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

nagdefy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

We werent a nation in the first place.


Our empire, our empire. Look at what we lost, with this little go it alone tangent.

Ah but we were a nation under a lot of criteria. Ethnically mostly celtic with some Norse and English blood. English are Saxons. We had a distinct language spoken by the majority of the populace pre 1845. Continuous revolts against English/British rule.. 1594-1603, 1641, 1690, 1798, 1848, 1867, 2016.

Would we have been any better off in the 20th century in the Empire? Given how we were treated in previous centuries hard to say yes. Ok we've had economic and emigration problems and problems with RC church dominance and scandals. But all was far from rosy under the Union. The Brits weren't too fond of us either. They celebrated the mass emigrattion of the famine. Quote the London Times after the Famine ''They are going! They are going! The Irish are going with a vengeance. Soon a Celt will be as rare in Ireland as a Red Indian on the shores of Manhattan.' Lovely stuff..

* Sorry that revolt should read 1916. I'm not expecting anything this year

maudgonner

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Maudgonner
Ideally I would like to live a world with no nation states just a brotherhood of man. ..However we don't
We were as a nation raped and pillaged by Britain for generations, we supplied her with food during our famine ( yup work that one out) and with soldiers ( the fighting irish) to build and enforce her empire.
Whether we like it or not our freedom was hard fought.
Yes we should be mature enough to take our place as equals with our nearest neighbours but we can't forget the past. We can only strive to never repeat it

Of course, and should we also not acknowledge that blood was spilled on both sides, and not all of the Irish were whiter-than-white, not all of the British were cruel tyrants? That Irish people died fighting for Britain and British people died fighting for Ireland? That there were some British landlords, government officials and soldiers who did good in Ireland, as well as the ones who did harm? And there were many Irish landowners and authority figures who did just as much to oppress ordinary people of this country as the British ever did? That there were unspeakable atrocities committed against Protestants, North and South, just as there were against Catholics?

History is complicated, that's one of the things that makes it so fascinating. And taking a simple view that "we fought for our freedom, we won, so we have the right to gloat about it" isn't something I would be very proud of my country for, I'd like to think we're better than that.

nagdefy

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

That's silly, nothing could be further from the truth,
Outrageous really to make such a comparison

Said with a hint of mirth Mick! I'm not laughing at the men who helped free my country or their memory. It's just the darkness and the lighting and these dramatic figures appearing on stage.

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

That's silly, nothing could be further from the truth,
Outrageous really to make such a comparison

The comparison is not as outrageous as it seems. I'm not for one moment comparing the struggle for Irish freedom to Nazism (which was a disgusting and murderous ideology) but that night time pageant thing under lights in Croke Park is quite bizarre, and seems almost an exercise in propaganda. Btw in case anyone accuses me of being a 'West Brit', I find the Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall rather weird every year too.

maudgonner

nagdefy wrote: »

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Said with a hint of mirth Mick! I'm not laughing at the men who helped free my country or their memory. It's just the darkness and the lighting and these dramatic figures appearing on stage.

It reminded me of the London Olympics opening ceremony for some reason. If Ireland ever holds the Olympics we could re-stage it

mick malones mauser

Maudgonner said
History is complicated, that's one of the things that makes it so fascinating. And taking a simple view that "we fought for our freedom, we won, so we have the right to gloat about it" isn't something I would be very proud of my country for, I'd like to think we're better than that.[/quote]

History is complicated,
At no stage did I say or imply or intend to say or imply what you have stated above.
Gloating is not for me, but neither should we forget how and why our state ( with all its faults ) came into being.
I am proud to live in an independent republic
Ok that's the cue for all the" what about the troika bail out etc" posts.
Read my lips. ..post colonial self loathing. Get over it

Strazdas

nagdefy wrote: »

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Said with a hint of mirth Mick! I'm not laughing at the men who helped free my country or their memory. It's just the darkness and the lighting and these dramatic figures appearing on stage.

The strangest bit of all are the young schoolboys kneeling around Pearse in adulation at 03.33.

mick malones mauser

Strazdas
Beleive it or not I have often been called a west brit myself, and worse again a D4 West brit. Even though I am a thoroughbred northside scanger.
Jesus what sort of company do I keep

The Rape of Lucretia

mick malones mauser wrote: »

I am proud to live in an independent republic

I am not really sure what being proud to live in a country means when presumably it is an accident you had no part in, but would you not be prouder to live in a greater country such as the UK ? Which is what was robbed you.

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Strazdas
Beleive it or not I have often been called a west brit myself, and worse again a D4 West brit. Even though I am a thoroughbred northside scanger.
Jesus what sort of company do I keep

I've never been sure what the phrase even means. If it means someone who doesn't hate the British, then I'm guilty as charged

mick malones mauser

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am not really sure what being proud to live in a country means when presumably it is an accident you had no part in, but would you not be prouder to live in a greater country such as the UK ? Which is what was robbed you.

Lucretia
If you don't know what being proud to live in a country means how would you have any concept of being prouder to live in a different country
I think you are a little confused old chap, and your grammar leaves a little to be desired
But God bless and preserve you.i do hope you enjoy a long and happy life

nagdefy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am not really sure what being proud to live in a country means when presumably it is an accident you had no part in, but would you not be prouder to live in a greater country such as the UK ? Which is what was robbed you.

How do we quantify 'greater'? Bigger population? Colonised many countries and spread their language around the world? Stole resources from smaller nations? Had an empire built up by the toil of other peoples e.g. the Irish? Sent a truly great man like Napoleon to end his days in a timber cabin on a rock in the south Atlantic?

Hitler admired Britain above all other countries because with a couple of thousand men they could control 750,000 Indians. Of course they were Aryans. Something the Irish weren't.

A lot of pros and cons to their greatness. Are we not equally as great for a small nation? I won't list the achievements of the Irish nation.

I'm far from anti British. It's great to see the progress in relations between the 2 countries over the last 2 decades. They did hold a cracking good olympics in 2012 in fairness.

mick malones mauser

Strazdas wrote: »

I've never been sure what the phrase even means. If it means someone who doesn't hate the British, then I'm guilty as charged

Nothing to do with hating or not hating
No one should hate anyone.

The Rape of Lucretia

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Lucretia
If you don't know what being proud to live in a country means how would you have any concept of being prouder to live in a different country
I think you are a little confused old chap, and your grammar leaves a little to be desired
But God bless and preserve you.i do hope you enjoy a long and happy life

I dont need to have such a concept when the question is for you who states that you do have one.

(My grammar is perfectly correct btw)

mick malones mauser

Lucretia
Dearest
Please explain

Which is what was robbed you.
Grammar? ?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Every week I think we can't possibly get any further away from the point of this thread and yet here we are.....

mick malones mauser

Yes
Let's get back to the gleesons
Rebellion is rubbish
Badly acted, and badly thought out rubbish
But it has gleesons

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Yes
Let's get back to the gleesons
Rebellion is rubbish
Badly acted, and badly thought out rubbish
But it has gleesons

Starting to think you were emotionally hurt by a Gleeson at some point.

jmcc

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

We werent a nation in the first place.

One of the commonest lies used by people who wish that Ireland was still ruled by England. Perhaps one should grant you a fool's pardon and point to the way that History, as a subject, has been poxified by the pro-British revisionists like Cruise O'Brien, Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards and by the Dublin media (RTE/Irish Times/Malta Independent).

Our empire, our empire. Look at what we lost, with this little go it alone tangent.

This is what the writers failed to convey: Your empire but not ours. Kipling's poem (Tommy) about the way that the ordinary soldier was treated is remarkably apt here. Ireland provided the best generals and soldiers but these were just cannon fodder. Ireland provided administrators but it was never our Empire. When the Famine struck, food was exported when Irish people starved and died. Even that vile, inbred piece of sh!t "queen" Victoria didn't give a damn. And the parasites whom you might consider empire builders left millions of Irish people die and millions more to emigrate. Today, we would call that attempted genocide and those responsible would be hunted down and put on trial. Our empire? You can keep your bloody empire. We are Irish. We are now free. Those are the kinds of emotions and feelings that the useless writer(s) of Down Town Abbey (Rebellion) failed to convey, failed to write and are probably unaware.

RTE had a chance to do something brilliant with events that provided opportunities for good writers to create something great. But in producing a crude, servile, fawning Down Town Abbey rather than a drama that captured the founding of the modern Irish state, it failed. It is not a failure of the actors and production staff. It is a failure of the writers and the management. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by revisionist "British" propagandists like Conor Cruise O'Brien, Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards and their ilk and have no understanding of Irish history and do not even realise how offensive RTE's Down Town Abbey really is to people outside the Montrose fundament.

Regards...jmcc

Shurimgreat

The writers and management were massively limited by a limited budget.

If they had tens of millions I am sure they could have done something epic, spanning years or generations. They didn't have that budget so of course ambitions are going to be limited. Its very easy for someone to say I want this and that, but all drama makers are faced with the problem of how to pay for it.

6 million of a budget is miniscule. I think the writer/director/producers etc have done a pretty good job all things considered.

One other thing. 1916 was not the founding of the Irish state. It was possibly the beginning of the end of our association with the Empire, but there was still 5 long difficult years ahead. 1916 in the view of some people was a catastrophic failure. The only thing that saved it was the sympathy generated for the executed. It turned out a PR disaster for the British. Had they not executed them, its quite likely, the War of Independence would not have been so successful. But again, slightly off the point. My main point is too many people treat 1916 as if it was a great success, rather than the chaotic, poorly planned anarchy that it turned out. I think the makers of Rebellion convey this anarchy well.

josephryan1989

josephryan1989 wrote: »

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.

I watched it back to be sure. Yes it was mount street but wasnt that instigated by an actual ambush on the bridge? That was the day the Sherwood foresters from Nottingham arrived off the boat. Kids that were so raw they allegedly had to be shown how to use a gun at docking. The Brits had dipped into reserves at that stage

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

We werent a nation in the first place.


Our empire, our empire. Look at what we lost, with this little go it alone tangent.

I'm.sure those lucky minority Catholics up the north are 'delighted' they remained part of your empire when they had no vote, internment without trial, persecution by both the loyalist parliamilitary groups AND the British soldiers and RUC working in cahoots with each other. Ah yes lucky them :rolleyes:

Strazdas

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The writers and management were massively limited by a limited budget.

If they had tens of millions I am sure they could have done something epic, spanning years or generations. They didn't have that budget so of course ambitions are going to be limited. Its very easy for someone to say I want this and that, but all drama makers are faced with the problem of how to pay for it.

6 million of a budget is miniscule. I think the writer/director/producers etc have done a pretty good job all things considered.

One other thing. 1916 was not the founding of the Irish state. It was possibly the beginning of the end of our association with the Empire, but there was still 5 long difficult years ahead. 1916 in the view of some people was a catastrophic failure. The only thing that saved it was the sympathy generated for the executed. It turned out a PR disaster for the British. Had they not executed them, its quite likely, the War of Independence would not have been so successful. But again, slightly off the point. My main point is too many people treat 1916 as if it was a great success, rather than the chaotic, poorly planned anarchy that it turned out. I think the makers of Rebellion convey this anarchy well.

Indeed, I've no idea what the budget for shows like Downton Abbey and Generation War was like but it must have been massive compared to what was available to the makers of Rebellion.

And yes, there has always been an element of 1916 being completely overrated in Irish modern history. It's interesting that things like the formation of the first Dail and the day we got our independence are completely overlooked (we are quite unusual in not having a national Independence Day).

There's a theory too that the rise of Sinn Fein as a major force may have happened anyway and we could have slipped into a War of Independence even without the Rising.

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

And yes, there has always been an element of 1916 being completely overrated in Irish modern history. It's interesting that things like the formation of the first Dail and the day we got our independence are completely overlooked (we are quite unusual in not having a national Independence Day).

1916 is what it is , out of proportion to its fundamental importance, because it created martyrs, to be glorified by the survivors, justifying the event, assuaging their own guilt for their part in such a shambles, and giving a ceremonial launch point for the whole independence kick.
Similarly, the civil war (the term is used generously) is best known for the death of Mìcheàl Collins - it suited the Collinsistes to have a martyr-hero for their own ends.

The Rape of Lucretia

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Lucretia
Dearest
Please explain

Which is what was robbed you.
Grammar? ?

Which element causes you a problem ?


rob


verb
robbed, rob·bing, robs
verb
, transitive

a. To deprive unjustly of something belonging to, desired by, or legally due (someone): robbed her of her professional standing.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1916 is what it is , out of proportion to its fundamental importance, because it created martyrs, to be glorified by the survivors, justifying the event, assuaging their own guilt for their part in such a shambles, and giving a ceremonial launch point for the whole independence kick.
Similarly, the war (the term is used generously) if independence is best known for the death of Mìcheàl Collins - it suited the Collinsistes to have a martyr-hero for their own ends.

Did Collins not die in the Civil War?

The Rape of Lucretia

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Did Collins not die in the Civil War?

Indeed. I meant to write civil war.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Indeed. I meant to write civil war.

That's okay then.

mick malones mauser

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Which element causes you a problem ?


rob


verb
robbed, rob·bing, robs
verb
, transitive

a. To deprive unjustly of something belonging to, desired by, or legally due (someone): robbed her of her professional standing.

Which is what was robbed you

Those are the 6 words you used,in that order.
What does this "sentence" ? mean

Strazdas

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1916 is what it is , out of proportion to its fundamental importance, because it created martyrs, to be glorified by the survivors, justifying the event, assuaging their own guilt for their part in such a shambles, and giving a ceremonial launch point for the whole independence kick.
Similarly, the war (the term is used generously) if independence is best known for the death of Mìcheàl Collins - it suited the Collinsistes to have a martyr-hero for their own ends.

Looking back, 1966 seems to have been completely over the top. If anything, we should have had all these celebrations in 1972 to celebrate 50 years of independence. Interestingly though, this would have meant De Valera being completely sidelined. It's funny that 1916 was seen as something noble and glorious but the signing of the Treaty as embarrassing and something that needed to be swept under the carpet.