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

josephryan1989

[mod snip]


mod:
see on thread warning in post just above this one, back on (tv) topic

josephryan1989

[mod snip]


mod:
See on thread warning just above, back on (tv) topic please

GT_TDI_150

Thought this might help with how the program relates to reality

https://dublinrising.withgoogle.com/welcome/

Strazdas

amdublin wrote: »

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

How can one discuss the TV programme without discussing the Rising? There are numerous historical talking points in every episode ie. depictions of real life people and actual events that happened.

iguana

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

Which would be amazing if done well and there are many fine examples of stories of historical events impacting the lives of ordinary fictional people. The fourth series of Upstairs Downstairs is a wonderful example of people living through the first world war. Though of course they had established characters to work with which made it a lot easier. As the book was mentioned earlier, the 1979 series of Testament of Youth did a great job of establishing the characters, making you care for them and being a close to factual account of both the part they played in history and the impact events had on them. I don't remember it delving into the likely cause of Edward Brittain's death but perhaps that wasn't known in the 70s or maybe the allusions were very subtle. But other than that it was an excellent, thought provoking series and the characters resonated well, all achieved in just 5 episodes.

This series is trying to do too much and so it fails to ensure the basic necessity of creating rounded characters that matter to the audience. The problem with so much time being spent with May and the Hammonds is that a huge amount of screen time is spent on what they are doing without the audience having a reason to care. The most I care about May is that she looks absolutely wonderful, like an anachronistic Clara Bow. I have no feelings for either of the Hammonds apart from weariness at the appallingly obvious plot devices being employed. It's the same with Jimmy and Arthur, oh look it's brother versus brother. I've never seen that in the context of Irish history before.:rolleyes: Trope after trope, wheeled out between some actually very interesting scenes of historical re-enactment does not a good drama make.

It's a pity. Most of the series looks good and the history is nice to see played out. The details of the Rising aren't new to me but watching Pearse and the Volunteers march up to the GPO with their guns out, ready to take the building. While the city looks on wondering what these eejits are up to now is a visual that I had never really imagined and seeing it is fun. But don't care for the characters because I really can't understand why they are doing what they are and I'm not learning anything much about them.

The Rape of Lucretia

More to come of course, but on the episodes so far, I think it benefits from a less is more approach. The first one could have given us more on the background, either of the times, or of the motivations of our principal trio. But the atmosphere and feel of the times is well evoked in the second particularly.

The scene you mention of this handful approaching the GPO struck me also. You could imagine people just walking on by wondering what was going on, were people playing a game, rehearsing a drama, students up to highjinks, etc.

It tells us more than a straighter telling of the various locations and the conflict itself, or a focus on the key leaders personalities or events, and counter measures from the authorities. The to come episodes may be more driven by the narrative of the conflict, but we shall see.

Strazdas

iguana wrote: »

Which would be amazing if done well and there are many fine examples of stories of historical events impacting the lives of ordinary fictional people. The fourth series of Upstairs Downstairs is a wonderful example of people living through the first world war. Though of course they had established characters to work with which made it a lot easier. As the book was mentioned earlier, the 1979 series of Testament of Youth did a great job of establishing the characters, making you care for them and being a close to factual account of both the part they played in history and the impact events had on them. I don't remember it delving into the likely cause of Edward Brittain's death but perhaps that wasn't known in the 70s or maybe the allusions were very subtle. But other than that it was an excellent, thought provoking series and the characters resonated well, all achieved in just 5 episodes.

This series is trying to do too much and so it fails to ensure the basic necessity of creating rounded characters that matter to the audience. The problem with so much time being spent with May and the Hammonds is that a huge amount of screen time is spent on what they are doing without the audience having a reason to care. The most I care about May is that she looks absolutely wonderful, like an anachronistic Clara Bow. I have no feelings for either of the Hammonds apart from weariness at the appallingly obvious plot devices being employed. It's the same with Jimmy and Arthur, oh look it's brother versus brother. I've never seen that in the context of Irish history before.:rolleyes: Trope after trope, wheeled out between some actually very interesting scenes of historical re-enactment does not a good drama make.

It's a pity. Most of the series looks good and the history is nice to see played out. The details of the Rising aren't new to me but watching Pearse and the Volunteers march up to the GPO with their guns out, ready to take the building. While the city looks on wondering what these eejits are up to now is a visual that I had never really imagined and seeing it is fun. But don't care for the characters because I really can't understand why they are doing what they are and I'm not learning anything much about them.

Well another factor I suspect is that the series is also intended for an international audience, not just an Irish one. We already know that it was intended to be shown on American TV from the outset and RTE may well be looking to sell it to various European channels. It's perhaps for this reason they've steered clear of it being a docudrama or history lesson and given it something of a Downton Abbey feel ie. they see their role to entertain, not educate.

I would give the May - Hammond - Mrs Hammond triangle a little more time to see just where it is going and what the purpose of the storyline is. I'm guessing so far that the depiction is to illustrate that May is a young Irishwoman who is utterly indifferent to or even bewildered by the Rising and that may be how many Irish people would have reacted that week. I'm a bit baffled by her temporary lapse in handing over the document though, seeing her indifference to the rebellion.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Strazdas wrote: »

How can one discuss the TV programme without discussing the Rising? There are numerous historical talking points in every episode ie. depictions of real life people and actual events that happened.

Some of the posts are related to characters/events in the series but a lot of them, more so this week, are going all over the place. I'm actually surprised it took so long for a mod to appear

iguana wrote: »

As the book was mentioned earlier, the 1979 series of Testament of Youth did a great job of establishing the characters, making you care for them and being a close to factual account of both the part they played in history and the impact events had on them. I don't remember it delving into the likely cause of Edward Brittain's death but perhaps that wasn't known in the 70s or maybe the allusions were very subtle. But other than that it was an excellent, thought provoking series and the characters resonated well, all achieved in just 5 episodes.

I haven't seen the old TV series but the film version that came out last year is excellent. I'm fairly sure the revelations about Edward didn't come until much more recently and are hinted at in the film, albeit subtly.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Some of the posts are related to characters/events in the series but a lot of them, more so this week, are going all over the place. I'm actually surprised it took so long for a mod to appear

I would expect such a historical drama with real life characters and events to set off a lot of discussion and debate about the historical context in which the characters were operating though, including in the wider and more general aspect of the era. Even Downton Abbey occasionally had discussions like this surrounding specific aspects of it's storyline

josephryan1989

It seems from the trailer for the next episode that Jimmy and Eliza take part in an ambush on a column of British soldiers in a scenario that resembles the battle for a Mount Street.

gormdubhgorm

I am not watching the third episode.I won't be fooled a third time it's an annoying mismatch of everything and ultimately nothing. They tried something new and it didn't work. Maybe they are setting the programme out to be a glorious like 1916 itself!?

Disgruntled Badger

Mod snip

mod - see warning above and below

amdublin

Mod:

See note in post #601.

This is the second warning. While of course there may be some ancillary conversation with any tv show set in a historical period, please bear in mind this is the television forum and that people come here not expecting a history lesson. There are many forums on boards which are much better placed to facilitate the full ins and outs of the rising.

I won't warn again, infractions have been given and will continue for any off topic posting. Please get back on topic discussing the tv program

Also, there is to be no discussion of moderator decision on thread.

Thank you

GT_TDI_150

Personally I'll be watching the entire series ... from commentary here is seem there is no obvious bias to either 'side' in the show so as I said before ... I WANT to get to know more about this period without wading through book after book leaning one way or the other

maudgonner

I was hoping for a lot from this and will continue to watch it to he end, but I'm definitely feeling let down by it.

There was so much potential to have a tense, character driven drama that was filled with action and tension. Instead they've made a soap opera with poorly drawn characters and some fairly shoddy acting.

I saw the Ray Darcy Show interview where Ruth Bradley talked about how proud they were that this show passed the Bechdel Test and that it has female characters who aren't defined by their romantic relationships. After seeing the first two episodes, I can't agree with that. From the word go this series is set up as a romantic drama. Even Bradley's character, who is set up to be the most strong-willed and rebellious of the three, still has to have a pointless crush on Pearse.

While it's great to see the story of a historical armed conflict told from a female pov, they've utterly wasted the potential by focusing on the romance. It's all too superficial, too lightweight with no substance. I'd actually prefer to have a more balanced male/female character split and have the characters be more involved with the business end of the Rising, bring more detail into it, more politics.

And why does everyone sound so bloody po-faced? Over-enuniciating every syllable of every word, with no flow to the dialog and no humour? It's painfully stiff and unnatural.

Maybe it will improve now that the Rising is underway, get meatier and less silly? I've still got hope, but sadly, not expectation.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

maudgonner wrote: »

I was hoping for a lot from this and will continue to watch it to he end, but I'm definitely feeling let down by it.

There was so much potential to have a tense, character driven drama that was filled with action and tension. Instead they've made a soap opera with poorly drawn characters and some fairly shoddy acting.

I saw the Ray Darcy Show interview where Ruth Bradley talked about how proud they were that this show passed the Bechdel Test and that it has female characters who aren't defined by their romantic relationships. After seeing the first two episodes, I can't agree with that. From the word go this series is set up as a romantic drama. Even Bradley's character, who is set up to be the most strong-willed and rebellious of the three, still has to have a pointless crush on Pearse.

While it's great to see the story of a historical armed conflict told from a female pov, they've utterly wasted the potential by focusing on the romance. It's all too superficial, too lightweight with no substance. I'd actually prefer to have a more balanced male/female character split and have the characters be more involved with the business end of the Rising, bring more detail into it, more politics.

I don't think that the romantic plots are defining the characters but I can't see how it passes the Bechdel test either. I mean... have the woman had more than one conversation with another woman in the first two episodes?

Pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying though.

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't think that the romantic plots are defining the characters but I can't see how it passes the Bechdel test either. I mean... have the woman had more than one conversation with another woman in the first two episodes?

Pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying though.

They have. Elizabeth talked to her mother, though mainly about Stephen, so that doesn't quite pass, but some of it was about their mother daughter relationship and Elizabeth's activities. Elizabeth and May discussed May's pregnancy. Elizabeth had scenes with Markievicz and Kathleen Lynn. Francis and May had two conversations and while Hammond was discussed, so was the arrest orders and the Rising. Mrs Hammond and the maid discussed the Rising/German invasion. Arthur's wife Peig and their daughter fought about the latter's looting.

It passes the Bechdel Test constantly but that's not especially unusual on television. And those that don't pass have reason not to. It's film that suffer from that problem, not television.

jimmythedivil

Just realised that the father of Elizabeth is played by Ian McIlhinney who was also in Michael Collins. He was the detective that was sent down from the north to provide a 'bit of Belfast efficiency' before he got blown to smithereens.

TerrorFirmer

I know the Volunteers openly drilled with wooden rifles and the like, but can someone answer with historical accuracy, where they genuinely drilling in Dublins main streets with actual rifles? Find that hard to believe. Like the scene where Gleeson is on the street approaching the wedding party, in full volunteer uniform and carrying a rifle. Surely the British were not that liberal in turning a blind eye...

ScumLord

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I know the Volunteers openly drilled with wooden rifles and the like, but can someone answer with historical accuracy, where they genuinely drilling in Dublins main streets with actual rifles?

I think they may have done protest marches with wooden guns in Dublin. I can't imagine they'd be allowed to march into town with real guns.

Steppenwolfe

maudgonner wrote: »

I was hoping for a lot from this and will continue to watch it to he end, but I'm definitely feeling let down by it.

There was so much potential to have a tense, character driven drama that was filled with action and tension. Instead they've made a soap opera with poorly drawn characters and some fairly shoddy acting.

I saw the Ray Darcy Show interview where Ruth Bradley talked about how proud they were that this show passed the Bechdel Test and that it has female characters who aren't defined by their romantic relationships. After seeing the first two episodes, I can't agree with that. From the word go this series is set up as a romantic drama. Even Bradley's character, who is set up to be the most strong-willed and rebellious of the three, still has to have a pointless crush on Pearse.

While it's great to see the story of a historical armed conflict told from a female pov, they've utterly wasted the potential by focusing on the romance. It's all too superficial, too lightweight with no substance. I'd actually prefer to have a more balanced male/female character split and have the characters be more involved with the business end of the Rising, bring more detail into it, more politics.

And why does everyone sound so bloody po-faced? Over-enuniciating every syllable of every word, with no flow to the dialog and no humour? It's painfully stiff and unnatural.

Maybe it will improve now that the Rising is underway, get meatier and less silly? I've still got hope, but sadly, not expectation.

This expresses my opinion of the first two episodes exactly. Maybe we are expecting too much. 90% of what I see on tv is similarly themed soap opera dross. Some of it is dressed up as something else and with bigger budgets, but basically it's the same. That's pretty much all the average viewer is capable of relating to. To get some outside initial investment and sell it aboard they have to dumb it down for the masses. Number crunchers who control the money only care about ratings and sales figures. So I can see why it was made this way. That's no excuse for the artistic/technical faults. I don't blame the actors so much as they are some of the best available. The problems you mentioned are mainly down to the direction.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

This expresses my opinion of the first two episodes exactly. Maybe we are expecting too much. 90% of what I see on tv is similarly themed soap opera dross. Some of it is dressed up as something else and with bigger budgets, but basically it's the same. That's pretty much all the average viewer is capable of relating to. To get some outside initial investment and sell it aboard they have to dumb it down for the masses. Number crunchers who control the money only care about ratings and sales figures. So I can see why it was made this way. That's no excuse for the artistic/technical faults. I don't blame the actors so much as they are some of the best available. The problems you mentioned are mainly down to the direction.

Given the huge success of the "Nordic Noir" shows over the past few years I disagree with this statement. Add in things like Fargo and other such mini series that US cable have been producing and there's clearly a market for intelligent, well made dramas. However I wouldn't rule out that that is what the thinking was when this was being made.

Steppenwolfe

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Given the huge success of the "Nordic Noir" shows over the past few years I disagree with this statement. Add in things like Fargo and other such mini series that US cable have been producing and there's clearly a market for intelligent, well made dramas. However I wouldn't rule out that that is what the thinking was when this was being made.

I phrased it wrongly. I meant to say 'the thinking behind' it as you suggested.

iguana

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

To get some outside initial investment and sell it aboard they have to dumb it down for the masses. Number crunchers who control the money only care about ratings and sales figures. So I can see why it was made this way. That's no excuse for the artistic/technical faults. I don't blame the actors so much as they are some of the best available. The problems you mentioned are mainly down to the direction.

This was part financed by Sundance. The channel responsible/part responsible for Rectify, Top of the Lake and Deutschland 83. None of which can be described as dumbed down tv. This should have been so much better.

Sanguine Fan

I was disappointed with episode one and disgusted with episode two. It is not just the ropey dialogue and historical inaccuracies that bother me. Nor is it the clunky direction and cheap sets. (Smooth pathways were laid across the front square of Trinity College a few years so that the queen of England would not trip on the cobblestones. Yet characters were shown walking along these new paths in what is supposed to be 1916.)

No, my problem is with how most of the rebel forces are presented as brainwashed, dead-eyed fanatics. They glory in death, either their own or their hapless victims'. When one sees them shooting unarmed policemen or ordinary citizens in cold blood, it is hard to keep the latest atrocities by Islamic State out of one's mind.

In contrast, the socialists, principally the characters played by Brian Gleeson and Charlie Murphy, are presented as somewhat naive but ultimately reasonably sane individuals, and not without humanity. Similarly, the British soldiers come across as essentially decent. to the extent that I almost found myself rooting for them when they went after the rebels.

What is going on here? Pearse is portrayed as a religious nut with a streak of misogyny running through him. Connolly, on the other hand, is a tough little Glaswegian of the kind you would like to have on your side in a scrap.

Is RTE so scared of creating a positive impression of the (old) IRA that it reduces the men and women who sacrificed so much to grotesque caricatures? Is it then trying to compensate by presenting those rebels of a socialist hue in a more positive light? After all, Ireland has always rejected socialism so there is little chance of Rebellion stirring up the masses in support of Richard Boyd Barrett.

There is a school of thought that lays some of the blame for the Northern Ireland Troubles on the fiftieth anniversary commemorations in 1966. One of the centrepieces of those commemorations was Insurrection, RTE's dramatisation of Easter Week 1916. That series presented the men and women who took part in the Rising as heroes. Clearly that 'mistake' has been avoided this time.

If this is revisionism, could it not have been done in a less ham-fisted fashion? How will the series end I wonder? Maybe the surviving rebels will be shown wishing they had listened to John Redmond and settled for Home Rule!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

There is a school of thought that lays some of the blame for the Northern Ireland Troubles on the fiftieth anniversary commemorations in 1966. One of the centrepieces of those commemorations was Insurrection, RTE's dramatisation of Easter Week 1916. That series presented the men and women who took part in the Rising as heroes. Clearly that 'mistake' has been avoided this time.

This is ridiculous. The "troubles" in the North started as a legitimate Civil Rights movement that was then high jacked by violent Republicans and met with the same from the other side and the British Army. Blaming a TV show for 20+ years of violence and suffering might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Shurimgreat

Some of the criticisms are a bit harsh particularly the one above about the smooth footpath! If people are calling that out as a historical inaccuracy then I give up!

The problem facing any RTE drama is a limited budget, and the need to balance a bare bones retelling of history with dramatic content. So far I've liked it, the characters interact well, the tension is building and some of the resolutions are in doubt.

We all know what happened Pearse, Connolly and co. Making a program with them as the main characters or stars would be utterly boring and without interest, since we all know how it turned out for them.

This drama will not appeal to everyone, particularly the historical anoraks who worry about things like if there was cobbles somewhere in 1916, but it still comes across well. There's more than enough attention to detail to make it credible.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^I noticed the new surface on O'Connell St. last week but it's not like they left the spire in or had the characters take a shortcut through Pennys.

P. Breathnach

Shurimgreat wrote: »

... We all know what happened Pearse, Connolly and co. Making a program with them as the main characters or stars would be utterly boring and without interest, since we all know how it turned out for them....

I think the discussion shows that many people don't actually know much about Pearse, Connolly and co. beyond the simple fact that they were executed after the Rising!

That said, I don't object to making a programme that uses fictitious characters and sets them strongly in the context of the Rising. I'm just sorry that it's not better done: it's all a bit flat.

KingBrian2

I wonder how they are going to handle the artillery bombardment of the GPO and adjacent buildings. The city centre was totalled and slum tenement houses knocked down. Maybe they will use CGI to show the burning buildings and looting.