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

KingBrian2

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.

Germany was not the enemy by 1916. Home Rule was 2 years expired so the time for fighting had commenced this time the face of the enemy had changed.

gormdubhgorm

wp_rathead wrote: »

rather enjoyed Rebellion - wish they cut out the stupid affair with the Irish girl going to stay in Dalkey with the wife - and don't understand the point of the Belfast woman suddenly turning up..

Thought they portrayed the madness of it well, the policeman getting shot was very well played out - some people who learned about the Rising through romantic rebel songs might be pissed but revolutions are bloody affairs and it is three dimensional people who are getting killed and not simply "the enemy"

The policeman bit was the highlight so far I am half way through. All this peripheral stuff with love triangles is annoying it detracts from the real action. Pearse telling yer wan to get into the kitchen made me laugh though, I must admit.

gormdubhgorm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Germany was not the enemy by 1916. Home Rule was 2 years expired so the time for fighting had commenced this time the face of the enemy had changed.

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

barney 20v

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 ......

Strazdas

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.

Also Redmond assumed like everyone else that the war would be over in a few months and with relatively few casualties. The idea that it would be a four year war with 17 million dead was unthinkable to people in August 1914.

I do think too we would probably have seen a north - south civil war, even without WW1. The Unionists were armed to the hilt and were going to resist Home Rule by force.

qweerty

I've just been scanning through the last few pages of comments and was surprised and impressed by the level of dissent from popular conceptions of Irish history. (Honourable exception being josephryan.) Then I realised it's basically three people having a conversation: probably not representative of national mood!

Lt Dan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Disappointing in the main.

There is a feeling that the rebels are being cynically humanised or sanitised by wrapping them in the soap opera of their personal lives.

A very questionable presentation of this handful of violent thugs and traitors who set Ireland on the road to partition, and part of it out of the first class carriage of the worlds countries that was the Empire, into 100 years peripheral insignificance. Add in the economic and religious backwardness, repeated incidences of its inability to govern itself responsibly, regular waves of exporting its population when unable to sustain them, and truly shameful refusal to behave as a civilised nation and play a positive role in the second world war, and the contrast with these characters portrayed is particularly jarring.
It would seem the characters in this drama are getting a very generous whitewash, without any of their crimes that have rippled down the decades being examined.
Early days, and we can hope is a deliberate policy, highlighting their crimes as their rebellion really gets underway. Will give the next episode a go in hope. Well acted.

Before others start whining about this getting too analytical , (just don't read it then) this poster should not be allowed to get away with that extraordinary rant, especially since he / she is trying to use facts

Explain how members of the Irish Citizens Army and the Irish Republican Brotherhood wing of the remaining Irish Volunteers who stayed in Ireland were "traitors"?

They never swore allegiance to the Crown and refused to acknowledge British Rule. They made their stance pretty clear as far back as 1915 examples being Pearse' speech at the graveside of O'Donovan O'Rossa. Dublin Castle were well aware of who they were. Many more would have shown up but for McNeill's counter command (McNeill was the grandfather of former Justice Minister Michael McDowell by the way)

There aim was to get complete separation from Britain and the leaders, some of whom were former Home Rule supporters, felt betrayed that Britain decided to delay in bringing a glorified talking shop (and that is all that it would have been , real power stayed in Westminster - read the bill of 1914) to Dublin; meanwhile Britain was on a crusade in Europe to save small nations and their rights to exist ie Belgium.

When General Maxwell Lowe came into Dublin that week, he imposed Martial Law on the Country. One only does that when they recognize that they have a war on their hands so references to "crimes" and murder towards enemy soldiers is balderdash. I don't believe the French or Americans sat around and toke a poll on the people's views (most of whom did not have a vote anyway!) when they sought to over throw their rulers.


If you spent a little more effort to actually watch the show you would see scenes were civilians were shot by the Rebels, needlessly. They would be classed as war crimes today.
On a side note, the Rising was not exclusive to Dublin. There were small scraps in Galway, Ashbourne and Wexford.

If you spent a little more effort to actually watch the show, or even read the observations of other contributors here, you would see that the men's attitude towards women is starling , despite all that talk of equality for all, especially Pearse's attitude towards yer waun.

If you spent a bit more time assessing actual facts; as in correspondences between the Unionists and Conservative Party and the Prime Minister, you would come to a quick and clear understanding that Partition was going to happen!!!

Redmond and Dillon were well aware of it and had to make public statements to dampen any rumours - a sure sign that there was smoke in that fire. Carson had a position in the war cabinet, Redmond refused to take his. The men who signed the Ulster Covenant were not joking and the Army in the Curragh basically supported them. London, who may not have cared much for Ireland would have been in no mood to force a region of Ireland , who fought gallantly in Europe to show their loyalty to Britain, to be "inflicted" by Home Rule or "Rome Rule" as they would have validly argued.

While the war years did bring an economic boom to Irish towns, especially those that were garrison towns, you are off your rocker if you actually think that Ireland as a whole, and in particular outside of Dublin was economically healthy. The agriculture schemes of 1890 were a disaster. Most farmers still didn't own their own land and were still struggling to pay land annuities.

Dublin had some of the worst slums in Europe, and that is saying something considering one only needs to look at Scotland and North of England back then. Ireland also had an extremely high infant mortality rate. You are also ignoring the fact that the Dublin Lock Outs occurred just three years before.

The North had the ship yards , a few factories and linen mills, all which were belly up, more or less very shortly after World War 2. Britain took a huge hit after World War 1 (naturally) economically. World War 2 knocked the stuffing out of them. It makes the story of the NHS all the more remarkable. Prior to the start of the troubles, the North was economically becoming very very very stale and a certain group in the community were discriminated against when it came to jobs etc (but for England, ironically, and to the lesser extent, USA, the island was screwed)

The South in 1916, had a few important areas in Dublin for commerce , accounting, law, a Guinness factory, a biscuit factory and a few handy jobs in the Civil Service and not much else. The rest of Ireland was agriculture and suffered from extreme lack of proper investment, all during Britain's watch despite the numberous attempts to reform in 1890's . Kinda hard to put right within 100 years of Independence.


Something people have completely ignored here was the actual lack of awareness of Irish Culture and history (real facts that is) that many people of Ireland possessed back in 1916. None of this was taught in School. That Chinese Dictator Mao is recorded has having praised the British in their attempts to completely destroy Irish identity (way back to Penal Law days - though Presbyterians also were victims of that too) . Tom Barry is on record for saying that when he was a boy he could list off all of the Kings and Queens of Britain throughout history but "knew nothing about his own people" So no wonder there was apathy towards Britian

Your assessment on the "religious" backwardness is laughable. Ireland in 1916 WAS been dictated to by the Catholic Church. The Middle Class was predominately Catholic. The hierarchy were tripping over themselves in condemning the Rising.

In case it hasn't hit you, our Presbyterian friends up North haven't always been the enlightened fellows when it comes to progressive social and moral issues either. Christ, they share a fair few ideas as the hardcore Catholics in divorce, abortion and they have made themselves pretty clear on the hot topic of today, gay marriage. You also ignore that they had no qualms (though this could apply to Church of Ireland too) in discriminating against Catholics. A Londoner would be forgiven to think Ireland as an island were nutters.

But hey, let us say one thing though about our friends in the North, with the honorable exception of Iris Robinson of recent years, at least when public figures do wrong, they, like their colleagues in London, resign. Our shower hang on to power to the bitter end.

The men of 1916 , especially Connolly, who preached that unless there was a complete reform of society the Irish would be no different to the rulers of the day, can't be blamed for the ineffectiveness of the ruling elite that followed. Had Connolly lived, he would probably have been deported or fled from the country broken as the rest of the country was most certainly not Socialist (well Limerick was , for 5 minutes)

Post Independence more or less every country adopted Protectionist Economic policies. That hurt Ireland, naturally. It didn't help that the Treaty BANNED Ireland from having it's own ships to transport goods , even if it could afford one. How many similar size countries like Ireland are up and economically powerful after gaining independence within 5 years?

If you and your chums feel so strongly about the current state of the Nation, go right ahead and get yerselves elected to Dáil Éireann. Let us hear your 5 point plan to sort things out

"100 years of peripheral insignificance".?

Yes, like Ireland was not already in 1916, the insignificant partner of Britain back in the day. I am sure the International world tripped over themselves to ensure that they got the country correct "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". I am sure we call lovingly embrace the horrible things inflicted on the rest of the Empire all in our name.

What would you expect Ireland ever to be? Considering the effects Irish Culture etc has had on other parts of the world , for better or for worse, I do not think we have done too badly in 100 years

I left one last point that you made to the last. The regular exportation of its population. That is a good one (valid enough but not the fault of the men of 1916) . What was the mass exodus of the population in 1840-1848 all about again? Who was our governors? People were leaving Ireland long before 1921 as well. Poverty was a huge reason for many of the working class for joining up in 1914...

The major problem with the revolution ; from 1916 to 1922 was that there was an intentional decision to not actually plan out what kind of country we should have. Fighting and Independence first, politics etc later was the attitude. Had they done otherwise, nothing would have been achieved (for better or for worse)

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

Wouldn't disagree with the bulk of what you are saying. The period 1922-60 was a catastrophe for Ireland. I was watching the Luke Kelly documentary on RTE last week and they pointed out that men like Luke weren't just fleeing poverty when they emigrated to the UK in the 1950s but the repressive and restricted nature of the country. Didn't help that we ended up with a conservative and religious zealot like Dev running the country for decades.

Yes, but, why was the country so conservative and full of religious zealots? No one put a gun to one's head to continually vote for Dev. Who backed Dr Noel Browne in the 1950's? It wasn't the Cumann na nGaedheal/Fine Gael boys, or even is own leader, MacBride.

Who force people to go in droves to Church?

What were the public doing when Paris was going la la in the 1960's?

Dev, sadly, as an example of people of that time.

Lt Dan

fin12 wrote: »

The guy who plays the brother who is fighting in the English army, is the main character in the film Jimmy's Hall, which is a really incredible story, an Irishman being deported from Ireland. Don't know if it that ever happened to anyone else in history, being deported from your own country.

Only person post independence. Loads of Fenians were exported during the 1860's. TG4 has an excellent documentary on a Fenian and John Devoy how he escaped from Australia and got into America

Lt Dan

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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

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

Lt Dan

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Martial law allows for shooting looters or people who disobey curfew. That's not a war crime.

Most of the civilian dead were killed by shelling or when they ventured out and were hit by stray bullets during firefights.

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

Lt Dan

Disgruntled Badger wrote: »

Sorry but there is no record of any massacre of civilians by British forces during or after the rising. Most of the troops, as accurately portrayed in the RTE drama, we're Irish and would not have been engaged in reprisals against a population that was against the rising. Looters were however shot. But by both sides.

It's hard to say the trials were a joke as there weren't really any trials. The city was under martial law, again shown in the drama tonight. The rebels had taken up arms against the crown in time of war, and the punishment for doing so was execution. London actually interceded in stopping the executions and most of the rebels got relatively lenient sentences afterwards.

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

LionelNashe

crushproof wrote: »

Tis no Indiana Jones :P

...........They did absolutely nothing to O'Connell Street / GPO apart from stick that feckin Oldhausen tram outside. In reality the street would have been filled with crowds, dirty with horseshít etc and all the pans of glass would have been smashed by the rebels. Instead, every shot showed a pristine GPO. ..........

I actually quite liked what they did with the street outside the GPO. In the first shot of it, you can see Nelson's pillar on the right of the screen, and the shop fronts are CGI'd just beyond Henry Street (where 'Funland' is now). What was missing though was tram tracks for the tram - it was just sitting on the street.

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

Ireland was well and truly a democracy in 1916. There were free elections and the Home Rule Party was the largest by far. Even Sinn Fein came to be the biggest party totally fairly and legitimately under the British electoral system.

My god. How on earth did you come up with that tripe. Even the British Administration would not have waffled that out. Worse still are the chaps who "liked" your grossly inaccurate statement

For a start , enlighten us as to when were the most recent pre 1916 elections. Don't recall Sinn Féin under Arthur Griffth having one seat. His newspapers were banned. (and he supported a dual monarchy not complete separation)

Well and Truly a democracy? If that was the case, society in both Britain and Ireland would have allowed women to vote, and man's right to vote would not have been determined by whether they owned property. Franchise extension did not come until 1918. Two years AFTER 1916

It didn't matter a fiddlers to the working class or tenant farmer whether Redmond got a seat or not (he opposed women's vote by the way)

Home Rule had been defeated over three times over the course of over 30 years. The 1914 bill was only rail roaded in after three pushes and a threat to flood the Lords with new peers (that was over delays of separate legislation ) Act of Parliament 1911 only made the rejections a temporary delay. The Bill itself (which most people have never read or know what it actually provided) was pretty diluted when it comes to powers that an Irish Parliament would have

Sinn Fein decided to not go to London. It set up shop in Dublin. London's response (though Soloheadbeg intervened)? Ban the Dáil and have it's members interned on false allegations of German Plot , proved by their own administration to be fraudulent. There was a refusal to recognize the government

BBC had in their history section on Ireland photographs of the 1918 elections. Pictures of Irish Parliamentary Party people in British Army Uniforms, (naturally enough) and Union Jacks!

I'm all for facts, objectivity and honest debate but this new form of revisionism is pathetic

qweerty

Concision is not something Lt Dan can be accused of.

fin12

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of the Love/Hate cast, but having this serving Garda lad (who played a Garda in Love/Hate) really takes the p1ss. He's so immediately identifiable. Could they not have got him to dye his hair or at least make some change to his appearance?

I think its unfair that he has a job as a garda and gets this job as well, it should go to an unemployed actor or a young actor out there not to someone that already has a job, this is just like a hobby for him....

P. Breathnach

Lt Dan wrote: »

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

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. See http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/04/13/the-north-king-street-massacre-dublin-1916/#.VpN-sznKyx8

GT_TDI_150

Other than the few yellow lines (which I didnt even notice to be honest) and the streets not being dirty enough ... (from some one not knowing the intrgate details of the rising) ... are the depictions for what happened some what accurate or way off the wall?

Strazdas

Lt Dan wrote: »

My god. How on earth did you come up with that tripe. Even the British Administration would not have waffled that out. Worse still are the chaps who "liked" your grossly inaccurate statement

For a start , enlighten us as to when were the most recent pre 1916 elections. Don't recall Sinn Féin under Arthur Griffth having one seat. His newspapers were banned. (and he supported a dual monarchy not complete separation)

Well and Truly a democracy? If that was the case, society in both Britain and Ireland would have allowed women to vote, and man's right to vote would not have been determined by whether they owned property. Franchise extension did not come until 1918. Two years AFTER 1916

It didn't matter a fiddlers to the working class or tenant farmer whether Redmond got a seat or not (he opposed women's vote by the way)

Home Rule had been defeated over three times over the course of over 30 years. The 1914 bill was only rail roaded in after three pushes and a threat to flood the Lords with new peers (that was over delays of separate legislation ) Act of Parliament 1911 only made the rejections a temporary delay. The Bill itself (which most people have never read or know what it actually provided) was pretty diluted when it comes to powers that an Irish Parliament would have

Sinn Fein decided to not go to London. It set up shop in Dublin. London's response (though Soloheadbeg intervened)? Ban the Dáil and have it's members interned on false allegations of German Plot , proved by their own administration to be fraudulent. There was a refusal to recognize the government

BBC had in their history section on Ireland photographs of the 1918 elections. Pictures of Irish Parliamentary Party people in British Army Uniforms, (naturally enough) and Union Jacks!

I'm all for facts, objectivity and honest debate but this new form of revisionism is pathetic

The issue of women not having the vote in 1916 is already well known and well understood : the whole Suffragette movement in the UK was a major part of social change in the UK.

The fact that the vast majority of people in both Ireland and Britain were living in abject poverty and terrible condition while an elite few had all the money and power is also accepted, hence the rise of trade unions and the commencement of huge workers' strikes.

What I was taking issue with was posters saying that the rebels were fighting solely to establish "freedom and democracy" in Ireland, as if Ireland was on a par with Czechoslovakia or Hungary in the old Soviet Union ie. being run by a brutal and oppressive military dictatorship with no rights or freedom of speech and people prisoners in their own country and not able to leave. The fact that hundreds of thousands of young Irishmen volunteered to fight in WW1 knocks that one on the head.

LordSutch

Its certainly sparking debate, which is a good thing. Also, its bursting some old myths and prodding proples consciences too. So the Brits had Irish accents I hear so many cry :eek:

Yes, it transpires that many of "the Brits were us" ... it was many of our ancesters who fought in the trenches in Flanders, and who then came back to Dublin to confront the Rebels!

I saw the well known republican sympathiser & artist Robert Ballagh on the TV the other night getting really upset, because it showed up his heroes as gun toating, bomb making fanatics, he especially got annoyed as to how they portrayed Countess Markievicz (episode one)

I think its a good Drama by RTE, and it is a drama, and as such its likely to take liberties with some of the facts, as did the film 'Michael Collins' which had all the British soldiers speaking with English accents!

Looking forward to next weeks episode.

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.