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

BuilderPlumber

Forgot to post regarding Ruth Dudley Edwards: journalists like her's opinions should not count for much. She supports all sorts of dodgy rightwing American politicians, supported the invasion of Iraq and supports other such misguided things. Her revisionalist approach to history is designed around serving her own warped political views.

She is like that guy on the internet Mark Humprys who says that Obama, Trump, or Ted Cruz are not for him as American president. Obama = too leftwing, the other 2 not rightwing enough or something for him. Humphrys is not writing for a national paper though. Edwards is. Edwards is constantly writing about 1916, early Irish independence, etc. and is always promoting her revisionalist books. When she writes stuff on Rebellion or Wind that Shakes the Barley it should be read in the context of her rightwing, atheistic, free market politics.

Lt Dan

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Forgot to post regarding Ruth Dudley Edwards: journalists like her's opinions should not count for much. She supports all sorts of dodgy rightwing American politicians, supported the invasion of Iraq and supports other such misguided things. Her revisionalist approach to history is designed around serving her own warped political views.

She is like that guy on the internet Mark Humprys who says that Obama, Trump, or Ted Cruz are not for him as American president. Obama = too leftwing, the other 2 not rightwing enough or something for him. Humphrys is not writing for a national paper though. Edwards is. Edwards is constantly writing about 1916, early Irish independence, etc. and is always promoting her revisionalist books. When she writes stuff on Rebellion or Wind that Shakes the Barley it should be read in the context of her rightwing, atheistic, free market politics.

Ah, Dudley Edwards is a weird fish. She is very competent at what she does even if some of the stuff is based on emotion and bias as oppose to facts. She is better than some of the Republican historians. She did do a good and fair and in fact authoritative book on Pearse decades ago.

I do not know whether you could call her a revisionist like others like Harris (who would have been pretty Republican decades ago) in the sense that she and her family ALWAYS had a certain stance and interpretation of Irish history and never held a different view. Her father was head of Trinity Historian Department - so you should know where she stood.

Like it or not, Republicans did revise history themselves shortly after 1916. The way the nation did fall on their knees to Pearse and co can be a lot to take in. One minute they were laughing at the mad Protestant man, then they were buying postcards with saintly pictures of the men and saying prayers to St Padraig Pearse. Sinn Fein and IRB saw this and took advantage.

If we are going to be critical of her, we don't need to bring her support of dodgy rightwingers and Iraq into this. We can start with the fact that (a) Wind that Shakes the Barely is far from glorifying or romanticising Republicans (b) Does show balance towards the British Army (as oppose to the Tans and Auxiliaries) in that they clearly were just following orders and were still shook from WW1, (c) She never actually saw the film when she commented. Best she be ignored

Lt Dan

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I know the subject matter was very controversial but still I feel that it could have been braver. The restraint also dominant in Clean Break proves that RTE drama has shied away from the gritty realism of Love/Hate to a more sanitised take on crime or war related dramas.

The anti-English brigade would of course use it as propaganda if the series was done Love/Hate-style and showed all. Others would come out and would condemn the violence (I wonder how many cats or street pigeons got killed!!). Yet the majority would accept it as a marvellous piece of drama. You could balance the executions with some violent treatment of RIC officers that was very common at the time. Another controversial issue of course is that the pro-republican movement did commit atrocities against pro-English people too!

Love/Hate was unafraid to portray controversial topics like dissident republicanism's twofaced involvement with the drugs trade and how guys like Nidge and Fran lived a normal family life side by side with a violent life of crime. Rebellion could have been awesome if it had done more to show the brutal realities of a violent warzone that suddenly overturned what seemed a peaceful city only a day before.

There is nothing brave about Love /Hate portraying Dissident Republicans as two faced. Why? Well, Proviso's were never that popular in the South in the first place, and Dissidents, Post 1998 are DESPISED by every one, including the Provo's. The Dissidents are what they are, loosers, gangsters, drug pushers (while at the same time pretending to be vigil anti's) They are also doing nothing new. This portrayal was in stuff like Ordinary Decent Criminal & The General , Veronica Guerrin . The public knew about elements of the Old IRA and Provo's and their involvement in the drug trade from way back in the early 1980's . One had to include it.

Of course there was plenty of grit in Love/Hate. Plenty of violence and violent sex scenes and they did not shy away from who the Dissidents really are

However , at times, the people of 1916 -1921 are sacred cows. Many refuse to entertain any analysis or perceived criticism of the men, even when it is merited. Most of those people will shout "revisionist" and "West Brit". Then again, most of them got their history from the school text books. Also, you simply can not try to analyse that period of history (of any country) with the attitudes of more modern times. People get so hung up about "blood sacrifice" yet that kind of talk was the thing of the day by poets , and politicians during World War 1. It was certainly the attitude of Officers in the World War when they just kept shoving thousands of men to their deaths simply get again a few hundred yards. Redmond talked of sacrifice yet nothing is said

Rebellion was not made for an Irish Audience. Funny,saying that, Rebel Heart was made by RTE AND BBC NI yet it went through the period in better detail , in some regards (Got a bit discredited because one of the writers had an IRA past)


I am not sure that the Rebellion was as savage in the sense of hand to hand combat or snipers ala Saving Private Ryan, or most war movies . There is an element that sometimes it was more of a skirmish as many Units had little to do but watch Dublin burn. Saying that the major exception would have been the South Union area of Dublin (St James' Hospital area where fighting was going on in wards for the asylum!)

Strazdas

Rebellion is about to hit TV screens in the US (first episode screens tonight on Sundance TV). Should be very interesting to see the reaction of the viewers but already the reviews are pretty positive :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rebellion-review-the-irish-rising-as-women-saw-it-1461275195

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-hinckley/sundance-miniseries-rebel_b_9745214.html

This one is more critical but does concede the series has a lot of pluses and "deserves points for ambition" :

http://www.avclub.com/review/rebellion-tries-give-epic-treatment-easter-rebelli-235641

JohnFalstaff

That Huffington Post review is fairly luke-warm in its praise and most of the US reviews I'm seeing are predominantly negative.

Many critics are pointing to the same problems Irish reviewers and audiences had with the series - poor script, dull characters and pacing issues.

NY Times calling it "formulaic melodrama":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/arts/television/review-rebellion-pits-soap-opera-vs-drama-of-the-easter-rising.html?_r=0

LA Times: "...the series is an astonishment of context avoidance"
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-rebellion-20160422-story.html

And the industry bible Variety has slammed the series entirely:

“Rebellion clearly aims to create a wide array of viewpoints on this tense period in Irish history, but manages to sabotage itself regularly with questionable pacing and an ungainly bunch of under-developed characters....time and again, Rebellion makes baffling editing decisions. It frequently kills its patchy momentum by cutting away from scenes of desperate, poignant fighting to dreary conversations among dull characters who feel like imports from a decidedly average period piece."

http://variety.com/2016/tv/reviews/rebellion-review-1201758492/

Strazdas

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

That Huffington Post review is fairly luke-warm in its praise and most of the US reviews I'm seeing are predominantly negative.

Many critics are pointing to the same problems Irish reviewers and audiences had with the series - poor script, dull characters and pacing issues.

NY Times calling it "formulaic melodrama":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/arts/television/review-rebellion-pits-soap-opera-vs-drama-of-the-easter-rising.html?_r=0

LA Times: "...the series is an astonishment of context avoidance"
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-rebellion-20160422-story.html

And the industry bible Variety has slammed the series entirely:

“Rebellion clearly aims to create a wide array of viewpoints on this tense period in Irish history, but manages to sabotage itself regularly with questionable pacing and an ungainly bunch of under-developed characters....time and again, Rebellion makes baffling editing decisions. It frequently kills its patchy momentum by cutting away from scenes of desperate, poignant fighting to dreary conversations among dull characters who feel like imports from a decidedly average period piece."

http://variety.com/2016/tv/reviews/rebellion-review-1201758492/

Much of the commentary there is fair enough but I would take issue with the LA Times one, which has a problem with the basic premise of putting the three young women front and centre of the series and not the leaders of the Rising. As a fictional drama series, the writers are perfectly entitled to have whoever they like in the main roles.

Some of them are criticising the "soapy melodrama" aspect but the much vaunted Strumpet City was even more so in this vein (the romance between the Bryan Murray character and his girlfriend was of the main storylines and even had jaunty Downton Abbey style background music to accompany the scenes). If we exclude the soapy stuff from Rebellion, we'd end up with something more along the lines of Michael Collins or The Wind That Shakes The Barley but I'm not sure if that would work in a TV drama serial.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Strazdas wrote: »

Much of the commentary there is fair enough but I would take issue with the LA Times one, which has a problem with the basic premise of putting the three young women front and centre of the series and not the leaders of the Rising. As a fictional drama series, the writers are perfectly entitled to have whoever they like in the main roles.

I think they were spot on though saying there was a lack of context.

Even watching it as someone who had a half decent knowledge of events I found myself confused at times as to what was happening and why. It's a difficult balance to strike, historically informative but not a documentary, and Rebellion was at a disadvantage immediately with a foreign audience because it's not a well known historic event.

Generation War was mentioned loads in here when Rebellion was airing. There's no real issues setting fictional characters against the background of WW2 because everyone knows the basics there. You don't need to explain why Victor being Jewish is an issue, or who they're fighting against or why or anything like that. You can just get stuck right into the characters.

Rebellion, while seemingly very well researched, was actually pretty bad at providing any real context for anything that was going on. You could forgive lack of context if the characters were so well drawn that you could just get lost in their stories but they managed to mess that up too.

I still think it's nowhere near as bad as some of the Irish reviewers made out when it was airing but these US reviews aren't weighed down with anti RTÉ sentiment and they all seem fairly accurate to me.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Also, on that LA Times one, I don't think she's against them using woman as the main characters. It sounds more like she's disappointed they've gone with female leads and then reduced them to poorly written cliches and fell back on the most basic of plot devices used for women in TV and film, it must all be for a man.

Which is pretty spot on, in my opinion.

Strazdas

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think they were spot on though saying there was a lack of context.

Even watching it as someone who had a half decent knowledge of events I found myself confused at times as to what was happening and why. It's a difficult balance to strike, historically informative but not a documentary, and Rebellion was at a disadvantage immediately with a foreign audience because it's not a well known historic event.

Generation War was mentioned loads in here when Rebellion was airing. There's no real issues setting fictional characters against the background of WW2 because everyone knows the basics there. You don't need to explain why Victor being Jewish is an issue, or who they're fighting against or why or anything like that. You can just get stuck right into the characters.

Rebellion, while seemingly very well researched, was actually pretty bad at providing any real context for anything that was going on. You could forgive lack of context if the characters were so well drawn that you could just get lost in their stories but they managed to mess that up too.

I still think it's nowhere near as bad as some of the Irish reviewers made out when it was airing but these US reviews aren't weighed down with anti RTÉ sentiment and they all seem fairly accurate to me.

That's why I said a lot of the commentary was quite fair. Rebellion had too many characters and we don't really get inside the heads of them and see what motivates them to do what they do. It probably needed at least two extra episodes, particularly at the start and was rather rushed.

The LA Times writer criticises the omission of religious differences in Ireland in the storyline, but such differences played very little role in the Rising : the likes of Casement, Markievicz and Bulmer Hobson were Protestants and Connolly was an atheist. Elizabeth as an Anglo Irish Protestant member of the Irish Citizen Army was quite plausible.

Generation War had an advantage in that it was exclusively about the lives of its six main characters and not about any specific event during the German campaign in Russia.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Strazdas wrote: »

The LA Times writer criticises the omission of religious differences in Ireland in the storyline, but such differences played very little role in the Rising : the likes of Casement, Markievicz and Bulmer Hobson were Protestants and Connolly was an atheist. Elizabeth as an Anglo Irish Protestant member of the Irish Citizen Army was quite plausible.

Yeah, that part of the review is misguided, ill informed, whatever you want to call it. It was the Rising itself and the aftermath that led to the sectarian divisions, or heightened them anyway.

BuilderPlumber

The main problem with Rebellion for me as said before is the blatant restraint that is shown throughout. If this was a major problem for Irish audiences, then it would be an even bigger one for American audiences. Like Clean Break, the violence was toned down and the whole thing came across as ultra tame. Take away the 1916 backdrop and it would be like a soap. I could live with fictionalised characters, etc. but the restraint shown is worrisome.

It seems to not be a coincidence that RTE decide not to do a 6th series of Love/Hate and replace it with the sanitised Clean Break and then the equally tame Rebellion. Violence, etc. seem to be off RTE's agenda and this restraint has in the past lead to monstrosities like The Big Bow Wow. It seems RTE drama has gone back to its old restrained/tame ways after breaking out of that mould with Love/Hate.

I don't think we will see a sequel series to either Rebellion or Clean Break. I'd rate these 2 series at 50% or so. Great potential but poorly produced with an obvious showing of restraint. While not awful, both series were mediocre and mainly because of the restraint.

JohnFalstaff

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I don't think we will see a sequel series to either Rebellion or Clean Break. I'd rate these 2 series at 50% or so. Great potential but poorly produced with an obvious showing of restraint. While not awful, both series were mediocre and mainly because of the restraint.

RTE are committed to at least a second series of Rebellion set during the War of Independence.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rt%C3%A9-to-commission-follow-up-to-rebellion-set-in-the-war-of-independence-1.2587557

I was listening to an interview with Catherine Magee, producer of Rebellion, and she mentioned that filming was scheduled to start this autumn.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The main problem with Rebellion for me as said before is the blatant restraint that is shown throughout. If this was a major problem for Irish audiences, then it would be an even bigger one for American audiences. Like Clean Break, the violence was toned down and the whole thing came across as ultra tame. Take away the 1916 backdrop and it would be like a soap. I could live with fictionalised characters, etc. but the restraint shown is worrisome.

It seems to not be a coincidence that RTE decide not to do a 6th series of Love/Hate and replace it with the sanitised Clean Break and then the equally tame Rebellion. Violence, etc. seem to be off RTE's agenda and this restraint has in the past lead to monstrosities like The Big Bow Wow. It seems RTE drama has gone back to its old restrained/tame ways after breaking out of that mould with Love/Hate.

I don't think we will see a sequel series to either Rebellion or Clean Break. I'd rate these 2 series at 50% or so. Great potential but poorly produced with an obvious showing of restraint. While not awful, both series were mediocre and mainly because of the restraint.

You're entitled to your tastes and opinions but all that sounds like is that you like a bit of violence from your TV shows.

If they'd made Rebellion more violent and shown more gun fights, more blood etc. etc. it wouldn't have made it a better program. It might have distracted enough for some to ignore the areas where it actually went wrong, but it wouldn't have changed the poor script, poor character development, pacing issues etc. etc.

I thought Love/Hate was fairly low standard TV, if I'm honest. The fact they went "full on" with the violence didn't change the fact that it was populated with horrible characters and poor actors.

brian_t

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You're entitled to your tastes and opinions but all that sounds like is that you like a bit of violence from your TV shows.

If they'd made Rebellion more violent and shown more gun fights, more blood etc. etc. it wouldn't have made it a better program. It might have distracted enough for some to ignore the areas where it actually went wrong, but it wouldn't have changed the poor script, poor character development, pacing issues etc. etc.

I thought Love/Hate was fairly low standard TV, if I'm honest. The fact they went "full on" with the violence didn't change the fact that it was populated with horrible characters and poor actors.

I agree with you.
I think that making a show more graphically violent would limit your ability to sell it overseas especially in the US, not increase it.

BuilderPlumber

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You're entitled to your tastes and opinions but all that sounds like is that you like a bit of violence from your TV shows.

If they'd made Rebellion more violent and shown more gun fights, more blood etc. etc. it wouldn't have made it a better program. It might have distracted enough for some to ignore the areas where it actually went wrong, but it wouldn't have changed the poor script, poor character development, pacing issues etc. etc.

I thought Love/Hate was fairly low standard TV, if I'm honest. The fact they went "full on" with the violence didn't change the fact that it was populated with horrible characters and poor actors.

I disagree about Love/Hate. I think it was for the most part very well acted and was one of the best pieces of TV in recent years from anywhere. The characters in it were horrible people if they were real and that's what it was meant to be. We are talking about drug dealers afterall. The series was brave and portrayed that world like it really was.

I am not one for mindless violence either but do like good action in films/TV series and realistic not half hearted portrayals of things. Love/Hate ticked all the boxes for an Irish gangland series. Rebellion was toned down beyond belief.

I agree with what you say otherwise. I agree more violence would not have saved Rebellion. The characters in Rebellion were colourless and flat for the most part. It often was confusing who was who. Often important characters were not introduced properly. The pacing was poor. The series seemed to have at least 2 episodes too many.

If a sequel series of it does get made, it would want to up its game by at least 100%. Rebellion did not sink as low as things like The Big Bow Wow and was watchable but I would not go out and buy the DVD of that or Clean Break. I have all the Love/Hate DVDs and watch it often and enjoy it a lot. That is what RTE should revive with or without Nidge.

Strazdas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I disagree about Love/Hate. I think it was for the most part very well acted and was one of the best pieces of TV in recent years from anywhere. The characters in it were horrible people if they were real and that's what it was meant to be. We are talking about drug dealers afterall. The series was brave and portrayed that world like it really was.

I am not one for mindless violence either but do like good action in films/TV series and realistic not half hearted portrayals of things. Love/Hate ticked all the boxes for an Irish gangland series. Rebellion was toned down beyond belief.

I agree with what you say otherwise. I agree more violence would not have saved Rebellion. The characters in Rebellion were colourless and flat for the most part. It often was confusing who was who. Often important characters were not introduced properly. The pacing was poor. The series seemed to have at least 2 episodes too many.

If a sequel series of it does get made, it would want to up its game by at least 100%. Rebellion did not sink as low as things like The Big Bow Wow and was watchable but I would not go out and buy the DVD of that or Clean Break. I have all the Love/Hate DVDs and watch it often and enjoy it a lot. That is what RTE should revive with or without Nidge.

I think myself Rebellion would have benefitted from two extra episodes. We hardly knew most of the characters before we launched straight into the Rising in Episode 2. If we'd gotten to know them more, people might have engaged with the characters. I think a second series might be more successful as they won't have to have the Rising as the backdrop.

Strazdas

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

RTE are committed to at least a second series of Rebellion set during the War of Independence.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rt%C3%A9-to-commission-follow-up-to-rebellion-set-in-the-war-of-independence-1.2587557

I was listening to an interview with Catherine Magee, producer of Rebellion, and she mentioned that filming was scheduled to start this autumn.

That's good news. It's nearly been forgotten that the first series of Love Hate had only moderate TV ratings and mixed reviews from the critics. It was only from Series 2 onwards that the hype started, so RTE are right to give Rebellion another go and see if they can improve it.

BuilderPlumber

brian_t wrote: »

I agree with you.
I think that making a show more graphically violent would limit your ability to sell it overseas especially in the US, not increase it.

I think making something as tame as a 1960s Cliff Richard film would also limit audiences. Imagine a Bond film without Bond fighting the baddies shown on screen!!

I think by its very nature the 1916 rising, its aftermath and indeed the civil war were violent. International audiences also would probably prefer something focusing on the real people in the 1916 era. Rebellion seemed much more like a period drama about fictional people with the revolution in the background. This has worked very well before with films like Dr Zhivago but the blend of real and fictional events did not work out in Rebellion. All that said and done though Rebellion probably still is one of the better RTE dramas despite all its flaws.

Strazdas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think making something as tame as a 1960s Cliff Richard film would also limit audiences. Imagine a Bond film without Bond fighting the baddies shown on screen!!

I think by its very nature the 1916 rising, its aftermath and indeed the civil war were violent. International audiences also would probably prefer something focusing on the real people in the 1916 era. Rebellion seemed much more like a period drama about fictional people with the revolution in the background. This has worked very well before with films like Dr Zhivago but the blend of real and fictional events did not work out in Rebellion. All that said and done though Rebellion probably still is one of the better RTE dramas despite all its flaws.

That's pretty much what it was in fact. I can see why they steered clear of making a docudrama series about Pearse, Connolly and Clarke etc and the actual Rising though (and besides, that would have made it impossible for them to make a second and third series of Rebellion, which is apparently the plan).

BuilderPlumber

Strazdas wrote: »

That's good news. It's nearly been forgotten that the first series of Love Hate had only moderate TV ratings and mixed reviews from the critics. It was only from Series 2 onwards that the hype started, so RTE are right to give Rebellion another go and see if they can improve it.

I hope they do improve it and I think there would be more room for character development and to have more done with the characters in the civil war period. Love/Hate series 1 was good but series 2-5 proved much better.

JohnFalstaff

Strazdas wrote: »

That's good news. It's nearly been forgotten that the first series of Love Hate had only moderate TV ratings and mixed reviews from the critics. It was only from Series 2 onwards that the hype started, so RTE are right to give Rebellion another go and see if they can improve it.

If they are keeping faith with the same creative team that worked on the first series I wouldn't hold out much hope for improvement.

Rebellion and Charlie were both weakly crafted in terms of script. If Teevan is still involved in writing the second series, then they should at least look at bringing a director on board with a strong sense of story and let them put their own stamp on the material.

Strazdas

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

If they are keeping faith with the same creative team that worked on the first series I wouldn't hold out much hope for improvement.

Rebellion and Charlie were both weakly crafted in terms of script. If Teevan is still involved in writing the second series, then they should at least look at bringing a director on board with a strong sense of story and let them put their own stamp on the material.

I'd agree with that. Visually Rebellion looked great and there were some very good actors but the scripts and storytelling let it down a bit.

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

That's good news. It's nearly been forgotten that the first series of Love Hate had only moderate TV ratings and mixed reviews from the critics. It was only from Series 2 onwards that the hype started, so RTE are right to give Rebellion another go and see if they can improve it.

1st step, get a new producer, script writers and directors, and knock off the focus on the women, it did not work. The woman in Rebellion were made to look like idiots that only seemed to act in the way that they did based on their reaction towards a man/men - Yer waun in the castle gave her pal secrets to get back at her bit on the side, Francis was desperate for Pearse' approval, and Lizzy was egged on by Jimmy

Thing is, WOI also has big stories to tell about the women of this period. They played a big role , but the idea of Francis going around with Flying Columns rubbing out spies etc or ordering a hit would be too far fetched.

But hey, RTE reward mediocrity. Teevan and the director probably have the green light

Shurimgreat

I think while Rebellion was passable TV and I personally enjoyed it, RTE probably should just park it there in terms of fictional drama about the Rising and/or events after it.

You aren't going to please everyone, no matter how well written or produced. You are always going to have the usual people who say things like "I hated it because Pearse wasn't the star of the show" or "they gave too much attention to women and not enough to men", or Connolly's accent was all wrong, or this or that. Oddly enough Insurrection is hailed as a great drama by many critics of Rebellion even though it has far more inaccuracies eg Connolly's accent or the fact the characters are more wooden.

It was a controversial divisive period and continues to be so. Trying anything other than a strict retelling of the era immediately leads to criticism.

Possibly a Game of Thrones type retelling with lots of nudity and gore might please the majority.

Strazdas

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think while Rebellion was passable TV and I personally enjoyed it, RTE probably should just park it there in terms of fictional drama about the Rising and/or events after it.

You aren't going to please everyone, no matter how well written or produced. You are always going to have the usual people who say things like "I hated it because Pearse wasn't the star of the show" or "they gave too much attention to women and not enough to men", or Connolly's accent was all wrong, or this or that. Oddly enough Insurrection is hailed as a great drama by many critics of Rebellion even though it has far more inaccuracies eg Connolly's accent or the fact the characters are more wooden.

It was a controversial divisive period and continues to be so. Trying anything other than a strict retelling of the era immediately leads to criticism.

Possibly a Game of Thrones type retelling with lots of nudity and gore might please the majority.

That's a good point. Whatever about its merits as a drama, a series about the Easter Rising was probably always going to attract criticism. Strumpet City was even more of a "soapy melodrama" than Rebellion, but because there is nothing contentious about the 1913 Lockout, it was never going to receive any flak.

maudgonner

Strazdas wrote: »

That's a good point. Whatever about its merits as a drama, a series about the Easter Rising was probably always going to attract criticism. Strumpet City was even more of a "soapy melodrama" than Rebellion, but because there is nothing contentious about the 1913 Lockout, it was never going to receive any flak.

Strumpet City was much better written, directed and (in most cases) acted than Rebellion, IMO. And for all its 'soapy melodrama' it highlighted contentious issues like the role of the church in a way that was quite brave for the time.

While I don't deny that Rebellion got a lot of criticism for its politics, it got far more criticism, justifiably so, for its dramatic failings. If they had gotten the drama right, they might have been in a better position to defend the politics.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Strazdas wrote: »

That's a good point. Whatever about its merits as a drama, a series about the Easter Rising was probably always going to attract criticism. Strumpet City was even more of a "soapy melodrama" than Rebellion, but because there is nothing contentious about the 1913 Lockout, it was never going to receive any flak.

Perhaps it would have been better to have the Rising really in the background, if you're going with fictional characters. Having them at the centre of events and involved in the actual fighting was a tough ask. They could have shown the lives of ordinary people in Dublin trying to get on with their lives while it was all going on without having them actually in the GPO, at Dublin Castle etc. etc.

Shurimgreat

Strazdas wrote: »

That's a good point. Whatever about its merits as a drama, a series about the Easter Rising was probably always going to attract criticism. Strumpet City was even more of a "soapy melodrama" than Rebellion, but because there is nothing contentious about the 1913 Lockout, it was never going to receive any flak.

I've seen and heard dozens if not hundreds of people's views about Rebellion both on here and elsewhere. No two people have the same criticisms which is as expected.

However parsing what the critics say, the general theme seems to be along the lines of making something like Rebellion as close to what actually happened as possible. No scope for anything else really. The rebels showed up at the GPO, a couple of episodes of them inside the various garrisons, then retreat and finally trial and execution. Anything outside that doesn't seem to be allowed, as if there was no-one else involved in 1916, and ordinary citizens and women in particular don't count. Its a generalisation I know, but like I said no two critics seems to agree.

I though Rebellion was better than what most critics say. Like you said earlier it could have done with a couple more episodes to flesh out characters and plot. The format was probably all wrong, in that 5 episodes was never going to be enough. Does the blame for that lie here with RTE or the writer/producers? I suspect RTE.

There's still potential there for another series or two, probably more so for devoted fans, and possibly on RTE2.

maudgonner

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There's still potential there for another series or two, probably more so for devoted fans, and possibly on RTE2.

Putting it on RTE2 would presumably mean a massive budget cut - the viewing figures for RTE2 are lower across the board.

I don't think it would be possible to do Rebellion on an RTE2 budget. Period drama is horrendously expensive.

Strazdas

maudgonner wrote: »

Strumpet City was much better written, directed and (in most cases) acted than Rebellion, IMO. And for all its 'soapy melodrama' it highlighted contentious issues like the role of the church in a way that was quite brave for the time.

While I don't deny that Rebellion got a lot of criticism for its politics, it got far more criticism, justifiably so, for its dramatic failings. If they had gotten the drama right, they might have been in a better position to defend the politics.

I would agree on most of that, but 1913 in Dublin was a very "safe" period to set any historical drama series. It was just before we headed into a decade of massive social upheaval, revolution and bloodshed. Had the exact same production team and cast of Strumpet City attempted a drama in 1979 set during the Rising or the Civil War, it may have received a different reaction (having to portray scenes of killings, violence and executions would automatically give it a very different feel).