In this film, Michael Collins is portrayed as a sloppy and warm ruffian, whose personality is not like a political figure. It was fine in the early days, but after six years of fighting, presiding over assassinations, peace talks, and experiencing civil wars, he is still passionate and romantic. The emotional scenes are also inserted strangely. Harry is really a good brick. Wherever it needs to be moved, he has all the foundations, love triangles, and the promotion of the plot, and he has contributed all his value. The other thing I don't understand is that during the war, as the first and second leaders of the intelligence department, they could also participate in various banquets, dances, and come and go freely in public. How wasteful the British intelligence agency was.
From a political point of view, I still agree with the new situation opened by Michael Collins through guerrilla warfare in the early stage. In the face of the situation, partial victory is the only reason for both parties to sit at the negotiating table, although the means seem to be no different from terrorists. , the political reputation is certainly not good. As for the peace deal, I don’t know why Collins was able to make the decision for Valera on the spot. Did the boss not need to explain the bottom line of the negotiation before departure, and didn’t he convey any information for four months? If Valera went to negotiate in person, the result is likely to be a breakdown of the negotiation and then fight again until it can't be beaten. The risk is that many people will die and it is very likely that they will not win. And Collins' single-minded pursuit of peace just happened to be seized and used by the British, finding a rift to pry the internal contradictions and then divide and rule them is what they are happy to see. Under the circumstances at the time, it was actually difficult to tell who was more correct. What would happen if we persisted for a while? History has no such case. What's more, as soon as the results of the vote came out, people's hearts were scattered. From the end of the Anglo-Irish War, everyone cheered and cheered, to the rebirth of the brothers after the peace talks, and it took only such a short time, which is embarrassing.
In order to set off the noble humanity of the protagonist, Valera is written as a sinister and vicious politician, but AR still plays the characters quite vividly. He was calm when he was arrested, calm when he escaped from prison, angry when he incited the masses, and cruel when he framed his brothers. In the early stage, he was a revolutionary who would go to jail for his ideals. In the later stage, he was a ruthless and unscrupulous politician. Maybe the contradictory role really suits him better.
View more about Michael Collins reviews
