Sir, - Having read with great interest the comments of those who have written in your paper about this film before seeing it, I was looking forward to finding out what all the fuss was about. It struck me that a lot of the criticisms seemed nitpicking and begrudgery. (What exactly 15 a nationalist shibboleth". anyway?) I imagined that the next "gross inaccuracy" would be Julia Roberts's lips, when we all know that Kitty Kiernan couldn't have had collagen treatment in 1918.
The film is beautiful: lavishly and artistically shot, richly acted by a world-class cast and edited tightly. I don't think that any of Neil Jordan's detractors has sat back and thought about how difficult a job he undertook. Quite apart from the issues of historical accuracy, the fact that Hollywood paid for this film to be made is an achievement.
It is true that he reached beyond his grasp, and couldn't do justice to the complexities of the history. It is also true that his vilification of Eamon de Valera is unsubstantiated by fact. Ironically, it is the film's stubborn sticking to facts that weakens the storyline - too much politics and not enough human drama. But the film stands tall, and Neil Jordan should feel very proud of what he has done, not compelled to defend himself by ridiculing the work of another less talented than he in the national press.
So I would like to propose a ceasefire. Let no one speak before seeing. - Yours, etc,
Palo Alto, California.