How the Anglo-Irish Treaty between the unrecognised Irish Republic, represented by Michael Collins, and the British government was concluded after high-stakes negotiations in 1921.
Similar titles
Reviews
Beautiful, moving film.
It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
As a member of my family (Robert Barton) was one of the Irish negotiators of the treaty, I tracked this down and watched it a few nights ago on YouTube.I would agree with the views expressed that The Treaty is an historically accurate although dramatised account of events that led to the situation we have today.Maybe I have a biased viewpoint but I think the character of Michael Collins dominates this too much. This drama focuses on the treaty negotiations and more could have been made of the of the split between Collins, Griffith and Duggan who were in favour of the treaty and Barton and Childers who were against, particularly as the division was referred to early on. Nonetheless, far better than "Michael Collins"!
**seriously, if you don't know how the Irish War of Independence went, you shouldn't be allowed internet access.** 'The Treaty' may seem dull in comparison to Ridley Scott's badly-cast money-maker 'Michael Collins', but this movie had two well-cast stars in the meat of the affair: Gleeson and Bannen. I could rest there, but the other English and Irish characters were also well-played. Oh, such a great ensemble piece without the redundant explosions! Unlike other shows about the War of Independence, in which only about 2000 people died, this movie let us know how justified the War was, by giving us a potted insight into the Irish and British minds. Whereas the idea of stopping the War was portrayed as a disgrace for a bunch of well-fed and well-bred British politicians, the consequence of which would be a few lost votes in Parliament, the idea of losing the War for the Irish was met with such hostility that the clever Irish leaders were looked upon as traitors - an idea that led directly to the more costly Civil War...The Civil War should not have been (Collins was killed, in case you didn't know), but to watch the boys 'at the top' argue who should live, and for what reason, made watching this show a thrill.
Brendan Gleason seems to come closer to the image of Michael Collins I got from reading Tim Pat Coogan's biography of the Irish leader then Liam Neeson's turn in Niel Jordan's biopic.While this film,an RTE/BBC co-production didn't have anywhere near the budget of Jordan's film it's producers did a first rate job none the less.The acting is quite good,and the resemblance of Ian Bannen to David Lloyd-George is remarkable!The discussion he has with DeValera about the translation of the Irish word "phoblacht" is interesting,as Lloyd-George was a Welshman,a Celtic group who've managed to keep THEIR Gaelic tongue alive and kicking.All in all while this film hasn't the big screen glamor of "Michael Collins",it is less about the legend of the "Big Fellow", and much closer to the real man.Anyone interested in how modern Ireland came to be should see this film.
I agree completely with the reviewer from Cork that this is a fascinating movie. It's a dramatization of the agonizing negotiations that led to the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. This is a subject that is pretty much jumped over in the Neil Jordan film "Michael Collins" but which lies at the heart of the current divisions in Ireland. As a result of these negotiations came the bitter Irish civil war and the partition of the island that has caused so much grief in the years since. If you listen you will note the manipulation of events by the principal characters (especially DeValera and Lloyd George) and the betrayals, small and large,and the failure of promises made that led to the divided Ireland of the years since.Brendan Gleason's portrayal of Collins seems far more reliable and realistic than the one done by Liam Neeson. Gleason's Collins, far from being a "yob from West Cork" is revealed as an intelligent, realistic individual who was well able to hold his own in the company of the British cabinet as well as the sophisticated guests at a dramatized dinner party held by Hazel, Lady Lavery.Some of the other performances a very good as well. I especially like Ian Bannen's foxy Lloyd George and the late Tony Doyle's portrayal of Arthur Griffith. As an aside about historical accuracy. Griffith was the actual leader of the Irish delegation, as shown here. The Neil Jordan movie incorrectly implies that Collins himself was the leader. So, if Hollywood fiction and romantic interest are your cup of tea, by all means watch the Neil Jordan movie. But if you really want to learn something about the reasons things are the way they are, try to find a copy of this film. This won't be easy as it doesn't seem to exist in any commercailly available edition. My own copy was taped from a TV broadcast. I hope that one day it will be available for purchase.