Geldof on Yeats

take everything

Anyone watching this.
Not that big into poetry but Yeats was one of those poets whose poems I always remember from school. Some beautiful and memorable turns of phrase in stuff like The Lake Isle of Inisfree. Looks interesting.

muddypaws

Yeah, really enjoying it. Its a shame that we don't have centenary celebrations every year, RTE are making some great programmes.

alan partridge aha

Geldof is a real put off.

take everything

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Geldof is a real put off.

In fairness he has a lot of enthusiasm and knowledge about the subject

stretchdoe

Now you know what's meant by 'West Brit'.

Why were many of the readers of the poetry English actors by the way.

Geldof probably wouldn't want to risk it being besmirched by the wrong type of Irish accent; the type he sneeringly adopted for his dismissal of Caitleen Ni Houlihan.

Funny how much he despises/sees no point in even trying to find any value in a play by a man he regards as a genius when it doesn't fit with his political leanings.

muddypaws

stretchdoe wrote: »

Now you know what's meant by 'West Brit'.

Why were many of the readers of the poetry English actors by the way.

Geldof probably wouldn't want to risk it being besmirched by the wrong type of Irish accent; the type he sneeringly adopted for his dismissal of Caitleen Ni Houlihan.

Funny how much he despises and sees no point in even trying to find any value in a play by a man he regards as a genius when it doesn't fit with his political leamings.

At least I learnt something, I'd always assumed Dominic West was American, thanks to The Wire.

Mr.Nice Guy

It seems to me like Geldof is pushing an anti-Rising agenda with his opening remarks about 'nationalist guff'. It seems the only nationalism he tolerates is British nationalism considering this is the man who campaigned for Scots not to vote for independence days before their referendum.

He's entitled to his views, but I question why the state broadcaster is giving so much air time to negative perspectives on The Rising.

Dick phelan

What an arsehole Geldof is, the man's hate for Ireland is embaressing, His dismissive tone of the Rising as Nationalist guff said's it all, if it was up to him Ireland would still be part of the British Empire, i don't use the term often but he really is the definition of a West Brit.

doc11

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It seems to me like Geldof is pushing an anti-Rising agenda with his opening remarks about 'nationalist guff'. It seems the only nationalism he tolerates is British nationalism considering this is the man who campaigned for Scots not to vote for independence days before their referendum.

He's entitled to his views, but I question why the state broadcaster is giving so much air time to negative perspectives on The Rising.

Meh, Not everyone thinks the rising is as great as you do. It had zero popular support (like the IRA in the north) so they were essentially disorganized terrorist who took over a biscuit factory and post office for a week.Far to much moral/historical revision happening. You can be nationalistic without needing to look at the rising with rose tinted glasses

Embarrassing tripe.

The man knows little about the subject and seems to despise Irish people, don't know how this can be justified by a public service broadcaster.

Thundercats Ho

The nationalist guff remark was aimed at the 50th anniversary celebrations when he was a kid, although perhaps the comments could be transferred to today.

I have no issue with different slants on what the rising means, as there were a whole spectrum of people affected, including irish unionists in dublin.

having said all that, I could only suffer through 10 minutes of Geldof talking guff about 'Willie'.

Eugene Norman

doc11 wrote: »

Meh, Not everyone thinks the rising is as great as you do. It had zero popular support (like the IRA in the north) so they were essentially disorganized terrorist who took over a biscuit factory and post office for a week.Far to much moral/historical revision happening. You can be nationalistic without needing to look at the rising with rose tinted glasses

The revisionism is the other way. There was obviously support for the rising.

conorhal

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

The nationalist guff remark was aimed at the 50th anniversary celebrations when he was a kid, although perhaps the comments could be transferred to today.

I have no issue with different slants on what the rising means, as there were a whole spectrum of people affected, including irish unionists in dublin.

having said all that, I could only suffer through 10 minutes of Geldof talking guff about 'Willie'.

I thought the program was a shame, it had some interesting insights, but Geldof's attemt to mould, or really force a narrative that suggested Yeats was against violence, or offering some alternative to it, was strained and a poor attempt to bang Geldof's ant-war square peg into a round hole.

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It seems to me like Geldof is pushing an anti-Rising agenda with his opening remarks about 'nationalist guff'. It seems the only nationalism he tolerates is British nationalism considering this is the man who campaigned for Scots not to vote for independence days before their referendum.

He's entitled to his views, but I question why the state broadcaster is giving so much air time to negative perspectives on The Rising.

I don't think RTE can be accused of having an anti-Rising agenda, not with their wall to wall documentaries and special programmes devoted to all aspects of it. If they had a problem with the legitimacy of the Rising, they would simply ignore the subject and keep programming to a minimum.

Cape Clear

Geldof washed up pain in the ass

Mr.Nice Guy

doc11 wrote: »

Meh, Not everyone thinks the rising is as great as you do. It had zero popular support (like the IRA in the north) so they were essentially disorganized terrorist who took over a biscuit factory and post office for a week.Far to much moral/historical revision happening. You can be nationalistic without needing to look at the rising with rose tinted glasses

I think you'll see over the weekend how popular the Rising is; and the percentage of people who take a different view, which they're entitled to, is quite small by comparison and yet they are afforded a platform as if they represent 50% of the population's view.

Winston Churchill is a controversial figure but when the BBC do a special on him you can be sure they won't make reference to his role in Ireland, his acceptance of the Japanese invading Manchuria and so on. It seems like it's only the Irish that have to have a dig at their own history.

As regards your comments about them having zero popular support, actually increasing evidence shows that there was a degree of support amongst the working classes. Charles Townshend's recent 1916 work touches on this. And as far as the terrorist label is concerned, which I think is unhelpful to use for this period of time, the reality is the unionists in the north were getting results by arming themselves and threatening violence, and were backed up by the leader of the British opposition Andrew Bonar Law, so let's not pretend like the democracy that exists today was around back then. Sure you had the major states of Europe going to war for reasons of imperial glory, many of whose leaders were members of the same family. It was a different time.

doc11

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think you'll see over the weekend how popular the Rising is; and the percentage of people who take a different view, which they're entitled to, is quite small by comparison and yet they are afforded a platform as if they represent 50% of the population's view.

I wasn't aware we could change history with a majority vote.

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think you'll see over the weekend how popular the Rising is; and the percentage of people who take a different view, which they're entitled to, is quite small by comparison and yet they are afforded a platform as if they represent 50% of the population's view.

Winston Churchill is a controversial figure but when the BBC do a special on him you can be sure they won't make reference to his role in Ireland, his acceptance of the Japanese invading Manchuria and so on. It seems like it's only the Irish that have to have a dig at their own history.

As regards your comments about them having zero popular support, actually increasing evidence shows that there was a degree of support amongst the working classes. Charles Townshend's recent 1916 work touches on this. And as far as the terrorist label is concerned, which I think is unhelpful to use for this period of time, the reality is the unionists in the north were getting results by arming themselves and threatening violence, and were backed up by the leader of the British opposition Andrew Bonar Law, so let's not pretend like the democracy that exists today was around back then. Sure you had the major states of Europe going to war for reasons of imperial glory, many of whose leaders were members of the same family. It was a different time.

I'd add too though that opinions of the Rising have constantly changed over the years. I've been reading anecdotal reports that for the first 50 years of independence, people rarely even spoke of the Rising, they were far more concerned with issues like poverty, health and emigration.

It was only the big commemorations in 1966 that brought the Rising into focus (I'm guessing that up until then, people would have been only vaguely aware of how the Rising had panned out, as they only had scant details). By the 75th anniversary in 1991, Pearse, Connolly and the lads were back out of favour again thanks to 'our friends in the north'. Perhaps this year is the first proper commemoration of the Rising : the 1966 version was very nationalistic and mythological in tone.

Sir Gallagher

I was pretty pissed off to see that Sir Bob was to front this program on Yeats. Sneering at the rising from the off and enlisting the help of his British toff mates to read the poetry of his besto "Willie". I'm surprised that RTE commisioned this, considering their fantastic and balanced coverage of the rising over the past few weeks, perhaps the star power of Sir Bob and his pals from across the pond was too much to resist.

The sight of Richard E. Grant and Bob Geldof and their jaunty faux earnestness while reading the poetry of Yeats was laughable. I reckon they would have been better suited to a program about Rudyard Kipling, you know, somebody wo they would have more in common with.

Harry Angstrom

Part two of this bolloxology tonight. As if last week wasn't enough. What could have been an interesting documentary on Yeats has been ruined by Geldof's ego.

jooksavage

Am I the only one who's actually quite enjoying this?

Arghus

I think it's no harm to have a bit of counter programming; It's not like we are stuck for pro- 1916 things to watch. People by and large don't agree with Geldof and his interpretation of events; honestly, I'm not sure what to think about it myself.

However, I do think there is a genuine public service in giving some airtime over to another set of views about the past: those critical of The Rising, as expressed in this programme. They are minority views, but they do exist and I think they're worth talking about.

If nothing else it might force people to engage, assess and think critically about interpretations of the past - whether they be Geldofs or the majority held assumptions about The Rising and that era

brian_t

I didn't watch this myself but I see that BBC4 have it on at 9pm on Sunday.

Strazdas

Arghus wrote: »

I think it's no harm to have a bit of counter programming; It's not like we are stuck for pro- 1916 things to watch. People by and large don't agree with Geldof and his interpretation of events; honestly, I'm not sure what to think about it myself.

However, I do think there is a genuine public service in giving some airtime over to another set of views about the past: those critical of The Rising, as expressed in this programme. They are minority views, but they do exist and I think they're worth talking about.

If nothing else it might force people to engage, assess and think critically about interpretations of the past - whether they be Geldofs or the majority held assumptions about The Rising and that era

I think it's very healthy that a lot of anti-Rising opinions have been aired in recent weeks. If it was all pro-Rising and saying how wonderful it all was, people would start to wonder if they were watching state propaganda and a complete whitewash of 1916. I think it may actually be doing a service to the men and women of the Rising to hear both sides of the debate aired, people are well capable of making up their own minds.

Tombo2001

I really enjoyed this show.

It highlighted Yeats as an artist - how many times do we see or hear his Poems being read on TV, anywhere. And yet he is arguably our greatest National artist.

It highlights Yeats as a historical figure in Irish culture. The picture painted of Yeats was always as an 'Anglo Irish' poet. What the hell is that? Is he half Irish half English.

The program makes it clear that Yeats is 100% Irish; very devoted to Ireland - and making a huge contribution to Irish culture. It shows there is a direct line from Yeats through Sean O'Casey and John McGahern to modern day artists like Colm Toibin, Roddy Doyle, Anne Enright, Edna O'Brien, U2, Panti Bliss and indeed the Boomtown Rats.

Yeats as the program shows is about 'The Other Ireland'. Not the conventional narrative of the Catholic, GAA loving, meat/two veg eating, happy families dancing ceilis at the crossroads and voting Fianna Fail. The Ireland, that for whatever reason doesn't fit into the narrative, and yet is intrinsically Irish and driving Irish culture and society, and pushes boundaries and makes the country ask questions about itself. Bob Geldof comes from the same place, and I think he did a fantastic job with this show.