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

KingBrian2

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Not sure they would have been too keen to agree to that. They could have asked for the same in return too. Best off leaving it. Yer man that stripped Clarke was taken care of by Collins' men anyway.

Still these wounds of war were never healed at least not for a long time. Cork was raised to the ground by the Black & Tans. Everyone with links to Sinn Féin were treated as prisoners. The Volunteers were denied basic rights by the military occupation. Maxwell, French or Lowe went back to England with their careers intact. Who knows what happened to them but no justice was ever done for the occupation of Dublin during the 1916 Rising and subsequent acts of terrorism.

Strazdas

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That scene they had of Tom Clarke was disgusting. I don't see why after treaty negotiations as part of the agreement British officers and the Black & Tans were not put before an Irish court-martial.

The War of Independence was extremely ugly on both sides. What the Black and Tans was doing was illegal but so was what Collins' men were doing ie. the murder of all those British intelligence officers on the morning of Bloody Sunday.

Keep in mind too there was grave disquiet in Britain about the Black and Tans. Several national newspapers condemned them and King George V (who was very well disposed towards Ireland and the Irish) personally demanded of Lloyd George that he call them off.

josephryan1989

nagdefy wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong Joseph but were about 300 to 400 Irish men, of the Irish 16th division, gassed and killed at Hulluch in France on the 27th April, Easter Week. Fighting for Home Rule, money, adventure, the King, poor little Belgium and a myriad of reasons. A lot of Irish casualties that week at home and abroad

Arguably if the Rising did nothing else it helped to galvanize republicans and broader Irish nationalism and created a grassroots movement that would oppose the introduction of conscription saving thousands of lives.

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

The War of Independence was extremely ugly on both sides. What the Black and Tans was doing was illegal but so was what Collins' men were doing ie. the murder of all those British intelligence officers on the morning of Bloody Sunday.

Keep in mind too there was grave disquiet in Britain about the Black and Tans. Several national newspapers condemned them and King George V (who was very well disposed towards Ireland and the Irish) personally demanded of Lloyd George that he call them off.

When the British locked up elected TDs and refused to recognize the overwhelming Irish public endorsement of an Irish Republic and banned public meetings fairs and sporting events and introduced mass arrests and began shooting political activists while others died on hunger strike what other recourse did Collins and his men and IRA flying colymns the length and breadth of the country have?

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

I think some people have been using "soap" as if it's almost a dirty word. Many a period or historical drama has had a love interest angle and focus on personal relationships.

A purely political / military conflict type docudrama about the Rising could have ended up being very boring for the average viewer.

A fact based political military action thriller drama series would have worked well.

There is a wealth of extremely exciting historical characters and dramatic events surrounding 1916 any talented writer could draw on.

tomwaterford

Strazdas wrote: »

The War of Independence was extremely ugly on both sides. What the Black and Tans was doing was illegal but so was what Collins' men were doing ie. the murder of all those British intelligence officers on the morning of Bloody Sunday.

Keep in mind too there was grave disquiet in Britain about the Black and Tans. Several national newspapers condemned them and King George V (who was very well disposed towards Ireland and the Irish) personally demanded of Lloyd George that he call them off.

It's a little known fact that approx a third or so of the Black and Tans had a Irish Catholic background (kids of emigrants)

They were long spoken and hated by most who had dealings with them long after they left ireland...remember hearing tales of them when I growing up

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Poor auld Black and Tans get an awful hard time. Twas the Auxiliaries did most of it.

Strazdas

josephryan1989 wrote: »

A fact based political military action thriller drama series would have worked well.

Yes, they could certainly have gone down that route by showing the military planning for the Rising, the Rising itself, the arrests and then the court martials and executions. But one wonders what sort of audience they would have gotten : that type of docudrama sounds "worthy" but something that would have a pretty limited viewership.

I'm puzzled by those who think you can't have a historical drama series in a soap like or melodrama fashion. Upstairs Downstairs was soapy but is also regarded as one of the finest ever historical TV drama series. Strumpet City was the same. I'm not sure the docudrama format would work too well for a five part drama series either : Downfall (about Hitler's last few weeks in the bunker) was a critical success but that was as a one off movie......I've a feeling it wouldn't have lent itself to a drama series at all.

So that's why I think the people who are attacking the format of Rebellion are barking up the wrong tree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them having fictitious characters and focussing in on their lives whilst having the Rising as the backdrop.

KingBrian2

Once again the foot soldiers are mentioned never the pen writers. Maxwell imposed martial law on the city. He presided over the executions. His soldiers and the accompanying incoming Black & Tans were sent in by higher ups in command. Redmond the so called ally of Britain should have been able to get these officers into an Irish prison. That was never going to happen and I still don't understand why this did not become a condition. Ireland was never a pacifist Nation. We fully backed the decision to go into WW1. So the actions of Maxwell were in violation of an ally.

tomwaterford

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, they could certainly have gone down that route by showing the military planning for the Rising, the Rising itself, the arrests and then the court martials and executions. But one wonders what sort of audience they would have gotten : that type of docudrama sounds "worthy" but something that would have a pretty limited viewership.

I'm puzzled by those who think you can't have a historical drama series in a soap like or melodrama fashion. Upstairs Downstairs was soapy but is also regarded as one of the finest ever historical TV drama series. Strumpet City was the same. I'm not sure the docudrama format would work too well for a five part drama series either : Downfall (about Hitler's last few weeks in the bunker) was a critical success but that was as a one off movie......I've a feeling it wouldn't have lent itself to a drama series at all.

So that's why I think the people who are attacking the format of Rebellion are barking up the wrong tree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them having fictitious characters and focussing in on their lives whilst having the Rising as the backdrop.

I taught it was a good idea...removed the need for pointless and needless sticking absolutely to the exact detail (eye couler,heights etc)...and given the revisiom with everything regarded Irish history would have no end of people dismissing it as rubbish/one sided


Do people think that everyone stopped living their lives once rebellion broke out??

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Strazdas wrote: »

So that's why I think the people who are attacking the format of Rebellion are barking up the wrong tree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them having fictitious characters and focussing in on their lives whilst having the Rising as the backdrop.

I mentioned these before but the Danish program 1864 and German program Generation War are two brilliant examples of how fictional characters in historical settings can work. War and Peace (the book) on the other hand is something that is dragged down by all the actual politics and war details. The current BBC adaptation has ignored those sections entirely.

Funnily enough the Danes complained that 1864 cost way too much to make and could have been better spent on other things. Sounds familiar

Also mentioned before but if it's docu-drama you want you could do worse than the two series TG4 did on the leaders recently. Seachtar Dearmadta and Seachtar na Cásca.

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

The War of Independence was extremely ugly on both sides.

Wars tend to be like that. People die and often in horrible ways.

What the Black and Tans was doing was illegal but so was what Collins' men were doing ie. the murder of all those British intelligence officers on the morning of Bloody Sunday.

You really don't seem to have much of a clue about events or history. The Black and Tans were sent in by the British government. The elimination of the British spies was a legitimate act of war and in accordance with the practice of the time, spies were executed. They knew the risks and they had intended to kill Collins and his men. So your "illegal" stuff is just plain wrong.

Keep in mind too there was grave disquiet in Britain about the Black and Tans. Several national newspapers condemned them and King George V (who was very well disposed towards Ireland and the Irish) personally demanded of Lloyd George that he call them off.

Sounds like something that John "Unionist" Bruton would say. (That embarrassment has been wibbling on in much the same clueless way about 1916.) You may not have realised this yet but in the Irish War of Independence, the British were the enemy.

Regards...jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jmcc wrote: »

Wars tend to be like that. People die and often in horrible ways.

You really haven't much of a clue about events or history. The Black and Tans were sent in by the British government. The elimination of the British spies was a legitimate act of war and in accordance with the practice of the time, spies were executed. They knew the risks and they had intended to kill Collins and his men. So your "illegal" stuff is just plain wrong.

Your logic that war is like that should apply to the actions of the British then too? Other than the civilian stuff.

Strazdas

tomwaterford wrote: »

I taught it was a good idea...removed the need for pointless and needless sticking absolutely to the exact detail (eye couler,heights etc)...and given the revisiom with everything regarded Irish history would have no end of people dismissing it as rubbish/one sided


Do people think that everyone stopped living their lives once rebellion broke out??

Exactly, and I think the docudrama route is something that's not even very popular when it comes to TV drama series. People want to see the human interest angle and that includes romantic relationships, family ties and rivalries etc. The people bashing the programme for having fictional characters sound like they want a five hour version of the TG4 docudrama series about the Rising (and ironically, they'd probably hate the RTE version and find thousands of faults with it anyway)

maudgonner

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, they could certainly have gone down that route by showing the military planning for the Rising, the Rising itself, the arrests and then the court martials and executions. But one wonders what sort of audience they would have gotten : that type of docudrama sounds "worthy" but something that would have a pretty limited viewership.

If done well I think it could have been incredibly compelling. Band of Brothers was hugely successful, not just among WW2 buffs, because it was beautifully written, acted and directed. You grew to love those characters, worry for them, care about them.

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm puzzled by those who think you can't have a historical drama series in a soap like or melodrama fashion. Upstairs Downstairs was soapy but is also regarded as one of the finest ever historical TV drama series. Strumpet City was the same. I'm not sure the docudrama format would work too well for a five part drama series either : Downfall (about Hitler's last few weeks in the bunker) was a critical success but that was as a one off movie......I've a feeling it wouldn't have lent itself to a drama series at all.

So that's why I think the people who are attacking the format of Rebellion are barking up the wrong tree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them having fictitious characters and focussing in on their lives whilst having the Rising as the backdrop.

I wasn't against the idea of having the series based around fictional characters - although this thread proves that most people don't know that much about the event and there was definitely scope to do a straightforward recreation. They just didn't execute (no pun intended) it very well, in my opinion. Generation War, for example, had a similar premise but did a much better job, it's a fantastic series.

I think that when you know the story of the Rising, it's hard to get over how dramatic the real thing is - the cast of characters, rollercoaster of emotions, excitement and tragedy. And yes, romance (it would be hard for any story to top the romance of the Grace Gifford-Joseph Plunkett wedding). Having this series largely ignore that in favour of fictional characters was a gamble. If the fictional characters had been really interesting and compelling they might have pulled it off, but I don't think they succeeded in that. They spent far too much screen-time focusing on relationships and characters that added nothing to the overall dramatic tension, didn't drive the plot and proved an annoyance.

Given that most of RTE's budget for the 1916 commemorations was spent on this, it's hard not to feel let down. I really hoped this would be better, it's had some good bits (Art is definitely a standout character & performance), just not enough IMO.

jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Your logic that war is like that should apply to the actions of the British then too? Other than the civilian stuff.

To explain it simply, the Irish and the British were, in the War of Independence, involved in a war. This meant that each side would try its best to kill the other and in the intelligence war, that generally meant killing or turning the other's agents and intelligence officers.

Regards...jmcc

Im a bit disappointed that the battle at Mount Street Bridge wasn't covered and that basically it skipped straight to the retreat and surrender. It does seem as if the rebels were aiming to become martyrs although it didnt work for Wolfe Tone or Robert Emmett (granted it was 113-118 years prior to 1916 and print media circulation probably helped in turning the people against the Crown

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Wars tend to be like that. People die and often in horrible ways.

You really don't seem to have much of a clue about events or history. The Black and Tans were sent in by the British government. The elimination of the British spies was a legitimate act of war and in accordance with the practice of the time, spies were executed. They knew the risks and they had intended to kill Collins and his men. So your "illegal" stuff is just plain wrong.

Sounds like something that John "Unionist" Bruton would say. (That embarrassment has been wibbling on in much the same clueless way about 1916.) You may not have realised this yet but in the Irish War of Independence, the British were the enemy.

Regards...jmcc

The actions of Collins and his men could not possibly have been legal even under the terms of the first Dail of 1919. He may have felt he had a mandate of sorts as a result of the 1918 General Election, but things like assassinations are strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention (not seen as acts of war and the person on the receiving end should be entitled to a fair trial) and therefore may well constitute a war crime.

Much of what the Black and Tans were doing was also completely illegal.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

maudgonner wrote: »

I wasn't against the idea of having the series based around fictional characters - although this thread proves that most people don't know that much about the event and there was definitely scope to do a straightforward recreation. They just didn't execute (no pun intended) it very well, in my opinion. Generation War, for example, had a similar premise but did a much better job, it's a fantastic series.

I think the series has done a pretty good job at shining a bit more light on events than most of us got at school, or didn't get as some have said. Assuming all those getting enraged at the historical inaccuracies and "revisionist history" take the time to read up on the things they think are wrong or just new information for them.

I got most of my education on the Rising from the TG4 series so I wasn't shocked with the lack of support or the kind of shambolic organisation in the end but I have learned quite a few things from this program.

I think that when you know the story of the Rising, it's hard to get over how dramatic the real thing is - the cast of characters, rollercoaster of emotions, excitement and tragedy. And yes, romance (it would be hard for any story to top the romance of the Grace Gifford-Joseph Plunkett wedding). Having this series largely ignore that in favour of fictional characters was a gamble. If the fictional characters had been really interesting and compelling they might have pulled it off, but I don't think they succeeded in that. They spent far too much screen-time focusing on relationships and characters that added nothing to the overall dramatic tension, didn't drive the plot and provide annoyance.

I think the ambition of the writer was bigger than his ability. People keep complaining that the focus is on the women, which annoys me. It implies that women aren't interesting enough to be the focus of a major series when the problem is in fact the writing. May's storyline seems to exist purely as a way to have had her get the file for Frances in week one. She wants to run away with yer man one minute, is going toe to toe with the wife and then next thing she's telling him she doesn't love him? At the start Frances was the most interesting of the three leads but this week she's almost a background character. Liz should have been the main focus as her story could have been very interesting. Looking at her family and the background she's from she's risking more then any of them to join the rebels but other than the odd allusion to poor people making her sad we have no idea why she's willing to go to jail for Ireland.

The brother is useless. The Belfast guy seems to have just been there to be a lawyer this week. They could have combined the two characters really. Even thrown May's fella into that too and had one character who worked at the castle and happened to be Liz's brother. That would have explained Liz and May's relationship a little better too. The time saved cutting two characters could have gone to developing the remaining ones better.

Jimmy's brother and his story are definitely the high point for me. There are bits and pieces of mostly everyone else that I like but Art and his relationship with his family, the army and Jimmy has worked really well.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Im a bit disappointed that the battle at Mount Street Bridge wasn't covered and that basically it skipped straight to the retreat and surrender.

What was the bit where Jimmy and Frances were sent to a house and were shooting out the window? Was that not Mount Street? I thought someone mentioned that last week.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What was the bit where Jimmy and Frances were sent to a house and were shooting out the window? Was that not Mount Street? I thought someone mentioned that last week.

I think that was indeed the self same battle. Frances talked about heading over to Ballsbridge and I think I read something on RTE's website about she and Jimmy supposedly shooting from Northumberland Road.

maudgonner

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

People keep complaining that the focus is on the women, which annoys me. It implies that women aren't interesting enough to be the focus of a major series when the problem is in fact the writing.

This is where I disagree with you a little. I think the reason that people are complaining is that the focus is on THESE women, these three central characters that the whole series is built around, rather than women in general.

I doubt most of the posters here would have an issue with focusing on the Countess, Kathleen Lynn, Nurse O'Farrell or any well written female character (fictional or factual) who had a good plot and was well acted. If there was a legitimate point for them being there, I doubt them being female would be an issue.

But if you're going to build a series around three female characters, especially in an event that was largely driven by men, they'd better be three bloody brilliant female characters. Otherwise it's going to look like you've just done it for PC reasons, and that really annoys me. These three characters weren't nearly good enough (although I'm starting to like Frances a bit better).

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

The actions of Collins and his men could not possibly have been legal even under the terms of the first Dail of 1919.

You don't seem to understand that what you think does not matter. This was a war and it is necessary to kill the enemy and destroy his resources and eliminate his intelligence networks.

He may have felt he had a mandate of sorts as a result of the 1918 General Election, but things like assassinations are strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention (not seen as acts of war and the person on the receiving end should be entitled to a fair trial) and therefore may well constitute a war crime.

Which Geneva Convention? These were spies who were intent on killing Collins and his men. In that kind of situation, all the Politically Correct rubbish goes out the window and it is either kill or be killed. Where does the relevant Geneva Convention forbid "assassinations" of the enemy?

Much of what the Black and Tans were doing was also completely illegal.

Care to cite the relevant legislation?

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

maudgonner wrote: »

If done well I think it could have been incredibly compelling. Band of Brothers was hugely successful, not just among WW2 buffs, because it was beautifully written, acted and directed. You grew to love those characters, worry for them, care about them.



I wasn't against the idea of having the series based around fictional characters - although this thread proves that most people don't know that much about the event and there was definitely scope to do a straightforward recreation. They just didn't execute (no pun intended) it very well, in my opinion. Generation War, for example, had a similar premise but did a much better job, it's a fantastic series.

I think that when you know the story of the Rising, it's hard to get over how dramatic the real thing is - the cast of characters, rollercoaster of emotions, excitement and tragedy. And yes, romance (it would be hard for any story to top the romance of the Grace Gifford-Joseph Plunkett wedding). Having this series largely ignore that in favour of fictional characters was a gamble. If the fictional characters had been really interesting and compelling they might have pulled it off, but I don't think they succeeded in that. They spent far too much screen-time focusing on relationships and characters that added nothing to the overall dramatic tension, didn't drive the plot and proved an annoyance.

Given that most of RTE's budget for the 1916 commemorations was spent on this, it's hard not to feel let down. I really hoped this would be better, it's had some good bits (Art is definitely a standout character & performance), just not enough IMO.

I'm a big Generation War fan myself, but even in that case they were able to focus on the relationships, both romantic and familial between the six main characters against the backdrop of war on the Eastern Front and Nazi atrocities. I imagine that show was made on a much higher budget than Rebellion and they would have been able to cast their net far and wide.

Having said that, I wouldn't say Rebellion was miles behind a series like that, I'm finding it eminently watchable and it *is* throwing up numerous historical talking points.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

maudgonner wrote: »

This is where I disagree with you a little. I think the reason that people are complaining is that the focus is on THESE women, these three central characters that the whole series is built around, rather than women in general.

I doubt most of the posters here would have an issue with focusing on the Countess, Kathleen Lynn, Nurse O'Farrell or any well written female character (fictional or factual) who had a good plot and was well acted. If there was a legitimate point for them being there, I doubt them being female would be an issue.

But if you're going to build a series around three female characters, especially in an event that was largely driven by men, they'd better be three bloody brilliant female characters. Otherwise it's going to look like you've just done it for PC reasons, and that really annoys me. These three characters weren't nearly good enough (although I'm starting to like Frances a bit better).

I think we're mainly in agreement but I have to say I have read a lot of comments specifically complaining about the leads being women. Some even like to suggest Frances has no grounding in reality and is only there to appease modern day feminists.
The problem is that many people do have that attitude already and are unable to see that it's not the fact that they're women that's the problem, it's the writing. I mentioned it before how often male writers just can't write female characters. Not all of them but most. Often it's like they write a male character and just change the name before sending it out. Maybe throw in a pregnancy just so you really know it's a woman. May's pregnancy aside you could literally have all three parts played as male and nothing would really have to be changed from the script.

I admire the people behind this program for trying but just saying let's make the three women the focus and then giving us one dimensional characters is not good enough. That said plenty of the male characters suffer from the same problem but people seem much more forgiving of that.

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that what you think does not matter. This was a war and it is necessary to kill the enemy and destroy his resources and eliminate his intelligence networks.

Which Geneva Convention? These were spies who were intent on killing Collins and his men. In that kind of situation, all the Politically Correct rubbish goes out the window and it is either kill or be killed. Where does the relevant Geneva Convention forbid "assassinations" of the enemy?

Care to cite the relevant legislation?

Regards...jmcc

To the best of my knowledge, a guerilla war like the War of Independence is an extremely grey area but leaning towards being illegal under international law. The guerilla army are in no position to take prisoners of war, not even when surrender is offered and therefore their raison d'etre is to kill as many of the enemy as possible, even when they are holding their hands up in surrender and offering no resistance, which is taking us into war crimes territory.

Much of what the Black and Tans were doing would have been illegal under British common law ie. assassinations, looting, setting fire to homes and businesses, assaulting civilians etc.....none of those things would be permissable even in a war zone.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

What was the bit where Jimmy and Frances were sent to a house and were shooting out the window? Was that not Mount Street? I thought someone mentioned that last week.

Mount Street was an ambush of the British troops as they arrived over the bridge. The ambush happened on the 26th of April and i dont think that particular battle was covered in the drama. basically all the British rookies off the boat were ordered to go over the bridge and it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Busted Flat.

Deleted User wrote: »

Im a bit disappointed that the battle at Mount Street Bridge wasn't covered and that basically it skipped straight to the retreat and surrender. It does seem as if the rebels were aiming to become martyrs although it didnt work for Wolfe Tone or Robert Emmett (granted it was 113-118 years prior to 1916 and print media circulation probably helped in turning the people against the Crown

It is a silly little dream sort of rte sitcom to sanitize the days that was an embarrassment to the elite. They won't show the Mount st bridge where Peter the Painter done serious damage, that was nick name of the Mauser.

jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I admire the people behind this program for trying but just saying let's make the three women the focus and then giving us one dimensional characters is not good enough. That said plenty of the male characters suffer from the same problem but people seem much more forgiving of that.

And that, besides the blatent revisionism, is the central problem with the series. There are too many cardboard cutout characters and there is an overwhelming stench of PC off the series. The historical characters would easily have made far better characters. There were villans and heros and great events and stories that would almost have written themselves but RTE just wasn't up to the challenge.

Regards...jmcc

Busted Flat.

jmcc wrote: »

And that, besides the blatent revisionism, is the central problem with the series. There are too many cardboard cutout characters and there is an overwhelming stench of PC off the series. The historical characters would easily have made far better characters. There were villans and heros and great events and stories that would almost have written themselves but RTE just wasn't up to the challenge.

Regards...jmcc

The Joe Duffy Gay byrne version of history comes to the front of this farse. What was the add half way through the programe an add for the duffy buke.