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

teddyhead

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

"arty" what does that even mean?

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

Well I must be reading a different CV . I copied and pasted this bit. Which of these are 'mainstream'?

Rebellion (2016),
Charlie (2015),
The Kingdom, (2012)[1]
There Was A Man, There Was No Man (2012),
The Lion of Kabul (2009),
The Diver, co-written with Hideki Noda, (2008)
Peer Gynt,adapted from Ibsen (2007)
Don Quixote adapted from the novel by Cervantes, with Pablo Ley (2007)
How Many Miles to Basra? (2006),
The Bee, co-written with Hideki Noda,(2006

By 'arty' , I mean being too much of a clever clogs.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

maudgonner wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I'd probably agree with you there. It's not enough to just have the character say something like that at the end when everything we've seen up to that point suggests the complete opposite, or even nothing at all. Any of the insight we got into Elizabeth's character was implied through her mother's action, I think. And that could just be me projecting my own interpretation onto the character.

If they do a second series I'd like to see Elizabeth get a bit more fleshed out. Not bothered whether they bring Jimmy back or not, if I'm honest.

maudgonner

teddyhead wrote: »

Well I must be reading a different CV . I copied and pasted this bit. Which of these are 'mainstream'?

<snip>

By 'arty' , I mean being too much of a clever clogs.

Many of those are stage plays, I think?

IMDB lists his TV credits as:
Rebellion
Charlie
Silk
Vera
Singlehanded

All of those are mainstream dramas.

HeidiHeidi

teddyhead wrote: »

Well I must be reading a different CV . I copied and pasted this bit. Which of these are 'mainstream'?

Rebellion (2016),
Charlie (2015),
The Kingdom, (2012)[1]
There Was A Man, There Was No Man (2012),
The Lion of Kabul (2009),
The Diver, co-written with Hideki Noda, (2008)
Peer Gynt,adapted from Ibsen (2007)
Don Quixote adapted from the novel by Cervantes, with Pablo Ley (2007)
How Many Miles to Basra? (2006),
The Bee, co-written with Hideki Noda,(2006

By 'arty' , I mean being too much of a clever clogs.

This is from IMDB.... and even I've heard of them all, which means they must be fairly mainstream!

Writer (5 credits) 2016 Rebellion (TV Mini-Series) (5 episodes)
- Episode #1.5 (2016) ... (creator)
- Episode #1.4 (2016) ... (creator)
- Episode #1.3 (2016) ... (creator)
- Episode #1.2 (2016) ... (creator)
- Episode #1.1 (2016) ... (creator)

2015 Charlie (TV Mini-Series) (3 episodes)
- Fall 1989-1992 (2015)
- GUBU 1982 (2015)
- Rise 1979-1981 (2015)

2014 Silk (TV Series) (1 episode)
- Episode #3.3 (2014)

2012 Vera (TV Series) (screenplay - 1 episode)
- Sandancers (2012) ... (screenplay)

2010 Single-Handed (TV Series) (written by - 2 episodes)
- Between Two Fires (2010) ... (written by)
- Between Two Fires (2010) ... (written by)


Hide Producer (2 credits)
2016 Rebellion (TV Mini-Series) (executive producer - 5 episodes)
- Episode #1.5 (2016) ... (executive producer)
- Episode #1.4 (2016) ... (executive producer)
- Episode #1.3 (2016) ... (executive producer)
- Episode #1.2 (2016) ... (executive producer)
- Episode #1.1 (2016) ... (executive producer)

2015 Charlie (TV Mini-Series) (associate producer - 3 episodes)
- Fall 1989-1992 (2015) ... (associate producer)
- GUBU 1982 (2015) ... (associate producer)
- Rise 1979-1981 (2015) ... (associate producer)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

teddyhead wrote: »

Well I must be reading a different CV . I copied and pasted this bit. Which of these are 'mainstream'?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4199667/?ref_=tt_ov_wr

Rebellion 2016
Charlie 2015
Silk 2014
Vera 2012
Single Handed 2010

I'm pretty sure the rest of the ones you listed are plays, as he is also a playwright. As far as his background in TV goes it's all mainstream drama.

teddyhead

maudgonner wrote: »

Many of those are stage plays, I think?

IMDB lists his TV credits as:
Rebellion
Charlie
Silk
Vera
Singlehanded

All of those are mainstream dramas.

Fair enough. I stand a bit corrected but I think the point stands about him being a bit too 'clever' with rebellion, ie the clunky feminism , the downplaying of historically important figures etc.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

teddyhead wrote: »

Reminded me of that nonsense 'Amber' from a few years back. Indulgent and misguided.

I liked Amber, and the way it just kinda...

maudgonner

teddyhead wrote: »

Fair enough. I stand a bit corrected but I think the point stands about him being a bit too 'clever' with rebellion, ie the clunky feminism , the downplaying of historically important figures etc.

I think your definition of clever might be a bit different to mine.

I'd have the opposite criticism of the writing tbh, I thought it was far too obvious, lightweight and not nearly clever enough

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

teddyhead wrote: »

Fair enough. I stand a bit corrected but I think the point stands about him being a bit too 'clever' with rebellion, ie the clunky feminism , the downplaying of historically important figures etc.

I've said it before, men are often quite bad at writing female characters. Not always, but quite often. Here they did some good stuff, they did some less good stuff.

I don't have a problem with them downplaying the historic figures. Given what we did see of them though, and how much people complained about how they were being portrayed, I would almost love to see the whole series focused on them just to see people's heads explode when they're not all painted as the whiter than white heroes that they want them to be.

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

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

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

Section 31 dated back to the mid 1970s when it was introduced in it's fullest form by Conor Cruise O'Brien having previously been used to censor IRA members only.

Even if RTE was seen as anti-republican in the 1980s, in what way was it "anti-Irish"?

teddyhead

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't have a problem with them downplaying the historic figures. Given what we did see of them though, and how much people complained about how they were being portrayed, I would almost love to see the whole series focused on them just to see people's heads explode when they're not all painted as the whiter than white heroes that they want them to be.

Indeed. A missed opportunity to examine some of 'our national heroes'.
Its not that their presence is vital to a historical drama , but if a writer is going to dismiss these ready made and interesting 'characters', he had better have invented some good ones to replace them with, which imo, the writer failed to do.

Mebuntu

RTE showed their own contempt for the series (and for us viewers) by running an ad for the 6-Nations on the screen right through Part 1 of the final episode.

Strazdas

teddyhead wrote: »

Indeed. A missed opportunity to examine some of 'our national heroes'.
Its not that their presence is vital to a historical drama , but if a writer is going to dismiss these ready made and interesting 'characters', he had better have invented some good ones to replace them with, which imo, the writer failed to do.

In that case, Rebellion would have been about the actual Rising and Pearse, Connolly, Clarke etc.

As some people have pointed out here though, even such a series may have come under attack from the same people who are attacking Rebellion. In fact, I'd nearly bet money on it. It would probably be more of the same "This series could have been great but RTE made a complete mess of it and got the leaders of the Rising all wrong".

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

In that case, Rebellion would have been about the actual Rising and Pearse, Connolly, Clarke etc.

As some people have pointed out here though, even such a series may have come under attack from the same people who are attacking Rebellion. In fact, I'd nearly bet money on it. It would probably be more of the same "This series could have been great but RTE made a complete mess of it and got the leaders of the Rising all wrong".

If they stuck to the facts and didn't make up bullsh*t they wouldn't get it wrong would they?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mebuntu wrote: »

RTE showed their own contempt for the series (and for us viewers) by running an ad for the 6-Nations on the screen right through Part 1 of the final episode.

Common practice on lots of TV channels these days.

Strazdas

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If they stuck to the facts and didn't make up bullsh*t they wouldn't get it wrong would they?

People are still divided about the Rising though. Some people think it was totally necessary and that those who carried it out were courageous and heroic for striking a blow against a brutal and oppressive regime. Others are of the opinion that there were only 1500 people involved in the Rising and we could have worked our way towards independence without the Rising and a violent War of Independence and Civil War afterwards. It's impossible to square that circle through a TV drama IMO, you're bound to irritate part of your audience no matter what angle you go for.

HeidiHeidi

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If they stuck to the facts and didn't make up bullsh*t they wouldn't get it wrong would they?

Whose "facts" though?

I'm assuming you're not 120 years old, so have no direct experience of the time. So everything you know is someone's version of events. The same event can be seen from lots of angles, and won't necessarily be told/seen in the same way afterwards.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Whose "facts" though?

I'm assuming you're not 120 years old, so have no direct experience of the time. So everything you know is someone's version of events. The same event can be seen from lots of angles, and won't necessarily be told/seen in the same way afterwards.

Slightly off topic here but there's a documentary called Stories We Tell which illustrates this point perfectly. It's not a particularly interesting story but basically there's different members of the same family and some other people telling the story of something that happened to them and even though it's the same sequence of events they're talking about they all tell it completely differently to the point that it's almost several different stories being told.

But I digress....

josephryan1989

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Whose "facts" though?

I'm assuming you're not 120 years old, so have no direct experience of the time. So everything you know is someone's version of events. The same event can be seen from lots of angles, and won't necessarily be told/seen in the same way afterwards.

That's why we have historians and historians find agreement on the facts of what happened during the Rising. There are more than enough witness accounts of what occurred and from numerous angles to faithfully reconstruct the events as they happened.

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

Others are of the opinion

Who? The Unionist John Bruton? The dead Peter Hart (via Ouija Board communication with Eoghan Harris)? Or is this just some RTE talking point that you've picked up?

Regards...jmcc

Caprica

I thought it was a very disappointing series, can't believe it cost €6m. I though it was poorly written and acted, with most of the characters pretty much forgettable. Hopefully there won't be a second series. It's a pity for RTE as they have been on a good roll with their dramas in recent years.

HeidiHeidi

josephryan1989 wrote: »

That's why we have historians and historians find agreement on the facts of what happened during the Rising. There are more than enough witness accounts of what occurred and from numerous angles to faithfully reconstruct the events as they happened.

Historians have angles and biases too. Very little in this world is black and white. Don't believe everything you read (and clearly you read a lot).

Shurimgreat

josephryan1989 wrote: »

That's why we have historians and historians find agreement on the facts of what happened during the Rising. There are more than enough witness accounts of what occurred and from numerous angles to faithfully reconstruct the events as they happened.

I think once more you are missing the point that Rebellion is a drama. There are hundreds of similar dramas out there like it, set against various wars, as well as novels. War and Peace, Brideshead Revisited, For Whom the Bell tolls, Generation War and so on and so forth. All have stuff "made up" in them.

The whole point of dramas is that much of it is made up. Otherwise it wouldn't be a drama.

Again, I really would advise the historical anoraks to give dramas like Rebellion and so on a very wide berth. Stick to the historians and the factual programs.

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

Harris and his Workers Party cronies plagiarising the "New Journalism" of the 1960s and ranting about "factualism". Corrupting the whole journalistic process and turning RTE into a discredited propaganda station. Then telling RTE reporters to run the UVF/UDA line on everything. Taking a very pro-British angle on anything that happened instead of providing balanced journalism.

This is a Republic despite some people wishing it was still part of the UK. You use the term "republican" like it is some kind of insult. But that anti-Irish propaganda doesn't work any more. The Irish people are a lot more mature, better educated and better informed. Thus when the likes of "Rebellion" is produced by the "national" broadcaster, it doesn't get treated with the universal acclaim that RTE expected. It is treated with derision. The sad thing is that RTE is capable of so much better as that programme on Ireland before the Rising showed.

What some of the posters here, if they are not trolls, and some in RTE don't seem to understand is that Irish people no longer feel inferior. The majority of us are no longer toadying little cretins waiting for a pat on the shoulder from some lower middle class pseudo "royal" German family. We are Irish. We are not British. The Rising is part of our history.

Regards...jmcc

Wouldn't the easiest thing to do would be to present the Rising leaders in Rebellion as noble and heroic and with the benefit of hindsight, totally justified in their actions? That's how it was presented in 1966 and was well received.

I've a feeling the writers of Rebellion would take great issue with the idea they are pursuing a West Brit / anti Irish-nationalism agenda or that they are filled with some form of post colonial self loathing to the point where they are embarrassed to be Irish.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Caprica wrote: »

I thought it was a very disappointing series, can't believe it cost €6m. I though it was poorly written and acted, with most of the characters pretty much forgettable. Hopefully there won't be a second series. It's a pity for RTE as they have been on a good roll with their dramas in recent years.

You didn't like it, that's fine but I don't really get this shock at the cost (not just from you). It's expensive by RTÉ's standard but it's not like it cost €6 million and everything was shot on one wobbly set with painted sheets outside the windows and they were all dressed in their own clothes.

For comparison the average cost of an episode of Downton Abbey is £1 million and the majority of their episodes are people sitting around talking. Most US network dramas cost an average of $3 million dollars per episode.

And I don't know what dramas you've been watching on RTÉ that make you think it's been on a roll. Clean Break from last year was a cheap Happy Valley knock off, Amber was a cheap "Nordic Noir" knock off, Love/Hate was exploitative rubbish, although bizarrely popular, which is no indication of quality. Everyone seems to have hated Charlie. What else have they done?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Strazdas wrote: »

I've a feeling the writers of Rebellion would take great issue with the idea they are pursuing a West Brit / anti Irish-nationalism agenda or that they are filled with some form of post colonial self loathing to the point where they are embarrassed to be Irish.

This idea that what was shown on Rebellion was in any way anti Irish or pro British or anything like that drives me nuts. For every moment they showed the rebels or leaders in a less than flattering light there was another moment showing the British in the same way.

Not a single English character came away looking good, did they?

No Irish characters, real or fictional, were completely hung out to dry either?

jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

I've a feeling the writers of Rebellion would take great issue with the idea they are pursuing a West Brit / anti Irish-nationalism agenda or that they are filled with some form of post colonial self loathing to the point where they are embarrassed to be Irish.

You can tell them just that if it pleases you. That's exactly what is driving a lot of the criticism of the series. That and the really crass Political Correctness and anachronistic Dortspeak dialogue. To paraphrase one cardboard character, it was a crime scene in a war zone.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas

jmcc wrote: »

You can tell them just that if it pleases you. That's exactly what is driving a lot of the criticism of the series. That and the really crass Political Correctness and anachronistic Dortspeak dialogue. To paraphrase one cardboard character, it was a crime scene in a war zone.

Regards...jmcc

I completely agree on that sentence, especially when I see a lot of the criticism elsewhere claiming that RTE are pursuing a specific agenda with Rebellion.

Don't forget the political correctness and anachronistic dialogue accusation has frequently been levelled at the juggernaut that is Downton Abbey.

P. Breathnach

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think once more you are missing the point that Rebellion is a drama. There are hundreds of similar dramas out there like it, set against various wars, as well as novels. War and Peace, Brideshead Revisited, For Whom the Bell tolls, Generation War and so on and so forth. All have stuff "made up" in them.

The whole point of dramas is that much of it is made up. Otherwise it wouldn't be a drama.

Again, I really would advise the historical anoraks to give dramas like Rebellion and so on a very wide berth. Stick to the historians and the factual programs.

And that is the issue that bothers a number of people who are posting here: they wanted a different programme. That's no more valid than complaining about a station broadcasting the news at a time when you wanted to watch a situation comedy.

I accept the basic premise of Rebellion: a drama set in the context of the 1916 Rising, where the rising impacted on the lives of the players.

I think that by and large, the treatment of the historical context was good. I don't think it was insufficient, because there is only so much that can be handled in the time available, and only so much the second target market, those outside Ireland, might want.

The budget was insufficient for major set construction or for large-scale battle scenes. But they were not necessary for the drama.

The two great weaknesses were:
(a) the script, which did not deliver good story development, and where some of the lines jarred;
(b) outside locations - there was overuse of a few places, and a failure to find others that might have worked well enough (they might have looked outside Dublin).

There were minor weaknesses in some of the performances, and some of the plot details (e.g. Frances appearing to be lesbian was no more than a distraction).

It also irked me that everything and everybody seemed too clean.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

This idea that what was shown on Rebellion was in any way anti Irish or pro British or anything like that drives me nuts. For every moment they showed the rebels or leaders in a less than flattering light there was another moment showing the British in the same way.

Not a single English character came away looking good, did they?

No Irish characters, real or fictional, were completely hung out to dry either?

It seems the only way Rebellion could have escaped this type of flak is if they'd gone the 1966 route and keep things very black and white and definitely kept any shades of revisionism out of things.