Making History

Friday, October 11, 1996

FILM: Neil Jordan brings Ireland’s tumultuous history to life in
his fact-based film

By Emily Forster

Daily Bruin Senior Staff

onday’s bombing of a British military base in Northern Ireland
was a devastating tragedy for the families of the 31 victims, a
shocking setback for Irish peace advocates and a phenomenal round
of free press for director Neil Jordan’s ("The Crying Game,"
"Interview with the Vampire") latest film, "Michael Collins."

Not that the movie, based on Irish political and military
activist Michael Collins, needs the help. In his meaty film, Jordan
employs enough tragic violence, emotional desperation and burning
vengeance to engage an audience completely oblivious to Ireland’s
strife. But 75 years after the death of the man the film was based
on, events like the recent bombing certainly help Jordan justify
why the Irish writer/director would make a film that takes place
between 1916 and 1922.

Considering how emotionally close Jordan is to the drama in
Ireland, the film’s objectivity is amazing. The British are
depicted as hideously uncivil people, but surprisingly enough, the
Irish are not much better. Never before has a bad guy been so
difficult to spot as one is in this historically based film. Even
with superbly sinister Alan Rickman (the vile villain in both
"Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" and "Die Hard") in the role of the
future Prime Minister of Ireland, Eamon De Valera, the role is
never entirely despicable nor admirable. Jordan gives the character
equally noble and noxious lines so that even when he is blatantly
against Collins, De Valera never becomes an actual antagonist.

Rickman’s performance adds to his character’s nearly
schizophrenic presence in the film. With jealous side-long glances
at fellow freedom-fighter Collins, smug orders to his followers and
earnest declarations of his hunger for Ireland’s freedom, Rickman
brings De Valera to the forefront of action. His childish envy and
selfless devotion are equally felt in De Valera.

But his acting pales in comparison to that of the leading actor,
Academy Award nominee Liam Neeson ("Nell," "Schindler’s List").
Playing the title character, the Irish-born actor makes Collins’
merciless, bloodthirsty hunts for vengeance believable with his
cruelly twisted upper lip and rough, angry voice.

Yet the reason for Neeson’s stellar performance and incentive
for Academy members to offer him a second Best Actor nomination
will be his eyes. Even when delivering a speech saturated with
frantic furiousness, his eyes remain soft and nearly ready to flood
with tears of frustration. When calling for his countrymen to act
on the British with completely unmerciful violence, thanks to the
brilliance of two-time Oscar-winning cinematographer Chris Menges,
Neeson’s muted eyes convey regret for his brutality and a desire
for peace.

Not that all performances are astounding. In fact, with the
exception of Rickman, Neeson and Belfast-born, Academy Award
nominee Stephen Rea ("The Crying Game," "Interview with the
Vampire") as the likable, quietly loyal Collins supporter Ned Broy,
everyone else is mediocre. Aidan Quinn ("Legends of the Fall,"
"Frankenstein") was particularly disappointing as Collins’ best
friend, Harry Boland. Playing a motivated fighter caught between
persuasive leaders Collins and De Valera, Quinn is missing the
eye-catching charisma that Rickman and Neeson share. He also lacks
the sweeping Irish accent that Neeson and Rea add to the
authenticity of their characters. Quinn’s brilliant blue eyes do
not bear the same intense stress and emotional turmoil that the
other characters’ seem to reveal.

But the film’s true casting atrocity is Julia Roberts ("The
Pelican Brief," "Something to Talk About"), who is clearly out of
her league as Kitty Kiernan, the romantic interest of both Collins
and Boland. Not only does her Southern accent constantly seep
through her unsuccessful attempt at an Irish brogue but her acting
abilities are seriously overshadowed by Neeson. She cannot help
that he was gaining extensive theatrical and cinematic acting
expertise long before her career began, but she should realize her
own limits. Although Roberts has proven through two Oscar
nominations ("Steel Magnolias" and "Pretty Woman") that she is a
talented actress, she could not pass for an Irish woman in the
1920s if her life depended on it. With her big, toothy American
smile and gawky performance, Roberts has no place in this film.

But Jordan dealt with what he had, and even the weirdness of
Roberts’ appearance was subdued by his lightening-quick,
action-packed sequences. The film is almost cluttered with Jordan’s
dark, dense filming style. Communicating a depressing, James
Joyce-like tone for the film, he uses scenery from actual Irish
cities and countrysides. Images of sluggish black rivers, slate
gray beaches and dilapidated, coal-blackened buildings help convey
the film’s somber message. While the dialogue offers subtle
information, these images deliver not-so-subtle symbolism about the
impending future for Collins and eventual predicament for
Ireland.

Jordan does not just use scenery to show his pessimistic outlook
on Ireland’s future. The film is brimming with utter brutality and
irrepressible violence that mirrors the volatility of modern
Ireland. The Irish and English of the early 20th century are
depicted as frighteningly eager to crush each other, and viewers
are offered the opinion that today’s Irish political leaders are
not much closer to peace than their predecessors.

In spite of its weak performances and a slightly over-crowded
filming style, "Michael Collins" is worth a trip to the theaters.
Its superb cinematography, glorious scenery, astonishingly
objective script, and Neeson, Rickman and Rea’s ground-breaking
performances are serious incentive to see the film. And the fact
that "Michael Collins" sheds light on Ireland’s convoluted past is
another good reason to fork out $7.50. The film contains important
commentary on political issues that arose 75 years ago and clearly
still affect the world today.