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

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.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

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

I was likening the Royal Family's control over British politics to Michael D's over our own. They're both figure heads with very little actual power. The UK is controlled by a democratically elected government, just like us.

Lt Dan

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?

Don't worry, he will always have a believer in John Bruton.

Redmond must be given credit. But for him, the IPP would have dismantled due to internal fighting after Parnell's (unnecessary) demise.

If they fail to highlight John Dillon's speech in Westminster then these guys should never be allowed to be commissioned to do history inspired dramas again. You want drama, there you go

This show is extremely shallow. The focus on the women, which on paper was a brilliant idea. but all three of them are pointless. Since it was for 5 episodes and since the pace of the second episode was woeful , the show should have started at day 1 with an actual introduction of why there was a bloody rebellion in the first place.

People cry about being given a history lesson. Treat them as if they are intelligent (most of them are not , far too concerned with the style and how it is Downtown Abbey like)

Proper suspense and drama could have been had, with the girls involved with the following

A short introduction of Redmond and Dillon , and Carson and Redmond (oohh panto villians...) An additional girl could have been brought into the show as their Secretary and fly through scenes of despair of those guys before during and after the Rising. The IPP have criminally being brushed out. Who gives a feck about some stiff Anglo Irish auld business man / Lizzy's Daddy

More drama would have been had with the craic between Hobson and McNeill and the IRB and Connolly. Here May and the red hair would be involved with the "forged" list of who would be lifted by Dublin Castle and the Counter Commands

Lastly, the obvious one.... the kidnap of James Connolly by the IRB and the strong arming to get the ICA to join up with the Volunteers. Again, Ginger and Liz could be there , with Jimmy

Maybe we might even get a glimpse of Redmond's (to be fair, he was not the only one) dismissive attitude of the women's movement (Bruton would loose the plot and say that he was misunderstood, but at least Una Mullaly will have a story to write about how men are pigs and act as if these events are only newly discovered)

Instead we get a bunch of girls feeling sorry for themselves, very little actual action and a pointless will they or won't they marry / will they or won't they kiss.

There you go. With my script you would get drama and suspense , a few nice stories for the girlies, a bit of historical meat as to what they hell is going on any way, lots of style Downtown Abbey esque with a touch of House of Cards

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was likening the Royal Family's control over British politics to Michael D's over our own. They're both figure heads with very little actual power. The UK is controlled by a democratically elected government, just like us.

Which one, though? German ? boom boom

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lt Dan wrote: »

Which one, though? German ? boom boom

The Royal family or the government?

Strazdas

Lt Dan wrote: »

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

It has to be borne in mind that the Rising was deeply unpopular at the time and had very little support from anyone all the way through to it's conclusion. The fact that opinions changed after the execution of it's leaders is neither here nor there. In a drama depicting the events as they happened, the makers have no choice but to portray the Rising as a very controversial event and those involved in it to be doing controversial things.

Perhaps we'll see brutal killings by the British in future episodes, wouldn't surprise me.

Lt Dan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The Royal family or the government?

Good Point. I always like the helmets the Kaiser wore. And that facial hair.... Enough about Dermott, what about Willy

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

It has to be borne in mind that the Rising was deeply unpopular at the time and had very little support from anyone all the way through to it's conclusion. The fact that opinions changed after the execution of it's leaders is neither here nor there. In a drama depicting the events as they happened, the makers have no choice but to portray the Rising as a very controversial event and those involved in it to be doing controversial things.

Perhaps we'll see brutal killings by the British in future episodes, wouldn't surprise me.

It is "here" and "there" in the sense that one can't keep using the fact that it was unpopular as a yard stick same with the criticism that it was a military disaster (and boy it was). The subsequent actions and attitudes of the people changed that and proved Pearse right.

By all means , it is a nonsense to think that the Rising was wanted. If the British Army was taken by surprise (was it really though? they had great intelligence, but not acted upon earlier) imagine what the public thought. THen again, look at Irish history. Irish people willing to fight in wars of America , France , hell even Russia, and recently Spain; yet when it came to war in Ireland the people shat themselves. Makes a mockery of the notion of the "FIghting Irish" (though that is a nickname for a US army regiment) IRB couldn't even successfully entice American Civil War Veterans to get home and rebel . By all means we do not want the romanticism and the usual bs of "my grandfather fought in the GPO" (along with thousands of others apparently)

However, the detractors cling onto that fact so hard. When you say "conclusion", for Pearse , "conclusion" included execution. He would have begged the Brits to shoot him so that he could have had his blood sacrifice. In that sense, the public mood changed at that "conclusion" - of course conscription threat , arrest and internment of innocent people would also poison the support towards Britain...

The people had little qualms in Dáil Éireann repeating the Proclamation in 1919 and enduring hardship of attacks, house burning, jail , hunger during the Tan War

Yes, the show has to tell the truth. Rebel Heart did the same, Veterans who did tv interviews in the 1960-1970's told the truth about public reactions (who could they not, the papers made their views clear)

But this show, so far has portrayed some of the rebels as nutters. Eamonn Ceannt was no nutter. The current portrayal of the British soldiers (hey I should say Irish soldiers in British uniforms) as grand auld lads all together. It is sickening that morons (like Patsy McGarry) are some how ,oh how original, coming up with notions about the religious nature of the rebels shown in this show (like most people of the day) and uttering the words ISIS and Islamic nutters in the same sentence. (while ignoring the fact that armies in World War 1 and 2 had loads of Priests and Vicers on the front line)

Maybe the British attack on civilians of North King Street will be shown as the home area of Jimmy and Arthur. Family die and Arthur goes Rambo and joins the cause of Irish Freedom ? Doubt it. Hope Stephen gets rubbed out, shocking casting

gormdubhgorm

Another thing I just realised there is no good humour in the show. People were obviously no craic in 1916. There was a bit of panto style humour alright. Like when the posh guy with the hat said "there is no wedding it is interrupted by the small matter of a rebellion" Guffaw Guffaw. I think the writer could do with binge watching all 62 episodes of "Breaking Bad".

gormdubhgorm

Lt Dan wrote: »

shocking casting

Agree with this part another problem with the series. The people are not believable.PS some solliquoy. Hamlet would be proud of that!

Strazdas

Lt Dan wrote: »

It is "here" and "there" in the sense that one can't keep using the fact that it was unpopular as a yard stick same with the criticism that it was a military disaster (and boy it was). The subsequent actions and attitudes of the people changed that and proved Pearse right.

By all means , it is a nonsense to think that the Rising was wanted. If the British Army was taken by surprise (was it really though? they had great intelligence, but not acted upon earlier) imagine what the public thought. THen again, look at Irish history. Irish people willing to fight in wars of America , France , hell even Russia, and recently Spain; yet when it came to war in Ireland the people shat themselves. Makes a mockery of the notion of the "FIghting Irish" (though that is a nickname for a US army regiment) IRB couldn't even successfully entice American Civil War Veterans to get home and rebel . By all means we do not want the romanticism and the usual bs of "my grandfather fought in the GPO" (along with thousands of others apparently)

However, the detractors cling onto that fact so hard. When you say "conclusion", for Pearse , "conclusion" included execution. He would have begged the Brits to shoot him so that he could have had his blood sacrifice. In that sense, the public mood changed at that "conclusion" - of course conscription threat , arrest and internment of innocent people would also poison the support towards Britain...

The people had little qualms in Dáil Éireann repeating the Proclamation in 1919 and enduring hardship of attacks, house burning, jail , hunger during the Tan War

Yes, the show has to tell the truth. Rebel Heart did the same, Veterans who did tv interviews in the 1960-1970's told the truth about public reactions (who could they not, the papers made their views clear)

But this show, so far has portrayed some of the rebels as nutters. Eamonn Ceannt was no nutter. The current portrayal of the British soldiers (hey I should say Irish soldiers in British uniforms) as grand auld lads all together. It is sickening that morons are some how ,oh how original, coming up with notions about the religious nature of the rebels shown in this show (like most people of the day) and uttering the words ISIS and Islamic nutters in the same sentence. (while ignoring the fact that armies in World War 1 and 2 had loads of Priests and Victors on the front line)

Maybe the British attack on civilians of North King Street will be shown as the home area of Jimmy and Arthur. Family die and Arthur goes Rambo and joins the cause of Irish Freedom ? Doubt it. Hope Stephen gets rubbed out, shocking casting

I imagine the images of the rebels shooting civilians dead will be counter balanced by scenes of atrocities or brutality by the British, maybe even in the next episode.

I can see what the makers are trying to do though. Around 300 civilians died that week including 40 children and this was as the direct result of an insurrection instigated by the rebels. This was a controversial event by any stretch of the imagination and there is no way the makers can merely gloss over it and nor can they depict it as "the end justified the means".

To be fair, the only real religious zealot we've seen in it is Pearse. There is a touch of a fanatic about Frances but she seems to be primarily politically motivated.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Agree with this part another problem with the series. The people are not believable.PS some solliquoy. Hamlet would be proud of that!

I think most of them are alright. Stephen and Elizabeth's brother are the worst. Jimmy's brother had been the most impressive of the male cast for me. The lad from Belfast is quite good too although I have no idea who he is or what he's doing or even what his name is.

ectoraige

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

I'm completely confused about the George storyline.
Is he sympathetic towards the rebels?
And why did his fiancée go to where Elizabeth was helping the injured???

The wounded had been brought to a church, it looks like the one on Clarendon Street. After George's fiancée left him she would have been looking for somewhere to go, and ended up going into a church for shelter.

Sleepy

Came to discuss the show, saddened but unsurprised to find the civil war being fought yet again in this thread.

Duggie2012

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think most of them are alright. Stephen and Elizabeth's brother are the worst. Jimmy's brother had been the most impressive of the male cast for me. The lad from Belfast is quite good too although I have no idea who he is or what he's doing or even what his name is.

ya agree with that, looks like aiden gillen dosen't he.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Duggie2012 wrote: »

ya agree with that, looks like aiden gillen dosen't he.

Yeah, I said last week he's like a talented Aiden Gillen. Got a bit of stick for that

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sleepy wrote: »

Came to discuss the show, saddened but unsurprised to find the civil war being fought yet again in this thread.

Some posters are/were having a fairly interesting discussion about the show and the real history of the event. Some posters are regurgitating history books. Hard to wade through the latter to get to the former.

wawaman

Back to the show, The english guy (cant remember his name off the top of my head) tells May outside the castle to get a train to his house in Dalkey. The train i assume went from Amiens Street Station. Yet when we see them crossing the liffey the Four Courts is in the background and they are crossing from the northside to the southside. Silly thing i know but just takes a little bit of the realism out of it

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

wawaman wrote: »

Back to the show, The english guy (cant remember his name off the top of my head) tells May outside the castle to get a train to his house in Dalkey. The train i assume went from Amiens Street Station. Yet when we see them crossing the liffey the Four Courts is in the background and they are crossing from the northside to the southside. Silly thing i know but just takes a little bit of the realism out of it

They were still heading back to the Castle though at that point. It was after that he decided it wasn't safe. I think?

iguana

A huge problem with this show is that you are left to presume an awful lot about why the characters are motivated how they are. Elizabeth is a medical student and as there were female doctors who played important roles in the Rising, like Kathleen Lynn who she is seen interacting with and Brigid Lyons-Thornton who I don't think has appeared on the show, we are left to assume that Elizabeth was radicalised at college. But how and why? Why is she engaged to Stephen? She doesn't seem to love him but did she? Was the relationship arranged and she went along with it? Did she love him before but now she's outgrown him. Does she still love him but only wants to marry him in a free Ireland? I don't know. I don't even know if the writers and actors know.

Francis stuck an addendum onto her prayer in this episode mentioning her poor mother so presumably the British did something awful to her mother or other family members and her mother died of grief. But that's just a guess. May's character seems pointless. She stole a document for the Volunteers out of jealousy and anger at her married lover but other than that her drama is all personal. It might be a fine story if it were just the story of a girl from Cork who got pregnant by her married lover but in the context of a show about the Rising she is too peripheral to events to be taking up so much screen time.

I had quite liked the first episode but the second dragged and the only bit I honestly enjoyed was Francis being sent off to peel potatoes as soon as they arrived at the GPO. Most of the Rising leaders were awful misogynists while most of the women involved in the Rising were feminists. It's actually a pity that we didn't get to see the massively pissed off women in the kitchen thinking about the violent things they'd like to do with their peeling knives and not just to the British soldiers.

wawaman

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

They were still heading back to the Castle though at that point. It was after that he decided it wasn't safe. I think?

Maybe, i assumed they were outside the castle and saw that there was trouble and then he decided he wanted her out of the city.