Sir, With regard to Neil Jordan's article (October 23rd), a number of points arise. Yes, Michael Collins is a film that seeks to entertain and not an historical document, as is the case with Eoghan Harris's screenplay Mick. Hence "fake" scenes etc are often necessary and understandable. However the question which must be asked is for what purpose are scenes inserted or altered? Perhaps they expose greater truths, reveal the spirit of the times or exist for dramatic reasons.
All of this is fine, and in the same way that Jordan merges characters into Ned Broy, maybe Constance Gore-Booth "tally-hoing" around West Cork and Collins's omnipresence in Harris's screenplay are necessary in order to bring people, places and events together within the scope of a film. ("Tally ho!" is surely intended to be an ironic tag, in the light of Constance Gore-Booth's language and actions later in the story).
The problems with fake scenes and liberties taken arise when they are designed, in this case, to have resonances with the Northern Irish situation today. The "funny" (in the eyes of Neil Jordan) scene of Belfast detectives being blown up in a car bomb cannot be said to serve any purpose within the script, or to have an historical objective. Instead, it is placing the events within the mythology of present-day nationalist violence. - Yours, etc..
Grosvenor Lodge, Rathmines, Dublin 6.