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

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

The series appears to be taking a hammering from certain quarters but "riddled with errors and historical inaccuracies" is an accusation that cannot be thrown at them.

There is no such thing as a historical inaccuracy in fiction.

jmcc

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There is no such thing as a historical inaccuracy in fiction.

Strange as it may seem to you, there is when it is historical fiction.

Regards...jmcc

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed. They can definitely be accused of revisionism (which I suspect is the real thing that is bugging many of the show's critics) but by and large they seem to have researched the period thoroughly and got numerous things right.

How could one possibly be 'accused' of revisionism?
Revisionism is a good thing, particularly when it examines events at a distance from those associated with that history itself, who were the ones who wrote the first draft and used it as propaganda for decades.
Now is the time for revisionism on these now cold historical events.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jmcc wrote: »

Strange as it may seem to you, there is when it is historical fiction.

Regards...jmcc

Not when it involves fictional characters in a purely fictional incident, which is where that conversation came from.

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

I can't help thinking a lot of the criticism on social media though is because the angle the script has taken. I don't remember RTE's recent Quirke series which was set in 1950s Dublin being torn to shreds like this even though it seemed like only a fair to middling TV drama series.

This seems to be a trend in all the comment. I think what it indicates is how this series was not viewed simply as a drama by some people, who are still biased or have an emotional entanglement with the rising/independence, are familiar with its details, and are still anxious for the events, its politics, and consequences, to be portrayed in a way consistent with their views of it.
Most of us were just watching telly.

jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Not when it involves fictional characters in a purely fictional incident, which is where that conversation came from.

Real historical fiction writers work hard to get the ambience and the historical fact right.

Regards...jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jmcc wrote: »

Real historical fiction writers work hard to get the ambience and the historical fact right.

Regards...jmcc

Which they did a very good job of here. Was there anything factually inaccurate about the real people or situations? Everything I saw questioned was proven to be accurate.

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Hiring people to do PR fluffing on social media (the stuff that can't be outsourced to click/likes factories in India etc).

Sort of. But it has gained a bit of a Lord Of The Flies reputation for moderation and has to compete with Twitter and Facebook.

Regards...jmcc

Does that actually happen ie. RTE or their PR people bigging up their own shows on social media by pretending to be ordinary viewers?? There are no such people posting in this thread I assume.

josephryan1989

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It's only historically inaccurate if Detective Coleman was a real person who existed in 1916 and was shot by someone else or indeed not shot.

If he was a fictional creation like Frances it's not historically inaccurate at all. It's fiction.

When you want to commemorate historical events in film or television you make docudramas like The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far or Downfall which scrupulously recreated historical events from WW2.

Movies like Where Eagles Dare, Kelly's Heroes or The Good The Bad And The Ugly are in historical settings but are entertainment.

Rebellion claimed to create historical events through the eyes of three fictional young women.

The story of May who was having an affair with an imperial bureaucrat was ridiculously cliched and melodramatic. Apart from her stealing a document and passing it to the rebels it had NOTHING to do with the Easter Rising.

The Elizabeth and Jimmy storyline was a copy of the across the classes Rose and Jack love story from Titanic with the GPO taking the place of the ship. Connolly takes the place of the kindly Captain Smith and Pearse takes the place of the delusional Bruce Ismay. It was LAUGHABLE.

The Frances story was worst of all.
There were NO cross dressing lesbians fighting on the front line during the 1916 Rising. it didn't happen. So don't f*cking put it into a drama that claims to be based on historical events.

I was expecting RTE to put together a decent drama series about the Rising.

Instead they served up a load of steaming sh*t! :mad:

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

Does that actually happen ie. RTE or their PR people bigging up their own shows on social media by pretending to be ordinary viewers?? There are no such people posting in this thread I assume.

I would agree with you and assume not. I dont see anyone bigging it up particularly or not levelling some criticism at it.

If anything, the ''with agenda' posting seems to be those anxious to criticise it in all ways and in as hyperbolic fashion as they can muster, and throwing in some broad ranging criticism of RTE, Irish 'establishment' media, and even Dublin as whole, while they are at it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josephryan1989 wrote: »

When you want to commemorate historical events in film or television you make docudramas like The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far or Downfall which scrupulously recreated historical events from WW2.

Movies like Where Eagles Dare, Kelly's Heroes or The Good The Bad And The Ugly are in historical settings but are entertainment.

Rebellion claimed to create historical events through the eyes of three fictional young women.

The story of May who was having an affair with an imperial bureaucrat was ridiculously cliched and melodramatic. Apart from her stealing a document and passing it to the rebels it had NOTHING to do with the Easter Rising.

The Elizabeth and Jimmy storyline was a copy of the across the classes Rose and Jack love story from Titanic with the GPO taking the place of the ship. Connolly takes the place of the kindly Captain Smith and Pearse takes the place of the delusional Bruce Ismay. It was LAUGHABLE.

The Frances story was worst of all.
There were NO cross dressing lesbians fighting on the front line during the 1916 Rising. it didn't happen. So don't f*cking put it into a drama that claims to be based on historical events.

I was expecting RTE to put together a decent drama series about the Rising.

Instead they served up a load of steaming sh*t! :mad:

None of your problems with the show amount to historical inaccuracies though, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to list them all out again.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Jimmy/Elizabeth story myself but I really don't see the Titanic parallel? Other than one was a man and the other a woman? No idea where you're going with that.

Dressing in men's clothes as a disguise is not cross dressing. I wasn't aware they took a register of sexual preferences during the Rising. You have no idea if anyone was a lesbian or not. I am aware of a certain countess who wore a man's uniform and well, there were rumours.

Anyway, RTÉ promised fictional characters in a historical setting and that's what they delivered. Whether you liked it or not is an entirely different matter. If they had promised something that Josephryan1989 on boards.ie would love then you'd have a serious bone to pick. As it is they delivered what they said they would.

jmcc

Not necessarily RTE but this kind of thing does happen. Look at how the Marty Whelan on LyricFM discussions (curiously attractive to sockpuppets and odd accounts that kept replying to themselves) on the Radio forum went. Perhaps they are overzealous fans.

Social media is a major issue for PR these days due to people actually thinking for themselves rather than relying on press release recyclers. Prior to the advent of SM, there was no real widespread conversation so any line could easily be spun to a compliant press. However with more people being able to talk about a programme and with a wider geographical spread of such a conversation, the reliance on churnalists became a problem as they are typically ignored.

The way that the response to this series rapidly went pearshaped is similar to that to the "The Big Bow Wow".

Regards...jmcc

josephryan1989

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

None of your problems with the show amount to historical inaccuracies though, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to list them all out again.

When I was a teenager I starred in the musical Oliver and there were girls acting as the boys in Fagin's gang. They were wearing flat caps and shirts with waistcoats and little freckles drawn on their faces. That's how ridiculous the actress looked as a female republican gun woman dressed in drag.
Absurd.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Jimmy/Elizabeth story myself but I really don't see the Titanic parallel? Other than one was a man and the other a woman? No idea where you're going with that.

Rose was engaged to be married to Cal and pressurized by her mother.

Elizabeth is engaged to be married to Stephen and pressurized by her mother.

Rose is in love with Jack a penniless working class hero and Elizabeth is in love with Jimmy a penniless working class hero.

Dressing in men's clothes as a disguise is not cross dressing. I wasn't aware they took a register of sexual preferences during the Rising. You have no idea if anyone was a lesbian or not. I am aware of a certain countess who wore a man's uniform and well, there were rumours.

The women who turned out in the Rising were nurses and messengers and cooks and only a few took part in the fighting. A number of the most well known were probably lesbians such as the Countess, Kathleen Lynn, French-Mullen and Helen Moloney.
But there were no Lara Croft types running around in drag kicking ass in some sort of lesbian feminist fantasy.

Anyway, RTÉ promised fictional characters in a historical setting and that's what they delivered.

The created fictional characters who behaved and spoke nothing like people behaved and spoke in 1916.

Whether you liked it or not is an entirely different matter. If they had promised something that Josephryan1989 on boards.ie would love then you'd have a serious bone to pick. As it is they delivered what they said they would.

I want believe-ability and realism and drama and what we got instead was farcical, unrealistic and completely underwhelming crap.

It's so crap I want to get sick in my hands.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josephryan1989 wrote: »

It's so crap I want to get sick in my hands.

You and Dev would make a great pair.

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Not necessarily RTE but this kind of thing does happen. Look at how the Marty Whelan on LyricFM discussions (curiously attractive to sockpuppets and odd accounts that kept replying to themselves) on the Radio forum went. Perhaps they are overzealous fans.

Social media is a major issue for PR these days due to people actually thinking for themselves rather than relying on press release recyclers. Prior to the advent of SM, there was no real widespread conversation so any line could easily be spun to a compliant press. However with more people being able to talk about a programme and with a wider geographical spread of such a conversation, the reliance on churnalists became a problem as they are typically ignored.

The way that the response to this series rapidly went pearshaped is similar to that to the "The Big Bow Wow".

Regards...jmcc

Social media tends to be essentially negative though from what I can see (perhaps this is because there are a lot of negative people using the medium). If it was the case that RTE or other media outlets were hiring people to redress the balance by setting up fake accounts, I'd say it's very much a losing battle : just about everything is bashed on social media IMO, even the good stuff.

Strazdas

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

How could one possibly be 'accused' of revisionism?
Revisionism is a good thing, particularly when it examines events at a distance from those associated with that history itself, who were the ones who wrote the first draft and used it as propaganda for decades.
Now is the time for revisionism on these now cold historical events.

I'm guessing that revisionism would be considered a dirty word if any sacred cows or iconic national figures are coming under scrutiny (not just in Ireland btw, probably anywhere). I've certainly seen the expression "revisionist" hurled at Rebellion in the last few weeks as if it's a downright insult.

The Rape of Lucretia

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm guessing that revisionism would be considered a dirty word if any sacred cows or iconic national figures are coming under scrutiny (not just in Ireland btw, probably anywhere). I've certainly seen the expression "revisionist" hurled at Rebellion in the last few weeks as if it's a downright insult.

Yes, even here it seems to have been thrown in as a sort of 'dont offend me' response, as if it is a crime to revise what may well have been self written myths. If the 'revision' doesnt agree with preconceived ideas - then to some its a dirty word. To those interested in history, its the progress of improving understanding past events.
'Revisionism' being used denigratorily is the same as saying "stop asking tricky questions, because I like my wrong answer just as it is". I dont thing the series was revisionist at all in fact. It presented a pretty straight bat on the events themselves. In the fictional element, it was coloured by our modern views and how we imagine/hope those of the time might have thought. But that certainly isnt revisionism - its just fiction.

Strazdas

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes, even here it seems to have been thrown in as a sort of 'dont offend me' response, as if it is a crime to revise what may well have been self written myths. If the 'revision' doesnt agree with preconceived ideas - then to some its a dirty word. To those interested in history, its the progress of improving understanding past events.
'Revisionism' being used denigratorily is the same as saying "stop asking tricky questions, because I like my wrong answer just as it is". I dont thing the series was revisionist at all in fact. It presented a pretty straight bat on the events themselves. In the fictional element, it was coloured by our modern views and how we imagine/hope those of the time might have thought. But that certainly isnt revisionism - its just fiction.

Indeed, to use the word revisionism as if it's an insult suggests the person already has a closed mind on the particular subject and is not interested in having their opinions challenged. I saw phrases like "revisionist nonsense" on other websites where Rebellion was being discussed, as if the two things go hand in hand.

The amount of flak the show has taken on social media certainly suggests whatever version of history it presented is an unpopular one in Ireland. I've seen a lot of talk claiming that RTE has an anti-nationalist and anti-republican agenda and Rebellion was the ultimate manifestation of this.

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

The amount of flak the show has taken on social media certainly suggests whatever version of history it presented is an unpopular one in Ireland.

No. It was just a very poorly written series and a waste of money.

I've seen a lot of talk claiming that RTE has an anti-nationalist and anti-republican agenda and Rebellion was the ultimate manifestation of this.

RTE was subverted by the Workers Party (The Ned Stapleton cumman) in the 1980s and it turned it very anti-Irish complete with the extremist implementation of Section 31. But then you probably wouldn't know anything about that. There is a serious mistrust for anything coming out of RTE these days and a lot of it dates back to its pro-British propaganda postion (as pushed by the Harrisites in RTE) during the Troubles.

Regards...jmcc

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, to use the word revisionism as if it's an insult suggests the person already has a closed mind on the particular subject and is not interested in having their opinions challenged. I saw phrases like "revisionist nonsense" on other websites where Rebellion was being discussed, as if the two things go hand in hand.

The amount of flak the show has taken on social media certainly suggests whatever version of history it presented is an unpopular one in Ireland. I've seen a lot of talk claiming that RTE has an anti-nationalist and anti-republican agenda and Rebellion was the ultimate manifestation of this.

There is only one version of history.
The version that happened.
There is only fact and nothing else.

HeidiHeidi

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There is only one version of history.
The version that happened.
There is only fact and nothing else.

Jaysus.

Best of luck living your life by that mantra :eek:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

josephryan1989 wrote: »

There is only one version of history.
The version that happened.
There is only fact and nothing else.

If you believe that you'll believe anything.

maudgonner

Didn't have a chance to watch the final episode till tonight. Thought this one was reasonably enjoyable, at long last we got to see a decent amount of character development, long overdue. A few annoyances though:

- Did they really have to make Frances a lesbian? She's been fighting, keeping up with the men, wearing men's clothes, so she must be a lesbian. What a cliche. (She was easily my favourite of the three lead characters nonetheless).
- I think the series' representation of the leaders of the Rising has been very weak. Pearse was wojus. The representation of De Valera made me very uncomfortable. I know people here liked Collins and Connolly, but I could take or leave them.
- The British army & administration staff were pure caricatures of stiff upper lip, King and Country Englishmen. Really over the top stuff.
- The acting was better in this ep, and there was a bit of dramatic tension, yippee! Too little, too late I'm afraid though.

For season 2, anyone reckon May is going to end up as one of Collins' women informants on the inside of the Castle?

I watched Strumpet City over the weekend and I really do think it knocks spots off this. The characters are so much more compelling, the acting is much better (and sometimes outstanding - Cyril Cusack was heartbreaking), and it's so well written, full of heart and humour. It's all that I expected Rebellion to be, what a shame they couldn't recreate the magic.

Baggy Trousers

Rebellion is getting slated across the board and with good cause.

I heard Matt Cooper and 2 critics absolute slating it today.

I also had to agree with most of this;

Seven reasons why RTE'S Rebellion was more 'damp squib' than 'explosive triumph'

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-reviews/seven-reasons-why-rtes-rebellion-was-more-damp-squib-than-explosive-triumph-34412108.html


http://www.thejournal.ie/rebellion-final-episode-review-2578193-Feb2016/

TCDStudent1

maudgonner wrote: »

Didn't have a chance to watch the final episode till tonight. Thought this one was reasonably enjoyable, at long last we got to see a decent amount of character development, long overdue. A few annoyances though:

- Did they really have to make Frances a lesbian? She's been fighting, keeping up with the men, wearing men's clothes, so she must be a lesbian. What a cliche. (She was easily my favourite of the three lead characters nonetheless).
- I think the series' representation of the leaders of the Rising has been very weak. Pearse was wojus. The representation of De Valera made me very uncomfortable. I know people here liked Collins and Connolly, but I could take or leave them.
- The British army & administration staff were pure caricatures of stiff upper lip, King and Country Englishmen. Really over the top stuff.
- The acting was better in this ep, and there was a bit of dramatic tension, yippee! Too little, too late I'm afraid though.

For season 2, anyone reckon May is going to end up as one of Collins' women informants on the inside of the Castle?

I watched Strumpet City over the weekend and I really do think it knocks spots off this. The characters are so much more compelling, the acting is much better (and sometimes outstanding - Cyril Cusack was heartbreaking), and it's so well written, full of heart and humour. It's all that I expected Rebellion to be, what a shame they couldn't recreate the magic.

In fairness, Strumpet City was based on a wonderful novel giving it a big advantage. I wonder are there are fictional novels set around 1916?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

maudgonner wrote: »

- Did they really have to make Frances a lesbian? She's been fighting, keeping up with the men, wearing men's clothes, so she must be a lesbian. What a cliche. (She was easily my favourite of the three lead characters nonetheless).

Yeah, I kind of get what you mean. In one way I don't really mind her being a lesbian because it's kind of irrelevant but I can see what you mean about it being a cliche. Would have been interesting if they'd made Elizabeth gay, that's the reason she didn't want to marry Stephen, would have added a little more to her speech to George about "why do you think everything a woman does must be because she loves a man" (paraphrasing there).

teddyhead

It was just terribly written. Bloated ,meandering lacking any focus . The writers CV is quite 'arty', perhaps he was a poor choice to write a mainstream drama?
Reminded me of that nonsense 'Amber' from a few years back. Indulgent and misguided.

teddyhead

It was just terribly written. Bloated ,meandering lacking any focus . The writers CV is quite 'arty', perhaps he was a poor choice to write a mainstream drama?
Reminded me of that nonsense 'Amber' from a few years back. Indulgent and misguided.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

teddyhead wrote: »

It was just terribly written. Bloated ,meandering lacking any focus . The writers CV is quite 'arty', perhaps he was a poor choice to write a mainstream drama?
Reminded me of that nonsense 'Amber' from a few years back. Indulgent and misguided.

"arty" what does that even mean?

And his CV is literally all mainstream TV drama. RTÉ, BBC and ITV mainstream TV dramas.

maudgonner

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yeah, I kind of get what you mean. In one way I don't really mind her being a lesbian because it's kind of irrelevant but I can see what you mean about it being a cliche. Would have been interesting if they'd made Elizabeth gay, that's the reason she didn't want to marry Stephen, would have added a little more to her speech to George about "why do you think everything a woman does must be because she loves a man" (paraphrasing there).

I burst out laughing when she came out with that line - it's what bugged me so much about her character right from the start. The way they set it up in the first episode, pretty much everything she did was because of her relationships with Stephen and Jimmy.

It seemed to take ages for them to give us a sense that she had other factors motivating her to take part in the Rising. The over-reliance on the romantic plot really weakened that character, I think.