1916 narrated by Liam Neeson. Read mod warning in post 1

recipio

It was startling to see interviews with the survivors, both the rebels and the Sherwood Foresters. They look like they were done around 1966 and they added real perspective. The tone of the narrative seemed a little too pro nationalist especially delivered with Neeson's northern accent. Its a well told story and let DeValera off very lightly - by all accounts he went doolally in Boland's Mills.

Strazdas

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes thats probably the thing about the Rising and real war in general. 90% of the time people are sitting around doing nothing. Those in Bolands Mills hardly fired a shot.

Anyways 5 episodes of people shooting at each other, not exactly sophisticated tv. I feel we're getting dragged into a Rebellion discussion here. Some people seem to avail of every opportunity to bash Rebellion even on other threads.

I do think a five part re-enactment of the Rising may have struggled to hold the viewers' attention. There were some moments of real drama and high theatre such as the seizing of the GPO and the reading out of the proclamation, plus of course the court martials and executions. But I can totally see why the producers baulked at five hours of this (and I'm surprised that those who have bashed Rebellion cannot see the potential problems with attempting a dramatised five episode re-enactment of these events).

josephryan1989

Shurimgreat wrote: »

It was a fictional drama.

Because you disagree with certain plotlines doesn't make it "crap". That's an entirely subjective view based largely on your fawning admiration for the 1916 leaders. Other viewers will have a different view. We don't all think like you.

I'd urge you to write to rte however and ask them to making a fawning hagiography of Pearse and co. There's still enough time to have one made.

Why are people comparing this documentary to Rebellion anyways? They aren't even the same genres.

Hagiography? What problem do people have with Pearse? He was a 100% hero and he like all the other rebels who fought and died for Ireland should be revered. Are people ashamed of the Irish Republic? I don't understanding why people are ashamed of the fight for freedom a century ago. Is it because people died? Freedom isn't free.

P. Breathnach

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Hagiography? What problem do people have with Pearse? He was a 100% hero and he like all the other rebels who fought and died for Ireland should be revered. Are people ashamed of the Irish Republic? I don't understanding why people are ashamed of the fight for freedom a century ago. Is it because people died? Freedom isn't free.

That's hagiography.

bee06

Emotional stuff tonight listening to Connolly's daughter talk about her last few minutes with him.

The Rape of Lucretia

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Hagiography? What problem do people have with Pearse? He was a 100% hero and he like all the other rebels who fought and died for Ireland should be revered. Are people ashamed of the Irish Republic? I don't understanding why people are ashamed of the fight for freedom a century ago. Is it because people died? Freedom isn't free.

He chose to fight and die without any mandate.
He is culpable for the deaths of hundreds of innocents.
Not ashamed as such of the Irish Republic. But we were part of something greater. Quit. And havent done a great job of running our little partition ever since. Certainly nothing to be proud of.
The fight was terrorism by a tiny minority of outlaws. A lot of Irish people were already fully free and had no interest being involved on someone else's view of what freedom is.

amdublin

Mod:

A reminder to everybody. Take it to the history & heritage forum if you want to discuss the rising and irish history in detail.

Do not post here again if you are going off on a tangent about irish history - take it to the H&H forum.

Mr.Nice Guy

I was less keen on the last episode. I thought that was the poorest of the three. Part of the problem was that they had to fast-forward through a lot of events in about twenty minutes and so they left out a lot of key info.

I also thought they geared it too much towards the American audience. Like that part about the peace process: 'Once again America was prepared to step in.' I would have liked to hear more about the role of people like John Hume who helped facilitate the conditions for peace.

Overall it was a good series. I just felt the ending was a bit damp and cynical in wrapping up the recent past and present.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I was less keen on the last episode. I thought that was the poorest of the three. Part of the problem was that they had to fast-forward through a lot of events in about twenty minutes and so they left out a lot of key info.

I also thought they geared it too much towards the American audience. Like that part about the peace process: 'Once again America was prepared to step in.' I would have liked to hear more about the role of people like John Hume who helped facilitate the conditions for peace.

Overall it was a good series. I just felt the ending was a bit damp and cynical in wrapping up the recent past and present.

That was definitely the weakest episode. The spent only the first 15 or 20 minutes discussing 1916, then rushed through a potted history of Ireland from that point onwards.

They made one or two errors too, such as claiming Collins was head of the IRA, a position he never held.

P. Breathnach

I agree that it was the weakest of the three programmes.

But they could not have ignored the consequences of 1916, or the fact that the rising became an important element of the way we see ourselves as a nation. It's because the rising had consequences that we are commemorating its centenary, and programmes like this are part of that commemoration.

The legacy of 1916 was not much questioned in 1966. It has been questioned by many people since, and we have also had various groupings claiming to be the inheritors of the spirit of 1916.

It would have been a poor series if it did not address the outcomes of the rising. But it is exceedingly difficult to reflect in a balanced way on the outcomes in such a small programme segment. I think a valiant effort was made.

Had I been the producer, I might have drawn a line at the conclusion of the civil war, because I consider that was the time that democracy was secured in what was then called "The Free State". There might have been an acknowledgement that there were some important flaws in the setup of the new state, flaws that would give us problems for generations.

Strazdas

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree that it was the weakest of the three programmes.

But they could not have ignored the consequences of 1916, or the fact that the rising became an important element of the way we see ourselves as a nation. It's because the rising had consequences that we are commemorating its centenary, and programmes like this are part of that commemoration.

The legacy of 1916 was not much questioned in 1966. It has been questioned by many people since, and we have also had various groupings claiming to be the inheritors of the spirit of 1916.

It would have been a poor series if it did not address the outcomes of the rising. But it is exceedingly difficult to reflect in a balanced way on the outcomes in such a small programme segment. I think a valiant effort was made.

Had I been the producer, I might have drawn a line at the conclusion of the civil war, because I consider that was the time that democracy was secured in what was then called "The Free State". There might have been an acknowledgement that there were some important flaws in the setup of the new state, flaws that would give us problems for generations.

They did touch on some interesting points such as that 1966 was about mythologising the Rising rather than commemorating it and that the Troubles may well have been a very unpleasant legacy of it given that the gun had been put 'in' to Irish politics.

The discussion was revealing too about how the poets and dreamers like Pearse were replaced by far more brutal and radical elements like Collins. The female historian made the good point that it was regrettable that the leaders of the Rising weren't still around post 1916, especially someone like James Connolly who was pro the working class and pro women.

Shurimgreat

I hope they put on a good spectacle for the anniversary week of the Rising. There has been a lot of revisionism, but I think basically for that week we need to quit the revisionism and the questioning of the rights and wrongs and just commemorate the thing well.

Here's my suggestion. Make most of the centre of Dublin traffic free for that week. I know that will inconvenience people but I think people can survive for a week. Allow people walk around the city and maybe get a feel for what the city was like in 1916 before being clogged up with traffic. Give people time to reflect.

Also lots of heritage artefacts on the street from the era, old cars of that vintage, horse and carts, etc

Anyways, as for last nights episode, it was good for the first half, but then they started to fast forward through Irish history, without any real analysis. It made sense in some ways as a foreign audience would like to know how the story finished. It was interesting though how the Rising influenced other people around the world, Lenin, Gandhi, etc. I think the Russian Revolution might have been strongly influenced by it.

Mr.Nice Guy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree that it was the weakest of the three programmes.

But they could not have ignored the consequences of 1916, or the fact that the rising became an important element of the way we see ourselves as a nation. It's because the rising had consequences that we are commemorating its centenary, and programmes like this are part of that commemoration.

The legacy of 1916 was not much questioned in 1966. It has been questioned by many people since, and we have also had various groupings claiming to be the inheritors of the spirit of 1916.

It would have been a poor series if it did not address the outcomes of the rising. But it is exceedingly difficult to reflect in a balanced way on the outcomes in such a small programme segment. I think a valiant effort was made.

Had I been the producer, I might have drawn a line at the conclusion of the civil war, because I consider that was the time that democracy was secured in what was then called "The Free State". There might have been an acknowledgement that there were some important flaws in the setup of the new state, flaws that would give us problems for generations.

You make fair points. What irked me somewhat though is that when discussing the legacy of the Rising and the way in which the ideals of the Proclamation were and are viewed, it was all done through a negative prism, i.e. The Troubles.

Of course that side of things does need to be addressed and it's clear that the Rising did influence many involved in the North. But I think you could have also looked at the Proclamation's ability to inspire in other ways, such as the recent gay marriage referendum.

Many times in that debate the Proclamation was cited and the line about 'cherishing the children of the nation equally.' If I were a producer I would have pointed out that the document still has the capacity to drive the push for equality in modern times, and it would have also tied in nicely with the attitude of the Church.

They rightly pointed out that post-independence Ireland was heavily controlled by the Catholic Church. But that referendum on gay marriage, despite being opposed by the church hierarchy, was nonetheless strongly endorsed, showing a willingness to move against the church's opinions. And you could have tied that in with the Rising leaders and how many of them, like Tom Clarke, were willing to defy church teachings in favour of republican ideals.

I think that would have been a more interesting and uplifting connection between the past and the present. The way it was done just seemed too dour and pessimistic to me. But hey, it was a cut above average and you're rarely going to get a history show that satisfies 100 per cent so it was still a thumbs up series.

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You make fair points. What irked me somewhat though is that when discussing the legacy of the Rising and the way in which the ideals of the Proclamation were and are viewed, it was all done through a negative prism, i.e. The Troubles.

Of course that side of things does need to be addressed and it's clear that the Rising did influence many involved in the North. But I think you could have also looked at the Proclamation's ability to inspire in other ways, such as the recent gay marriage referendum.

Many times in that debate the Proclamation was cited and the line about 'cherishing the children of the nation equally.' If I were a producer I would have pointed out that the document still has the capacity to drive the push for equality in modern times, and it would have also tied in nicely with the attitude of the Church.

They rightly pointed out that post-independence Ireland was heavily controlled by the Catholic Church. But that referendum on gay marriage, despite being opposed by the church hierarchy, was nonetheless strongly endorsed, showing a willingness to move against the church's opinions. And you could have tied that in with the Rising leaders and how many of them, like Tom Clarke, were willing to defy church teachings in favour of republican ideals.

I think that would have been a more interesting and uplifting connection between the past and the present. The way it was done just seemed too dour and pessimistic to me. But hey, it was a cut above average and you're rarely going to get a history show that satisfies 100 per cent so it was still a thumbs up series.

The documentary made the rather dubious claim that 1916 was a "Catholic" rebellion. Well, Sir Roger Casement was a Protestant, James Connolly was an atheist, Joseph Plunkett married a Protestant girl just before his execution etc, so anyone who thinks this is the definitive history of the Rising may have to think again.

The programme also covered how the Church became powerful in Ireland post-independence but I've a sneaking suspicion this was always on the cards, even in a Home Rule Ireland (as Home Rule in it's later guises would still have partitioned the country and left us with a 90-95% Catholic jurisdiction in the southern part of the country).

amdublin

Mod

Reminder this is not the History & Heritage forum. If you want to have an indepth discussion about the rising/Irish History take it to the H&H forum.

All topics going off in a tangent will be deleted so please don't waste your time posting them

Strazdas

Good article in the Sunday Independent by Declan Lynch yesterday where he takes serious issue with the praising of "1916" by the Irish media, with them previously having bashed "Rebellion" on the same channel.

He writes : "The general response of the critics to the lavish documentary series 1916 would suggest that it was wildly good. But I wouldn't be that wild about it. And the general response of the critics to the lavish drama series Rebellion would suggest that it was wildly bad. But it was not bad at all".

Lynch goes on to say that he found "1916" to be little more than a glossy corporate video about the Rising, which left many things out and quickly skimmed through anything that might portray it in an unflattering light. He takes issue too with some of the claims made within the documentary.

By contrast, he praises the bravery of RTE's Rebellion, saying "it really did try to get past the officially approved version of Irish history, the one dimensional droning of the academics" and adds "they struggled in a serious way with the complexities of the situation.....there was a kind of honesty in it".

mick malones mauser

Strazdas wrote: »

Good article in the Sunday Independent by Declan Lynch yesterday where he takes serious issue with the praising of "1916" by the Irish media, with them previously having bashed "Rebellion" on the same channel.

He writes : "The general response of the critics to the lavish documentary series 1916 would suggest that it was wildly good. But I wouldn't be that wild about it. And the general response of the critics to the lavish drama series Rebellion would suggest that it was wildly bad. But it was not bad at all".

Lynch goes on to say that he found "1916" to be little more than a glossy corporate video about the Rising, which left many things out and quickly skimmed through anything that might portray it in an unflattering light. He takes issue too with some of the claims made within the documentary.

By contrast, he praises the bravery of RTE's Rebellion, saying "it really did try to get past the officially approved version of Irish history, the one dimensional droning of the academics" and adds "they struggled in a serious way with the complexities of the situation.....there was a kind of honesty in it".

Poor old Declan,he obviously had friends involved in the production of Rebellion.
It was rubbish,get over it move on

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Poor old Declan,he obviously had friends involved in the production of Rebellion.
It was rubbish,get over it move on

No, I think it's more that he's no fan of the traditional Irish nationalist / republican narrative.

I agree with him too, I thought Rebellion was the better series of the two (even though they are different types of programme). Interesting too that the initial enthusiasm for '1916' seemed to wane and there was virtually nothing about it after the final episode on social media.

mick malones mauser

Oh dear, more post colonial self loathing. ..sad
Rebellion was rubbish. There is no debate about that. Pure unadulterated tripe. Badly acted. Badly scripted, ludicrous direction. However I am glad it made some people happy.

Can we move on please

Strazdas

mick malones mauser wrote: »

Oh dear, more post colonial self loathing. ..sad
Rebellion was rubbish. There is no debate about that. Pure unadulterated tripe. Badly acted. Badly scripted, ludicrous direction. However I am glad it made some people happy.

Can we move on please

Most of Lynch's comments in his article were about '1916' saying it was little more than a glorified corporate video aimed at the US market and it was far from the masterpiece that the Irish media claimed.

I think he's on the money too. For a supposed lavish and superior documentary series (it cost €3m to make), there was a surprising amount of factual errors and they made some rather dubious claims about the origins of the Rising and it's subsequent impact. Good to see at least one TV critic break ranks anyway from the love in that was going on surrounding the programme.

JohnFalstaff

Strazdas wrote: »

Most of Lynch's comments in his article were about '1916' saying it was little more than a glorified corporate video aimed at the US market and it was far from the masterpiece that the Irish media claimed.

I think he's on the money too. For a supposed lavish and superior documentary series (it cost €3m to make), there was a surprising amount of factual errors and they made some rather dubious claims about the origins of the Rising and it's subsequent impact. Good to see at least one TV critic break ranks anyway from the love in that was going on surrounding the programme.

Spot on, you'd think with the budget and time they had they would have made sure not to let anything slip through.

The fact that it seemed geared towards an American audience also meant that they played up the Irish-American angle hugely.

I'd still rank TG4's 'Seachtar Na Cásca' as a better overall examination of the Rising and those involved.

Strazdas

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Spot on, you'd think with the budget and time they had they would have made sure not to let anything slip through.

The fact that it seemed geared towards an American audience also meant that they played up the Irish-American angle hugely.

I'd still rank TG4's 'Seachtar Na Cásca' as a better overall examination of the Rising and those involved.

Indeed, and I'm a bit surprised the series was given such a free ride by the Irish media and escaped virtually any criticism and instead received unbridled praise. The very fact that it was pitched at an American audience should have made it obvious that it would be less suitable for Irish viewers.

The Seachtar series on a much lower budget is arguably better at covering the events of the Rising and explaining it's context.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

MonkstownHoop

Patww79 wrote: »

I presume by the name that one is in Irish though, which vastly reduces the potential audience. I wouldn't have a notion myself, no matter how accurate it was.

There's always subtitles

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Realt Dearg Sec

josephryan1989 wrote: »

I just watched the awesome RTE commissioned 1916 documentary

Just on this, it wasn't commissioned by RTE, it was an initiative by the Keough-Naughton Institute of Irish Studies in Notre Dame (hence how many contributors are from ND), and the funding was raised by them, with a view to securing broadcasts across the US as well as Ireland. RTE had the sense to pick it up but they certainly didn't commission it.

[Full disclosure, I'm working in the Keough at ND, but I had absolutely nothing to do with the doc, just happened to see the thread on the front page and I'm looking forward to watching it]

Strazdas

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Just on this, it wasn't commissioned by RTE, it was an initiative by the Keough-Naughton Institute of Irish Studies in Notre Dame (hence how many contributors are from ND), and the funding was raised by them, with a view to securing broadcasts across the US as well as Ireland. RTE had the sense to pick it up but they certainly didn't commission it.

[Full disclosure, I'm working in the Keough at ND, but I had absolutely nothing to do with the doc, just happened to see the thread on the front page and I'm looking forward to watching it]

That is correct, though I believe RTE eventually put up about 20% of the funding.

It's a decent enough documentary series but clearly pitched at the US or Irish-American market rather than domestic Irish viewers.

ftakeith

a great series and finally using great RTE archive

OU812

josephryan1989 wrote: »

I wish RTE would actually show Insurrection from 1966. Some of the black and white clips used in the episode last night were from Hugh Leonard's drama documentary. There was one scene showing Pearse standing in the burning GPO which almost burned down the RTE studio!

It's after being restored & is being screened from 18th March in eight parts

http://www.rte.ie/ten/news/2016/0308/773444-rte-to-screen-insurrection-for-firs-time-since-1966/