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

Lt Dan

Deleted User wrote: »

The church drifted in and out of the war as they pleased. Similar to Dev their ultimate goal was power but they set others up to do the donkey work and hung them out to dry.

Although Im getting the hint that the priest in this series has a bit of a rebel streak though given the way he covered for Jimmy at the GPO and denied knowledge of Elizabeth's whereabouts to Stephen.

A couple of priest were in the GPO that week. Two of them, Franciscan Priests were well renowned, (they wore those dresses and all), and they also stuck with the Anti Treaty boys during the Civil War. Another priest Fr Luke Flanagan of Roscommon ( I kid you not - maybe he was Sean Flanagan) was one the driving forces of Sinn Fein after the 1916 Rising, he also went Anti Treaty. they will likely show this priest (who is not Franciscan) being with Pearse and co when they are executed.

Suffice to say, years later they (the two Franciscan Priests) were sent packing to the back end of the world (ala Bishop Len in Fr Ted - the one with the dirty film)


As for the hierarchy, yep, some Bishop in Kilaloe who was a big shot back then went bananas in the papers. He would later be happy to shake De Valera's hand later.

All through Irish history, bar the exception of some well known figures, the Church always sought to side with the one in power. Hell, many even sided against Davitt and Parnell during the Land War. And we all know what happened when word got out that Parnell had a child with a married woman...

Lt Dan

Lt Dan wrote: »

De Valera "instigated" Civil War? Who is the spoofer again?

You can be rest assured that when get around to reading statements and other works on Liam Lynch , who inititally oppose violence, Tom Barry, Cathal Brugha and actually the MAJORITY of the remaining IRA/IRB leaders outside of Dublin (many of who didn't shoot in anger) you will find that they didn't spend alot of time wondering what Dev thought. Drop the Michael Collins film and walk away.


What democratic will? There was an election, which pretty much more or less determined what side people voted when they selected a candidate, but like modern day, sharp political practices were reached. The Dev - Collins pact was scrapped at the instigation of Downing Street and the copy of the Free State Constitution was only published on the day of the elections. Naturally people were war weary after almost 10 years of war and talk of war since 1914. People seemed happy enough to vote in their droves in 1926 and put Dev into power in the 1930's where he remained almost right up to the day he came President. Imagine, the people returned an old and blind Dev instead of a younger and more dynamic O'Higgins. Wow!

I suppose you aren't one bit convinced about his non military courage (there was none) so no point arguing with you about the significance of him not being bullied by the British over the economic war or World War 2.

I suppose your family were brave and all and were out in either 1916, WW1 or both?

There was many who opposed the treaty tbf for their reasons. Dan Breen had the highest respect for Michael Collins but rejected the Treaty. De Valera was the leader of this group though.

Where was Dev when the Treaty had to be signed? ****íng nowhere. Set it up for others to bring back the bad news. He believed that in order to be taken seriously that we should behave like a legitimate army?! Come on like? 3-4m vs a vast empire?

As for me having family in WW1/Rising/WoI/Civil War, afaik i had a couple of great uncles involved in WW1. What their motivation was im not sure tbh. I suppose you had to be there at the time to gather what the consensus and motivation was behind each decision. Was it just a wage or did they really feel the threat that the Axis Powers could come closer to home. Perhaps they were against the idea of republicanism. Its an area id like to research in future to be honest.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What a crazy notion

Well this is what the Unionists in Northern Ireland were arming themselves against, they feared being forced into a "Rome" led state. Perhaps the Archbishop fears too that a revolutionary style outfit like the rebels with socialist elements might even be hostile to the Church.

Lt Dan

Lt Dan wrote: »

Brugha was a bit of a nutter But a yes man to De Valera he certainly was not. De Valera famously stated to Arthur Griffith when they were discussing terms of the Treaty negotiations that he was not a die in the wool Republican unlike Brugha.

Might be best people actually study people like Brugha before making claims about whether they were yes men or not.

There appears to be a gross lack of understanding that the period of 1916-1922 consisted of many complex characters and not just the fight between the egos of Collins and De Valera that the media and historians have been peddling down the throats of people for decades.

Alas the chap who referred to not knowing who Brugha was, is correct, like you, in summarizing that he would not have been one did much during the Tan War compared to 1916 or even the Civil War when he actually did . something.Brugha like Collins escaped jail and more or less stayed in his candle making shop for much of the Tan War

My exact quote is how the Michael Collins film portrayed him as, not my own opinion and i do agree that the movie romanticised Collins to be perfect and logistical while the others were the big bad wolves set against him and the treaty.

Upon a bit of research he was second in command to Eamon Ceannt in the rising

http://treaty.nationalarchives.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Brugha.pdf

Ive no doubt he was a strong minded character but seemed set against the guerilla war tactics and perhaps that unified him in line with De Valera. It was a bit out of touch because ultimately the only way we were going to make the Brits take us seriously was by making them sleep with one eye open.

Lt Dan

Deleted User wrote: »

There was many who opposed the treaty tbf for their reasons. Dan Breen had the highest respect for Michael Collins but rejected the Treaty. De Valera was the leader of this group though.

Where was Dev when the Treaty had to be signed? ****íng nowhere. Set it up for others to bring back the bad news. He believed that in order to be taken seriously that we should behave like a legitimate army?! Come on like? 3-4m vs a vast empire?

As for me having family in WW1/Rising/WoI/Civil War, afaik i had a couple of great uncles involved in WW1. What their motivation was im not sure tbh. I suppose you had to be there at the time to gather what the consensus and motivation was behind each decision. Was it just a wage or did they really feel the threat that the Axis Powers could come closer to home. Perhaps they were against the idea of republicanism. Its an area id like to research in future to be honest.

He was back in Dublin (actually in Limerick with no phone) trying to control fanatics like Brugha, and giving Collins and Griffith contradictory instructions ie plenipotentiary powers vs they must call back to him first.

Griffith is known to have made a few cock ups during the negotiations . Llyodd George could get no where with De Valera, "picking up mercury with a fork".

The less said about De Valera's comments or views on military issues the better ie stupid attack on Customs House that pretty much wiped out the Dublin Division

Suffice to say, De Valera is a walking contradiction, but it is a nonsense to for anyone to suggest that Civil War would not have happened if De Valera agreed with Collins. By all means, the war would not have been a war that was nastier than the Tan War if De Valera and his political allies sides with the Treaty

Motivation for joining the war is not relevant here. I was merely pointing out that commenting on one's bravery is rather harsh especially when a majority of those who comment (except you) stayed at home

Lt Dan

Lt Dan wrote: »

He was back in Dublin (actually in Limerick with no phone) trying to control fanatics like Brugha, and giving Collins and Griffith contradictory instructions ie plenipotentiary powers vs they must call back to him first.

Griffith is known to have made a few cock ups during the negotiations . Llyodd George could get no where with De Valera, "picking up mercury with a fork".

The less said about De Valera's comments or views on military issues the better ie stupid attack on Customs House that pretty much wiped out the Dublin Division

Suffice to say, De Valera is a walking contradiction, but it is a nonsense to for anyone to suggest that Civil War would not have happened if De Valera agreed with Collins. By all means, the war would not have been a war that was nastier than the Tan War if De Valera and his political allies sides with the Treaty


Motivation for joining the war is not relevant here. I was merely pointing out that commenting on one's bravery is rather harsh especially when a majority of those who comment (except you) stayed at home

And where were you in all of this so? Whats your actual point?

He was the de facto leader and president of this country and yet when it came to the actual Treaty negotiations he sent other men to do it for him?? And then objected to what they achieved? Why didnt he go himself so?

FWIW i agree that he didnt exactly put the anti treaty notion to people becore they disagreed with it. it would be too simplistic to assume that. Why the hell did it come to civil war though? Surely he could have done more to prevent it?

Corholio

The whole affair thing is as dull as dishwater. The last 2 episodes have literally been the wife and mistress sitting in the room trying not to talk to each other, making awkward small talk.

Nothing about the series engages me to any of the struggles by either side, there's the odd bit of dialogue about doing this for the cause and dying for it, but nothing hangs around too long and instead we're bored to death with wife/mistress or drunk guy in the pub who seems to have been having a lock in for about 2 weeks straight.

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

The whole affair thing is as dull as dishwater. The last 2 episodes have literally been the wife and mistress sitting in the room trying not to talk to each other, making awkward small talk.

Nothing about the series engages me to any of the struggles by either side, there's the odd bit of dialogue about doing this for the cause and dying for it, but nothing hangs around too long and instead we're bored to death with wife/mistress or drunk guy in the pub who seems to have been having a lock in for about 2 weeks straight.

The director seems to have become too obsessed with avoiding the ham and is instead trying to let body language dictate some scenes. Inconsistent throughout really. An overfocus on the May/Hammond affair.

The makers are probably trying to tell it from all sides but with lack of proper explanation or dialogue it ends up like bbcs the Village

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The makers are probably trying to tell it from all sides but with lack of proper explanation or dialogue it ends up like bbcs the Village

First series of The Village was excellent.

Riskymove

Deleted User wrote: »

An overfocus on the May/Hammond affair.

agreed

they seem to be insistent on having some clichéd love triangle plot in the series which just happens to take place against the background of the rising. And even then the two women are just sitting in some big house in Dalkey sniping at each other.

I don't see the point of it.

Strazdas

Corholio wrote: »

The whole affair thing is as dull as dishwater. The last 2 episodes have literally been the wife and mistress sitting in the room trying not to talk to each other, making awkward small talk.

Nothing about the series engages me to any of the struggles by either side, there's the odd bit of dialogue about doing this for the cause and dying for it, but nothing hangs around too long and instead we're bored to death with wife/mistress or drunk guy in the pub who seems to have been having a lock in for about 2 weeks straight.

Disagree, they've done an excellent job in portraying what the atmosphere was like in Dublin during the week of the Rising and in trying to tease out the numerous different loyalties and allegiances of the characters. They've managed to get many of the nuances of that week into the story too ie. rebels behaving badly at times, children being killed, the British being cruel and over the top in their response, the attitude of the Catholic Church to the Rising etc.

wp_rathead

Is this a mini series or is there going to be a Season 2?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

wp_rathead wrote: »

Is this a mini series or is there going to be a Season 2?

I saw a few posts the other day talking about a second series but I haven't seen anything official about it.

josephryan1989

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yeah. He was an adjutant during the Rising so communications probably would have been part of his remit.

Wrong.

The rebel leader Joseph Plunkett intructed Fergus O'Kelly, a former of the Army Signalling Corps, to occupy the Dublin Wireless School of Telegraphy on the other side of Sackville Street. The school had been closed since the outbreak of war, the machines dismantled and the aerial on the roof taken down. They succeeded in transmitting the news and American papers ran with the story “Revolt in Ireland” while British media retained a blackout.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Wrong.

The rebel leader Joseph Plunkett intructed Fergus O'Kelly, a former of the Army Signalling Corps, to occupy the Dublin Wireless School of Telegraphy on the other side of Sackville Street. The school had been closed since the outbreak of war, the machines dismantled and the aerial on the roof taken down. They succeeded in transmitting the news and American papers ran with the story “Revolt in Ireland” while British media retained a blackout.

What I said isn't wrong. It may not be what actually happened on the day but that's not what we were talking about. We all know you've ingested a 1916 encyclopedia at some point but maybe pay attention to the context of the comments you're replying to.

josephryan1989

Lt Dan wrote: »

A couple of priest were in the GPO that week. Two of them, Franciscan Priests were well renowned, (they wore those dresses and all), and they also stuck with the Anti Treaty boys during the Civil War. Another priest Fr Luke Flanagan of Roscommon ( I kid you not - maybe he was Sean Flanagan) was one the driving forces of Sinn Fein after the 1916 Rising, he also went Anti Treaty. they will likely show this priest (who is not Franciscan) being with Pearse and co when they are executed.

Suffice to say, years later they (the two Franciscan Priests) were sent packing to the back end of the world (ala Bishop Len in Fr Ted - the one with the dirty film)


As for the hierarchy, yep, some Bishop in Kilaloe who was a big shot back then went bananas in the papers. He would later be happy to shake De Valera's hand later.

All through Irish history, bar the exception of some well known figures, the Church always sought to side with the one in power. Hell, many even sided against Davitt and Parnell during the Land War. And we all know what happened when word got out that Parnell had a child with a married woman...

Father Michael O'Flanagan was a Vice President of Sinn Féin. He later opposed the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 and was President of Sinn Féin from 1933 to 1935 and gave his support to the Spanish Republic.

josephryan1989

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What I said isn't wrong. It may not be what actually happened on the day but that's not what we were talking about. We all know you've ingested a 1916 encyclopedia at some point but maybe pay attention to the context of the comments you're replying to.

Michael Collins is not in the show.
The actor in the scene is Sean Fox and according to the IMDB is portraying Sean McDermott who had nothing to do with the radio transmission.
Collins was a former Royal Mail clerk and had no background in radio either.

I found this out in a few seconds by using google.

Hippo

Unfortunately it's just hopelessly dull. Poorly written cardboard characters and no dramatic tension at all. Particularly noticeable in this day and age when there's so much excellent TV drama available. Looks nice mind you.

JohnFalstaff

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Michael Collins is not in the show.
The actor in the scene is Sean Fox and according to the IMDB is portraying Sean McDermott who had nothing to do with the radio transmission.
Collins was a former Royal Mail clerk and had no background in radio either.

I found this out in a few seconds by using google.

Michael Collins is in the show - he's being played by an actor called Sebastien Thommen.

And Collins would have gained a good grounding in basic radio technology from the time he spent in Larkfield working alongside Con Keating.

josephryan1989

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Michael Collins is in the show - he's being played by an actor called Sebastien Thommen.

And Collins would have gained a good grounding in basic radio technology from the time he spent in Larkfield working alongside Con Keating.

There is no mention of Sebastian Thommen in the cast on IMDB.

Michael Collins took no part in the radio transmission but he knew Keating who drowned when the car he was travelling in Co. Kerry ran accidentally into the River Laune.

TCDStudent1

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There is no mention of Sebastian Thommen in the cast on IMDB.

He spoke in one of the extras pieces you can watch on the player. IMDb seems to be very inaccurate on this show. It said Ruth Bradley was only in 2 episodes but we now know she's in at least 4.

JohnFalstaff

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There is no mention of Sebastian Thommen in the cast on IMDB.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...etc

josephryan1989

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

He spoke in one of the extras pieces you can watch on the player. IMDb seems to be very inaccurate on this show. It said Ruth Bradley was only in 2 episodes but we now know she's in at least 4.

Oh I see it now.

I shall concede that point but I am rarely wrong.

JohnFalstaff

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Oh I see it now.

I shall concede that point but I am rarely wrong.

Come off it! You were wrong just now about some lad called Derek Bourke being in the car that went off the pier at Ballykissane before you edited it. Are you just looking this stuff up on Google?

josephryan1989

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Come off it! You were wrong just now about some lad called Derek Bourke being in the car that went off the pier at Ballykissane before you edited it. Are you just looking this stuff up on Google?

SILENCE!

P. Breathnach

josephryan1989 wrote: »

...
Michael Collins took no part in the radio transmission ...

My take on it (which I am not going to research, as it is only a minor detail) is that it was supposedly Collins who was dictating the content of a telegraph message. A minor justification for this is that he might have known better than most how to work to the right speed for a telegraph operator.

On another point: it's difficult to understand what barracks is being used by the military. Much of the action shown seems to be in the inner city, so I presumed the barracks represented was the Royal Barracks (now Collins Barracks, the location for the National Museum). But Bowen-Colthurst was stationed at Portobello, and that's where Francis Sheehy-Skeffington was shot. I imagine that they glossed over the location shift by making no mention of the name of the man who was shot, putting it into the category of "the sort of thing that happened" rather than presenting it as "a thing that really happened".

I thought the fight at Mount Street Bridge was well represented, although I had believed that the tactical errors of the military were made by the officers on the spot, rather than by General Lowe. The trembling Sherwood Forester, a young lad with just a few days' training and no experience, was a good dramatic touch, and probably authentic.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^It's hard to know where they're supposed to be, the army, when you're familiar with the location they filmed in. It seems like most of it is shot at Collins Barracks but whether or not they're supposed to actually be there or not is another matter.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I saw a few posts the other day talking about a second series but I haven't seen anything official about it.

I notice RTE Player are listing the episodes as part of "Season 1", so perhaps a decision has already been taken.

P. Breathnach

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^It's hard to know where they're supposed to be, the army, when you're familiar with the location they filmed in. It seems like most of it is shot at Collins Barracks but whether or not they're supposed to actually be there or not is another matter.

Agreed.

Obviously, Collins Barracks had the considerable advantages of being available and not greatly altered over the years.

I wonder if there will be any effort to show us two other locations of intensive fighting: The South Dublin Union (now James Street Hospital, and altered beyond recognition) and North King Street (also quite different nowadays). Finding suitable locations must have been a challenge - except for nice Victorian/Edwardian residences.

I'm old enough to remember the 1966 commemoration programme, which was a re-enactment of the rebellion, with no fiction overlay. They had no problem with locations then. And B/W television meant that double yellow lines would not cause any bother (in fact, I'm not sure if such lines existed in 1966).

The Rape of Lucretia

Corholio wrote: »

The whole affair thing is as dull as dishwater. The last 2 episodes have literally been the wife and mistress sitting in the room trying not to talk to each other, making awkward small talk.

Weeeeeel, no they havent. Literally.
If you are going to criticism it, at least have something valid to say rather than that kind of nonsense.
That strand of the story is a little out on a limb and soapy compared to the rest at the minute. But it occupied, maybe, a minute or two of the last two episodes.
Are you aware that each episode is actually an hour-ad breaks? A hell of a lot more went on in both episodes.