Charlie (RTE1 Charlie Haughey Drama)

mzungu

Overall that was pretty darn good. Not without its flaws but nevertheless, it was worth the watch. I think Gillen did a fine job.

It was good to see Brian Lenihan being portrayed a bit more realistically in this episode. In early episodes he was a bit of a caricature.

The surreal sequences with his mother and the sandcastles were well executed.

I thought TVL was a great PJ Mara, for me he stole the show, Ice cool.

CountyHurler wrote: »

The major faults I would have..
* That random TD, who nobody knows, who probably never existed, and just got promoted!
* Some of the Ministers were like cartoon versions of their counterparts.
* The scene with Des O'Malley and the sword REALLY let the show down, and brought the credibility of the entire drama under question.
* That traveller chap from Love/Hate.. The kindest way I can put it is he was miscast.
* Maureen not shown once, the Dail not shown once, Maggie not shown once... they took some big shortcuts to avoid expense...

Agree 100% with these, especially the sword part. Needless really, I have no idea why that was left in.

Strazdas

CountyHurler wrote: »

I thought that initially.. The first episode I thought was really bad.. but once you get used to him as Haughey, you can then just watch the drama progress instead of analyzing Gillen's every gesture to find fault.... In reality, nobody was gonna be able to capture Haughey's look and mannerisms much better than Gillen did..

The major faults I would have..
* That random TD, who nobody knows, who probably never existed, and just got promoted!
* Some of the Ministers were like cartoon versions of their counterparts.
* The scene with Des O'Malley and the sword REALLY let the show down, and brought the credibility of the entire drama under question.
* That traveller chap from Love/Hate.. The kindest way I can put it is he was miscast.
* Maureen not shown once, the Dail not shown once, Maggie not shown once... they took some big shortcuts to avoid expense...

Des O'Malley himself has spoken up in favour of the show though and fully understands why they needed to take artistic licence.

Strazdas

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't know too much about Terry Keane, other than what I've read and seen on the Late Late, but if she was anything like she's portrayed on this program, she has to have been one of the most appalling, obnoxious cünts ever to have walked the earth.

Insert sick smilie here --->

I don't think I could stand spending 5 minutes in that woman's company.

Certainly in the famous Late Late Show interview she did with Gay Byrne on The Late Late Show, she came across as a pompous and insufferable snob and very close to the depiction we saw here.

LionelNashe

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't know too much about Terry Keane, other than what I've read and seen on the Late Late, but if she was anything like she's portrayed on this program, she has to have been one of the most appalling, obnoxious cünts ever to have walked the earth.

Insert sick smilie here --->

I don't think I could stand spending 5 minutes in that woman's company.

I don't get that at all. I don't think she was portrayed as appalling, obnoxious etc. Not trying to start an argument or anything, I just don't see it.

Declan A Walsh

LionelNashe wrote: »

So who do you reckon was backing Doherty and "Jimmy" in bringing down Haughey? Who pulled the trigger? Des Traynor advised Jimmy to make other friends. I thought the implication was that he may have joined Bertie's Drumcondra Mafia (Charlie even makes a joke about the Mafia when Jimmy turns up, which could have been a hint from the writers). But then Bertie turns down Charlie's support, which doesn't make sense if it was Bertie behind it. He couldn't have known that there would be another chance in the future.

I was wondering too about who pulled the trigger. I had always assumed that Albert was behind O'Doherty - apparently not. So who? I was surprised at the idea that it was a dossier on the Arms Trial that forced his resignation. Any ideas about that?

FalconGirl

When you look at the names in that FF Govt, they really were/are a dispicable self serving shower.

P Flynn. C. Haughey, R.Burke, L.Lawlor, B.Ahern just a few to name. We need to always watch our politicians and they must always be held accountable by the electorate that they serve. That is what disheartens me with the current FG appointments and cronyism. Nothing has been learned it seems.


Just watch P.Flynns video when he was on the Late Late. The arrogance has to be seen to be believed.

Harry Angstrom

Strazdas wrote: »

Des O'Malley himself has spoken up in favour of the show though and fully understands why they needed to take artistic licence.

I'm not surprised that Dessie has spoken in favour of the series, considering that he comes out of it looking whiter than white, and he'll probably be able to flog a few of his autobiographical books off the back of it.

It still doesn't explain why he'd want to go into coalition with a man he utterly despised though, apart from the hackneyed old "I wanted to keep an eye on him" line.

Strazdas

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I'm not surprised that Dessie has spoken in favour of the series, considering that he comes out of it looking whiter than white, and he'll probably be able to flog a few of his autobiographical books off the back of it.

It still doesn't explain why he'd want to go into coalition with a man he utterly despised though, apart from the hackneyed old "I wanted to keep an eye on him" line.

Gene Kerrigan did point out in the Sindo today that the Haughey - O'Malley coalition worked really well, so maybe their relationship was more complex and nuanced than was shown here.

Harry Angstrom

Strazdas wrote: »

Gene Kerrigan did point out in the Sindo today that the Haughey - O'Malley coalition worked really well, so maybe their relationship was more complex and nuanced than was shown here.

Possibly, but I still think Des O'Malley was a hypocrite. He set up a party as an antidote to Haughey and the corrupt Fianna Fáil culture of the time, but then jumped into government with them at the earliest opportunity.

brooke 2

Strazdas wrote: »

Des O'Malley himself has spoken up in favour of the show though and fully understands why they needed to take artistic licence.

Des O'Malley comes out of it very well. Don't think any of his family will be on
Sean O'Rourke tomorrow complaining about how he was portrayed!!

TVL was brilliant as PJ Mara. Some very witty lines in tonight's episode.

Really enjoyed all the programmes.

emanresu esrever

CountyHurler wrote: »

Charlie didnt actually build a sandcastle that morning only to come back and find out the waves had destroyed it... It was a metaphor...

:pac::pac::pac:

Did you really assume someone would not of identified what the concept of the sandcastle was, or were you just making a smart comment for a few cheap likes!!!

anyway, seems like there is a unanimous sentiment that this was a terribly constructed metaphor/analogy. It was cheap and fitted terribly with the sequence leading up to the credits. Its like they thought up the most obvious metaphor of an empire crumbling and then sought how best to throw it in. Oh, we will have Charlie walk down the hallway of his mansion, 3 km inland from the coast and open the back door to a mysterious flashy imagery of a metaphorical beach! There had been no silly metaphorical stuff up until then and whilst the show deserved a memorable ending this "almost dream sequence" didn't fit in with the show! This isn't LOST, Twin Peaks or any other David Lynch production!

I think a sequence on the beach wouldn't of been such a bad idea, perhaps cutting to the beach as his car drove past it on his journey back to Abbeyfield with his final speech : "I have done the state some service, they know it, no more of that." overheard in the background before the tide crumbling the sand castle. It would of still been an easy, cheap metaphor but I just think the opening the door at the end to reveal this metaphorical beach was just bizarre, lazy and taccy.

emanresu esrever

I really think it could of been sustained for longer than 3 episodes though, albeit they wee extended t an hour and a half. There is so much material and characters to sustain twice as many episodes. It felt very rushed in parts and the obsession with Terry Keane was a thumbs down from me. Take for example a biopic like Lincoln from 2013 and the manner in which it concentrated on one event in his tenure as president to build a fantastic insight into his personality, relationships, struggles etc. Charlie relied heavily on chronologically brisking through all of the major events of his career in power. Although this worked to an extent of reminding you of his tenure, there was very little that most viewers (I am assuming) didn't learn of the character and the historical events occurring around him and most which we knew was forced home anyway. Saying that, it is difficult to exclude anything they did include (apart from maybe the excessive Terry Keane stuff ! and that brawl in the Dail) but if they had extended it to two series, it would have have been better.

MouseTail

I thought it was very good, think the random TD was based on Noel Davern,

BuilderPlumber

Declan A Walsh wrote: »

I was wondering too about who pulled the trigger. I had always assumed that Albert was behind O'Doherty - apparently not. So who? I was surprised at the idea that it was a dossier on the Arms Trial that forced his resignation. Any ideas about that?

Bertie could have been involved. That guy was always twofaced: pretends to be your friend and then stab you in the back. Even though Charlie backed him initially to succeed him, he would STILL do such a thing.

Clearly, Haughey did not leave power just over the O'Doherty tape. The arms trial dossier more than likely contained some truly damaging material that perhaps closely linked Haughey to the Provos. It has been said before 'No Charlie, no Provos'. At the time, most prominent Southern IRA men were supporters of Fianna Fail's more Republican wing.

DainBramage

Enjoyed the programme and thought Gillen was excellent as Haughey.
His portayal seems to have polarised punters on here, funny because that is exactly what he did in real life.

Other than Gillen thought the rest of the casting was poor. No sign of Padraig Flynn for example.

The great quote about Bertie being the most cunning, devious etc was mentioned but not developed and still we have no idea how Charlie
or anyone else came to this conclusion.

touts

I enjoyed it. I think the episodes got better as they went on (with the exception of the whole sandcastle thing and visions of his dead mother which were a bit unnecessary and silly). I think the portrayal of the TDs (Lenihan, Reynolds etc) was much better in the third episode. No one gets to that level in politics by being a complete gormless eegit.

It's a pity they didn't do a fourth episode (as the first episode) on his early days in politics (burning the british flag on top of Trinity, Marrying into the Lemass family, his fairly good performance as a minister and of course the Arms crisis). I think a fourth episode on that would have given a more rounded picture on his character without the need to use sandcastles and ghosts. Gillen and most of the cast would be just young enough to carry it off.

26000 Elephants

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Bertie could have been involved. That guy was always twofaced: pretends to be your friend and then stab you in the back. Even though Charlie backed him initially to succeed him, he would STILL do such a thing.

Clearly, Haughey did not leave power just over the O'Doherty tape. The arms trial dossier more than likely contained some truly damaging material that perhaps closely linked Haughey to the Provos. It has been said before 'No Charlie, no Provos'. At the time, most prominent Southern IRA men were supporters of Fianna Fail's more Republican wing.

The dossier was from the department of Justice, and it contained evidence that had been deliberately hidden from the arms trial, without which they had to acquit Haughey. If you read Justin O'Brien's book, there was direct evidence to link Haughey to the payments, but the DOJ buried it. (There was also evidence that Lynch wasnt as innocent as he made out that O'Malley buried...) This is what Doc got his hands on the first day he was minister for Justice. After he decided to shaft Huaghey, he made it available to the Reynolds faction, and thats what they were probably 'dramatising' in that scene.

Kunkka

Really enjoyed this. Sign of a good bit of TV when you don't want it to end. Anyone think Reynolds came across quite badly from it? I'd say O' Malley is delighted with it though. The voice of reason.....

I thought the sand castle thing was simple but effective as it's exactly what happened to his political legacy really. Most of what he worked for to achieve his legacy just drifted away in the end when everything came to a head. What an absolute gangster though and glad he is remembered for the person he actually was in the end.

FringeBen

I think the idea of The Mother's Chair was a good one, but it could have been better handled cinematically. Likewise the sandcastle might have been carried off, perhaps it was a metaphor too far in the script that the director didn't love. The ending felt rushed; even the final focus pull on his face wasn't clean. The occasional ropiness in the Charlie series unfortunately mitigate against it becoming a classic, but the writing in places was of a high standard. It was punk cinema, thrown together at speed, trusting the actors. I liked the way it depicted the Keane relationship, and I think the O'Malley ‘sword scene’ was bang on the money, capturing the atmosphere perfectly.
You can see that the researchers relied heavily on the writings and interviews of Terry Keane, her phrases crop up with regularity. I think there was a conscious effort to foreground female characters; his mother, Maggie, his lover, in a very chauvinistic scene/era but it seems not to have been followed through. I needed to see Charlie’s wife some more. Maybe Charlie, in bed with Keane, should have P. Flynn on the radio making his infamous 'new-found interest in her family' Mary Robinson remarks. I am surprised more was not made of P. Flynn, great subject.
The complexities of the O'Malley/Haughey relationship might have been better served and perhaps more subtle writing might have nailed that. Ditto the relationship with Colley. Neither the Colley or the Albert personas were convincingly cast or acted; Doherty was good, Bertie was brilliant, I would like to have seen more of him. Lenihan; well the way he was depicted felt like a revelation, I wonder how close it is to the truth. That Lenihan thanks Haughey for funding his medical bill is played straight; without knowing the tribunal findings a viewer would not get the irony - the danger is of falling between the stools of too much exposition and of assuming too much audience prior knowledge. Truth is the problem with the Arms Trial file at the end; did something of this nature go on? The suggestion that the Reynold's faction had some more weaponry in its arsenal than came to light at the time is intriguing. There is an interesting symmetry between Haughey using the Beef Tribunal against Reynolds and the denouement of the story. It may not have exactly happened as depicted but methinks even now parts of the story remain murky.
I went back and looked at old footage of Haughey after watching the programme. He had a shiny kind of fame in his face. His trick, when asked difficult questions of going into a stately, procedural mode at extreme variance with his more blunt private style might have been made more of. He was an actor. The actual actor did a reasonable job overall, I bought into him after the first show. I think the main problem with the programme was establishing and maintaining a consistent 'voice' or style, the strength of it was to handle the subject matter in a frank and unsentimental fashion.

jezzer

anyone know who was behind the final heave against haughey? obviously it wasnt albert, so in reality albert became taoiseach by default, its strange that bertie didnt grab power when he had the chance, perhaps he knew albert wouldnt last and was prepared to play the long game?

The_Captain

jezzer wrote: »

anyone know who was behind the final heave against haughey? obviously it wasnt albert, so in reality albert became taoiseach by default, its strange that bertie didnt grab power when he had the chance, perhaps he knew albert wouldnt last and was prepared to play the long game?

In real life, Bertie and Albert were in cahoots behind Charlie's back. Bertie agreed that he wouldn't oppose Reynolds in a leadership battle on the basis that (a) he kept the Finance portfolio in the new government and (b) Reynolds would name him as his successor to take over as Taoiseach.

arayess

DainBramage wrote: »

The great quote about Bertie being the most cunning, devious etc was mentioned but not developed and still we have no idea how Charlie
or anyone else came to this conclusion.

He said it was cos of his dealings with the unions if I recall.

Firedance

The_Captain wrote: »

In real life, Bertie and Albert were in cahoots behind Charlie's back. Bertie agreed that he wouldn't oppose Reynolds in a leadership battle on the basis that (a) he kept the Finance portfolio in the new government and (b) Reynolds would name him as his successor to take over as Taoiseach.

this was touched on last night too that Charlie was livid that Bertie wasnt taking the role so he wouldn't look like he was beholden to CJ when in fact 'he owed him everything'. Bertie was smart, he knew anyone associated with Charlie would be tarnished so he was biding his time..

26000 Elephants

jezzer wrote: »

anyone know who was behind the final heave against haughey? obviously it wasnt albert,

Why do you think it wasnt Albert? Who else do you think it was?

bazermc

Was the scence in le Coq hardi restaurant suppose to signify the end of the affair between Haughey and Kean

Or did they continue post his leaving office, I am guessing not.

The_Captain

by that stage of his life, it was probably le coq softi

jezzer

The_Captain wrote: »

In real life, Bertie and Albert were in cahoots behind Charlie's back. Bertie agreed that he wouldn't oppose Reynolds in a leadership battle on the basis that (a) he kept the Finance portfolio in the new government and (b) Reynolds would name him as his successor to take over as Taoiseach.

AH yes, i thought so, bertie probably knew albert wouldnt last too long and as shown previously bertie wasnt afraid to play the long game..

but aside from them, and as noted in the show, who dug up the missing arms trial file? doherty wouldnt have done it off his own bat either....

i would imagine keane lost interest in haughey once he lost power

boosabum

I think the Keane affair actually begun after the arms trial had been completed and Charlie was at his lowest in terms of power, i may be incorrect but i seem to remember her saying that once. It seemed to per more about his persona or charm which i guess multiplied when power was added.

K-9

touts wrote: »

Has to be Noel Davern. the "backwoods man" who came from nowhere to become Minister for Education .

Could be, but it seems to be a generic gombeen backbencher. I think the "try the f***ing window" politician was a senator, Paschal Mooney if I'm right, spoke out of turn on the North which Haughey hated.

I thought it might have been Jimmy "Minister for a day" McDaid, O'Malley forced him to resign as Minister for Defence, but McDaid was only just elected at that time.

Overall, it just felt rushed. 6 episodes would have made it much more rounded and fleshed out. Mara stole the show for me, though a bit OTT at times.

K-9

Declan A Walsh wrote: »

I was wondering too about who pulled the trigger. I had always assumed that Albert was behind O'Doherty - apparently not. So who? I was surprised at the idea that it was a dossier on the Arms Trial that forced his resignation. Any ideas about that?

My take on it was, the Arms Trial file was more an example of his past starting to come back to haunt him.

You had scandal after scandal coming out, Smurfit and the Johnson, Mooney and O'Brien site, Carysfort College, Jimmy "Minister for a day" McDaid, Lenihan, Doherty and the beef tribunal lingering in the background as well. His past was finally starting to catch up with him.

Nice mention of the North as well, he gets some credit for starting that and then Reynolds for taking it on and delivering on it.

golfball37

K-9 wrote: »

Could be, but it seems to be a generic gombeen backbencher. I think the "try the f***ing window" politician was a senator, Paschal Mooney if I'm right, spoke out of turn on the North which Haughey hated.

Don Lydon, I'm pretty sure, in real life was the try the window guy.

Tony EH

FalconGirl wrote: »

When you look at the names in that FF Govt, they really were/are a dispicable self serving shower.

P Flynn. C. Haughey, R.Burke, L.Lawlor, B.Ahern just a few to name. We need to always watch our politicians and they must always be held accountable by the electorate that they serve. That is what disheartens me with the current FG appointments and cronyism. Nothing has been learned it seems.

Just watch P.Flynns video when he was on the Late Late. The arrogance has to be seen to be believed.

On the contrary, I think everything has been learned, a bit too well.

:mad:

The_Captain

It's probably just an amalgamation of thicko FF backbenchers not representing any one person

jezzer

yes, 3 episodes didnt do it justice, they had to skip over a lot of stuff, and i see they didnt go into the detail of haughey taking money from the fund set up for lenihans operation and the whole guinness and mahon thing. fantastic show and fantastic acting just such a pity it was only the 3 episodes.

although it showed haughey as a power mad, callious, devious and a guy that couldnt care less, i still thought he came across as funny in his own scolding way, e.g. when he was talking about the world cup, thats a side i didnt know about him, that he was humorous in his own way.
Aiden Gillen can be proud of his acting here...

regarding the traveller from love/hate who in this show became a property developer and the other suited guy in his house, i think they represented general people as opposed to exact figures, both possibly representing both ends of the spectrum, a rough and ready guy who sort of fell into developing and the upper class builder type, but when the suited guy said to the traveller character that charlie is finished and other guys would be coming up, presumably they meant albert, would it have been a case that albert got onto these lads and said look there will be a changing of the guard, you need to be funding us now???

Tony EH

The_Captain wrote: »

It's probably just an amalgamation of thicko FF backbenchers not representing any one person

It's impossible to know who it was that was told to try the window exit, I only heard about that from something Dermot Morgan said.

But, yes, the guy in the program is supposed to represent the average gob****e FF backbench and supporters, who were aware of what was going on but said nothing, because they might get a few crumbs from the table.

spurious

The suggestion that he was the architect of Maggie's downfall - anyone know if there is anything substantive to back that up?

jezzer

spurious wrote: »

The suggestion that he was the architect of Maggie's downfall - anyone know if there is anything substantive to back that up?

not essentially, he had a better relationship with the euro leaders than she did but she was fecked anyway by that stage

Snickers Man

I've got to dissent from the generally favourable reviews of this. I thought it was mediocre. It tried to shove too much into three episodes and, instead of focussing on giving us an accurate dramatisation of Haughey and some of the main people in his life, it seemed to try and cram in as many references to as many incidents as possible.

As a result it had a "design by committee" feel to it. (Don't forget to mention Ben Dunne/Paddy Gallagher/McArthur and as many ministers and backbenchers as possible. Even if it's only for a second and then we don't mention them ever again. WE don't want to make anyone feel left out)

It fell between the stools of trying to portray a narrative of events, a job much better performed by a factual documentary, and some insight into the character and behaviour of the main characters.

The use of music was awful. They would have been far better off with no backing track at all. It added nothing to the production.

I didn't rate the script at all and the acting performances as a consequence were perfunctory and underdeveloped.

That's disappointing because he, and indeed many other Irish figures from history, should be fertile territory for dramatists to explore.

I thought the Guarantee shown on TV3 recently was much better as a drama, despite its apparent budget limitations, causing actors to double up on multiple roles and using really cheapo sets. The scene where Cowan struggles with the new coffee machine, grumbling "What the **** was wrong with instant?" was a little gem. It made a really good allusion to the stress and frustration they must all have been under.

Of course if it had been an RTE production, you'd have all all the relatives ringing up Joe Duffy to say that "They made him look a right eejit, Joe. As if he couldn't even work the coffee machine. It's a disgrace, Joe"

emanresu esrever

Snickers Man wrote: »

I've got to dissent from the generally favourable reviews of this. I thought it was mediocre. It tried to shove too much into three episodes and, instead of focussing on giving us an accurate dramatisation of Haughey and some of the main people in his life, it seemed to try and cram in as many references to as many incidents as possible.

As a result it had a "design by committee" feel to it. (Don't forget to mention Ben Dunne/Paddy Gallagher/McArthur and as many ministers and backbenchers as possible. Even if it's only for a second and then we don't mention them ever again. WE don't want to make anyone feel left out)



That's disappointing because he, and indeed many other Irish figures from history, should be fertile territory for dramatists to explore.



"

precisely this, i have made this point a few times, it was very "event-based". Whilst the dialogue between O Mara and Haughey was interesting there was very little I learnt about Haughey that wasn't a caricature of what society opines him to be. Surely there is more to him than a (rather exaggerated) mimic of his accent, an affair with you know who, the lapdogging he received and the events which surrounded him. I think if you are going to go down the route of trying to include almost every political carreer event listed on his wikipedia page, you need to prolong the series to give ample time to the events whilst also building a more indepth characterisation and dramatisation into how the events unfolded.


Saying that, budgets and actor contract lengths would of made it difficult to
lengthen the series to a few more episodes or even a second series so I guess they made a good stab at it, in that respect. But considering how well it was received (generally) it just feels that it is a case of opportunity lost, both for the production company and RTE, not to mention the actors (and the viewers!). Everyone would have benefited out of a lengthier process IMO

W1ll1s

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Last I heard it had fallen into disrepair

Heard the place had been taken over with Bats :rolleyes:

Reckon there is a lot more episodes in Charlie

Grandeeod

In general I enjoyed the three episodes. I didn't learn anything new, but it was good that Haughey was dramatised in some form. I believe the budget was in the region of 4 million (open to correction) but I couldn't see it on screen.

The two aspects, IMO, that let it down were;

1. The lack of establishing a really decent visual reference of what Ireland looked like during the 3 periods covered. I found the series too confined to its own sets and insular as a result. More outdoor scenes and streetscapes during the periods would have leant more era identity to the production. In addition, it would have been nice to actually see Dail Eireann scenes. I understand that filming in the Dail Chamber would be a no no and the costs of building a set in a studio, would be high. But I have no doubt that it would have added greatly to the production and drama along with the aforementioned streetscapes. If you are going to do historical drama, you really have to think bigger that this drama did.

2. Irish Film/TV suffers greatly from the constant rolling out of actors that are "current". In a small industry, it can influence how we view a production. My first impression of episode one felt like some kind of Love Hate parody coming so soon after the final Love Hate series. Watching the same actors playing vastly different roles in the same show. This kind of thing has being a recurrent problem over the last many many years and I've no doubt it disconcerts viewers.

26000 Elephants

Grandeeod wrote: »

The two aspects, IMO, that let it down were;

1. The lack of establishing a really decent visual reference of what Ireland looked like during the 3 periods covered. I found the series too confined to its own sets and insular as a result. More outdoor scenes and streetscapes during the periods would have leant more era identity to the production. In addition, it would have been nice to actually see Dail Eireann scenes. I understand that filming in the Dail Chamber would be a no no and the costs of building a set in a studio, would be high. But I have no doubt that it would have added greatly to the production and drama along with the aforementioned streetscapes. If you are going to do historical drama, you really have to think bigger that this drama did.

That would make it more of a documentary. It was a drama - it explored the person that was charlie in the context of the various issues he dealt with. It could have been filmed in Prague, and it should have had the same impact.

2. Irish Film/TV suffers greatly from the constant rolling out of actors that are "current". In a small industry, it can influence how we view a production. My first impression of episode one felt like some kind of Love Hate parody coming so soon after the final Love Hate series. Watching the same actors playing vastly different roles in the same show. This kind of thing has being a recurrent problem over the last many many years and I've no doubt it disconcerts viewers.

Apart from a few obvious miscasts, I thought they were spot on. Gillen conveyed the charm that Charlie had - if you knew him, you couldn't but like him. Lawlors' Mara was great, his one liners were legendary and he managed to convey his obvious intelligence. Some of the other characters risked impersonation rather than interpretation, but I think that is only because we know the real characters so well.
As for the love'hate thing, you cant blame them for previous good work...

BuilderPlumber

Grandeeod wrote: »

In general I enjoyed the three episodes. I didn't learn anything new, but it was good that Haughey was dramatised in some form. I believe the budget was in the region of 4 million (open to correction) but I couldn't see it on screen.

The two aspects, IMO, that let it down were;

1. The lack of establishing a really decent visual reference of what Ireland looked like during the 3 periods covered. I found the series too confined to its own sets and insular as a result. More outdoor scenes and streetscapes during the periods would have leant more era identity to the production. In addition, it would have been nice to actually see Dail Eireann scenes. I understand that filming in the Dail Chamber would be a no no and the costs of building a set in a studio, would be high. But I have no doubt that it would have added greatly to the production and drama along with the aforementioned streetscapes. If you are going to do historical drama, you really have to think bigger that this drama did.

2. Irish Film/TV suffers greatly from the constant rolling out of actors that are "current". In a small industry, it can influence how we view a production. My first impression of episode one felt like some kind of Love Hate parody coming so soon after the final Love Hate series. Watching the same actors playing vastly different roles in the same show. This kind of thing has being a recurrent problem over the last many many years and I've no doubt it disconcerts viewers.

I enjoyed seeing Nidge and John Boy enter politics! Yes, a lot of the same characteristics exist between the drug dealer and the politician I have found. King Nidge v King Charlie? Deviousness, rivalry, not resting easy at the top and relations with the IRA feature in both career options for a start. Mara played the same role to Charlie as Nidge played to John Boy ironically!! Yes, the series did feel like Love/Hate at times and all the better for it imo. The backstabbing and tense world of the Haughey era versus the backstabbing and tense world of the Nidge era? Apart from the violence and killing, other issues were very similar!!

BuilderPlumber

26000 Elephants wrote: »

That would make it more of a documentary. It was a drama - it explored the person that was charlie in the context of the various issues he dealt with. It could have been filmed in Prague, and it should have had the same impact.




Apart from a few obvious miscasts, I thought they were spot on. Gillen conveyed the charm that Charlie had - if you knew him, you couldn't but like him. Lawlors' Mara was great, his one liners were legendary and he managed to convey his obvious intelligence. Some of the other characters risked impersonation rather than interpretation, but I think that is only because we know the real characters so well.
As for the love'hate thing, you cant blame them for previous good work...

As said, the similarities between the politician and King Nidge are very similar. AG and TVL were both excellent in L/H and Charlie and ideal for both dramas. Obviously, elements of Nidge came into TVL's Mara and deliberately so. It was excellent to hear some 'Nidge-style' lines planted every now and again and it enhanced things. There was hardly any of John Boy in AG's Charlie though but both roles showed that he could master the complex and troubled characters both were. The relations between the AG and TVL characters were similar in the beginning in both series until the end. Nidge ultimately did John Boy in back in 2011's L/H series 2 but Mara remained loyal until the end to Charlie.

JaseBelleVie

Thoroughly enjoyed the mini-series. Some things could have been fleshed out better. Definitely should have been a minimum of 6 episodes in it, if not more. 6 at a minimum to give the viewing public a better idea of who was who, what was going on, the full scale of the shenanigans that went on in Irish politics at the time, etc.

Disappointed that Pee Flynn and others didn't appear at all, given how crucial they were to Charlie's reign. Not showing the inner sanctum of Dáil Éireann's chambers was another one. Definitely could have benefited from a longer run and a larger budget.

Other than that, a solid, respectable entry into RTE's back catalogue.

FixdePitchmark

it is too soon.

But they could do a Bertie.

Mycroft H

It's been on the shopping list since I head it came out last year, but I picked up Des O'Malleys memoirs there today. They're meant to be decent.

KingBrian2

They should do a series about the early Taoisigh and heads of state. Would be great to see Eoin O' Duffy doing his parade during the Cosgrave years.

LynnGrace

Snickers Man wrote: »

I've got to dissent from the generally favourable reviews of this. I thought it was mediocre. It tried to shove too much into three episodes and, instead of focussing on giving us an accurate dramatisation of Haughey and some of the main people in his life, it seemed to try and cram in as many references to as many incidents as possible.

As a result it had a "design by committee" feel to it. (Don't forget to mention Ben Dunne/Paddy Gallagher/McArthur and as many ministers and backbenchers as possible. Even if it's only for a second and then we don't mention them ever again. WE don't want to make anyone feel left out)

It fell between the stools of trying to portray a narrative of events, a job much better performed by a factual documentary, and some insight into the character and behaviour of the main characters.

The use of music was awful. They would have been far better off with no backing track at all. It added nothing to the production.

I didn't rate the script at all and the acting performances as a consequence were perfunctory and underdeveloped.

That's disappointing because he, and indeed many other Irish figures from history, should be fertile territory for dramatists to explore.

Agreed.

It just could have been so much better. There was a feeling, to me, of, 'let's throw this, this and this into it'.

Just one example, the presidential election, I wondered, where is Pee Flynn and the infamous radio interview. Nothing.

Disappointing, overall. And a lot of the dialogue was unbelievable, in my opinion.

CountyHurler

I heard Geraldine Kennedy talking about Charlie this morning with Colm McCoille.... She said the actor that played her did a good job, but that she was represented as more of a Charlie Bird (i.e. doorstepping everybody), whereas in real life she was merely doing interviews / press conferences / sitting in the Dail public gallery

But the best part was when she was asked about Dermot Nally... She said that there was no way that he would have "ever told Charlie Haughey to F**K OFF" using the f-bomb... .to which Cathal responded "thanks for that"..... :pac: