Date: Fri 08-Nov-1996
Date: Fri 08-Nov-1996
Publication: Bee
Author: CAROLK
Illustration: C
Location: A14
Quick Words:
Playing-Neeson-Quinn-Collins
Full Text:
(rev "Michael Collins" for Now Playing, 11/1/96)
Now Playing-
Interesting & Absorbing, `Collins' Still Leaves Quinn Without The Girl
By Trey Paul Alexander III
As I sat waiting for the lights to dim on a screening of Michael Collins , a
historical drama on the beginnings of the Irish Republican Army, thoughts of
JFK were dancing in my head: another volatile sociopolitical moment from the
20th Century gets a subjective, celluloid treatment. Will it inspire debates
on fact vs fiction? Perception vs reality? Yet, as the film progressed, I
found my mind wandering onto another, albeit less trenchant, topic: when will
Aidan Quinn ever come out on top?
Jest all you want, but I'm beginning to pity the poor man and the characters
he plays. Among those who have seen Legends of the Fall , I'm one of the few
who still can't understand why Alfred (Quinn) was treated like a pariah and
had to the humiliation of having beautiful Susannah (Julia Ormond) choose his
rebellious brother, Tristan (Brad Pitt), over him. The following year, in real
life, Quinn lost the coveted leading role in A Time to Kill to newcomer and
budding young star, Matthew McConaughey. Now, in Michael Collins , playing at
Danbury's Crown Cine theater, he plays Harry Boland, IRA leader Collins' best
friend and one-third of a love triangle between the bosom buddies and the
beguiling Kitty Kiernan (Julia Roberts). Can you guess who doesn't end up with
the girl?
Granted, this isn't exactly the weightiest of matters with which to grapple
when one is speaking of a film that chronicles such a controversial figure as
Irish revolutionary Michael Collins (Liam Neeson). Unfortunately, the film
lights too few fires (scenes of guerrilla warfare notwithstanding) of true
emotional resonance to get audiences - particularly American audiences,
already distant from the conflict in geography and social conscience - to
invest in this film and its characters with any real passion.
Fault, however, lies not with Neeson's work in the title role. As the
dedicated, imposing Collins, nicknamed Big Fella by his compatriots, Neeson
effectively conveys the man's drive, desire and the toll his devotion to the
cause of Ireland's freedom from British reign eventually caused. But the
motion picture, which begins with the unsuccessful Easter Uprising in 1916,
fails to provide an adequate access point for viewers to really engage with
this tale.
One wonders if director Neil Jordan ( The Crying Game , Interview With the
Vampire ), an Irishman himself, was so close to the tale, which conveys events
with repercussions still being felt today, that he rendered it in shorthand
and assumed all would follow. Did he therefore feel no obligation to handcuff
his film with massive, yet helpful exposition on the subject? Whatever the
reason, the end result is that Michael Collins is less than it could have
been.
I'm prompted to think of In the Name of the Father , which set its tone early
in the proceedings with a kinetic opening chase sequence through the streets
of Belfast. But more than just establishing a mood and setting, In the Name of
the Father gave audiences access into the minds and hearts of its characters,
and that is exactly what is lacking in Michael Collins .
Despite Neeson's formidable presence, Collins lacks the driving, ideological
force that has propelled such recent bio-pics as JFK or Malcolm X . And what
I'm talking about is more than just mere controversy, though that may be a
tangible, irrepressible offshoot. Rather, it is a tendency in the screenplay
to forge ahead, sometimes with stubborn one-mindedness, with a distinct
viewpoint that challenges the audience and dares them, regardless of whether
or not they agree with the account, not to be compelled by it. Ultimately,
Michael Collins , which is rated R for violence and profanity, is an
interesting film that nonetheless fails to become an absorbing one.
