2016 RTE Drama: Rebellion - no spoilers please (mod warning in post #1)

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

'We' are also too quick to automatically think it's some form of begrudgery from anyone who criticises anything Irish. Any criticism of such seems to be always followed by it. It's an easy antidote to anything you don't agree with.

It generally is begrudgery tough as you may find to admit. Irish production's are overly scrutinised by people on a whole new level to any other

Duggie2012

The guy that plays Stephen isn't right for that role either IMO. Hasn't the presence. Wrong casting there.

TCDStudent1

Duggie2012 wrote: »

The guy that plays Stephen isn't right for that role either IMO. Hasn't the presence. Wrong casting there.

I agree. Also, I think the woman who plays peg is perfectly cast.

goose2005

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

I think you are being a little harsh on Redmond. I don't think he encouraged anyone to die. Fight would be more accurate.

So for some reason killing a few hundred British = evil, but killing tens of thousands of Germans and Turks and Austrians with whom ireland had no quarrel was ok

not yet

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

In fairness the majority or the Irish population considered themselves British until the executions changed public opinion,

Sweet mother of Jesus..

josephryan1989

LordSutch wrote: »

Padraig Pearse's St Enda's bomb factory, the shooting dead of the unarmed policeman, the menacing shots fired at the fella with the beer barrel (who shouts back at them) "I hope the Brits kill all of ya", the woman shot at the barracade by the Rebels, the general threat & menace made to anyone who got in their way, the cold blooded belief that it was their will that was going to be carried out, no matter what. All in the knowledge that they would probably all die anyway! They (the rebels) don't come out in a very good light in the Drama.

The Irish Volunteers could only arm in secret while the UVF threatened open war against Home Rule and openly imported arms.

The looters deserved to be shot.

The policeman was guarding Dublin Castle the centre of British tyranny in Ireland.

The British imposed their will on Ireland for hundreds of years.

The rebels fought for freedom and democracy denied to the people of Ireland.

josephryan1989

Lt Dan wrote: »

The trials turned out to be legal, even by British legal standards, whether civil or court martial law.

London interceded because surprisingly, public opinion in London was not too happy about the shootings. There was still a war on in Europe and knowing their history of Ireland having a pageant for martyrs it was prudent to do so.

There wasn't any real option but to execute the ringleaders. RTE did a good documentary on General Lowe. 1916: The Man Who Lost Ireland. Politicians, as usual wanted their bread buttered both ways; be tough but not go over the top.

The military stuff is accurate.

The only "massacre" by British forces recorded were weeks before on Bachelor's Walk, so that is a stretch

There was a massacre of civilians at North King Street by British soldiers.

josephryan1989

Lt Dan wrote: »

Yes, but the Rebels did not introduce Martial law . Granted , civilians were shot for attacking rebels (many of whom could have been lynched if released from Kilmainham and Richmond) but hardly a good way to get the public on yourside

The rebels set up a Provisional Government which gave them the authority to stop looters.

mloc123

Haven't watched this but saw a couple of clips... they have not done much to disguise the fact this was filmed in 2015...

josephryan1989

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

I think you are being a little harsh on Redmond. I don't think he encouraged anyone to die. Fight would be more accurate. And it was precisely to achieve Irish 'freedom' through home rule that he did so, demonstrating to the unionists that Ireland could be United in a common goal. And there is evidence to show loyalist views did soften with strong bonds of solidarity forming in units like the 36th ulster fighting alongside southern fusilier regiments. The 1916 rebellion had the opposite effect and by 1918/19 everything had changed utterly and partition was inevitable such was the level of distrust festering in Ulster, both against an Irish parliament and of Westminster itself that they'd be sold out.

Redmond's actions might have been viewed very differently if events and opinion in the south hadn't overtaken the course. He might well have been revered today as the founder of a 32 county Free State.

Redmond openly preached blood sacrifice in the trenches in return for Home Rule post war.

The UVF was allowed to remain intact when it became the Ulster Division while the Irish Volunteers were broken up and Irish soldiers were led by Anglo Irish Protestants and British officers.

The Unionists and Tories were delighted so many Irish died so they could kill Home Rule for good after the Great War was over.

Redmond is rightly despised to this day.

LordSutch

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Redmond is rightly despised to this day.

John Redmond?

Glossed over and not given the credit he deserved maybe, but 'despised'. Despised by who?

He wanted Home Rule for Ireland, (instead of being ruled from London). An early form of devolved Government if you will. I wonder will they mention him in the drama next Sunday?

not yet

Anyone else think that Gleesons Character will face the firing squad with his brother in it ala wind that shakes the barley...

While I'm at it.. the production values and acting in the Wind that shakes the barely were miles ahead of Rebellion..

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

John Redmond?

Glossed over and not given the credit he deserved maybe, but 'despised'. Despised by who?

He wanted Home Rule for Ireland, (instead of being ruled from London). An early form of devolved Government if you will. I wonder will they mention him in the drama next Sunday?

Footnoted himself in fairness.

Bellerstring

Robert Kee documentary from 1980 here for anyone who is interested.

https://youtu.be/oCkxwROWYAQ

P. Breathnach

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The rebels set up a Provisional Government which gave them the authority to stop looters.

So they had authority because they said that they had authority?

Strazdas

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So they had authority because they said that they had authority?

Pretty much it would appear. In the proclamation read out by Pearse, he announced they had set up a Provisional Government which would "administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic". By any stretch of the imagination though, this was an illegal action and they did not have any legal authority to shoot dead civilians on the streets of Dublin.

wp_rathead

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Redmond openly preached blood sacrifice in the trenches in return for Home Rule post war.

The UVF was allowed to remain intact when it became the Ulster Division while the Irish Volunteers were broken up and Irish soldiers were led by Anglo Irish Protestants and British officers.

The Unionists and Tories were delighted so many Irish died so they could kill Home Rule for good after the Great War was over.

Redmond is rightly despised to this day.

ah c'mon who the feck despises Redmond
i know he wasn't republican enough for some - while he wanted an All-Ireland autonomy he also wanted Ireland to remain in the Commonwealth afaik

josephryan1989

not yet wrote: »

Anyone else think that Gleesons Character will face the firing squad with his brother in it ala wind that shakes the barley...

While I'm at it.. the production values and acting in the Wind that shakes the barely were miles ahead of Rebellion..

The leaders of the rebellion were shot. Not nobodys like Jimmy.

josephryan1989

wp_rathead wrote: »

ah c'mon who the feck despises Redmond
i know he wasn't republican enough for some - while he wanted an All-Ireland autonomy he also wanted Ireland to remain in the Commonwealth afaik

The Irish people.
They overwhelmingly backed SF and rejected the IPP in the 1918 election.

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

Pretty much it would appear. In the proclamation read out by Pearse, he announced they had set up a Provisional Government which would "administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic". By any stretch of the imagination though, this was an illegal action and they did not have any legal authority to shoot dead civilians on the streets of Dublin.

The British had no right to rule Ireland.

Strazdas

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The British had no right to rule Ireland.

They had in 1916 seeing as the state of Britain and Ireland was a parliamentary democracy and there were free elections. It's not as if Britain had invaded and occupied Ireland six months previously.

TCDStudent1

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The Irish people.
They overwhelmingly backed SF and rejected the IPP in the 1918 election.

Come on - Redmond wasn't even alive for that election! To use it as proof he was despised is very unfair and misleading.

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

They had in 1916 seeing as the state of Britain and Ireland was a parliamentary democracy and there were free elections. It's not as if Britain had invaded and occupied Ireland six months previously.

There were no free elections. The Commons was designed to gerrymander the Irish MPs and drown them out after our own parliament was disposed of in 1800. The demands for the penal laws to be repealed and for Catholics to be emancipated were only won through the threat of force. The Proestant Church forced Catholics to pay tithes until the 1860s. The British helped engineer famine and mass emigration for decades. The country was ruled for the benefit of a tiny Pro-British elite. When the Irish people voted for a Republic in 1918 the British sent the Tans.

The Irish people were serfs and we had enough of it. The men and women of 1916 fought back and gave the country and example to follow and today we are a free republic.

One day partition will end too and we will have a united country. Expect the British to continue to meddle and West Brits to continue to tug the forelock to the Monarchy.

Strazdas

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There were no free elections. The Commons was designed to gerrymander the Irish MPs and drown them out after our own parliament was disposed of in 1800. The demands for the penal laws to be repealed and for Catholics to be emancipated were only won through the threat of force. The Proestant Church forced Catholics to pay tithes until the 1860s. The British helped engineer famine and mass emigration for decades. The country was ruled for the benefit of a tiny Pro-British elite. When the Irish people voted for a Republic in 1918 the British sent the Tans.

The Irish people were serfs and we had enough of it. The men and women of 1916 fought back and gave the country and example to follow and today we are a free republic.

One day partition will end too and we will have a united country. Expect the British to continue to meddle and West Brits to continue to tug the forelock to the Monarchy.

You could say that the people of Scotland and Wales were "serfs" under "British rule" as well then, correct? Their status within the UK was exactly as that of Ireland in early 1916.

KingBrian2

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Redmond openly preached blood sacrifice in the trenches in return for Home Rule post war.

The UVF was allowed to remain intact when it became the Ulster Division while the Irish Volunteers were broken up and Irish soldiers were led by Anglo Irish Protestants and British officers.

The Unionists and Tories were delighted so many Irish died so they could kill Home Rule for good after the Great War was over.

Redmond is rightly despised to this day.

Redmond was not despised but he was seriously misguided in remaining so loyal to the British establishment. He spoke out against the executions and the whole handling of the crisis. He was forced to condemn the Revolutionaries as a British MP. I would not have expected any less.

It was more his refusal to accept the logical position that Britain were not going to negotiate with Ireland on an equal footing. Redmond was no fanatic or grand reformer evidence of this is the corrupt nature of the IPP which was already seen as unrepresentative of Irish people.

The Irish Revolutionaries did not have popular support as has been mentioned, the records show this but neither did the IPP and Redmond chose instead to continue to appease the Brits instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with Arthur Griffith, Patrick Pearse and Francis Sheehy-Sheffington.

Strazdas

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Redmond was not despised but he was seriously misguided in remaining so loyal to the British establishment. He spoke out against the executions and the whole handling of the crisis. He was forced to condemn the Revolutionaries as a British MP. I would not have expected any less.

It was more his refusal to accept the logical position that Britain were not going to negotiate with Ireland on an equal footing. Redmond was no fanatic or grand reformer evidence of this is the corrupt nature of the IPP which was already seen as unrepresentative of Irish people.

The Irish Revolutionaries did not have popular support as has been mentioned, the records show this but neither did the IPP and Redmond chose instead to continue to appease the Brits instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with Arthur Griffith, Patrick Pearse and Francis Sheehy-Sheffington.

Redmond gambled by assuming WW1 would be a very short infantry style war, probably over by Christmas 2014 and with all the Irish Volunteers home by then. It's easy for us to be wise with hindsight but WW1 definitely changed everything and altered the course of Irish history.

TCDStudent1

In the programme, people are saying 'the shinners are rebelling' etc. I always read that it was a mistake by Britain referring it to as the Sinn Fein rebellion. Did dubliners actually see it as a Sinn Fein rebellion while it was happening??

Strazdas

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

In the programme, people are saying 'the shinners are rebelling' etc. I always read that it was a mistake by Britain referring it to as the Sinn Fein rebellion. Did dubliners actually see it as a Sinn Fein rebellion while it was happening??

Apparently the Irish media also thought it had been a "Sinn Fein rebellion" even though the party played no part in the Rising.

gormdubhgorm

barney 20v wrote: »

A shocking waste of 6 million euro - downton with rifles and jobs for the boys and girls from nidgeville -

The story told from a west Brit perspective- produced by a west Brit organisation so no shocks for me on that count .

Plastic acting - pointless story lines - so much they had to use for inspiration/ real stories ,instead we get the bride to be with the one expression .

I'm not a republican but my god this is awful rubbish - hard to fathom it cost €1.2 million per episode ......

Agreed with the above in bold this I watched two episodes and will not be able to stick a third. Despite this the women who acts as May has put in decent performances even if there are obvious shortcomings with the series.
It's main selling point seems to be that it focuses on women. Which is fair enough but if it is focused on women at least make the women interesting and not some badly acted one dimensional characters out of a novel. The West Brit bit is taken for granted though!

KingBrian2

Strazdas wrote: »

Apparently the Irish media also thought it had been a "Sinn Fein rebellion" even though the party played no part in the Rising.

Well that is not entirely true they arrested Arthur Griffith and other Sinn Fein members. The usual suspects were rounded up for sympathies to the cause and espousing a Republican Declaration. Lets be reasonable here the party was skirting acceptability. They did not care that they were seen as traitors they openly wore it as a badge of identity.

gormdubhgorm

Lt Dan wrote: »

Did they ? So much so that they been fighting for their own Parliament since the days of Issaac Butt (granted, that movement never sought for complete Independence)

There is a reason why Dublin were known as Jackeens. Not every county was so passionately in love or identified themselves as British

Yes they wanted home rule but they still wanted to be British citizens...much like the Scottish in the recent referendum "Better together etc.

Your getting Home Rule v Republic mixed up. The republic was only founded in 1948.
Prior to 1916 the majority of the Irish people wanted a form of self-governance but within the United Kingdom.

The country people or (culchies if you prefer) tried to identify with the British through language. Irish was viewed as the language of the poor and English was for the upwardly mobile. It was not just "the pale" that identified as British. You are viewing history with modern eyes. Why do you think the Irish language is relegated behind English in today's Ireland?

JeffKenna

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There were no free elections. The Commons was designed to gerrymander the Irish MPs and drown them out after our own parliament was disposed of in 1800. The demands for the penal laws to be repealed and for Catholics to be emancipated were only won through the threat of force. The Proestant Church forced Catholics to pay tithes until the 1860s. The British helped engineer famine and mass emigration for decades. The country was ruled for the benefit of a tiny Pro-British elite. When the Irish people voted for a Republic in 1918 the British sent the Tans.

The Irish people were serfs and we had enough of it. The men and women of 1916 fought back and gave the country and example to follow and today we are a free republic.

One day partition will end too and we will have a united country. Expect the British to continue to meddle and West Brits to continue to tug the forelock to the Monarchy.

With you all the way until your last paragraph.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It's main selling point seems to be that it focuses on women. Which is fair enough but if it is focused on women at least make the women interesting and not some badly acted one dimensional characters out of a novel. The West Brit bit is taken for granted though!

I've been thinking about it today and I am inclined to agree with this, in part. I was all for them not focusing on the known names and giving us a look at it from a new perspective. I was also quite pleased to see that 3 of the main characters were going to be women. So I am slightly disappointed to see that we basically had one scene of them all together, very briefly, then two one on one scenes and the rest of it they've been separated and all their scenes have been with men.
Frances is probably the only one that's been well written. We've seen her dedication to the cause, the respect the younger boys have for her, the disappointment of PP's attitude towards her and women in general and then the almost disillusionment with it all when she went out onto the streets.

Mae's storyline has been entirely about her boyfriend and Elizabeth has had about 3 lines of dialogue over the two episodes.

Lt Dan

josephryan1989 wrote: »

He's acting as Robert Barton. He fought against the rebels but later joined Sinn Fein and was part of the Treaty negotiations in 1921.

Funny enough, the actor has the chin, a bit. Shame about the hair colour

Barton also voted no against the Treaty and sided with De Valera and chums during the Civil War.

Like Erskine Childers, a very strange man.

iguana

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Despite this the women who acts as May has put in decent performances even if there are obvious shortcomings with the series.

Unlike the woman who plays Peig who is singularly the worst actor I have ever seen in anything. I'm hoping against hope that her husband, brother-in-law and son all make it out alive just so we can be spared her acting out grief.

Lt Dan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The Bachelor's Walk massacre (a "big" word for the killing of 3 people) was a good few weeks previously: it happened in July 1914.

There was a more serious event in the context of the 1916 Rising. It happened at North King Street, and involved 15 civilian deaths.

Boom major typo on the Bachelor's Walk date.

Francis Sheffington Sheehy's murder was also a big issue. Though in that case the culprit genuinely had lost the plot

6 were killed at Portbello area too.

Wonder will RTE show that? Doubt it. The government probably reminded RTÉ of the apparent need for this period to be inclusive

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I've been thinking about it today and I am inclined to agree with this, in part. I was all for them not focusing on the known names and giving us a look at it from a new perspective. I was also quite pleased to see that 3 of the main characters were going to be women. So I am slightly disappointed to see that we basically had one scene of them all together, very briefly, then two one on one scenes and the rest of it they've been separated and all their scenes have been with men.
Frances is probably the only one that's been well written. We've seen her dedication to the cause, the respect the younger boys have for her, the disappointment of PP's attitude towards her and women in general and then the almost disillusionment with it all when she went out onto the streets.

Mae's storyline has been entirely about her boyfriend and Elizabeth has had about 3 lines of dialogue over the two episodes.

2016's version of the Wimmen's movement, Una Mullaly of the Irish Times won't be agreeing with ye.

May's story is entirely pointless. The sex scene was unnecessary, dare I say, "would someone think of the children" who might have wanted to watch this. Nice eye candy though.

Elizabeth, for such a "strong independent" woman, does not really come out as such

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

You could say that the people of Scotland and Wales were "serfs" under "British rule" as well then, correct? Their status within the UK was exactly as that of Ireland in early 1916.

The people of the UK are ruled by an unelected monarch and her aristocratic family and extended family.

Mal-Adjusted

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The people of the UK are ruled by an unelected monarch and her aristocratic family and extended family.

They're not really.

josephryan1989

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Come on - Redmond wasn't even alive for that election! To use it as proof he was despised is very unfair and misleading.

Redmond was the Bertie of his day.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The people of the UK are ruled by an unelected monarch and her aristocratic family and extended family.

Sure. The same way we're ruled by Michael D.

TCDStudent1

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Redmond was the Bertie of his day.

Right, thanks for that enlightened argument!

josephryan1989

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

In the programme, people are saying 'the shinners are rebelling' etc. I always read that it was a mistake by Britain referring it to as the Sinn Fein rebellion. Did dubliners actually see it as a Sinn Fein rebellion while it was happening??

A group of cavalry guarding an ammunition convoy along the quays marched past Liberty Hall and O'Connell Bridge where the rebels held their fire while the HQ set up and were warned not to open fire. On Bachelor's WalK a passer by said that the Sinn Feiners were up ahead. When they past the Four Courts they were ambushed by the rebels.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

Elizabeth, for such a "strong independent" woman, does not really come out as such

The problem a lot of male writers have when writing women is that they think making them mouthy or having them enjoy sex and not mind talking about it is what a "strong" woman is. They basically write a man's part and then change the name to Mary, tack on a line or two about sisterhood and think that's grand. Alternatively have her turn down the socially accepted choice for husband and stick her onto some other man as soon as possible.

Writing a "strong character" for a female role is an entirely different thing, one far too many people fail to realise or deliver.

The Rape of Lucretia

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I've been thinking about it today and I am inclined to agree with this, in part. I was all for them not focusing on the known names and giving us a look at it from a new perspective. I was also quite pleased to see that 3 of the main characters were going to be women. So I am slightly disappointed to see that we basically had one scene of them all together, very briefly, then two one on one scenes and the rest of it they've been separated and all their scenes have been with men.
Frances is probably the only one that's been well written. We've seen her dedication to the cause, the respect the younger boys have for her, the disappointment of PP's attitude towards her and women in general and then the almost disillusionment with it all when she went out onto the streets.

Mae's storyline has been entirely about her boyfriend and Elizabeth has had about 3 lines of dialogue over the two episodes.

Sort of agree. Elizabeth looks like she was last in line when the writer hit a lines limit.

I would think the focus on the women is a good way to tell the story, away from the known names of the events, and even the men, in the majority caught up in the fighting.

To tie them together better, the drama would have been better had one of the 3 friends been openly against they rebellion; anti-violence, pro union, with a 'what the hell are you crazies playing at' attitude towards the other two. This would have given a focus and raison d'etre for the trio, personal tensions relating to the events rather than the external soapy ones, and better represented the attitude of the majority of the day unfiltered by the decades of mythology and propaganda that followed independence. Plenty of scope for one of them to die tragically as a result of their own little triangle of conflict.

Lt Dan

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yes they wanted home rule but they still wanted to be British citizens...much like the Scottish in the recent referendum "Better together etc.

Your getting Home Rule v Republic mixed up. The republic was only founded in 1948.
Prior to 1916 the majority of the Irish people wanted a form of self-governance but within the United Kingdom.

The country people or (culchies if you prefer) tried to identify with the British through language. Irish was viewed as the language of the poor and English was for the upwardly mobile. It was not just "the pale" that identified as British. You are viewing history with modern eyes. Why do you think the Irish language is relegated behind English in today's Ireland?

I am getting nothing mixed up and I most certainly do not need a reminder of legal and historical facts about this country, particularly what as contained the the Home Rule Bills, Treaty, Constitution and Republic of Ireland Act ! The fact that I stated

"So much so that they been fighting for their own Parliament since the days of Issaac Butt (granted, that movement never sought for complete Independence)"

makes it jolly well clear that I never implied or expressed a notion that the IPP wanted a complete Independent Country, never mind a Republic ; hey an Independent Country could appoint a makey uppey Monarchy for all they wanted, after all, we had already given Parnell notions

Scotland of 2014 is not comparable to Ireland 1914.

For a start, Scotland in 2014 already had a devolved government with the remaining issues still with Westminster (and Scots still being Brits). The "recent referendum" by the way, was about............... Scotland LEAVING the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, led by SNP and opposed by London!!!! What on earth did you understand it to be?

That is Complete Separation, which does not necessarily mean a Republic, though that would be the modern thing to do. "Better Together" was the Slogan for those calling for Scotland to stay with the UK. There was no shiny new Home Rule like package available nor Dominion Status like Canada - though Cameron later promised Scotland to devolve to them more powers - still waiting


Turning back to Ireland , 1914, wanting your own Parliament as oppose to all going to Westminister under the one banner (United Kingdom of GB and Ireland) is hardly really wanting to stay together. But yes, as of 1914 it would still be part of the Britain The British tried to convince everyone that the call for Home Rule would lead to the destruction of the Kingdom - "United we stand, divided we fall" But, yes, for most part Redmond, and Parnell before him (and O'Connell before him) expressly declared that he had no intention to break away from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Since it was a shared Kingdom , ie King Edward was King of Ireland and Britain, there is no certainty that Redmond would not later try and get some kind of Irish Citizenship that was still in conjunction with being British. Like a fancy badge

Who is to know what Dillon or Redmond or Davitt have might propose? After all , when Ireland got Dominion Status in 1921 (which is of course a lot different to what was on offer with Home Rule in 1914), the citizens of the South were now considered "Citizens of The Irish Free State" and had their own passports. Britain still saw them as British but that was conveniently ignored by the Dáil and pretty quickly too by 1936. Even the Act of Government of 1920 ,the improved version of the 1914 Bill and the conclusive evidence of Partition , had some changes in the Constitutional dynamic between Ireland and London)


"Country People" shall suffice. They did not try to identity with Britain by speaking English. They spoke English because it was a necessity!!!! People in Donegal use to travel over to Scotland to work as farm labourers. Country folk went to the Mainland and the USA to find work. You seem to ignore one big issue; they spoke English because the teaching of Irish was banned for a very long time! You are completely speculating thereIt is said Chairman Mao of China took inspiration from Britain's ability to dismantle Irish identity


The Gaelic Revival, alas mostly a Middle Class thing did a bit to revive the language. Even the Protestants got involved before that clown DM Moran opened his mouth and alienated them.

You genuinely think that the tenant farmers all of a sudden forgived and forget the absentee Landlords and current Big House ranchers with allegiances to Britain, or forget the fact that they were paying very high land annuities to London for their "generous" offering from the Land Acts?

You got a poll that shows that Irish people as a majority wanted to consider themselves as "British Citizens" as oppose to simply wanting their own citizenship, "Irish"? Don't recall any of them getting a say

As for this "majority", who are they? The majority of the Irish population had no right to vote in 1914! And, judging by the landed and middle classes (all of whom were Irish born and bred) attitude to the less well off during the Land War and Dublin Lock Out , they didn't really care for their views. Yes, those who were involved in the IPP and their supporters who could vote and the Roman Catholic Church did support being part of Britain and Home Rule.

Who were the vocal civilian protesters of 1916? IPP men (hey, they weren't women, not since the days of Ann Parnell) whose life work was at risk of going down the drain. Those who risked their life to serve Britain in the belief that they were serving Ireland.Women who feared that their separation money would be cut despite their husbands, sons, and daughters serving in Europe. Business people who prospered in the food , munition, shipping and textile industries, which were getting huge contracts from London to supply the mainland during the War. Garrison towns got great trade due to the money spent in the town by soldiers on leave. As for the rest of the population? At best , indifferent and just wanted to get on

Oh, by the way, a sizeable pocket of people in Kerry and Galway still spoke Irish as their first language back then.. Irish was still spoken in areas of the West and South West up to that point. Emmigration out of the country and movement to the big towns and cities in Ireland killed that off. How does speaking English some how undermine their Irishness?


You are right, it was not just Dublin. Parcels of Cork , like Bandon were pretty loyal to Britain.

Lt Dan

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Redmond was the Bertie of his day.

A little unfair. Redmond lost family in that war.... He died a broken man

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Sure. The same way we're ruled by Michael D.

Michael D was voted directly by the People. I assume that you were joking

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Sure. The same way we're ruled by Michael D.

Michael D was voted directly by the People. I assume that you were joking and were pointing out their respective powers or the lack thereof

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sort of agree. Elizabeth looks like she was last in line when the writer hit a lines limit.

I would think the focus on the women is a good way to tell the story, away from the known names of the events, and even the men, in the majority caught up in the fighting.

To tie them together better, the drama would have been better had one of the 3 friends been openly against they rebellion; anti-violence, pro union, with a 'what the hell are you crazies playing at' attitude towards the other two. This would have given a focus and raison d'etre for the trio, personal tensions relating to the events rather than the external soapy ones, and better represented the attitude of the majority of the day unfiltered by the decades of mythology and propaganda that followed independence. Plenty of scope for one of them to die tragically as a result of their own little triangle of conflict.

Exactly. I think one of the problems with something that's supposed to be character driven is you have to dedicate some time to establishing the characters and their relationships before throwing the drama at them. We know these three women are friends because they shared one scene together at the very start and that's it.
What I would have liked to have seen is more interaction between the characters in 1914. How did Elizabeth come to be a rebel sympathiser? Was it through Frances? Did she form her own opinions and that's how she came to be friends with Frances? If they're both so set in their beliefs how did they come to be friends with May who seems very set in her opposing opinions.
Even Jimmy and his brother could have been better established.

As it is I feel no real connection to any of them and the only question hanging over it all is who lives and who doesn't but I can't say I'm that bothered about any of them in that respect. I can't say for sure any of the characters are that bothered about any of it either because we only have the vaguest idea of what their relationships are to one another. Other than Frances and Jimmy's brother (Arthur?) I find everyone a bit wishy washy.

I don't mean to be one of those people who are writing it off completely or assuming because it's RTÉ then it must be rubbish. I just think they maybe over reached a bit with the scale of it all. Reducing the number of characters and giving the whole of the first episode, at least, over to establishing the characters/friendships before launching into Easter 1916 would have helped a lot. A couple of scenes where ethics/reasoning/motivation were discussed wouldn't have done any harm either.

Someone mentioned Generation War last week and I think that's a perfect example of how to do a character driven historically based drama. I can't remember how much time they spent establishing characters and relationships there but by the time the drama kicked off you were fully invested in everyone and understood their motives and actions.

1864, a Danish mini series about a pivotal time in Danish history was another recent example of how to get this kind of thing right.

Again, I'm not writing it off completely and will wait until it's over to pass judgement but I am a little bit disappointed at the moment.