Hi, I was wondering if this movie is historically accurate because I'm writing a paper about irish rebellions, just wondering if this could be a good source
sharehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117039/goofs
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."
Hi there. Nice paper, glad to hear that our history appeals to you.
Irish born and bred I am and related to Collins.
Unfortunately the movie is not historically accurate. Its essence is but it is not the best source. I would not use it as one.
It is a good movie but not historically accurate.
Hope that helps.
Still, it seems that the movie is pretty accurate to me. I mean, all movies twist history for sake of story-telling. Braveheart, for instance. But from what I gather from IMDBs trivia-section, there are few changes, and these changes appears to me as being very tiny.
Love this movie btw. Solid 10. Liam Neeson is the man. And irish, as well as scottish and brittish history, always fascinates me (I'm from Sweden). Plus, you gotta love the accent!
Braveheart doesn't so much twist history as throw it in the bin and jump on it!
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."
[deleted]
I agree with UKstrings. Movies often get a bit of a dramatic effect rinse. Also whenever you try to condense a particular period of history into a two hour movie the producers are often forced into cutting out or compositing certain facts.
Good guys may not finish last but they sure as sh*t don't finish first!
And I agree with you too mikey.
The film was deemed culturally significant enough by the Irish government to give the production funding and special treatment by the country's film censors.
But I think even Neil Jordan wouldn't want students using his film as the primary source for historical papers.
special treatment by the country's film censors.You're dead right. It would have been at least 15 cert maybe even 18 but got special dispensation given the subject matter. My school even organised trips to the cinema to watch it with written parental permission but the next class back at school confirmed the dramatic differences.
OP, if it's for a course no lecturer I know would accept it as a source. A documentary film can typically be cited but a film like this that's telling the story and that os intended to entertain before inform would be frownde upon if not outright discounted.
Reference could be made to the film to show the continuing interest in the subject, still generating debate decades after the period in question and to say that despite the ambiguity surrounding Collins' death there are those who suggest DeV played a hand in it as was exemplified in the popular 1996 film etc.
I wouldn't rule it out for reference purposes but it would not be considered a historical source by any means.