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

screamer

I think a 5 part is too much. Last episode was just a non story just any old tripe to fill an hour. Not really liking it TBH as a show it seems very romanticized and unbelievable especially when half the love hate cast is stuck in it and as for Elizabeth's brother so unbelievable with his pseudo American accent........

Duggie2012

i'm no history buff atal but the rising in the show seems very unorganised and just a few locals with guns type of thing. was this the case or was it better organised than that?? also when they were reading the declaration outside the GPO it just seemed like a man reading a poster and no-one really listening as such with all the hustle and bustle. i imagined it with an adoring crowd listening to the proclamation but obvisouly i'm wrong..am i??

gormdubhgorm

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.

I suppose maybe I am being a bit harsh on them, they are not all bad but there are some terrible ones.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Duggie2012 wrote: »

i'm no history buff atal but the rising in the show seems very unorganised and just a few locals with guns type of thing. was this the case or was it better organised than that?? also when they were reading the declaration outside the GPO it just seemed like a man reading a poster and no-one really listening as such with all the hustle and bustle. i imagined it with an adoring crowd listening to the proclamation but obvisouly i'm wrong..am i??

It was fairly disorganised. It was supposed to happen on the Sunday and then it got called off. It was back on for Monday at the last minute and the orders didn't get to everyone or were ignored in some cases. The real accounts of the fighting at the castle and then city hall say there were only about 30 people involved on the rebel side.
Most people on the streets wouldn't have known what was actually happening on the day so probably didn't pay that much attention to some man shouting about Ireland outside the GPO. It was only once the British got organised and started blowing lumps out of buildings that the general public would have known what was happening.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

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.

I laughed when Jimmy kissed her. She made this face right after like she was disgusted. I couldn't tell if it was shock at what was going on around her or if she was repulsed by the povo ginger kissing her

Strazdas

iguana wrote: »

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.

To be fair to them, they would need even more episodes to answer all these questions, maybe a ten part serial (which would be quite commonplace for this type of historical drama).

I do think they are managing to get many talking points into the drama. Many Irish people being indifferent to or hostile to the Rising, female rebels coming up against misogynist leaders, rebels shooting dead Dublin civilians, working class Irishmen in British Army uniforms fighting the rebels etc......it's a refreshing take on something that would have been given a very Irish nationalist spin in the past.

josephryan1989

Lt Dan wrote: »

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

I compared him to Bertie in that he was the leader of the Irish party who went from hero to pariah.

Duggie2012

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It was fairly disorganised. It was supposed to happen on the Sunday and then it got called off. It was back on for Monday at the last minute and the orders didn't get to everyone or were ignored in some cases. The real accounts of the fighting at the castle and then city hall say there were only about 30 people involved on the rebel side.
Most people on the streets wouldn't have known what was actually happening on the day so probably didn't pay that much attention to some man shouting about Ireland outside the GPO. It was only once the British got organised and started blowing lumps out of buildings that the general public would have known what was happening.

i see. i always thought it was different to what i'm seeing and learning now.

The Rape of Lucretia

screamer wrote: »

I think a 5 part is too much. Last episode was just a non story just any old tripe to fill an hour. Not really liking it TBH as a show it seems very romanticized and unbelievable especially when half the love hate cast is stuck in it and as for Elizabeth's brother so unbelievable with his pseudo American accent........

I thought his little scene on liking being drunk was excellent played actually. A lot of fine actors completely fluff acting drunk.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Duggie2012 wrote: »

i see. i always thought it was different to what i'm seeing and learning now.

Yeah, we talked about this last week, although it has long since gotten lost in a load of posts about God knows what.

The history you learn in primary school, or even secondary school is very one sided. Maybe kids now learn a more rounded version of our history but even when I was a kid, which isn't that long ago, it was one sided. Go back a generation or two and you've got kids being taught by teachers still entrenched in the Civil War mindsets, so they're teaching the kids from their own points of view.

If Rebellion does nothing else except start the conversation and make people question their knowledge of events it'll be worth the money spent.

The Rape of Lucretia

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

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

True though. Was thinking the same. Gillen was good as Carcetti in The Wire though to be fair.

The acting that is sinking a reputation for me is Charlie Murphy. Love Hate, the gritty north of England thing (a teacher in it I think), and this. All the same role : few words, deep person but tortured soul struggling to handle a bad world, look worried all the time. Maybe there isnt much more to her.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

True though. Was hinking the same. Gillen was good as Carcetti in The Wire to be fair.

The acting that is sinking a reputation for me is Charlie Murphy. Love Hate, the gritty north of England thing (a teacher in it I think), and this. All the same role : few words, deep person but tortured soul struggling to handle a bad world, look worried all the time. Maybe there isnt much more to her.

I've seen her in Happy Valley and The Village, both on BBC. Thought she was excellent in both. I can see where you're coming from though and I'd hope it's the writing to blame here. She's had barely any lines in the first two episodes.

Duggie2012

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yeah, we talked about this last week, although it has long since gotten lost in a load of posts about God knows what.

The history you learn in primary school, or even secondary school is very one sided. Maybe kids now learn a more rounded version of our history but even when I was a kid, which isn't that long ago, it was one sided. Go back a generation or two and you've got kids being taught by teachers still entrenched in the Civil War mindsets, so they're teaching the kids from their own points of view.

If Rebellion does nothing else except start the conversation and make people question their knowledge of events it'll be worth the money spent.

i'm just trying to think back, i don't think i ever learned anything on the rising in either primary or secondary. is it even covered atal? i'm early 30's and i don't remember it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Duggie2012 wrote: »

i'm early 30's and i don't remember it.

Dont worry. It was well before you were born so. 1916.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Duggie2012 wrote: »

i'm just trying to think back, i don't think i ever learned anything on the rising in either primary or secondary. is it even covered atal? i'm early 30's and i don't remember it.

I'm not entirely sure I did either. I have a vague memory of learning something very very basic about it in primary school but I never covered it in secondary.

weadick

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure I did either. I have a vague memory of learning something very very basic about it in primary school but I never covered it in secondary.

Yeah I'm the same. I often find it strange hearing older people talking about how they were force fed the rising and the glorious revolution, ect. I never got told a thing and neither did anyone else my age that I know.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

weadick wrote: »

Yeah I'm the same. I often find it strange hearing older people talking about how they were force fed the rising and the glorious revolution, ect. I never got told a thing and neither did anyone else my age that I know.

It's one of those things that Irish people like to shout about when trying to make certain points about the British or Northern Ireland. They never feel the need to look into what it is they're shouting about.

It's a bit like Queen Latifah on 30 Rock. Doesn't matter what you're saying, just thrown in the right reference points and people assume you're saying something important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fvUabknNow

iguana

Strazdas wrote: »

I do think they are managing to get many talking points into the drama. Many Irish people being indifferent to or hostile to the Rising, female rebels coming up against misogynist leaders, rebels shooting dead Dublin civilians, working class Irishmen in British Army uniforms fighting the rebels etc......it's a refreshing take on something that would have been given a very Irish nationalist spin in the past.

Which would all make a fine docudrama but this is a drama we need to care about the characters for effective drama. And to care about them we need to understand their motivation. They could include those aspects in a drama and still create interesting, real characters. As it is we also have a lot of scenes and time taken up with drama that would be better served focusing on the main characters. Do we need to see quite so much of Arthur's family? Wouldn't it have been possible to showcase the looting during the Rising without us having to know that Arthur's daughter had a shag with Elizabeth's brother earlier that morning? Does that add anything to the story? Does May sitting with the wife of her lover in his Dalkey home while pregnant with the baby that the wife couldn't conceive add anything? Maybe in a 10 part series they would be nice little extra scenes but in a 5 part series where we know almost nothing about the motivations of the main characters, we're seeing too many of the wrong scenes.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yeah, we talked about this last week, although it has long since gotten lost in a load of posts about God knows what.

The history you learn in primary school, or even secondary school is very one sided. Maybe kids now learn a more rounded version of our history but even when I was a kid, which isn't that long ago, it was one sided. Go back a generation or two and you've got kids being taught by teachers still entrenched in the Civil War mindsets, so they're teaching the kids from their own points of view.

If Rebellion does nothing else except start the conversation and make people question their knowledge of events it'll be worth the money spent.

The version I got in primary school was very simplistic (and clearly contained many inaccuracies). The rebels being noble and heroic and trying to overthrow a brutal and oppressive regime and laying down their lives in the ultimate sacrifice so that Ireland would be free. The leaders were only ever presented in the most positive light and without any flaws.

In fairness though, perhaps every country has done this when they've taught history, portraying their past in the best possible light and glossing over all the negative stuff.

ScumLord

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The history you learn in primary school, or even secondary school is very one sided.

It wasn't until the last two years of secondary school that I got a proper history teacher. History was just another boring class until I got into this guys class, he'd tell it like it is, rather than creating this myth like every other teacher did up till that point. He did a much better job of making the rising an exciting story than this show too.

I don't know what's wrong with this show, it seems very flat, there's no excitement to it. It seems to have all the parts to make it good but it's just not coming together for me.

iguana wrote: »

Which would all make a fine docudrama but this is a drama we need to care about the characters for effective drama.

A good docudrama would have made a much better show. As it seems we've all been feed a load of baloney by our education system it would have been nice to have the facts explained and maybe a drama would have gone down better afterwards.

Strazdas

iguana wrote: »

Which would all make a fine docudrama but this is a drama we need to care about the characters for effective drama. And to care about them we need to understand their motivation. They could include those aspects in a drama and still create interesting, real characters. As it is we also have a lot of scenes and time taken up with drama that would be better served focusing on the main characters. Do we need to see quite so much of Arthur's family? Wouldn't it have been possible to showcase the looting during the Rising without us having to know that Arthur's daughter had a shag with Elizabeth's brother earlier that morning? Does that add anything to the story? Does May sitting with the wife of her lover in his Dalkey home while pregnant with the baby that the wife couldn't conceive add anything? Maybe in a 10 part series they would be nice little extra scenes but in a 5 part series where we know almost nothing about the motivations of the main characters, we're seeing too many of the wrong scenes.

The writers are clearly caught between making a docudrama about that fortnight and a sweeping melodrama which focuses on the lives of fictitious characters. I could have done without any of the sex scenes as they add nothing to the story. I'm okay with the Mr Hammond - May - Mrs Hammond love triangle though within the context of it being a fictitious melodrama about people at the time of the Rising. The story is not so much how they impacted on the Rising but more about how the Rising impacted on them, which is fine if we're regarding Rebellion as being akin to a novel set during that fortnight.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

ScumLord wrote: »

It wasn't until the last two years of secondary school that I got a proper history teacher. History was just another boring class until I got into this guys class, he'd tell it like it is, rather than creating this myth like every other teacher did up till that point. He did a much better job of making the rising an exciting story than this show too.

Another similar historical situation we're ill informed about, generally speaking, is the role played by the "allies" in creating Nazi Germany. It wasn't until I read Vera Brittian's Testament of Youth a few years ago I learned about the conditions the German population were living in post WW1 that were imposed on them by the English, French etc. It doesn't excuse the eventual outcome of electing someone like Hitler but it goes a long way to explaining why so many German people were initially supportive of some of his plans.

I think, a lot like this series, we tend to focus on the main events themselves rather than the build up to them and so we tend to have misguided views on them.

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

Sorry hang on, some of that is wrong (slightly).

The majority of deaths and injuries, whether civilian , British or Rebels arose from artillery. Rebels could only have dreamed to have had a few 18 pounder guns.

There was damn all actual fighting at the GPO for instance. The main combat occurred on outskirts of the city centre such as Mount Street Bridge and where St James Hospital is today. Other civilian deaths arose from indirect fire from Irish and British shooters.

Strazdas

Lt Dan wrote: »

Sorry hang on, some of that is wrong (slightly).

The majority of deaths and injuries, whether civilian , British or Rebels arose from artillery. Rebels could only have dreamed to have had a few 18 pounder guns.

There was damn all actual fighting at the GPO for instance. The main combat occurred on outskirts of the city centre such as Mount Street Bridge and where St James Hospital is today. Other civilian deaths arose from indirect fire from Irish and British shooters.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that the Rising was instigated by the rebels. Such an uprising in any city in Europe in 1916 would have resulted in a brutal crackdown from the authorities resulting in large scale loss of life. What makes it controversial is that it was not a popular uprising and did not have the support of the population ; the rebels knew they were about to unleash mayhem on the city and that many innocent people would die

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

The version I got in primary school was very simplistic (and clearly contained many inaccuracies). The rebels being noble and heroic and trying to overthrow a brutal and oppressive regime and laying down their lives in the ultimate sacrifice so that Ireland would be free. The leaders were only ever presented in the most positive light and without any flaws.

In fairness though, perhaps every country has done this when they've taught history, portraying their past in the best possible light and glossing over all the negative stuff.

Do not expect to get any solid history education in Primary or Secondary School, unless you are lucky enough to get an excellent teacher. Some of them simply picked history as it was a handy area to learn while in College. Some of the Teachers were and are woeful. The school text books were laughable. Discuss the Treaty and Home Rule Bills but never actually read the damn documents and understand what they state.


You wanna get a proper idea of history, while in school , you gotta hit the library and read everything - but even then, some people have agendas eg Peter Harte vs Media Ryan / everyone else, Coogan v De Valera ...... Veterans of the wars and their sometimes inaccurate Witness Statements

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, but the point I'm making is that the Rising was instigated by the rebels. Such an uprising in any city in Europe in 1916 would have resulted in a brutal crackdown from the authorities resulting in large scale loss of life. What makes it controversial is that it was not a popular uprising and did not have the support of the population ; the rebels knew they were about to unleash mayhem on the city and that many innocent people would die

Name one Rising in Irish history that was "popular". None! Yet people seem happy enough to fall over themselves in 1998 (time of Omagh remember) commemorating 1798 and Wolfe Tone, another war that was really about Irish people fighting Irish people (but some in Red Coats) That war was riddled with informers and spies

Connolly, influenced by Marx stated that the "country needed a push" (sounds arrogant and nutty of course)

As I already stated, when it came to fighting wars for other countries (I am not talking about WW1 here), the Irish gladly joined up. When it came to helping themselves, forget about it. Look at the Tan War,no nationwide revolution, yet when the Civil War occurred there were towns in the back ass of nowhere in the West roaring "the West Awake" and knocking crap out of each other. Some of the same Civil War veterans were happy enough to go fighting with Frank Ryan or Eoin O'Duffy in Spain (though with O'Duffy I wouldn't call it that)

Was the start of the American Revolution universally popular amongst Americans? What about (sorry, hate doing whataboutery) revolutions involving similar size countries like Ireland during or before 1916? Not every revolution starts off with everyone in unison like France

War is controversial, especially when you are "stabbing the motherland in the back " at a time when its own existence is at risk elsewhere.

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

The version I got in primary school was very simplistic (and clearly contained many inaccuracies). The rebels being noble and heroic and trying to overthrow a brutal and oppressive regime and laying down their lives in the ultimate sacrifice so that Ireland would be free. The leaders were only ever presented in the most positive light and without any flaws.

This would have been the standard spin on it, but to be expected, when those writing the story were in power and could presented it thus, and they had a need to justify and glorify what they had done. Questioning the fundamental drive for Ukexit was tantamount to blasphemy for several generations. It is still a topic, like abortion, too hot to handle for our politicians.

It is probably only in the last 20 years or so, and in an era of people growing up with no first hand tales or views on the separation from parents or grandparents, that people have been really able to consider the terrorists for what they were, what a mistake it was for the country, and what a price has been paid over the last 100 years. That Ireland spurned the opportunity of really committing to integrating itself deeply into the fabric of the UK, with some level of local administration, is really the tragedy of this country.
A positive of the series at this remove from the true events, is that it does prompt a wider realisation of these possibilities and understanding beyond the old shibboleths.

Even this serie, with its fairly balanced presentation, would not have been made only 20 or 30 years ago. Some one proposing it 60 years ago would have been classed as crazy or a British agent.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ Can't agree that inserting ourselves into the UK fully was the right way to go but we definitely could have been doing with a better plan and some long term thinking wouldn't have hurt. Fewer religious types making decisions too.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ Can't agree that inserting ourselves into the UK fully was the right way to go but we definitely could have been doing with a better plan and some long term thinking wouldn't have hurt. Fewer religious types making decisions too.

I don't think we would have remained within the UK longterm. It's hard to imagine how a Home Rule Ireland would have panned out from 1920 or so onwards but I think there would have been a push for further independence within decades.

I'm not entirely sure we could have avoided the fiasco of the Catholic Church running the country either. Maybe Home Rule Ireland would have seen the relentless rise in power of the Church. The Unionists in Ulster already feared "Rome Rule" long before partition, so perhaps we were bound to head into decades of religious nuttiness anyway.

amdublin

Mod:
Whoa did I just enter the history forum :pac:

OK can we get back on topic to discussing the tv show, the contents of the show, the merits of the show etc etc etc

There are better suited forums if you want to discuss the Rising/world war I/the church/not the tv program etc