Why no movies about 1916?

topper75

worded wrote: »

I'm sure these people had passion and fire in their bellies fighting for ireland with their lives

We have keyboard warriors now with dough nuts in theirs

I thought Ireland was already there in 1916. In fact I think there were people here 9000 years ago.

I think they were fighting for control of Ireland. Not so noble really when you see it that way. And especially not when you see that many of them were staunch adherents to a religious cult. That really struck me when I toured Kilmainham Gaol and Collins Barracks. The letters and sentiments in them gave me the impression that they weren't much different from the Islamic fundamentalists of today - the Vatican was their Mecca and British rule the great Satan.

We see patriots as men with guns in their hands and wonder then why we are unsatisfied with our country today.
Patriots aren't dead guys in books. Patriots are the people you see around you picking up litter for tidy towns, coaching youth on sports field etc. If not constructive, then a patriot is nothing to me.

Pumpkinseeds

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

WTF is this ****? Is it fashionable these days to not care about your national history. A lot of people care including me, those men that fought had more courage and pride in their small toe than you ever will.

Many people share his/her sentiment. I haven't heard any of my friends or family discuss 1916 because WE DON'T CARE, and indifference to the Easter rising is the prevalent attitude in this country. It's not about courage, so get off that high horse before you fall and do yourself a mischief.

TheBeardedLady

The One Doctor wrote: »

I don't think anyone cares about 1916 anymore. I certainly don't.

Ah well if you don't then no one does, obviously.

gandalf

Michael Bay is making one.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/05/14/michael-bay-to-direct-1916-rising-movie/

conorhal

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Many people share his/her sentiment. I haven't heard any of my friends or family discuss 1916 because WE DON'T CARE, and indifference to the Easter rising is the prevalent attitude in this country. It's not about courage, so get off that high horse before you fall and do yourself a mischief.

More people upvote cat videos on youtube then bother to vote, which explains the state of modern representitive democracy in the the western world. The Eurocrats and their Corporate masters have done a great job of spreading apathy.

valoren

I'd be sure that there are some documentaries in production to co-incide with the centenary.

Give me a quality written and well narrated documentary instead of a populist, crappily accented "Give up yer oul occupation" style movie anyday.

Pumpkinseeds

conorhal wrote: »

More people upvote cat videos on youtube then bother to vote, which explains the state of modern representitive democracy in the the western world. The Eurocrats and their Corporate masters have done a great job of spreading apathy.

The Easter rising was a bloodbath that couldn't possibly have resulted in victory. It was done a month after England declared war on Germany, with the intent that the Irish uprising would rely on German support. 350 thousand Irish fought in the war against Germany. 30 thousand Irish died in the war against Germany. The Irish leaders thought we should be supported by Germany. What a bunch of wan*ers.

Insect Overlord

TG4 did a fantastic series about the men behind the rising.

1916 - Seachtar na Cásca, and the sequel 1916 - Seachtar Dearmadta.

Well worth watching, and plenty of it is done in English too.

Witcher

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The Easter rising was a bloodbath that couldn't possibly have resulted in victory. It was done a month after England declared war on Germany, with the intent that the Irish uprising would rely on German support. 350 thousand Irish fought in the war against Germany. 30 thousand Irish died in the war against Germany. The Irish leaders thought we should be supported by Germany. What a bunch of wan*ers.

What?

Grandeeod

Director Michael Cimino originally proposed a movie about the rising back in the 1980s. He wanted to close O'Connell street for a few weeks! Eventually he got attached to what became the Michael Collins movie. He was removed due to budget concerns. Neill Jordan got his version made instead.

Adamantium

I want to make an alternate history where the Nazi's invade and the prominent leaders of the time are lined up outside the GPO and shot with potato guns. The horrors.




Rated R for Retarded.

Insect Overlord

Adamantium wrote: »

I want to make an alternate history where the Nazi's invade and the prominent leaders of the time are lined up outside the GPO and shot with potato guns.

Iron Sky has already been done.

MRnotlob606

I think Quentin Tarantino should make one. Imagine that, A mexican stand off in the GPO between Dev, Collins and Llyod George.

JohnFalstaff

An File wrote: »

TG4 did a fantastic series about the men behind the rising.

1916 - Seachtar na Cásca, and the sequel 1916 - Seachtar Dearmadta.

Well worth watching, and plenty of it is done in English too.

This was a great series, one of the best things that TG4 have ever done. The dramatised scenes are excellent.

The Seachtar na Cásca series is the closest thing we'll get to a movie of the Rising before the centenary.

I managed to pick up a copy of the series on DVD in Eason's a year or two ago but some of the episodes are available online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIHLxYP0rmw

MarkAnthony

I was born and brought up in the SE of England, at a time when a strange man with a beard wasn't allowed to speak on the TV and the 'Irish situation' wasn't allowed to be discussed by teachers. (This predated the internet).

And even I know there's at least 2 OP.

KingBrian2

Strider wrote: »

What?

My thought exactly.

DavidRamsay99

There was a 4 part BBC TV series back in 2001 called Rebel Heart which covered the 1916 Rising, the War of Independence and the Civil War.

Mills and Boon stuff for the most part but good battle sequences all the same.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249312/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

George White

Didn't the BBC Life and Times of David Lloyd George series in the 80s with Philip Madoc cover the Rising?
I remember it did have the Civil War in it.

OU812

There's also this:

Historical inaccuracies aside (raising the tricolour over the GPO etc), Indiana Jones fighting in the 1916 rising? I'll have some of that!

The Corinthian

veryangryman wrote: »

Is it the sensitivity etc...didnt stop them with Wind That Shakes Barley. Any theories?

Probably because the whole thing, apart from the rather romantic last stand in the GPO, was an embarrassing clusterfück.

The British forces were largely caught with their pants down, yet the rebel forces failed to take (a lightly guarded) Dublin castle, either Amiens Street (Connolly) or Kingsbridge (Heuston) stations or either Dublin or Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) ports. Additionally, it had little support even in Dublin (let alone the rest of the country) and was treated with scorn by much of the population, as was later depicted in Seán O'Casey's "the Plough and the Stars".

It's only success can be attributed to British mishandling of the aftermath, that alienated public opinion.

The rising itself was a military disaster, who's only redeeming feature was ultimately the final battle at the GPO, which makes for a good scene in a movie (such as Michael Collins), but is insufficient for a whole movie. Were one to do a movie about the actual, historical rising, it would likely upset a lot of people who would rather not know what an unpopular disaster it really was.

DavidRamsay99

OU812 wrote: »

There's also this:

Historical inaccuracies aside (raising the tricolour over the GPO etc), Indiana Jones fighting in the 1916 rising? I'll have some of that!

Indiana Jones didn't fight in the Rising.
He dated Sean Leamas' sister who thought he was an American millionaire until Lemass caught him working in a pub so he and his Belgian friend Remy he met in Mexico could sail on to England to join the Belgian Army.
Jones, Remy, Lemass's sister and the playwright Sean O'Casey were trapped in a Dublin pub for Easter Week.

Zamboni

Not a movie but great interviews in the 70's with surviving participants of the rising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4JvXQqw4NY

whisky_galore

degrassinoel wrote: »

Insurrection eight part series depicting the rising, made in 1966 - havent had the pleasure of seeing it but i've heard it was excellent, would be surprised if RTE didnt show it next year at some point before easter.

RTE has been pussyfooting around showing this for years, now finally they're looking for permission from the actors and relatives of desceased actors for permission to screen it again.

Lt J.R. Bell

veryangryman wrote: »

Just wondering given

a) The centenary
b) How many movies are out commemorating practicallly anything these days

Why they arent doing anything movie-wise on the Rising. Seems like a great topic to cover.

Is it the sensitivity etc...didnt stop them with Wind That Shakes Barley. Any theories?

There have been a number of decent documentaries on the period done by TnaG 4

While it was politically a success in the long term, it achieved it's aim (ie reawakening Republician attitudes) it was hardly a glaring success militarily. No one "celebrates" 1798 either

Any attempt to do a film would be utterly ****e. Unionists, being Unionists will feel insulted and complain, and too many Gob****es like Myers and Former Republican Fan boy, Eoghan Harris, and amateur no it amateur know it all Fintin Otoole would be given more oxygen

There was no 1916 scene in Wind that Shakes the Barely

Lt J.R. Bell

LordSutch wrote: »

Maybe its because in the grand scheme of things, the rising was a very small event which took place during a very turbulent war in Europe where millions of men died fighting, not least the fifty thousand Irish men who died on the continent between 1914-1918. The Easter Rising itself was in reality a very small blip on the landscape (of world affairs at that time), hence there are much bigger stories to tell about the period.

Two Big films about the rising; The wind that shakes the barley & Michael Collins.

No scene froM 1916 Rising in WTSTB

syklops

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Wouldn't have a good enough ending for the cinema,unless they make an alternate ending where the g.p.o is secretly an alien spaceship and they CGI it lifting off towards the end of the fighting,the leaders of the rising are now on a planet with Elvis and 2pac

That wouldnt make any sense. If the GPO lifted off, then why is it still standing? Or you mean the GPO sitting there is a fake?

Lt J.R. Bell

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I think Quentin Tarantino should make one. Imagine that, A mexican stand off in the GPO between Dev, Collins and Llyod George.

Eh, neither Dev or Collins were big players in 1916. Dev was a Commandant on Mount Street but word is that he had a "panic attack", still it was the most successful division. Collins was Plunketts assistant. Lloyd George was banging someones wife back in London, the cad

Tordelback

The answer to 'why no big movie' is pretty obvious: the vital US market would never stomach an even vaguely accurate movie about the Rising - even the fantasy-tinted version of the longer story in Michael Collins with Julia Roberts singing her brogue out and Alan Rickman sobbing behind the turf stack didn't make much of dent ($27M Worldwide on a $28M budget is a bloody disaster).

What makes 1916 so interesting is the complexity of those involved, their diverse motivations (would anyone have believed Connolly and Pearse would fight and die on the same side... really?), the (wonderfully and typically Irish) reaction of the populace, the moral questions of treason in wartime and undemocratic uprising, the vastly greater numbers of Irishmen that fought and died in WWI, the disastrous misjudgements by first the Volunteers and then the British... and of course how all that shaped everything that followed, for good or ill.

What it definitely is not, and shouldn't be, is an easily marketed story of heroism. It's a defining political event, it's got 'splosions and girls with guns, it deftly catches the romance of Cuchulainn's death, but a popular entertainment for a wider audience? Well, maybe, but it'd be the kind of gamble studios don't often take.

lertsnim

degrassinoel wrote: »

Michael Collins by Neil Jordan

Awful ****e dressed up for Hollywood

DavidRamsay99

Tordelback wrote: »

The answer to 'why no big movie' is pretty obvious: the vital US market would never stomach an even vaguely accurate movie about the Rising - even the fantasy-tinted version of the longer story in Michael Collins with Julia Roberts singing her brogue out and Alan Rickman sobbing behind the turf stack didn't make much of dent ($27M Worldwide on a $28M budget is a bloody disaster).

What makes 1916 so interesting is the complexity of those involved, their diverse motivations (would anyone have believed Connolly and Pearse would fight and die on the same side... really?), the (wonderfully and typically Irish) reaction of the populace, the moral questions of treason in wartime and undemocratic uprising, the vastly greater numbers of Irishmen that fought and died in WWI, the disastrous misjudgements by first the Volunteers and then the British... and of course how all that shaped everything that followed, for good or ill.

What it definitely is not, and shouldn't be, is an easily marketed story of heroism. It's a defining political event, it's got 'splosions and girls with guns, it deftly catches the romance of Cuchulainn's death, but a popular entertainment for a wider audience? Well, maybe, but it'd be the kind of gamble studios don't often take.

A skillful filmmaker should be able to pull all those strands together into an fatefully accurate but exciting dramatic historical action adventure movie.

The book The Easter Rebellion by Max Caulfield written in the 1960s is one of the definitive accounts of the events of Easter 1916 with a vivid breathless minute by minute narrative that is readily adaptable to the big screen.

Over the past 15 years or so movies like The Queen, Thirteen Days, Argo, Valkyrie, Lincoln, Black Hawk Down, Downfall etc have been able to bring complex historical events to life.

Neil Jordan's inferior Michael Collins which flopped internationally has sadly meant Hollywood is hesitant to touch the subject of Irish republicanism.

Ideally I would cast Jamie Dornan as Patrick Pearse so women would watch it, Gabriel Byrne as Tom Clarke and Russell Crowe as James Connolly.

Pearse would have to have a love interest so Jessica Chastain or Bryce Dallas Howard could play his betrothed who is said to have drowned.

The film would need an icy British villain so General Lowe could be played by Jeremy Irons and the buffoonish General Maxwell could be played by Rowan Atkinson.

The Corinthian

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

A skillful filmmaker should be able to pull all those strands together into an fatefully accurate but exciting dramatic historical action adventure movie.

Pick only one.

Lt J.R. Bell

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

A skillful filmmaker should be able to pull all those strands together into an fatefully accurate but exciting dramatic historical action adventure movie.

The book The Easter Rebellion by Max Caulfield written in the 1960s is one of the definitive accounts of the events of Easter 1916 with a vivid breathless minute by minute narrative that is readily adaptable to the big screen.

Over the past 15 years or so movies like The Queen, Thirteen Days, Argo, Valkyrie, Lincoln, Black Hawk Down, Downfall etc have been able to bring complex historical events to life.

Neil Jordan's inferior Michael Collins which flopped internationally has sadly meant Hollywood is hesitant to touch the subject of Irish republicanism.

Ideally I would cast Jamie Dornan as Patrick Pearse so women would watch it, Gabriel Byrne as Tom Clarke and Russell Crowe as James Connolly.

Pearse would have to have a love interest so Jessica Chastain or Bryce Dallas Howard could play his betrothed who is said to have drowned.

The film would need an icy British villain so General Lowe could be played by Jeremy Irons and the buffoonish General Maxwell could be played by Rowan Atkinson.

Tim Roth has got to be one of the baddies. Let Tim Spall do his Churchill routine

Rowan Atkinson, inspired casting. Would look dashing in the uniform and tache

Not sure about the cast selections for Connolly and Clarke. Shame Olly Reed is dead

The Corinthian

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Rowan Atkinson, inspired casting. Would look dashing in the uniform and tache

I wonder where that inspiration came from...

walkingshadow

The only thing that would make me watch a movie about 1916 is if they put orcs or transformers into it.

DavidRamsay99

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Tim Roth has got to be one of the baddies. Let Tim Spall do his Churchill routine

Rowan Atkinson, inspired casting. Would look dashing in the uniform and tache

Not sure about the cast selections for Connolly and Clarke. Shame Olly Reed is dead

Tim Roth might be a good choice because he can portray cold bloodedness very well however he is a little on the short side

What on earth does Churchill have to do with 1916? At the time he was a Lt. Colonel commanding Scottish troops in France after he had resigned from the Admiralty after the Gallipoli disaster.

Rowan Atkinson looks rather like Maxwell in a picture that shows the general wearing his cap and tunic with binoculars around his neck.

Connolly was a rather short plump middle aged man with ruddy cheeks. Put a bushy mustache on Russell Crowe and he would be perfect. I presume he can do a Scots accent so he would be a good fit.

Gabriel Byrne has that old wizen look and has sticky out ears and with a pair of owl like glasses and a bushy mustache on him and he's a ringer for Thomas Clarke.

Lt J.R. Bell

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

Tim Roth might be a good choice because he can portray cold bloodedness very well however he is a little on the short side

What on earth does Churchill have to do with 1916? At the time he was a Lt. Colonel commanding Scottish troops in France after he had resigned from the Admiralty after the Gallipoli disaster.

Rowan Atkinson looks rather like Maxwell in a picture that shows the general wearing his cap and tunic with binoculars around his neck.

Connolly was a rather short plump middle aged man with ruddy cheeks. Put a bushy mustache on Russell Crowe and he would be perfect. I presume he can do a Scots accent so he would be a good fit.

Gabriel Byrne has that old wizen look and has sticky out ears and with a pair of owl like glasses and a bushy mustache on him and he's a ringer for Thomas Clarke.

Churchill could do a cameo in the War trenches of France, cursing the Irish while he learns of revolution in Dublin. His father Randolph spent alot of his political career and capital on fighting Home Rule and being friends with Unionists. Churchill himself had a better understanding of Ireland than most in Westminster. The clip could cover the views of "Irish men" hearing the news from afar. Reaction in India and Connacht mutiny would be clever - don't hate me because I am a genius!!! You got owned and you know you did

Tim Roth being short? Never stopped Tom Cruise. Doubt Collins was a as tall as Liam Nelson

Accents and Crowe do not fit. Perhaps ask George Galloway to play Connolly

Byrne couldn't pull that Northern accent for Clark.

Duggy747

1916 2:
Ressurection

This time it's personal!

DavidRamsay99

There would have to be comic relief from the earnest heroism.
According to Ernie O'Malley the denizens of the slums wearing rings on every finger with just their joints showing, wearing silk dresses and furs were lying on the pavements drunk on wine and spirits after looting the shops of Sackville Street while urchins with stolen cap guns fought imitation street battles and men in football jerseys and top hats played golf.
Then the lancers arrived and charged the GPO with sabres drawn only to be shot out of the saddles by a blaze of shotguns and Martini Henrys and Howth Mausers before street kids raided their bodies for revolvers and carbines that were handed over the rebels. One of the rebels firing at the lancers accidentally shot another rebel dead across the street.
The machine gun shooting up St. Stephen's Green from the Shelbourne Hotel paused so the groundskeeper could feed the ducks.
A British soldier captured by the gun totting middle class ladies from Countess Markiewicz's command while talking a stroll with his girl was held in the summer house where he was fed tea and cakes and sandwiches and was almost shot when the Countess caught him and one of the rebel girls in a passionate embrace.
When the British closed on Sackville Street from the direction of D'Olier Street and Westmoreland Street, the British Army and rebels traded bullets across Sackville Bridge and the roof tops across the river. In the middle of this pitched battle drunken men staggered home from the pubs through a hail of lead.

KingBrian2

The Corinthian wrote: »

Probably because the whole thing, apart from the rather romantic last stand in the GPO, was an embarrassing clusterfück.

The British forces were largely caught with their pants down, yet the rebel forces failed to take (a lightly guarded) Dublin castle, either Amiens Street (Connolly) or Kingsbridge (Heuston) stations or either Dublin or Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) ports. Additionally, it had little support even in Dublin (let alone the rest of the country) and was treated with scorn by much of the population, as was later depicted in Seán O'Casey's "the Plough and the Stars".

It's only success can be attributed to British mishandling of the aftermath, that alienated public opinion.

The rising itself was a military disaster, who's only redeeming feature was ultimately the final battle at the GPO, which makes for a good scene in a movie (such as Michael Collins), but is insufficient for a whole movie. Were one to do a movie about the actual, historical rising, it would likely upset a lot of people who would rather not know what an unpopular disaster it really was.

My god people, nobody even mentions Silken Thomas who also organised a rebellion in the 1530's. A major historical figure behind a key event in the city of Dublin's life story.

c_man

"It would make a sh!te movie cos I don't agree with their politics..."
"People would be upset that it was actually a military screw-up," classic and utterly predictable boards. Meanwhile for the rest of us who have knowledge of the event and a bit of imagination, there are a few shows/films definitely worth checking out. As said TG4 did a very good series. I seem to recall some RTE mini-drama taking in 1916 up to the Civil War? It was made in the past ten years... any ideas?

Lt J.R. Bell

c_man wrote: »

"It would make a sh!te movie cos I don't agree with their politics..."
"People would be upset that it was actually a military screw-up," classic and utterly predictable boards. Meanwhile for the rest of us who have knowledge of the event and a bit of imagination, there are a few shows/films definitely worth checking out. As said TG4 did a very good series. I seem to recall some RTE mini-drama taking in 1916 up to the Civil War? It was made in the past ten years... any ideas?

Rebel Heart?

Loosely based on Earnie O'Malley. Get it on YouTube. Covers everything 1916,Tan War and Civil War.

Tg4 stuff is excellent

BuilderPlumber

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There have been a number of decent documentaries on the period done by TnaG 4

While it was politically a success in the long term, it achieved it's aim (ie reawakening Republician attitudes) it was hardly a glaring success militarily. No one "celebrates" 1798 either

Any attempt to do a film would be utterly ****e. Unionists, being Unionists will feel insulted and complain, and too many Gob****es like Myers and Former Republican Fan boy, Eoghan Harris, and amateur no it amateur know it all Fintin Otoole would be given more oxygen

There was no 1916 scene in Wind that Shakes the Barely

All these revisionists annoy the hell out of me. Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards, Ian O'Doherty, John Waters and all the rest of these types are sickening. A list of people where Harris is the best of them says a lot!

All 1916 media revisionists have many things in common. They are die hard right wingers. They support the Iraq war. They condemn Islam. They condemn dictators not supported by the West. They don't question the wrongs of the West, Israel, etc. They condemn Sinn Fein and the IRA but never mention loyalist terrorism at all.

Now, I am not a supporter of Sinn Fein, the IRA or any dictator (whether pro or anti West) but wrong is wrong on all sides. 1916 revisionalism is all about sweeping the carpet from under Sinn Fein I think and is all about taking aim at all of what Sinn Fein stands for by rightwingers. I think the attitudes of some of the above mentioned journalists are much worse than Sinn Fein. Just look at Ian O'Doherty's controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_O%27Doherty

Ironically, if this stuff was being written in an IRANIAN paper, there'd be a march for a bombing campaign on Tehran within hours! The fact that this racist fascist is writing very offensive stuff for an Irish newspaper is ignored. He calls people who opposed the disasterous Iraq war cowards, he mocks Steve Staunton's appearance, and worst of all his discriminatory views on gays and Romany gypsies are revolting. He advocates scrapping anti-discriminatory laws. Total fascist. Harris, Dudley Edwards and others are much milder than him admittedly but still form part of a hard right that would prove very dangerous if politicised. Eoghan Harris besides would rather torture us with The Big Bow Wow than write a movie about 1916!

I think free speech is like freedom to bear arms in the US. A certain responsibility comes with it. Ian O'Doherty and others like him are the result of a too free press. 1916 was a major event for Ireland and while we can debate its merits or demerits (like all such events, there were both good and bad elements) but one thing I don't buy into is any revisionist attitudes put forward by the affore mentioned fascists who are not worthy of being taken seriously.

ricero

Gerry Adams won't give up the filming rights thats why.

Lt J.R. Bell

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

All these revisionists annoy the hell out of me. Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards, Ian O'Doherty, John Waters and all the rest of these types are sickening. A list of people where Harris is the best of them says a lot!

All 1916 media revisionists have many things in common. They are die hard right wingers. They support the Iraq war. They condemn Islam. They condemn dictators not supported by the West. They don't question the wrongs of the West, Israel, etc. They condemn Sinn Fein and the IRA but never mention loyalist terrorism at all.

Now, I am not a supporter of Sinn Fein, the IRA or any dictator (whether pro or anti West) but wrong is wrong on all sides. 1916 revisionalism is all about sweeping the carpet from under Sinn Fein I think and is all about taking aim at all of what Sinn Fein stands for by rightwingers. I think the attitudes of some of the above mentioned journalists are much worse than Sinn Fein. Just look at Ian O'Doherty's controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_O%27Doherty

Ironically, if this stuff was being written in an IRANIAN paper, there'd be a march for a bombing campaign on Tehran within hours! The fact that this racist fascist is writing very offensive stuff for an Irish newspaper is ignored. He calls people who opposed the disasterous Iraq war cowards, he mocks Steve Staunton's appearance, and worst of all his discriminatory views on gays and Romany gypsies are revolting. He advocates scrapping anti-discriminatory laws. Total fascist. Harris, Dudley Edwards and others are much milder than him admittedly but still form part of a hard right that would prove very dangerous if politicised. Eoghan Harris besides would rather torture us with The Big Bow Wow than write a movie about 1916!

I think free speech is like freedom to bear arms in the US. A certain responsibility comes with it. Ian O'Doherty and others like him are the result of a too free press. 1916 was a major event for Ireland and while we can debate its merits or demerits (like all such events, there were both good and bad elements) but one thing I don't buy into is any revisionist attitudes put forward by the affore mentioned fascists who are not worthy of being taken seriously.

Whatever about Harris, Ian O'Doherty is not in the same league. He is a know it all but know nothing.Harris is dangerous because he is actually intelligent

. At least we are fully aware of where Kevin Myarse stands (hilarious he didn't get his invite when HRM The Queen came to town) Harris? Ah sure he was a stickie, he has zero credibility. Dudely Edwards, again, you know where you stand with her and why.She will even go off on a rant before even watching the film and ignore the facts that events shown in a film actually did happen (ie Army raiding villages and towns, destruction of property as a reprisal)


What their attitudes towards other events is kinda irrelevant.

Badly Drunk Boy

mikemac1 wrote: »

Young Indiana Jones fought in 1916 alongside Sean Lemass.

I saw it on TV so it's true!

And the bould Indy tried to do the bould thing with the bould Maggie Lemass.



(Did you know that Seán Lemass shot his 22 month old brother to death in January 1916?)

Lt J.R. Bell

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

And the bould Indy tried to do the bould thing with the bould Maggie Lemass.



(Did you know that Seán Lemass shot his 22 month old brother to death in January 1916?)

Don't remember that sceNE about brother shooting. Rather insensitive considering what really happened to Noel Lemass. I remember Liam Lynch playing Sean O'Casey (the writer) how true he was

Sure Sean was only 16 at the time of the Rising (not disputing he was there, he was)

BuilderPlumber

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Whatever about Harris, Ian O'Doherty is not in the same league. He is a know it all but know nothing.Harris is dangerous because he is actually intelligent

. At least we are fully aware of where Kevin Myarse stands (hilarious he didn't get his invite when HRM The Queen came to town) Harris? Ah sure he was a stickie, he has zero credibility. Dudely Edwards, again, you know where you stand with her and why.She will even go off on a rant before even watching the film and ignore the facts that events shown in a film actually did happen (ie Army raiding villages and towns, destruction of property as a reprisal)


What their attitudes towards other events is kinda irrelevant.

Name any ideology in recent Irish politics and you can bet that Harris was part of it for a time!! Yes, he was a man both a Unionist and an IRA member, or more profoundly managed to be both a Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporter!

Yes, he is also a lot more intelligent than a lot of the others of his ilk. And harder to figure out. Sometimes, I feel he is trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records as the follower of the most diverse causes! His support for diverse causes down the years are very much tied into those who paid him, ranging from David Trimble to Bertie Ahern to once favoured Iraqi post Saddam leader Ahmed Chalabi. In other words, a man who works for anyone no matter the cause. I think he being the co-creator of the RTE classic The Big Bow Wow confirms this!

BlitzKrieg

Tordelback wrote: »

The answer to 'why no big movie' is pretty obvious: the vital US market would never stomach an even vaguely accurate movie about the Rising - even the fantasy-tinted version of the longer story in Michael Collins with Julia Roberts singing her brogue out and Alan Rickman sobbing behind the turf stack didn't make much of dent ($27M Worldwide on a $28M budget is a bloody disaster).

What makes 1916 so interesting is the complexity of those involved, their diverse motivations (would anyone have believed Connolly and Pearse would fight and die on the same side... really?), the (wonderfully and typically Irish) reaction of the populace, the moral questions of treason in wartime and undemocratic uprising, the vastly greater numbers of Irishmen that fought and died in WWI, the disastrous misjudgements by first the Volunteers and then the British... and of course how all that shaped everything that followed, for good or ill.

What it definitely is not, and shouldn't be, is an easily marketed story of heroism. It's a defining political event, it's got 'splosions and girls with guns, it deftly catches the romance of Cuchulainn's death, but a popular entertainment for a wider audience? Well, maybe, but it'd be the kind of gamble studios don't often take.

Kind of hits the nail on the head.

Other issues to consider is the tendency in films to not directly do the event but to try and frame it through a more traditional story (consider Titanic and pompei with the love story, saving private ryan doing normandy but using the finding private ryan as the framing device etc etc, films rarely directly tell the event, especially not today, a few did (A bridge too far, the longest day) but if they were to do a 1916 film, they'd want a framing device of sort and that is a reason why most films (and we are talking specifically films) tend to use 1916 as a primer and not as a central point, its a difficult series of events for structuring just around 1916 itself and put some character framing device in without coming across as either pandering or potentially putting off certain markets

a better approach might be to look at it as more of a bio pic towards one of the key contributers to the rising, which gives a framing device and opens up a lot of room in the lead up to the rising. It would mean the Rising wouldnt be the focus, but the end point of the film, but it would make a better narrative overall structurally.

problem there is who would you pick and convince funding to support who you pick.

Personally I'd like to follow James Connolly as narrative wise its more rich with conflict and he stands as the more unique perspective in the lead up to the events Also he's outside the IRB which is genuinely a difficult entity to deal with in film, but he might not go down well with some audiences.

I wouldnt find Pearse interesting as a lead, he's interesting from a historians perspective and would be a great supporting character but as the focus its a difficult tightrope of how to portray him

Lt J.R. Bell

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Name any ideology in recent Irish politics and you can bet that Harris was part of it for a time!! Yes, he was a man both a Unionist and an IRA member, or more profoundly managed to be both a Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporter!

Yes, he is also a lot more intelligent than a lot of the others of his ilk. And harder to figure out. Sometimes, I feel he is trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records as the follower of the most diverse causes! His support for diverse causes down the years are very much tied into those who paid him, ranging from David Trimble to Bertie Ahern to once favoured Iraqi post Saddam leader Ahmed Chalabi. In other words, a man who works for anyone no matter the cause. I think he being the co-creator of the RTE classic The Big Bow Wow confirms this!

Ah, sure, he still doesn't have anything on Conor Cruise O'Brien; though Cruiser was never a Republican.

Ah yeah, Harris was up to his neck with Stickie mantra. You get the sense that he changes theories solely on the basis of some personal vendetta that eventually, every club he is associated with becomes a "No Eoghan Harris" Club.

Harder to figure out, hence, he is dangerous.

His funny though, I never really realised that he was an exert on the Arts (even though he had a major job in RTE) Away from politics, when he talks about films, books , plays, he is brilliant (remember him on Sean Moncrieff show)

Still, like Myarse, he has provoked thinking, often, making people become more supportive of their stances that they already held

One thing that infuriates me, was his support for the late Peter Hart, remember him?. The "historian" that some how magically interviewed a participant of the Kilmichael attack , even though he was dead years before Hart came to Ireland. Media Ryan and many others exposed that chancer. Awful embarrassing stuff.

The Coolarcresse killings, far enough, that story had to be told, if true .Dog on the street knows that there were elements of revenge killings on Protestants during the end of the Tan War, whether they aided the British or not.

whisky_galore

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The Coolarcresse killings, far enough, that story had to be told, if true .Dog on the street knows that there were elements of revenge killings on Protestants during the end of the Tan War, whether they aided the British or not.

Think the old IRA were placed on pedestals to be hero-worshipped for far too long, conveniently ignoring murkier activites.
PH did put his foot in it, big time, but the old spiel from our school days held that the boys of the old brigade were the all round good guys, like the 'white hats' in a cowboy movie. Questioning and re-examining events (with the research and proper evidence to back it up) shouldn't be a bad thing.