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

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

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

Stench of PC? Please do elaborate.

And what revisionism? Everything they have shown regarding the real people and events has been historically accurate. Just because it doesn't tally with your own personal opinions of history doesn't make it revisionist.

seanin4711

The show is the spoiler

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

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.

I'd agree with that except that the woman playing Peig is utterly painful to watch. I've never seen a worse actor in anything.

The bit that makes me laugh is Ingrid having found her calling in the world as a nurse. It's a good thing there was a 6 day long Rising for her sake then. As it's not as if for the previous 18 months 10s of 1000s of her peers had become volunteer nurses and even ambulance drivers all over Britain and Europe. But what is the actual point of her in this story?

HeidiHeidi

iguana wrote: »

I'd agree with that except that the woman playing Peig is utterly painful to watch. I've never seen a worse actor in anything.

The bit that makes me laugh is Ingrid having found her calling in the world as a nurse. It's a good thing there was a 6 day long Rising for her sake then. As it's not as if for the previous 18 months 10s of 1000s of her peers had become volunteer nurses and even ambulance drivers all over Britain and Europe. But what is the actual point of her in this story?

This is one of the biggest clangers of all for me.

She arrived a stuttering mess to Dublin (why??) hardly knowing her name, by the looks of it - and six days later is fully uniformed and running a field-hospital ward. Really?

And if I never see that wedding dress of Elizabeth's (still pristine of course), and the blue coat flapping, well it'll be too soon. And she had a remarkably lovely hairdo when being led into prison, considering she'd been on the go for six days at least.....

Small continuity things, but once noticed they take away from the overall for me anyway.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

The bit that makes me laugh is Ingrid having found her calling in the world as a nurse. It's a good thing there was a 6 day long Rising for her sake then. As it's not as if for the previous 18 months 10s of 1000s of her peers had become volunteer nurses and even ambulance drivers all over Britain and Europe. But what is the actual point of her in this story?

I wonder if something was cut from that storyline? A scene or two that would have made it a bit more believable? I don't even mind that suddenly she's found her calling but the line "I'm a nurse now!" without any further explanation was a bit ridiculous.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And if I never see that wedding dress of Elizabeth's (still pristine of course), and the blue coat flapping, well it'll be too soon. And she had a remarkably lovely hairdo when being led into prison, considering she'd been on the go for six days at least.....

Small continuity things, but once noticed they take away from the overall for me anyway.

I could live with her hair still being almost perfectly set but the fact that it's clean is annoying. Same with her clothes. She carried young Peter bleeding to death all the at to the GPO, did her doctoring on him and has barely a mark on her.

It's kind of strange that they seem to have put so much effort and detail into getting the historical accuracy perfect and ignored the more basic parts. I mentioned Frances putting the same thing down 4 times in the one scene last week. That's very basic editing there.

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I wonder if something was cut from that storyline? A scene or two that would have made it a bit more believable? I don't even mind that suddenly she's found her calling but the line "I'm a nurse now!" without any further explanation was a bit ridiculous.

If she'd told George that she'd been so in love with him that she never considered any other future but that helping in the field hospital has inspired her to train as a VAD when this is all over, it would make more sense. She'd still be a completely superfluous character taking up screen time that would have been better used to develop the main characters but at least she'd be less laughable.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

If she'd told George that she'd been so in love with him that she never considered any other future but that helping in the field hospital has inspired her to train as a VAD when this is all over, it would make more sense. She'd still be a completely superfluous character taking up screen time that would have been better used to develop the main characters but at least she'd be less laughable.

That's why I wonder if there was another scene cut from somewhere that would have helped explain it a bit better. I can't remember what George said about her in the first episode either?

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's very basic editing there.

That's almost certainly not an editing issue but an issue with the direction and acting. The editor can only work with the rushes they get and in a scene that ends up looking like that the editor very likely didn't have the footage to make it look any better. It's the director's job to make sure that the scene stays physically the same in each take they want to use. And an actor's job to make sure that they avoid any unconscious physical ticks they have, so the best piece of acting in each take is usable.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

That's almost certainly not an editing issue but an issue with the direction and acting. The editor can only work with the rushes they get and in a scene that ends up looking like that the editor very likely didn't have the footage to make it look any better. It's the director's job to make sure that the scene stays physically the same in each take they want to use. And an actor's job to make sure that they avoid any unconscious physical ticks they have, so the best piece of acting in each take is usable.

The director did make sure all takes were the same. The problem was they shot it from 4 different angles and each time the edit switched from one angle to the next they started from the start of the scene. Editing mistake. Not directing.

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The director did make sure all takes were the same. The problem was they shot it from 4 different angles and each time the edit switched from one angle to the next they started from the start of the scene. Editing mistake. Not directing.

I just looked back at the scene and Jimmy was in a different position in two of the shots while Francis was doing the same thing. Though in the second shot, the camera was only on Francis. So it was a problem with the directing and possibly the editing. Though if the editor was told to include a close up on Francis' face and the only footage he had was of her from that angle was of her putting the bottle and basket down, then the fault lies entirely with the direction.

And I just watched it a few more times. It's entirely the direction. The bottle even appears from nowhere as she walks into the room as when she and Jimmy are walking along the back lanes and corridors she has the gun over her right shoulder with her right hand free and the basket of bullets in her left. When she enters the room her right hand holds the basket and there is a bottle in her left. The scene where she places the objects on the ground is shown 3 times. 1 and 3 show her in the foreground and Jimmy in the background. 2 is a close up of her. Scenes 1 and 3 are entirely different, not only is Jimmy in different positions but in scene 1 Francis puts the bottle down first, in scene 3 she puts down the basket first then swaps the bottle from one hand to the other before putting it down. That's 100% crappy direction and in all likelihood the editor and his assistant were tearing their hair out trying to cobble the scene together and arguing that it should be left out. Then the poor buggers get the blame for it.

maudgonner

There's an article in the IT about the decline in ratings over the last two eps.

I haven't heard much talk about the fact that the series was made by a British production company. Surprising given the slating Joe Duffy got for not using an Irish publisher for his buke.

It also mentions the possibility of a second series, (possible spoiler)

which would follow the characters through the War of Independence.

josephryan1989

[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

We're you watching the show at all? Jimmy and Frances were sent to Mount Street where they met Michael Malone and took part in the battle.

josephryan1989

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I could live with her hair still being almost perfectly set but the fact that it's clean is annoying. Same with her clothes. She carried young Peter bleeding to death all the at to the GPO, did her doctoring on him and has barely a mark on her.

It's kind of strange that they seem to have put so much effort and detail into getting the historical accuracy perfect and ignored the more basic parts. I mentioned Frances putting the same thing down 4 times in the one scene last week. That's very basic editing there.

And do these people ever go to the toilet?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

I just looked back at the scene and Jimmy was in a different position in two of the shots while Francis was doing the same thing. Though in the second shot, the camera was only on Francis. So it was a problem with the directing and possibly the editing. Though if the editor was told to include a close up on Francis' face and the only footage he had was of her from that angle was of her putting the bottle and basket down, then the fault lies entirely with the direction.

And I just watched it a few more times. It's entirely the direction. The bottle even appears from nowhere as she walks into the room as when she and Jimmy are walking along the back lanes and corridors she has the gun over her right shoulder with her right hand free and the basket of bullets in her left. When she enters the room her right hand holds the basket and there is a bottle in her left. The scene where she places the objects on the ground is shown 3 times. 1 and 3 show her in the foreground and Jimmy in the background. 2 is a close up of her. Scenes 1 and 3 are entirely different, not only is Jimmy in different positions but in scene 1 Francis puts the bottle down first, in scene 3 she puts down the basket first then swaps the bottle from one hand to the other before putting it down. That's 100% crappy direction and in all likelihood the editor and his assistant were tearing their hair out trying to cobble the scene together and arguing that it should be left out. Then the poor buggers get the blame for it.

Surely the answer is to use different parts from each scene than what they used. There's obviously 3 full shots of that scene, from 3 different angles. Use one angle to start the scene and don't cut to the next angle until she's put it down in that one too. Point is it was entirely possible to edit that scene without showing the bottle 3 times.

Anyway, no point getting bogged down with it. Point is it was pretty sloppy whoever you want to blame.

Shurimgreat

Sometimes to make an interesting drama you have to suspend realism, etc. Game of Thrones is adored by many and yet much of it is pure fantasy.

Rebellion is based on historical events, but there has to be some leeway to create a fictional drama. I for one don't want to see a mere retelling of already well known historical facts. The characters interact with the Rising but they are still individuals who react in different ways.

Its easy to look back on the Rising with hindsight. Not so easy when its unfolding around you and yes in those circumstances people make rash decisions, illogical choices, and are inconsistent. The whole point of the Rising is that no-one knew what was going on, it was chaotic and things took on a life of their own.

wawaman

josephryan1989 wrote: »

And do these people ever go to the toilet?

These guys have it easy, it's poor jack Bauer I felt sorry for. Bladder of steel that man!!

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Surely the answer is to use different parts from each scene than what they used. There's obviously 3 full shots of that scene, from 3 different angles. Use one angle to start the scene and don't cut to the next angle until she's put it down in that one too. Point is it was entirely possible to edit that scene without showing the bottle 3 times.

It really, really isn't. The only footage of Jimmy and Francis setting up in the room appears to include Francis putting the bottle and basket down in a variety of different ways. The editor can't magic up footage that hasn't been shot. I don't think you know that much about editing, tbh. I am in the unfortunate position of knowing way more on the subject than I could ever wish to (my husband and a huge amount of our friends are tv and film editors) and it's pretty obvious once you know how it works that the problem with that scene was set before it got to post.

Shurimgreat

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 think you will find most people do have a good grasp of what happened to the central characters of the rising. The whole point of any good drama is to leave a doubt up to the end what happens to people. Focusing on the historical figures would leave zero doubt, zero tension and so on. Basically we know most of the historical leaders get shot. Films like Michael Collins also covered much of this, particularly the Dev part.

This is a drama, not a documentary.

iguana

maudgonner wrote: »

There's an article in the IT about the decline in ratings over the last two eps.

Well that makes sense. Ratings rose for the second episode as there were people who hadn't realised it started when it did. But dropped after the second episode as that was in all honesty boring and contrived. The 3rd and 4th episodes were each an improvement on the the other, with the 4th being the best so far. But for too many people, the second episode was bad enough for them to decide to skip the rest. It's not looking great for a second series but I guess that will depend on how it does on internationally to some extent.

Shurimgreat

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

If you think Pearse for example would have made for an interesting dramatic lead character, you are sadly mistaken. His role in Rebellion just about matches his dramatic value. The guy had few if any romantic interests in life, and was basically just an ultra nationalist. He was a lot less "three dimensional" than the lead characters in this drama, as were most of the leaders who were also either ultra nationalist or ultra socialist with little time for anything else. We all know their story, its been rammed down our throats since childhood. It was time to look at a new perspective. There will be plenty of documentaries to satisfy the historical anoraks I'm sure.

iguana

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you will find most people do have a good grasp of what happened to the central characters of the rising. The whole point of any good drama is to leave a doubt up to the end what happens to people. Focusing on the historical figures would leave zero doubt, zero tension and so on. Basically we know most of the historical leaders get shot. Films like Michael Collins also covered much of this, particularly the Dev part.

This is a drama, not a documentary.

The problem is that if you haven't created compelling characters it doesn't matter if the audience knows how it ends or not because they still won't care. And this show didn't create compelling characters. I have a young son and ever since I was pregnant I have a very tough time watching anything that depicts a young boy dying. But on this it was eyerollingly obvious in it's set up and chucklesome in it's execution.

Shurimgreat

iguana wrote: »

The problem is that if you haven't created compelling characters it doesn't matter if the audience knows how it ends or not because they still won't care. And this show didn't create compelling characters. I have a young son and ever since I was pregnant I have a very tough time watching anything that depicts a young boy dying. But on this it was eyerollingly obvious in it's set up and chucklesome in it's execution.

You really can't please everyone. If you ignore the fact many children and civilians were shot (and presumably many were targeted by snipers) then some people will say "yeh but why did they overlook the shooting of civilians".

The program is well after the watershed. Children were shot, that is historically accurate. The Rising was violent and brutal. Rebellion matches some of that, but still some people say it suffers from historical revisionism to suit the PC brigade.

The shooting of the child does raise questions about the Rising and the conduct of all sides. I'm fairly sure children were used as runners and scouts by the rebels, and likewise were targeted by snipers. Anyone in the area of the GPO in 1916 was I'd say a target from one side or the other.

iguana

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You really can't please everyone. If you ignore the fact many children and civilians were shot (and presumably many were targeted by snipers) then some people will say "yeh but why did they overlook the shooting of civilians".

The program is well after the watershed. Children were shot, that is historically accurate. The Rising was violent and brutal. Rebellion matches some of that, but still some people say it suffers from historical revisionism to suit the PC brigade.

The shooting of the child does raise questions about the Rising and the conduct of all sides. I'm fairly sure children were used as runners and scouts by the rebels, and likewise were targeted by snipers. Anyone in the area of the GPO in 1916 was I'd say a target from one side or the other.

Huh? My point isn't that they shouldn't have shown a child get killed. My point is that they had the kind of storyline that normally effects me deeply and it was so poorly executed that I was bored and derisively amused by it because the characterisation, writing, direction and acting is so poor.

A tv show can tell any story it wants to but it needs to do it well. This had great potential to tell a compelling story but it didn't. It's mostly boring with a few interesting snippets thrown in. If it was a longer series I suspect the ratings would be lower but when it's just 5 episodes it's human nature to see it through to the end when you know you are most of the way through.

Strazdas

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you will find most people do have a good grasp of what happened to the central characters of the rising. The whole point of any good drama is to leave a doubt up to the end what happens to people. Focusing on the historical figures would leave zero doubt, zero tension and so on. Basically we know most of the historical leaders get shot. Films like Michael Collins also covered much of this, particularly the Dev part.

This is a drama, not a documentary.

Absolutely right. A five part docudrama about the leaders of the Rising would essentially be a history lesson brought to life and would be a very different type of programme. Rebellion is a drama and is meant to be entertainment : most historical TV dramas go down the route of having fictional characters in the lead roles.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

It really, really isn't. The only footage of Jimmy and Francis setting up in the room appears to include Francis putting the bottle and basket down in a variety of different ways. The editor can't magic up footage that hasn't been shot. I don't think you know that much about editing, tbh. I am in the unfortunate position of knowing way more on the subject than I could ever wish to (my husband and a huge amount of our friends are tv and film editors) and it's pretty obvious once you know how it works that the problem with that scene was set before it got to post.

The have 2 shots from the same angle, behind, and then one close up of Frances from the front, all 3 times she puts the bottle down and they come one after the other. All 3 happen within about 5 seconds. There's no dialogue happening so it's not a case of syncing sound being a problem. It's completely unnecessary and 2 of the cuts could have been left out. That's an editing issue.




We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Strazdas

maudgonner wrote: »

There's an article in the IT about the decline in ratings over the last two eps.

I haven't heard much talk about the fact that the series was made by a British production company. Surprising given the slating Joe Duffy got for not using an Irish publisher for his buke.

It also mentions the possibility of a second series, (possible spoiler)

which would follow the characters through the War of Independence.

Those ratings are absolutely fine though and would equate to an audience of around 6m or 7m in the UK which the BBC or ITV would be thrilled with for a drama series.

iguana

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The have 2 shots from the same angle, behind, and then one close up of Frances from the front, all 3 times she puts the bottle down and they come one after the other. All 3 happen within about 5 seconds. There's no dialogue happening so it's not a case of syncing sound being a problem. It's completely unnecessary and 2 of the cuts could have been left out. That's an editing issue.




We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

The scene could certainly have been shorter and could have avoided the repeated bottle issue but that's generally not really the editor's call. Direction like "The walk into the room, hold on Francis' face, shot of them from behind,' is often even written into the script to set the tone. And many poor directors refuse to deviate from that even when the scene looks as bad as that one does. And this director is clearly not great as he let the scene get shot repeatedly with no regard to scene continuity. Believe me, I've listened to many, many rants from editors about being forced to include such painful scene continuity.

And even if the scene was shorter it doesn't explain away the bottle just appearing in Francis' hand as she entered the room in the first place.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

iguana wrote: »

And even if the scene was shorter it doesn't explain away the bottle just appearing in Francis' hand as she entered the room in the first place.

More shoddy editing. They've cut something out between them entering the house and coming into the room.

Shurimgreat

iguana wrote: »

Huh? My point isn't that they shouldn't have shown a child get killed. My point is that they had the kind of storyline that normally effects me deeply and it was so poorly executed that I was bored and derisively amused by it because the characterisation, writing, direction and acting is so poor.

A tv show can tell any story it wants to but it needs to do it well. This had great potential to tell a compelling story but it didn't. It's mostly boring with a few interesting snippets thrown in. If it was a longer series I suspect the ratings would be lower but when it's just 5 episodes it's human nature to see it through to the end when you know you are most of the way through.

Well its all subjective to be honest. I thought the shooting of the child scene was fairly well done. Yes it was obvious, because guess what children have no sense. They go around in the middle of war zones oblivious to what is going on, they see something like an apple on the street and they pick it up, rather than think there might be a sniper around here as an adult would. They make themselves obvious targets.

In any case, the child wasn't a lead character. His main function in the drama was probably as a victim of a sniper.