Rubber bandits 1916

Stephen Gawking

I have to admit that's news to me. Any links to anything backing this up? I'm not doubting you its just I've never heard this mentioned before.

ProudDUB

qweerty wrote: »

I thought it was very funny. But it's limited. It's just the lads d!cking around.

While I know it's not a documentary, it presents a very dubious account of Irish history. Unlike the poster above, I'd be horrified if children were encouraged watch it! It skimmed over De Velera's misogyny (he was the only commander not to allow women to fight in his battalion), ignores the morality of a small group of men (one of whom was Scottish, one of whom was a fanatic and paedophile) unilaterally "claiming the allegiance" of the Irish people and perpetuates the old myth that the Brits were meanies for executing the leaders for actions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and the complete destruction of parts of Dublin, at a time when tens of thousands of Irishmen were fighting in France. Again, not a documentary, but it can't be excused of presenting the simistic narrative of that period that somehow still survives.

Jayzus. Lighten up a little. It was a piece of comedy, not a dinner party conversation between Dermot Ferriter and Roy Foster.

qweerty

ProudDUB wrote: »

Jayzus. Lighten up a little. It was a piece of comedy, not a dinner party conversation between Dermot Ferriter and Roy Foster.

What a silly analogy.

I was expressing regret that a programme that explores history, albeit for comic effect, presents the false narrative of old. For many people watching it, their historical misunderstandings will have been further ingrained. You would likely not be saying the same if they had presented a heavily revisionist narrative.

Stephen Gawking wrote: »

I have to admit that's news to me. Any links to anything backing this up? I'm not doubting you its just I've never heard this mentioned before.

Eh...

Paedophillia is difficult to prove unless you've found images on their hard drive or a victim comes forward...

TCDStudent1

pinkypinky wrote: »

I thought it was great but they did repeat that nonsense about DeValera getting off because he was born in America. The truth is he wasn't important enough.

He was important enough. There were certainly less high profile people executed. DeValera commanded his own battalion and was one of the last to surrender. I think he was saved simply by having his execution scheduled later than the others.

qweerty

Probably not the right place to have historical discussion. But I agree that it's as wrong to point to his nationality as being the reason as it is to any other. While he was the last to surrender, that was mainly because Boland's Bakery didn't see much fighting. When he was arrested, he was taken to a different jail from the others. So, probably a combination of not having caused much damage, being court marshalled later than the rest, being at a different jail and maybe the fact that the American consulate supposedly lobbied on his behalf.

MRnotlob606

Jaysus by reading this thread, I think the rubberbandits will have enough material to do another series !

Ol' Donie

qweerty wrote: »

Probably not the right place to have historical discussion. But I agree that it's as wrong to point to his nationality as being the reason as it is to any other. While he was the last to surrender, that was mainly because Boland's Bakery didn't see much fighting. When he was arrested, he was taken to a different jail from the others. So, probably a combination of not having caused much damage, being court marshalled later than the rest, being at a different jail and maybe the fact that the American consulate supposedly lobbied on his behalf.

What about the few bais that were with him?

Ash.J.Williams

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Jaysus by reading this thread, I think the rubberbandits will have enough material to do another series !

Like an Irish version of horrible histories? That's a great idea

Dannyriver

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Funny show, some very good observations about Ireland and particularly Dev.

I did think it was gonna be funnier.

Unfortunately I did think the show was let down with their cheap production values my biggest gripe being the radio mic stuck to the outside of one of the lads shirts, u could see the wire and the fluffy thing it was worse than nationwide.
Just lazy ass production values.

That s easily the worst criticism of the show that I ve seen and there have been a nice few commentators who are clutching at straws trying to hold on to the narrative that the 2 boys are chancers from Limerick with Plastic bags on their heads, despite their continued success well beyond the 15 minutes that they were supposed to have. How dare they prove us wrong sort of thing. I'm not saying you are one of them but I have to ask you, do you genuinely believe that the 2 boys who were smart and clued in enough to write and perform the show in the first place couldn't come up with a way of hiding a radio mic, a wire and a fluffy thing. Do you not think it might have been a conscious thing? How about the packet of crackers instead of Boland's mill? was that an oversight or did they think they were getting away with that also?

Dannyriver

qweerty wrote: »

I thought it was very funny. But it's limited. It's just the lads d!cking around.

While I know it's not a documentary, it presents a very dubious account of Irish history. Unlike the poster above, I'd be horrified if children were encouraged watch it! It skimmed over De Velera's misogyny (he was the only commander not to allow women to fight in his battalion), ignores the morality of a small group of men (one of whom was Scottish, one of whom was a fanatic and paedophile) unilaterally "claiming the allegiance" of the Irish people and perpetuates the old myth that the Brits were meanies for executing the leaders for actions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and the complete destruction of parts of Dublin, at a time when tens of thousands of Irishmen were fighting in France. Again, not a documentary, but it can't be excused of presenting the simistic narrative of that period that somehow still survives.

Go easy man will you. Firstly it was clearly not 'the lads dicking around' it was a top class piece of work that took a lot of talent and artistry to write, perform and execute on the miserable budget that RTE gave them. Secondly they had 44 minutes to get as much as they could in to it which they felt might be engaging and interesting. Do you not think that there was stuff they simply had to leave on the cutting room floor? [However Devalera's misogyny Id doubt was one of them considering Irish males in the early part of the 20th century were almost exclusively misogynist as was most of the males in the western world, read up on feminism and the fight for equality to confirm this, that said had Devalera displayed feminist qualities [which would be exceptional for a political figure at this time] Id say they might have considered cutting something else to accommodate it.] Lastly anything that gets young people interested in history and away from x factor and snap chat is surely worth a try. The school curriculum sure ain't working or have you not noticed.

qweerty

Dannyriver wrote: »

Go easy man will you. Firstly it was clearly not 'the lads dicking around' it was a top class piece of work that took a lot of talent and artistry to write, perform and execute on the miserable budget that RTE gave them. Secondly they had 44 minutes to get as much as they could in to it which they felt might be engaging and interesting. Do you not think that there was stuff they simply had to leave on the cutting room floor? [However Devalera's misogyny Id doubt was one of them considering Irish males in the early part of the 20th century were almost exclusively misogynist as was most of the males in the western world, read up on feminism and the fight for equality to confirm this, that said had Devalera displayed feminist qualities [which would be exceptional for a political figure at this time] Id say they might have considered cutting something else to accommodate it.] Lastly anything that gets young people interested in history and away from x factor and snap chat is surely worth a try. The school curriculum sure ain't working or have you not noticed.

Sorry, I realise that "the lads d!cking around" does read as though I'm maligning it. I actually think the Rubberbandits are brilliant. What I meant was that, while it deserves praise, it doesn't represent anything new from them and doesn't have any satirical bite.

As for the rest, though, I maintain that the blinkered narrative given was not a consequence of the genre, the production budget or of length, but of our society's collective amnesia, which is lamentable.

Lukehandypants

Dannyriver wrote:

That s easily the worst criticism of the show that I ve seen and there have been a nice few commentators who are clutching at straws trying to hold on to the narrative that the 2 boys are chancers from Limerick with Plastic bags on their heads, despite their continued success well beyond the 15 minutes that they were supposed to have. How dare they prove us wrong sort of thing. I'm not saying you are one of them but I have to ask you, do you genuinely believe that the 2 boys who were smart and clued in enough to write and perform the show in the first place couldn't come up with a way of hiding a radio mic, a wire and a fluffy thing. Do you not think it might have been a conscious thing? How about the packet of crackers instead of Boland's mill? was that an oversight or did they think they were getting away with that also?

I don't think the fluffy mic thing was a conscious thing. Why would they do that? The Boland mill thing makes sense cause it's a bit ****, I get what u mean but I don't think so.

I was also watching that impossible game show last week that the RB's do the voice over for, do u think that their accents are a bit watered down for the UK market?

Dannyriver

Lukehandypants wrote: »

I don't think the fluffy mic thing was a conscious thing. Why would they do that? The Boland mill thing makes sense cause it's a bit ****, I get what u mean but I don't think so.

I was also watching that impossible game show last week that the RB's do the voice over for, do u think that their accents are a bit watered down for the UK market?

Jesus man of course it was a conscious thing, if they didn't want them to be seen they d have hidden them No...? Why do you think they didn't hide them? Very interested to know your take or am I missing something obvious.

As for the impossible game show yeah they've definitely watered them down a bit for the UK market, it's working though they've been commissioned to do a second series. Hopefully they might make a few bob out of it cos they re certainly not gonna make it off RTE or in Ireland in general I reckon.

Ash.J.Williams

Lukehandypants wrote: »

I don't think the fluffy mic thing was a conscious thing. Why would they do that? The Boland mill thing makes sense cause it's a bit ****, I get what u mean but I don't think so.

I was also watching that impossible game show last week that the RB's do the voice over for, do u think that their accents are a bit watered down for the UK market?

i don;t know, but i'm sure it is....if you're speaking in another country do you not speak clearer??? Not talking like a bogtrotter has made conor mcgregor millions this year.

Ash.J.Williams

Lukehandypants wrote: »

If it's a conscious thing then why wernt both mics out on their clothes and not just one? That sort of unhidden mic thing really takes me out of the show.

the show probably isn't for you is it?

Dannyriver

Lukehandypants wrote: »

If it's a conscious thing then why wernt both mics out on their clothes and not just one? That sort of unhidden mic thing really takes me out of the show.

Because it only takes one to emphasise the low budget aesthetic which has been a staple of Rubberbandits work from the beginning. I.E The illusion that 'we re just chancing our arm all the time when in fact we know exactly what we we are doing.' There are people in Ireland who still think they re just 2 knacker culchie chancers from Limerick, and any clear evidence to the contrary they simply dont want to hear.

Again why do you think they didn't come up with a way of hiding them if it wasn't a conscious thing?

Mehapoy

qweerty wrote: »

Such wit! I bet you're the smarty pants in your class.




It's accepted in almost all quarters that Pearse was a latent paedophile.

That's not quite true, he had some poems etc. that would look off colour by modern standards, but there was a cult of masculinity of youth at that time, saying it is accepted he was a 'latent paedophile' is pushing it! Also they mentioned a few times about the lack of public support the rebels got before and during the insurrection.

Lukehandypants

Ash.J.Williams wrote:

the show probably isn't for you is it?

And now I remember why I don't look at boards anymore...

Dannyriver

Lukehandypants wrote: »

And now I remember why I don't look at boards anymore...

Did I say something to offend you, I certainly didn't mean to. I'm still genuinely interested as to why they left the mic and fluffy thing to be seen if they didn't consciously do it that s all. I may be wrong you may be wrong but at least I ve tried to justify my stance, on the issue.

Ash.J.Williams

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Well, it's just in well made TV one would always expect to have hidden mics, it adds a certain quality to the show, when I see mics out on a TV show u get the feeling that the person who put mics out like that wasn't able to get a decent sound out of the mics if they were hidden so there fore I assumed that.

ah just give up

Dannyriver

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Well, it's just in well made TV one would always expect to have hidden mics, it adds a certain quality to the show, when I see mics out on a TV show u get the feeling that the person who put mics out like that wasn't able to get a decent sound out of the mics if they were hidden so there fore I assumed that.

Fair enough, now that I've explained the Bandit's aesthetic you might be able to appreciate their shows a bit more because you re gonna see loads of mics sticking out and people using packets of crackers for factories and vapes to give the impression of buildings on fire. It's all part of the crack.

AnonoBoy

qweerty wrote: »

Again, not a documentary, but it can't be excused of presenting the simistic narrative of that period that somehow still survives.

Next up how limited the view of trench warfare in Blackadder Goes Forth was.....

AnonoBoy

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Well, it's just in well made TV one would always expect to have hidden mics, it adds a certain quality to the show, when I see mics out on a TV show u get the feeling that the person who put mics out like that wasn't able to get a decent sound out of the mics if they were hidden so there fore I assumed that.

Well given that the show was about the Bandits making a program (they constantly refer to it and even get a presidential medal at the end for making it so well!) it's actually very very likely that the mics on display are there deliberately. While you might feel that it was done because the sound recordist wasn't able to record the sound properly I think everyone else realised that it was a deliberate choice and added to the aesthetic of the show.

The show was made by people with a good deal of experience in making television programs. Unfortunately in this case you just misunderstood what they were going for style-wise. It's not a big deal but honestly dude, stop banging on about it, you're making yourself look foolish.

The sound recordist alone has worked in the sound department on shows like Game of Thrones, The Fall, Ripper Street and Quirke. Does he sound like someone who doesn't know how to "get a decent sound out of the mics"? Or do you think perhaps you might be mistaken in your belief that the mics weren't visible deliberately?

sadie06

I laughed my ass off at this. Considering we are all likely to be 1916'd out by about mid-January I think it was clever of them to get in early.

Dannyriver

sadie06 wrote: »

I laughed my ass off at this. Considering we are all likely to be 1916'd out by about mid-January I think it was clever of them to get in early.

I agree that it worked our nicely but It wasn't the Bandits choice, RTE were scared **** less of it so they tried to stick it out at 11 new years eve to fulfill contract and hopefully slip under the radar and disappear. However the public reaction was so strong especially in the public figure department that they rowed back and repeated it it at a prime time slot 4 days later. Watch them take the credit for it in the coming weeks.:D

Ol' Donie

Dannyriver wrote: »

Because it only takes one to emphasise the low budget aesthetic which has been a staple of Rubberbandits work from the beginning. I.E The illusion that 'we re just chancing our arm all the time when in fact we know exactly what we we are doing.' There are people in Ireland who still think they re just 2 knacker culchie chancers from Limerick, and any clear evidence to the contrary they simply dont want to hear.

Again why do you think they didn't come up with a way of hiding them if it wasn't a conscious thing?

They clearly are just 2 knacker culchie chancers...

Did you not hear them talking about having a big party with all the drugs you want and your favourite tunes...Carl Cox and Judge Jules and that?
:D:D

Funniest thing I've seen in months.

qweerty

Mehapoy wrote: »

That's not quite true, he had some poems etc. that would look off colour by modern standards, but there was a cult of masculinity of youth at that time, saying it is accepted he was a 'latent paedophile' is pushing it! Also they mentioned a few times about the lack of public support the rebels got before and during the insurrection.

Second half of Little Lad of the Tricks:

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found yet
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you:
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks ?


I'm not willing to argue further on this. By "most quarters," I ofc meant people who have actually investigated it - ie historians, etc. I accept that it is not accepted in wider society, but only through ignorance.

As it happens, I see little wrong with unconsummated paedophilia, and, no doubt, Pearse had ample opportunity to do so (as disgustingly flippant as that sounds). And, yes, there was a genre, to which Shakespeare contributed, eroticising boys. And our Oscar Wilde went steps further than Pearse when eliciting the service of young teenage rent boys. But it remains that it is quite likely that Pearse had inclinations that would disturb many people, and cause them to question the legitimacy of a movement to which he was so central: the pen of the above-quoted poem also wrote Ireland's founding document.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Next up how limited the view of trench warfare in Blackadder Goes Forth was.....

Brainless analogy.

AnonoBoy

qweerty wrote: »

Brainless analogy.

You really don't get jokes do you?


I think the fact that you're expecting a pair of comedians who are known for being off the wall to include DeValera's misogyny in a forty-something minute show about 1916 to be hilarious.

On the Rebellion thread it might be somewhat more pertinent to the discussion but here you're expecting two guys called Mr. Chrome and Blind Boy Boatclub who have a song called Double Dropping Yokes With Eamon DeValera to go into the finer details of the Rising?

That's a completely cracked view to have.

You're saying that it's not a doc but that's not an excuse. In fact that's the only excuse they need to have.

It's a comedy show, if you want a far reaching look at 1916 and the people behind it then you should be seeking out a documentary not a show that includes a talking fish called the Trout of No Craic and a tramp-like president who gives out confirmation badges to two lads wearing plastic bags before saying "The D is for Dancing" and breaking into a dance routine.

"I know it's not a documentary but that's no excuse for them not knowing that Georgia Salpa isn't a goat but is in fact a woman."

qweerty

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You really don't get jokes do you?


I think the fact that you're expecting a pair of comedians who are known for being off the wall to include DeValera's misogyny in a forty-something minute show about 1916 to be hilarious.

On the Rebellion thread it might be somewhat more pertinent to the discussion but here you're expecting two guys called Mr. Chrome and Blind Boy Boatclub who have a song called Double Dropping Yokes With Eamon DeValera to go into the finer details of the Rising?

That's a completely cracked view to have.

You're saying that it's not a doc but that's not an excuse. In fact that's the only excuse they need to have.

It's a comedy show, if you want a far reaching look at 1916 and the people behind it then you should be seeking out a documentary not a show that includes a talking fish called the Trout of No Craic and a tramp-like president who gives out confirmation badges to two lads wearing plastic bags before saying "The D is for Dancing" and breaking into a dance routine.

"I know it's not a documentary but that's no excuse for them not knowing that Georgia Salpa isn't a goat but is in fact a woman."

Considering the length of your post, it has obviously affected you deeply.

My initial post laments (but doesn't condemn) the fact that two intelligent, satirically-mind comedians made no attempt to correct inaccurate portrayals of Irish history. Your post laments the fact that I have those opinions. I may be wrong, but at least my cause is in some way worthy!

AnonoBoy

qweerty wrote: »

Your post laments the fact that I have those opinions.

No it laments that you're banging on about them a bit too much and calling others opinions "brainless" even when they're clearly jokes.

I may be wrong, but at least my cause is in some way worthy!

Buddy we're arguing on boards about a television programme - there's nothing worthy going on here at all. And I certainly wouldn't call either opinion a 'cause'. Perhaps you're the one taking this a bit too seriously given your choice of language?