokes vividly engulfing the canvas, creating a world that is a law unto itself. Which is exactly as it should be. It's what Stravinski meant when he wrote that a piece should aspire to being "an inherentwork of art" (my italics). Collins does not obey the laws of history, or of the real world, or of so-say objective reportage. It isn't, as Welles used to say of Cagney, real, but it is true. It's true to its subject and true to its time. Both the time of its creation and the time that it depicts. Of course de Valera is ludicrously demonised. But then, given the way most (non Fianna Fail) people ofJordan's age view de Valera, his portrayal here is if anything comparatively leni ent! Indeed, one of the interesting aspects of politics here in the south, is that civil war politics eventually came to mean nothing more or less than whether you were for or against Eamonn de Valera. Neverthe less, itwas a little irresponsible ofJordan to implicate him in Collins' death, a persistently spread rumour, but one for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. My own personal opinion is that in August 1922 de Valera lost his best and closest friend, and was never really the same again.

But that's bye the bye. Aside from this, and the

bizarrely misjudged car bomb incident outside Dub lin Castle, Collins is an exhilarating rollercoaster

ride of a film. The performances are all exceptional, including Julia Roberts-what is it about peoples inability to allow beautiful women the capacity to

act?-and whose accent isn't anyway near as bad as Ian Hart's. Alan Rickman is majestic as the slippery de Valera, and Aidan Quinn puts in a superb per

formance as Gabriel Byrne playing Harry Boland.,, But it's Liam Neeson's literally towering perform

ance that powers the film, as he vacillates between gentlemanly conduct and desire-should he take advantage of his best friend Harry Boland's depar ture forAmerica with the latter's fiancee Kitty-and between life long friendship and inevitable, bloody enmity-he was, as he so aptly observed at the time, signing his own death warrant, when agreeing to go over to London to negotiate the inevitably divisive Treaty.

And, whatever about the acting, and the near flawless script-interestingly, very reminiscent of In

The Name Of The Father, in the way in which all the right dramatic decisions were taken, almost invari

ably at the expense of so-called historical accuracy the set designs are in general magnificent, at times

nothing short of breath taking (I still do a double take every time I pass the Four Courts, having seen their destruction with my own eyes but a few days ago). Comfortably the best film of the year, from

anywhere in the world, Michael Collin. is a magnifi cent achievement for all those associated with it, and should be seen by everyone, as an example of majes tic, epic, cinema, centring on a larger than life individual, who really did, almost single-handedly, bring the British Empire to its knees. It isn't histori

cally objective, or, at times, accurate. But it is dra

matic, and it doesmove, and, if nothing else, it at least

succeeds in whetting the historical appetite. *

Jordan's moral

am biva Hence

Simon Partridge

When some 200 gather at one of the remoter

Oxford colleges to hear a panel discussion (Roy

Foster, Paul Bew and Ian Christie) about the film

Michael Collins, we're obviously dealing with no

ordinary movie. But, as the evening showed, what is

extraordinary about the movie is not its cinematic

quality-most of the contributors from the floor

found it Hollywood-cliched and irresponsibly inac

curate-but its political significance for today.

The screening and discussion had been organised

by Dr. John Regan, a young research fellow special ising in Irish politics of the '20s and '30s. He opened

proceedings by pointing to Collins' iconic signifi

cance in "bringing down British rule"-Collins had

already inspired 13 biographies and half a dozen

documentaries. The legendary life and early death

made him an easy symbol of "revolutionary national

ism".

But the reality was very different. Collins was con

sumed by personal ambition and his democratic

credentials were dubious. Up until the end he had

relied upon the Irish Republican Brotherhood and

in August 1922 took on dictatorial powers. Home

Rule grew more out of European dislocation caused

by the outbreak ofWorld War I, and the violentform

it took was not inevitable. In locating the division which caused the post

Treaty civil war around the issue of "partition"Jor

dan had projected today's preoccupation backwards

and completely misunderstood the main bone of

contention among republicans then-the oath of

allegiance to the crown. Regan gave convincing expression to a southern

Irish liberalism which was appalled by the regressive

Irish nationalistic politics of the film. But he also laid

blame at the foot of Irish historiography which had

26 F o R T N I G H 1 DECEMBER 1996

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.171 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:46:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions