Trial Of The Century (TV3 - 1916 Drama)

JP Liz V1

Tom Vaughan-Lawlor and Aoibhinn McGinnity, who of course starred as Nidge and Trish in Love/Hate, will appear in Trial Of The Century - a hypothetical study which imagines the leaders of the Easter Rising not being executed, but rather summoned to court.
It's set to air in late spring/early summer, with filming taking place around the Smithfield area.
Vaughan-Lawlor will portray Padraig Pearse, with McGinnity playing the parent of a child lost to the battle.


Source

JP Liz V1

http://entertainment.ie/tv/news/First-pics-of-Tom-Vaughan-Lawlor-as-Padraig-Pearse-in-TV3-1916-drama/377530.htm


Pics of Tom Vaughan-Lawlor as Padraig Pearse

JP Liz V1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nc8_ir3qRQ

Go Harvey Go

...Doesn't look like there's much interest here on Boards.

Agent Coulson

Will the Nidge only be filmed in side profile for the whole thing I wonder.

JP Liz V1

Compared to Rebellion it isn't getting much media attention, I expected a big campaign by TV3 promoting it like they did for Red Rock

Strazdas

Go Harvey Go wrote: »

...Doesn't look like there's much interest here on Boards.

It's received very little promo or media coverage so far. Interesting to see if it's any use or a low budget affair.

johnruns

Another 1916 yawnfest.

AndyBoBandy

So, will anyone be watching?

Is there a point to it all, or is it just pure fiction? (Bullshït)

NIMAN

Is part of the appeal of this not an associated programme where there is a panel of famous folk who act like a jury to try him?

With Pat Kenny as the chairman of the jury.

Patty O Furniture

NIMAN wrote: »

Is part of the appeal of this not an associated programme where there is a panel of famous folk who act like a jury to try him?

With Pat Kenny as the chairman of the jury.

I see Pat has nudged out Collette Fitzpatrick again

sonofenoch

Nidgies missus on the stand.....small world


I just can't look at Lawlor in any role without seeing Nidge, all the mannerisms are there....it's imprinted on him

TCDStudent1

I liked it. But I'm feeling a little 1916'ed out at this point. Probably would've been more into it a few months ago. Still some very I tereting stories in the trial

KingBrian2

Watched new 3 part series on TV3. I liked it. Very historically accurate and the acting was of a high standard.

The show is a fictional depiction of the trial yet it manages to convey the events of the time with great clarity. Goes to show after 100 years we still have tons of archival, witness testimony and characters to fill up a huge amount of tv scheduling.

So much better than a lot the talent shows and endless sporting and historical montages we have all become accustomed to.

mick malones mauser

This is an excellent production

JP Liz V1

sonofenoch wrote: »

Nidgies missus on the stand.....small world


I just can't look at Lawlor in any role without seeing Nidge, all the mannerisms are there....it's imprinted on him

TVL is excellent in this too

mick malones mauser

Yes, tom Vaughan lawlor is top class
Amazing what proper direction can do

KingBrian2

Today's episode was brilliant.

neemish

Anyone watching this evening?

TCDStudent1

neemish wrote: »

Anyone watching this evening?

Yep and I think it's rubbish.

The 2 episodes in the trial were terrific. But this jury doesn't really seem to be sticking to the specifics of the trial. For example, Oisin mcconviile talking about his upbringing in Armagh really should have no relevance on the trial

KingBrian2

Now we know the verdict.

Strazdas

Interesting enough discussion on the show this evening. Much was made of the fact that the Ireland envisioned by the leaders of the Rising (especially Connolly) didn't come to pass, but you could argue that we got it eventually, just that it took many decades to happen.

Perhaps all the crazy stuff with the Catholic Church running the country was always going to happen, especially once the island was partitioned (which would have happened with Home Rule too). Even if we hadn't have had Dev as Taoiseach, I've a feeling we would have gone in that direction anyway.

LordSutch

I thought they didn't dwell enough on ther astounding fact that the Rebels were but a very small renegade breakaway within the IRB. In other words those who perpetrated the Rising were a 'minority within a minority' who had been told not to 'kick off', yet they did!

They also carried out the rising without public support :cool:

Several murder mentioned like the one in Stephens Green + constable O'Brien outside Dublin Castle, which prompted Pat kenny to say he would have grave reservations in aquitting Pearse, and yet . . . . .

recipio

Surprisingly Republican bias in the jury including Justine McCarthy.Its now obvious that both the Home Rule movement and the IRB believed that a million Unionists could be coerced into an independent Ireland.It seems incredulous that the 1916 men thought that complex political problems could be solved by chucking bits of lead at each other.I believe Pearse knew that the whole thing was doomed from the start but being a psychopath didn't much care. We now have 100 years of hindsight - was it all worth it ? I don't think so.

KingBrian2

I find it interesting about pacifists that they oppose all non constitutional methods and violence however they are willing to issue a death sentence on condemned men.

If your opposed to violence then shooting a man for treason is also violence. Those people that actively reject all coercive methods including the mechanisms of the law that execute men for defending their country are truly honorable.

goose2005

Strazdas wrote: »

Interesting enough discussion on the show this evening. Much was made of the fact that the Ireland envisioned by the leaders of the Rising (especially Connolly) didn't come to pass, but you could argue that we got it eventually, just that it took many decades to happen.

Perhaps all the crazy stuff with the Catholic Church running the country was always going to happen, especially once the island was partitioned (which would have happened with Home Rule too). Even if we hadn't have had Dev as Taoiseach, I've a feeling we would have gone in that direction anyway.

It definitely would have. DeV wasn't half as proChurch as he's remembered and often butted heads - if anything CnaG/FG were more pro-Church

Strazdas

goose2005 wrote: »

It definitely would have. DeV wasn't half as proChurch as he's remembered and often butted heads - if anything CnaG/FG were more pro-Church

Indeed, and things like the Eucharistic Congress in 1932 have nearly been edited out of history (almost 1m people attended a mass in Phoenix Park and another half million for another ceremony in the city centre). Ireland was already a deeply religious and pious country even before Dev came to power. The idea that Dev and his buddies imposed Catholicism and conservatism on the Irish people is wide off the mark.

mick malones mauser

recipio wrote: »

Surprisingly Republican bias in the jury including Justine McCarthy.Its now obvious that both the Home Rule movement and the IRB believed that a million Unionists could be coerced into an independent Ireland.It seems incredulous that the 1916 men thought that complex political problems could be solved by chucking bits of lead at each other.I believe Pearse knew that the whole thing was doomed from the start but being a psychopath didn't much care. We now have 100 years of hindsight - was it all worth it ? I don't think so.

So Pearse was a psychopath

On what do you base that ?

John Redmond encouraged tens of thousands of young men to rush to their deaths in the great imperial carve up AKA WW1
Now thats psychopathic behaviour
1916 was definitely worth it
the mass industrial slaughter of 1914-1918 most certainly wasnt

goose2005

mick malones mauser wrote: »

So Pearse was a psychopath

On what do you base that ?

John Redmond encouraged tens of thousands of young men to rush to their deaths in the great imperial carve up AKA WW1
Now thats psychopathic behaviour
1916 was definitely worth it
the mass industrial slaughter of 1914-1918 most certainly wasnt

No, don't you see? Killing hundreds of thousands of Turks and Germans doesn't count as senseless violence, because everyone was wearing the right costumes

recipio

mick malones mauser wrote: »

So Pearse was a psychopath

On what do you base that ?

John Redmond encouraged tens of thousands of young men to rush to their deaths in the great imperial carve up AKA WW1
Now thats psychopathic behaviour
1916 was definitely worth it
the mass industrial slaughter of 1914-1918 most certainly wasnt

A psychopath is one who is indifferent to the suffering of others ( amongst other things ) Pearse amply demonstrated that by leading a pointless rebellion. Perhaps fanatic would be a better term ? What is different about the 1916 rising compared to Hitler's attempted putsch in 1923. ? Both were rebelling against democracies and were driven by a blind lust for power.

KingBrian2

recipio wrote: »

A psychopath is one who is indifferent to the suffering of others ( amongst other things ) Pearse amply demonstrated that by leading a pointless rebellion. Perhaps fanatic would be a better term ? What is different about the 1916 rising compared to Hitler's attempted putsch in 1923. ? Both were rebelling against democracies and were driven by a blind lust for power.

The difference is the Declared Proclamation plastered across the city. It's reach spread beyond the Pales environs and into the towns and communities of the Irish countryside.

Strazdas

recipio wrote: »

A psychopath is one who is indifferent to the suffering of others ( amongst other things ) Pearse amply demonstrated that by leading a pointless rebellion. Perhaps fanatic would be a better term ? What is different about the 1916 rising compared to Hitler's attempted putsch in 1923. ? Both were rebelling against democracies and were driven by a blind lust for power.

One key difference is that Hitler was merely making a bid for power by trying to stage an armed coup. The Easter Rising was an attempted rebellion against a perceived occupying power.

mick malones mauser

recipio wrote: »

A psychopath is one who is indifferent to the suffering of others ( amongst other things ) Pearse amply demonstrated that by leading a pointless rebellion. Perhaps fanatic would be a better term ? What is different about the 1916 rising compared to Hitler's attempted putsch in 1923. ? Both were rebelling against democracies and were driven by a blind lust for power.

This has to be the most ludicrous post I have ever read..
Comparing Pearse to Hitler,bonkers
both were rebelling against democracies.Jesus wept have you ever read a history book,The British Empire established and ruled their colonies by democratic vote.
I despair,to think that people with such idiotic ideas actually walk among us.

mick malones mauser

Strazdas wrote: »

One key difference is that Hitler was merely making a bid for power by trying to stage an armed coup. The Easter Rising was an attempted rebellion against a perceived occupying power.

A perceived occupying power.
All the usual suspects out tonight.

IT WAS AN OCCUPYING POWER ...
What is wrong with you people

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

A perceived occupying power.
All the usual suspects out tonight.

IT WAS AN OCCUPYING POWER ...
What is wrong with you people

Well, the said occupying power had been in situ for about 700 years and we had the scenario of several hundred thousand of our men fighting for their armed forces, so it was complex to say the least : you couldn't really it compare it to what the French Resistance were doing in 1944 having only been very recently been invaded.

If your version was correct, we would have had a popular uprising or revolution in 1916 involving the whole country (which didn't actually happen).

recipio

mick malones mauser wrote: »

This has to be the most ludicrous post I have ever read..
Comparing Pearse to Hitler,bonkers
both were rebelling against democracies.Jesus wept have you ever read a history book,The British Empire established and ruled their colonies by democratic vote.
I despair,to think that people with such idiotic ideas actually walk among us.

We were not a colony, we elected 74 Irish Parliamentary MPs to Westminster in 1910. Pearse and Hitler have certain similarities. Both believed in a pure 'race' acquiring power by force, both were motivated by naked hatred of a perceived enemy and both used the history of their nation to justify carnage - against their own people of course.
The Irish in 1916 were not a nation of repressed Gaels, we were a mixed society with integrated links to the largest economy in the world.
Pearse had a messianic and racist personality and I shudder to think what he would have done had he survived to acquire power after 1922. The partition of Ireland and the wretched history of this Republic is his legacy.

mick malones mauser

recipio wrote: »

We were not a colony, we elected 74 Irish Parliamentary MPs to Westminster in 1910. Pearse and Hitler have certain similarities. Both believed in a pure 'race' acquiring power by force, both were motivated by naked hatred of a perceived enemy and both used the history of their nation to justify carnage - against their own people of course.
The Irish in 1916 were not a nation of repressed Gaels, we were a mixed society with integrated links to the largest economy in the world.
Pearse had a messianic and racist personality and I shudder to think what he would have done had he survived to acquire power after 1922. The partition of Ireland and the wretched history of this Republic is his legacy.

Recipo I really don't know if you are being serious or are just courting controversy.
Either way its best to ignore you,
your opinons are too bizarre to be taken seriously

mick malones mauser

Strazdas wrote: »

Well, the said occupying power had been in situ for about 700 years and we had the scenario of several hundred thousand of our men fighting for their armed forces, so it was complex to say the least : you couldn't really it compare it to what the French Resistance were doing in 1944 having only been very recently been invaded.

If your version was correct, we would have had a popular uprising or revolution in 1916 involving the whole country (which didn't actually happen).

My version is correct and you probably know that and like Recipio are just courting controversy.
There were mass revolts against British rule on a fairly regular basis over the course of the centuries,most were brutally suppressed.
Your reference to the "French Resistance" is farcical.I suggest you read some history books if you can .
You will find there was in fact very little "French" resistance and an awful lot of collaboration.
Anyhow the sad fact for you and Recipio is that we are now an independent republic and the British Empire no longer exists,thanks mainly to the brave men and women who occupied the GPO and hastened the demise of same.

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

My version is correct and you probably know that and like Recipio are just courting controversy.
There were mass revolts against British rule on a fairly regular basis over the course of the centuries,most were brutally suppressed.
Your reference to the "French Resistance" is farcical.I suggest you read some history books if you can .
You will find there was in fact very little "French" resistance and an awful lot of collaboration.
Anyhow the sad fact for you and Recipio is that we are now an independent republic and the British Empire no longer exists,thanks mainly to the brave men and women who occupied the GPO and hastened the demise of same.

"Occupying power" and "rebellion" suggests it was a straightforward case of a popular revolution. But it wasn't as simple as that : 200,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight for the British Army and Pearse and his comrades were a minority even within militant Irish nationalism.

I'm actually in favour of the 1916 Rising and think it was justified, but the situation was also very complicated with many nuances (we can't just edit out that it was unpopular with the Irish population at the time it took place).

mick malones mauser

You make a couple of totally irrelevant points Strazdas,
The fact that any amount of irish men fought in the British army doesn't make Britain any less of an occupying force. All empires used their subject nations as cannon fodder, a cursory glance at any history book would put you straight on this.
In the particular period (1916) tens of thousands of irish men had been encouraged even cajoled into joining the British army by that great" constitutional "nationalist john redmond in a forlorn attempt to get the British to finally fulfil their commitment to home rule through the blood sacrifice of these poor saps on flanders fields.
Your earlier reference to the french resistance is interesting, mainly again because it illustrates your lack of knowledge of the subject. Far more french men assisted the Germans as either soldiers police or "guest"workers in german factories than actually participated in the" resistance".The resistance was by and large made up of Spanish civil war refugees and many Jews and left wing activists from other countries already occupied by the Germans including anti nazi germans.
So therefore applying your logic the french were never occupied by the Germans during WW2.
Now please go and study before you come back on here trolling.

KingBrian2

recipio wrote: »

We were not a colony, we elected 74 Irish Parliamentary MPs to Westminster in 1910. Pearse and Hitler have certain similarities. Both believed in a pure 'race' acquiring power by force, both were motivated by naked hatred of a perceived enemy and both used the history of their nation to justify carnage - against their own people of course.
The Irish in 1916 were not a nation of repressed Gaels, we were a mixed society with integrated links to the largest economy in the world.
Pearse had a messianic and racist personality and I shudder to think what he would have done had he survived to acquire power after 1922. The partition of Ireland and the wretched history of this Republic is his legacy.

The French and English leadership had as much bloodlust as dear Mr Pearse. Without all that militarization he probably would have remained a teacher in St Enda's. Admired for his Gaelic literature and oratorical skills.

mick malones mauser

Well said King Brian.
Pearse is being described as a fanatical psychopath with a blood lust ( this is the man who ordered a surrender to avoid any further loss of civilian life) while the imperialist warlords who brought gun boats up the Liffey and unleashed artillery bombardment on a densely populated city apparently represent the democratic will of the irish people. Because apparently we had a democracy and were not subject to an occupying force

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

You make a couple of totally irrelevant points Strazdas,
The fact that any amount of irish men fought in the British army doesn't make Britain any less of an occupying force. All empires used their subject nations as cannon fodder, a cursory glance at any history book would put you straight on this.
In the particular period (1916) tens of thousands of irish men had been encouraged even cajoled into joining the British army by that great" constitutional "nationalist john redmond in a forlorn attempt to get the British to finally fulfil their commitment to home rule through the blood sacrifice of these poor saps on flanders fields.
Your earlier reference to the french resistance is interesting, mainly again because it illustrates your lack of knowledge of the subject. Far more french men assisted the Germans as either soldiers police or "guest"workers in german factories than actually participated in the" resistance".The resistance was by and large made up of Spanish civil war refugees and many Jews and left wing activists from other countries already occupied by the Germans including anti nazi germans.
So therefore applying your logic the french were never occupied by the Germans during WW2.
Now please go and study before you come back on here trolling.

Most of Europe in 1916 was under the control of what you refer to as "occupying forces", there was nothing particularly unique about the Irish situation. The various empires such as the British Empire, German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire held huge swathes of territory across the continent. Many of the 50 or so independent nations of Europe today found themselves under the control of one empire or another. Even the Rising itself wasn't particularly unique, except we were one of the very first European nations in the 20th century to attempt an armed insurrection against the ruling elite.

I would actually agree with your point that the British weren't here democratically (which is why I say the Rising was justified). They subverted every attempt by Irish politicians to introduce Home Rule for the previous 40 years.