In the end, your entire argument is based on seeing things in the movie that aren't really there -- or, at best, are highly debatable. Sure, as the main character Collins gets more time and sympathy, but there is a HUGE difference between that and the propaganda piece you accuse the movie of being. For that you need a much better argument, yet you merely show clips with a lot of scoffing and ridicule added. Where are the killer facts and insights that prove your assertions? I don't see any.
@Ranillon The propaganda elements are blatantly obvious. Roger Ebert's review highlights the film's worst historical distortion thus: 'even Dev could hardly have imagined this film biography of Collins, which portrays De Valera as a weak, mannered, sniveling prima donna whose grandstanding led to decades of unnecessary bloodshed in, and over, Ireland.' The film is such a complete failure, both factually and technically, that it needs no additional help to destroy its own credibility.
@tarafoundation de va lera should not have even been in the movie or maybe just for a brief scene or two. he was an arrogant self obsessed lunatic madman. he was even an irish man how could this man be president of a nation he is not even from. he sent collins over knowing exactly what was on the table but he could not bare the embarassment himself of signing with the british.
@tarafoundation he even helped cause the cival war knowing what would happen. look at the way he behaved when the collins family wanted 2 bury michael and errect a marble headstone,, no no no dev couldnt allow it, it had to be made of granite, it can oly say this on it, it can oly be this big and this width, the bastid should of had a lee enfield .303 put into his mouth and told to get back to new york where he belonged. he would have been shot dead in 1916 only he wasnt irish
Continues...Likewise, there is no redemptive outcome from Collin's death as you'd expect from a real Christ figure. Quite the contrary, his death is presented very much as a lost opportunity, a senseless loss. Also, toward the end Collins is shown as a deeply tormented man with a likely death wish. He certainly isn't some conquering hero reveling in his amazing achievements. This all makes Collins a morally ambivalent character, hardly straightforward hero worshipping material.
@Ranillon 'In his brief lifetime, he had fought the British Empire to a stalemate, negotiated the first Treaty of Independence for Ireland and overseen its transition to democracy. He died, paradoxically, in an attempt to finally remove the gun from Irish politics'. These pompous and crass closing remarks are a perfect summation of the absurd lengths Jordan went to in crafting this mess.
3:24 You accuse Jordan of "hero worship" of Collins on par with him suggesting Collins was a christ figure. That's a rather extreme claim, but don't offer any evidence. You just apparently think your claim is so obvious no evidence is required. Yet, the movie presents Collins as a murderer and terrorist -- yes, fighting for what Jordan clearly sees as a good cause, but how can such a violent man willing to do such violent acts ever be confused with Christ????
@Ranillon You don't need a degree in theology to recognise the messianic theme that is woven into the fabric of this film. The character of Collins is painted as one doomed to sacrifice his life for the nation. Everything points to this: from the line 'life is possible - he made it possible' to the melodrama of his death scene and shots of the funeral interspersed with worshipful screen titles.
Continued...instead, your criticism here seems based, as far as I can see, simply on the fact that the movie doesn't glorify de Valera and/or condemn Collins, a view you'd apparently prefer. This is what I mean by personal opinion passing as supposed fact. If you think de Valera was a hero and Collins a villain that's fine, but your mere opinion is not in and of itself enough to accuse the movie of being a travesty in an objective sense. You need real evidence and not just emotion for that.
@Ranillon 'your criticism here seems based, as far as I can see, simply on the fact that the movie doesn't glorify de Valera and/or condemn Collins, a view you'd apparently prefer.' You're inference is ironic, given the hatchet-job Jordan make of de Valera's character and the ridiculous lengths he went to to try and make Collins look a hero.
Continued...the movie took great pains to show the strong emotional bond between Collins, his friends, and his men. It is therefore not just natural, but required that when events force him to fight some of them his emotions are thrown into deep turmoil. There is no hint that Collins is actually happy to have killed them or is somehow drunk on power. Thus, there is no fair basis given what's shown in the movie to think these emotions are all fake.
2:48: I think you really get unfair here. The idea that these scenes show a twisted, one-sided version of history where the rebels are "mad, evil, cowardly, and deserved what they got" is a gross distortion of the actual movie. The reasons for their actions are explained and the tragedy real. At worst the rebels are shown making a mistake; they are not shown as stupid or evil. Likewise, the anguish of Collins is exactly what you expect given the emotional arc of the movie to this point.
2:29 -- Yes, it was shot in his Hotel room, but the scene fits within the reasonably limits of dramatic license. It is a drama, not a documentary after all. Shortcuts like collapsing time scales are a very common technique and the scene does get across the basics of his death. Again, this is just nickpicking, IMHO.
@Ranillon Dramatic licence is one thing - deliberately portraying a character as a symbolic rat and turncoat instead of telling the true story - quite another. In reality, there is evidence that Collins ordered Boland's murder, but that wouldn't fit with Collins's heroic deification in this plot.
2:03 -- The rebels were outnumbered and outgunned -- and they knew it going in. The fact that, yes, the opposition gets its butt kicked as a result is certainly historically accurate. Later on when everyone goes "crazy", well, what do you expect? Friends are fighting friends, everyone torn between duty to those they love and their beliefs. OF COURSE there is a lot of emotion. If there wasn't there'd be something wrong since real people actually do act emotional in emotional situations.
@Ranillon I would have no problem with emotion. What Jordan portrays is illogical actions which have little basis in historical fact, simply to illustrate that those who are against the Treaty are violence, illogical and insane.
1:45 -- One, who cares where the scene was filmed as long as it is reasonably accurate historically? That's just being nickpicky. Two, the rebels were the ones who illegally occupied the buildings and thus triggered the fighting, not Collins. Three, Collins didn't insult the oppostion as "momma's boys" but rather pointed out that they young, inexperienced, and not prepared for the horrors of combat. That scene shows him trying to PREVENT the violence to come, not promoting it.
@Ranillon 'who cares where the scene was filmed as long as it is reasonably accurate historically?' It matters, because it fails in being accurate and it gives a false impression of the Dáil. Like portraying parliament meetings taking place in catacombs, it gives the impression that the elected Irish government was an illegal and unmandated rabble. Attacking the Four Courts with two 18 Pounder field guns is a curious way of preventing violence.
Continued...de Valera likely DID know that any treaty with the British would, at the very least, fail to live up to all the hopes of the Irish Republicans. It was well known that the British weren't going to allow the Irish immediate full indepedence outside the commonwealth -- PERIOD. de Valera may not have been sure it would lead to civil war, but he (as did most everyone involved) know it might do so. There would at least be a political firestorm.
1:12 -- How is the fact that Collins in the scene remains calm unfair or deceptive? Why shouldn't he be when he's been prepared for a possible bad response before walking in the door? And, the idea that de Valera sent Collins in (at least in part) to serve as a potential fall guy and protect his own political position is hardly an outrageous assertion as its one that many have made and for which there is good evidence.
@Ranillon Again, you misquote me. Where is it said that it is unfair or deceptive? It is a devise used to contrast de Valera's hysteria and highlight Collins's stoic and rational demeanour. The idea that Collins was sent as a fall guy for the Treaty does a disservice both to de Valera but to Collins as well. It portrays him as a stooge at best, a traitor at worst.
:40 -- Offering the example of a public address from de Valera as proof he wasn't a "deranged lunatic" fails for two reasons. One, it continues the strawman that the movie shows us nothing but that version of de Valera when in fact this scene is the one exception to his otherwise controlled and rational personality. Two, a speech is poor evidence as everyone is at their best when speaking in public. He could have been a jerk all the time behind the scenes but still give a good speech.
@Ranillon The performance is too hysterical and over the top to be taken as anything but a suggestion that de Valera has lost his mind in this scene. Neil Jordan's blatant intent was to portray him as irrational and petty, histrionic and emotional. Secondly, if you could point an account of De Valera raising his voice or losing his temper to this degree, then your argument would hold water.
:01-:20 -- You accuse the film of showing de Valera as just a "petulent child" as if that's the only image we get, but in fact the film OVERWHELMINGLY shows him as having a calculating, measured personality that is usually quite emotionally controlled. In short, you take the one exception to this portrayal from the movie and accuse it (by stong implication) of showing nothing but this version of de Valera, yet that clearly isn't the case.
@Ranillon You misquote me, which seriously undermines your argument from the start. I never said de Valera was portrayed as 'just' anything. If you watch the entire video, I clearly describe how the character is portrayed as petty, vindictive and manipulative at various stages. I was referring to this scene alone, in which he throws a temper tantrum because he doesn't get his own way. You're argument is based on taking something out of context and basing a false assumption on it.
Good try, but your "review" is hampered by the fact that it is almost entirely just your personal opinion, but presented in a way to give the appearance of fact. That is, you speak as if your opinions are so obviously true that you needn't bother offering real data. Even when you do try to use evidence it mostly fails -- for example, showing a clip of de Valera giving a calm speech is hardly evidence he wasn't a jerk behind the scenes as we are always on our best behavior in front of crowds.
@tarafoundation Don't play that game -- your arguments are about making opinions sound like fundamental facts. As opinions they aren't "Wrong"; what they are is mere opinions, matters of judgment whose importance is easily debatable. But, like all opinions you can't reduce them down to black and white truths -- and by trying to do so you attempt to unfairly manipulate the conversation. It's up to you to show that your opinions are the best judgments possible. You haven't.
@tarafoundation You have it exactly backwards -- it's the responsibility of the person making the claim to attempt to prove it. I am criticizing your assertions, pointing out that they are usually just opinions spoken as if they are indisputable facts. It is your job to show your arguments are in fact more objective and not just you subjectively inventing "faults" for a movie for no other primary reason than to bash it for not repeating the history/ideology you wanted to hear.
@Ranillon The arguments are made in the video. I've given you ample opportunities to refute them and you repeatedly refuse. I'll give you one more chance to state your case, if you have one.
@tarafoundation I have my doubts that you will treat any more extensive criticisms fairly -- especially since your last post held a rather obvious threat of banning for no other reason than disagreeing with you -- but so that no one can argue I didn't try I will post a lot more details...
Newsweek, 1996: "Jordan, following the line of Tim Pat Coogan, who has written books on Collins and De Valera, portrays him as a vain, Machiavellian scoundrel who resented Collins's success and sent him to England to negotiate a peace, knowing that whoever accepted a compromise would be vilified at home. Alan Rickman's bizarre, mannered De Valera seems to have been invented by Lewis Carroll: it's hard to accept this giant twitchy rabbit as the elder statesman of the Irish Republic."
@OasisDublin Boland was shot in his hotel room. Even the Provisional Government did not deny this. You might refer to Jim Maher or David Fitzpatrick's biographies of Boland if you need confirmation of the facts, though most histories of the period will mention it.
@tarafoundation I was told by Diarmaid Ferriter that it was in the lobby of a hotel somewhere northside. Can't remember the location of the hotel off the top of my head, but he was asked to put down his weapon, and refused.
@OasisDublin The account of Joe Griffin, who was with Boland at the time, states that he was in his hotel room at the time of his death, and the general consensus is that he was unarmed. It was claimed by the Provisional Government that he tried to disarm a Free State officer. The hotel was in Skerries, by the way.
Really, really putrid. Attempting to compare the de Valera of the 1940s to the de Valera of the late 1910s and early 1920s is foolish. Even the man himself accepts this. "I know the reply I would have given a quarter of a century ago" is the way Dev began that famous reply. Very poor stuff.
@OasisDublin You misinterpret De Valera's reply to Churchill. Few people would argue that he underwent a personality change in the interim or that his core political beliefs altered in 25 years. Indeed, it was a complaint of British politicians that he would not be negotiated out of his position. He simply meant to say that his reaction was more measured in 1945 than it would have been in 1920. You haven't explained what is so 'putrid' about this review apart from its historical analysis.
@tarafoundation It's a Hollywood film, not a historical documentary. The de Valera of the earlier period was not as level headed as the de Valera of post-WWII and I think it's either naive or extremely disingenuous to suggest anything otherwise.
@OasisDublin It is a failure, both as film and as historical account. Whether de Valera was more or less level-headed has no bearing on the outrageous and irresponsible depiction of his character in the scene discussed and in the film as a whole.
@tarafoundation Do you know what de Valera was like personally? Why did he go from being a political hero to being a nobody in the period 1918-23? It certainly isn't a failure as a film, and Jordan has never claimed it was a historical documentary. It's is a very de Valeraesque argument to emphasise the small differences from the truth, instead of looking at the many similarities there are to the truth.
@OasisDublin The comparison to De Valera, who always utilized logic and reason in his arguments, abstaining from strawman fallacies and personal attacks, is apt.
@tarafoundation You have made a comparison between de Valera, the outsider in political terms who had little or no influence over the army in 1921, to the de Valera who had been Taoiseach/President of the Executive Council for 13 years and had since seen the light shown to him by the pro-Treaty side in 1945. It is a foolish comparison to make, as I'm assuming you know yourself. The de Valera of the period 1918-23 was a far more fickle character than the one you have quoted in your "review."
I enjoyed your analysis here even though I don't know the history. Hollywood is notorious for inaccuracies about historical events, often it is not an accident but propaganda. I can see to a certain extent that for commercial reasons and time reasons that it wasn't 100% accurate, but you showed that still they could have been more faithful to the true history.
In the end, your entire argument is based on seeing things in the movie that aren't really there -- or, at best, are highly debatable. Sure, as the main character Collins gets more time and sympathy, but there is a HUGE difference between that and the propaganda piece you accuse the movie of being. For that you need a much better argument, yet you merely show clips with a lot of scoffing and ridicule added. Where are the killer facts and insights that prove your assertions? I don't see any.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon The propaganda elements are blatantly obvious. Roger Ebert's review highlights the film's worst historical distortion thus: 'even Dev could hardly have imagined this film biography of Collins, which portrays De Valera as a weak, mannered, sniveling prima donna whose grandstanding led to decades of unnecessary bloodshed in, and over, Ireland.' The film is such a complete failure, both factually and technically, that it needs no additional help to destroy its own credibility.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
@tarafoundation de va lera should not have even been in the movie or maybe just for a brief scene or two. he was an arrogant self obsessed lunatic madman. he was even an irish man how could this man be president of a nation he is not even from. he sent collins over knowing exactly what was on the table but he could not bare the embarassment himself of signing with the british.
thebigfella221 1 month ago
@tarafoundation he even helped cause the cival war knowing what would happen. look at the way he behaved when the collins family wanted 2 bury michael and errect a marble headstone,, no no no dev couldnt allow it, it had to be made of granite, it can oly say this on it, it can oly be this big and this width, the bastid should of had a lee enfield .303 put into his mouth and told to get back to new york where he belonged. he would have been shot dead in 1916 only he wasnt irish
thebigfella221 1 month ago
Continues...Likewise, there is no redemptive outcome from Collin's death as you'd expect from a real Christ figure. Quite the contrary, his death is presented very much as a lost opportunity, a senseless loss. Also, toward the end Collins is shown as a deeply tormented man with a likely death wish. He certainly isn't some conquering hero reveling in his amazing achievements. This all makes Collins a morally ambivalent character, hardly straightforward hero worshipping material.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon 'In his brief lifetime, he had fought the British Empire to a stalemate, negotiated the first Treaty of Independence for Ireland and overseen its transition to democracy. He died, paradoxically, in an attempt to finally remove the gun from Irish politics'. These pompous and crass closing remarks are a perfect summation of the absurd lengths Jordan went to in crafting this mess.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
3:24 You accuse Jordan of "hero worship" of Collins on par with him suggesting Collins was a christ figure. That's a rather extreme claim, but don't offer any evidence. You just apparently think your claim is so obvious no evidence is required. Yet, the movie presents Collins as a murderer and terrorist -- yes, fighting for what Jordan clearly sees as a good cause, but how can such a violent man willing to do such violent acts ever be confused with Christ????
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon You don't need a degree in theology to recognise the messianic theme that is woven into the fabric of this film. The character of Collins is painted as one doomed to sacrifice his life for the nation. Everything points to this: from the line 'life is possible - he made it possible' to the melodrama of his death scene and shots of the funeral interspersed with worshipful screen titles.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
@tarafoundation The symbolism of Collins striving for an end to violence against the war-mongering anti-Treatyites is pretty obvious.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
Continued...instead, your criticism here seems based, as far as I can see, simply on the fact that the movie doesn't glorify de Valera and/or condemn Collins, a view you'd apparently prefer. This is what I mean by personal opinion passing as supposed fact. If you think de Valera was a hero and Collins a villain that's fine, but your mere opinion is not in and of itself enough to accuse the movie of being a travesty in an objective sense. You need real evidence and not just emotion for that.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon 'your criticism here seems based, as far as I can see, simply on the fact that the movie doesn't glorify de Valera and/or condemn Collins, a view you'd apparently prefer.' You're inference is ironic, given the hatchet-job Jordan make of de Valera's character and the ridiculous lengths he went to to try and make Collins look a hero.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
Continued...the movie took great pains to show the strong emotional bond between Collins, his friends, and his men. It is therefore not just natural, but required that when events force him to fight some of them his emotions are thrown into deep turmoil. There is no hint that Collins is actually happy to have killed them or is somehow drunk on power. Thus, there is no fair basis given what's shown in the movie to think these emotions are all fake.
Ranillon 2 months ago
2:48: I think you really get unfair here. The idea that these scenes show a twisted, one-sided version of history where the rebels are "mad, evil, cowardly, and deserved what they got" is a gross distortion of the actual movie. The reasons for their actions are explained and the tragedy real. At worst the rebels are shown making a mistake; they are not shown as stupid or evil. Likewise, the anguish of Collins is exactly what you expect given the emotional arc of the movie to this point.
Ranillon 2 months ago
2:29 -- Yes, it was shot in his Hotel room, but the scene fits within the reasonably limits of dramatic license. It is a drama, not a documentary after all. Shortcuts like collapsing time scales are a very common technique and the scene does get across the basics of his death. Again, this is just nickpicking, IMHO.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon Dramatic licence is one thing - deliberately portraying a character as a symbolic rat and turncoat instead of telling the true story - quite another. In reality, there is evidence that Collins ordered Boland's murder, but that wouldn't fit with Collins's heroic deification in this plot.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
2:03 -- The rebels were outnumbered and outgunned -- and they knew it going in. The fact that, yes, the opposition gets its butt kicked as a result is certainly historically accurate. Later on when everyone goes "crazy", well, what do you expect? Friends are fighting friends, everyone torn between duty to those they love and their beliefs. OF COURSE there is a lot of emotion. If there wasn't there'd be something wrong since real people actually do act emotional in emotional situations.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon I would have no problem with emotion. What Jordan portrays is illogical actions which have little basis in historical fact, simply to illustrate that those who are against the Treaty are violence, illogical and insane.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
1:45 -- One, who cares where the scene was filmed as long as it is reasonably accurate historically? That's just being nickpicky. Two, the rebels were the ones who illegally occupied the buildings and thus triggered the fighting, not Collins. Three, Collins didn't insult the oppostion as "momma's boys" but rather pointed out that they young, inexperienced, and not prepared for the horrors of combat. That scene shows him trying to PREVENT the violence to come, not promoting it.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon 'who cares where the scene was filmed as long as it is reasonably accurate historically?' It matters, because it fails in being accurate and it gives a false impression of the Dáil. Like portraying parliament meetings taking place in catacombs, it gives the impression that the elected Irish government was an illegal and unmandated rabble. Attacking the Four Courts with two 18 Pounder field guns is a curious way of preventing violence.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
Continued...de Valera likely DID know that any treaty with the British would, at the very least, fail to live up to all the hopes of the Irish Republicans. It was well known that the British weren't going to allow the Irish immediate full indepedence outside the commonwealth -- PERIOD. de Valera may not have been sure it would lead to civil war, but he (as did most everyone involved) know it might do so. There would at least be a political firestorm.
Ranillon 2 months ago
1:12 -- How is the fact that Collins in the scene remains calm unfair or deceptive? Why shouldn't he be when he's been prepared for a possible bad response before walking in the door? And, the idea that de Valera sent Collins in (at least in part) to serve as a potential fall guy and protect his own political position is hardly an outrageous assertion as its one that many have made and for which there is good evidence.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon Again, you misquote me. Where is it said that it is unfair or deceptive? It is a devise used to contrast de Valera's hysteria and highlight Collins's stoic and rational demeanour. The idea that Collins was sent as a fall guy for the Treaty does a disservice both to de Valera but to Collins as well. It portrays him as a stooge at best, a traitor at worst.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
:40 -- Offering the example of a public address from de Valera as proof he wasn't a "deranged lunatic" fails for two reasons. One, it continues the strawman that the movie shows us nothing but that version of de Valera when in fact this scene is the one exception to his otherwise controlled and rational personality. Two, a speech is poor evidence as everyone is at their best when speaking in public. He could have been a jerk all the time behind the scenes but still give a good speech.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon The performance is too hysterical and over the top to be taken as anything but a suggestion that de Valera has lost his mind in this scene. Neil Jordan's blatant intent was to portray him as irrational and petty, histrionic and emotional. Secondly, if you could point an account of De Valera raising his voice or losing his temper to this degree, then your argument would hold water.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
@tarafoundation The point of the clip was to show his laconic, one might even say boring speaking voice, compared to Rickman's hysterical outburst.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
:01-:20 -- You accuse the film of showing de Valera as just a "petulent child" as if that's the only image we get, but in fact the film OVERWHELMINGLY shows him as having a calculating, measured personality that is usually quite emotionally controlled. In short, you take the one exception to this portrayal from the movie and accuse it (by stong implication) of showing nothing but this version of de Valera, yet that clearly isn't the case.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon You misquote me, which seriously undermines your argument from the start. I never said de Valera was portrayed as 'just' anything. If you watch the entire video, I clearly describe how the character is portrayed as petty, vindictive and manipulative at various stages. I was referring to this scene alone, in which he throws a temper tantrum because he doesn't get his own way. You're argument is based on taking something out of context and basing a false assumption on it.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
Good try, but your "review" is hampered by the fact that it is almost entirely just your personal opinion, but presented in a way to give the appearance of fact. That is, you speak as if your opinions are so obviously true that you needn't bother offering real data. Even when you do try to use evidence it mostly fails -- for example, showing a clip of de Valera giving a calm speech is hardly evidence he wasn't a jerk behind the scenes as we are always on our best behavior in front of crowds.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon Please give me one statement which is factually untrue, I dare you.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
@tarafoundation Don't play that game -- your arguments are about making opinions sound like fundamental facts. As opinions they aren't "Wrong"; what they are is mere opinions, matters of judgment whose importance is easily debatable. But, like all opinions you can't reduce them down to black and white truths -- and by trying to do so you attempt to unfairly manipulate the conversation. It's up to you to show that your opinions are the best judgments possible. You haven't.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon If the facts are debatable as you state then it is your responsibility to demonstrate that they are untrue. That is the Socratic method.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
@tarafoundation You have it exactly backwards -- it's the responsibility of the person making the claim to attempt to prove it. I am criticizing your assertions, pointing out that they are usually just opinions spoken as if they are indisputable facts. It is your job to show your arguments are in fact more objective and not just you subjectively inventing "faults" for a movie for no other primary reason than to bash it for not repeating the history/ideology you wanted to hear.
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon The arguments are made in the video. I've given you ample opportunities to refute them and you repeatedly refuse. I'll give you one more chance to state your case, if you have one.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
@tarafoundation I have my doubts that you will treat any more extensive criticisms fairly -- especially since your last post held a rather obvious threat of banning for no other reason than disagreeing with you -- but so that no one can argue I didn't try I will post a lot more details...
Ranillon 2 months ago
@Ranillon Be my guest.
tarafoundation 2 months ago
You have ruffled a few well-smoothed feathers, it seems. Keep up the good work.
textthing 4 months ago
Newsweek, 1996: "Jordan, following the line of Tim Pat Coogan, who has written books on Collins and De Valera, portrays him as a vain, Machiavellian scoundrel who resented Collins's success and sent him to England to negotiate a peace, knowing that whoever accepted a compromise would be vilified at home. Alan Rickman's bizarre, mannered De Valera seems to have been invented by Lewis Carroll: it's hard to accept this giant twitchy rabbit as the elder statesman of the Irish Republic."
Siulach 5 months ago
Comment removed
Siulach 5 months ago
Comment removed
Siulach 5 months ago
Boland wasn't shot in his hotel room. I hope you weren't attempting to suggest that you, yourself, were a history buff.
OasisDublin 5 months ago
@OasisDublin Boland was shot in his hotel room. Even the Provisional Government did not deny this. You might refer to Jim Maher or David Fitzpatrick's biographies of Boland if you need confirmation of the facts, though most histories of the period will mention it.
tarafoundation 5 months ago
@tarafoundation I was told by Diarmaid Ferriter that it was in the lobby of a hotel somewhere northside. Can't remember the location of the hotel off the top of my head, but he was asked to put down his weapon, and refused.
OasisDublin 5 months ago
@OasisDublin The account of Joe Griffin, who was with Boland at the time, states that he was in his hotel room at the time of his death, and the general consensus is that he was unarmed. It was claimed by the Provisional Government that he tried to disarm a Free State officer. The hotel was in Skerries, by the way.
tarafoundation 5 months ago
Really, really putrid. Attempting to compare the de Valera of the 1940s to the de Valera of the late 1910s and early 1920s is foolish. Even the man himself accepts this. "I know the reply I would have given a quarter of a century ago" is the way Dev began that famous reply. Very poor stuff.
OasisDublin 5 months ago
@OasisDublin You misinterpret De Valera's reply to Churchill. Few people would argue that he underwent a personality change in the interim or that his core political beliefs altered in 25 years. Indeed, it was a complaint of British politicians that he would not be negotiated out of his position. He simply meant to say that his reaction was more measured in 1945 than it would have been in 1920. You haven't explained what is so 'putrid' about this review apart from its historical analysis.
tarafoundation 5 months ago
@tarafoundation It's a Hollywood film, not a historical documentary. The de Valera of the earlier period was not as level headed as the de Valera of post-WWII and I think it's either naive or extremely disingenuous to suggest anything otherwise.
OasisDublin 5 months ago
@OasisDublin It is a failure, both as film and as historical account. Whether de Valera was more or less level-headed has no bearing on the outrageous and irresponsible depiction of his character in the scene discussed and in the film as a whole.
tarafoundation 5 months ago
@tarafoundation Do you know what de Valera was like personally? Why did he go from being a political hero to being a nobody in the period 1918-23? It certainly isn't a failure as a film, and Jordan has never claimed it was a historical documentary. It's is a very de Valeraesque argument to emphasise the small differences from the truth, instead of looking at the many similarities there are to the truth.
OasisDublin 5 months ago
@OasisDublin The comparison to De Valera, who always utilized logic and reason in his arguments, abstaining from strawman fallacies and personal attacks, is apt.
tarafoundation 5 months ago
@tarafoundation You have made a comparison between de Valera, the outsider in political terms who had little or no influence over the army in 1921, to the de Valera who had been Taoiseach/President of the Executive Council for 13 years and had since seen the light shown to him by the pro-Treaty side in 1945. It is a foolish comparison to make, as I'm assuming you know yourself. The de Valera of the period 1918-23 was a far more fickle character than the one you have quoted in your "review."
OasisDublin 5 months ago
I enjoyed your analysis here even though I don't know the history. Hollywood is notorious for inaccuracies about historical events, often it is not an accident but propaganda. I can see to a certain extent that for commercial reasons and time reasons that it wasn't 100% accurate, but you showed that still they could have been more faithful to the true history.
jackson32 1 year ago