Michael Collins

Michael Collins is a film realised by Neil Jordan, in 1996, which deals with the story

of the Irish independence’s leader. We’re going to compare two critics: one by Barbara

Shulgasser, published in the Examiner movie critic in October 1996, and the other by James

Berardinelli in the website Reel Views.

What are the differences in these two articles?

First, we’re going to study the both presentations of the film, and then, the criticisms in

themselves.

In her article, Shulgasser most analyses History than the film. We can’t make a real

distinction between History and what she says about the film. Although Shulgasser gives

details about the story (which are not necessary for a film’s critic), she stops the description to

a part of the plot, whereas Berardinelli tells the whole story but solely the essence of it. He’s

principally delayed on the way of making the film by ratio to the directing and the command

of the actors. The ends of these articles are somewhat similar, they both conclude by

comparing Michael Collins with another film: Lawrence of Arabia for Shulgasser and

Braveheart for Birardinelli. Two historical epic films. In these two critics, the authors tell the

story, but not in the same way.

In the first critic, we understand that the author hasn’t really appreciated the adaptation

of History nor the actors’ play (not very credible irish accent from some actors, and Julia

Roberts who’s “decorative” in an “unnecessary romantic involvement”). The title of her

article (Collins: terrorist as hero) proves her negative opinion about the film. She even

compares Collins to Hitler. She either hasn’t learnt much more about Collins than what she

knew before.

This is all opposite in the second critic. In fact, Birardinelli makes a real praise of Jordan’s

perfectionism (who has been waiting thirteen years to make his film). He adds that this film is

“capable to