Heroditas wrote: » As somebody who grew up and went to a"posh rugby college" in Dun Laoghaire, I disagree quite strongly with your analysis of the area but I'll respond in more detail later.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » Mrs. Brown's Boys was the top show on the BBC over Christmas. Over 9 million. Pretty scary :eek:
Strazdas wrote: » It also shows that the rebels were on the fringes of society and a minority. When the red haired girl is handing out leaflets at the docks against Irish involvement in the War, she is regarded as a borderline nutter by the returning soldiers and again when we see May talking to the Dublin policeman and a group of Irish Volunteers march past, the two of them practically laugh at them as if they are rather ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.
josephryan1989 wrote: » The same way people laugh at Mick Wallace, Paul Murphy, Shell to Sea, Irish Water and Socialist Party protesters today. Or make fun of Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein who deny their intimate relationship with Slab Murphy and underworld criminality. While their modern equivalents ARE ridiculous as I personally see them nonetheless there are parallels. Adams is the same age as his bearded Fenian equivalents who were involved in rebellion in the 1860s but morphed into constitutional Nationalists by 1916 while giving moral support to physical force republicans. Adams is strikingly similar to the likes of James Dillon and Joseph Devlin or John Devoy who kept their hands clean while using the ballot box and violence to get their way. The likes of Wallace and Murphy are militant socialists who try to be modern Connollys opposed to the EU, the free market, capitalism and imperialism except they oppose America rather than the British Empire. In the same republicans then wanted the Kaiser to win just so Britain would lose regardless of how evil the Kaiser was today hardline Republicans and Socialist extremists make excuses for Putin and Islamic extremists. The Anti Water and Anti Austerity Alliance militants see themselvesas the successors to the Land Leaguers who fought landlordism in the 1880s and 1890s. I find them absurd but they take themselves desperately seriously
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Disappointing in the main. There is a feeling that the rebels are being cynically humanised or sanitised by wrapping them in the soap opera of their personal lives. A very questionable presentation of this handful of violent thugs and traitors who set Ireland on the road to partition, and part of it out of the first class carriage of the worlds countries that was the Empire, into 100 years peripheral insignificance. Add in the economic and religious backwardness, repeated incidences of its inability to govern itself responsibly, regular waves of exporting its population when unable to sustain them, and truly shameful refusal to behave as a civilised nation and play a positive role in the second world war, and the contrast with these characters portrayed is particularly jarring. It would seem the characters in this drama are getting a very generous whitewash, without any of their crimes that have rippled down the decades being examined. Early days, and we can hope is a deliberate policy, highlighting their crimes as their rebellion really gets underway. Will give the next episode a go in hope. Well acted.
Strazdas wrote: » When the red haired girl is handing out leaflets at the docks against Irish involvement in the War, she is regarded as a borderline nutter by the returning soldiers and again when we see May talking to the Dublin policeman and a group of Irish Volunteers march past, the two of them practically laugh at them as if they are rather ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » To be fair this scene was well done. Overall though, there was still to strong a sense that the rebels were somehow out on a noble and just cause. This may be redressed somewhat in the coming episode though.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » The comparisons are good and apt. In most cases the oddballs on the fringes of influencing society remain on the fringes, are colour and entertainment for the majority, and disappear eventually without consequence. Occasionally though, some do gain some momentum, often by chance or a perfect storm of events and to little or large degree have a deleterious effect on their societies.At the extreme of course, the Nazis, initially derided for their crazy ideas to the silly mustache of their leader, but catastrophically gaining momentum and leading their people and countless others to ruin. The Mick Wallace and Paul Murphy types are just pantomime entertainment for our media and will fall away without causing harm. The rebels of 1916 are somewhere inbetween, diverting the course of history for a country, not to utter ruin, but significantly for the poorer than the course it was on before their interference and the better directions it might have taken at the time.
frostyjacks wrote: » Just catching up now. Quite a decent production all round. Well balanced; neither glorifying the rebels nor taking a revisionist slant. Bit too much of the Downton Abbey-style upper-class goings on, but that's the trend I suppose.
Trump4Prez wrote: » I really enjoyed the first episode. But I get the sense It's going to me more about the love triangles than the actual rising.
Strazdas wrote: » A strictly factual telling of the Rising would be a different type of drama though. I'm not sure we'd even have the three female leads as they seem to be fairly peripheral to the events, not leading players (and besides, it is a fictional story about people caught up in the rebellion, not an actual retelling of what happened that week).
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » You'd swear RTÉ was the only station that had actors show up in more than one program.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » They could make a factual story about The Rising with female leads very easily. Nearly 100 women were arrested for their part in events that week. Loads of scope for a factual series. I'm grateful we're getting any kind of look at our history with women as the main focus but there is definitely room for more factual stories to be told too. In fact I was reading this morning that Dev's battalion was the only one during the Rising that didn't have women in it because he refused to let them. In the other battalions, when they were arrested, the British soldiers tried to let the women off and they refused to go. They marched out in file with the men and were arrested alongside them.
maudgonner wrote: » TG4 did a doc about Cumann na mBan last year, well worth a look. They're also repeating their series about the leaders of the Rising, 1916 Seachtar na Cásca, starting on Wednesday. Clever scheduling from them! Watch out for the actor who plays Pearse in Rebellion as Eamonn Ceannt in Seachtar na Cásca
maudgonner wrote: » Watch out for the actor who plays Pearse in Rebellion as Eamonn Ceannt in Seachtar na Cásca
fin12 wrote: » The guy who plays the brother who is fighting in the English army, is the main character in the film Jimmy's Hall, which is a really incredible story, an Irishman being deported from Ireland. Don't know if it that ever happened to anyone else in history, being deported from your own country.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Thats a curious and interesting perspective on it. Yet one that does seem to have pervaded much of the national consiousness (both those from the west, and those from Dublin. Ruled by the British ? The Irish were part of the ruling of the United Kingdom including the 32 counties of Ireland. This feeling of being ruled by an external, other, 'British', was a distinctly minority and misguided one, latched on to by all manner of misfits and oddballs as the cause of any grievance or gripe under the sun, Yet promoted ever since in a 100 years of spin that sought to justify the rebellion, fracture of the country, hardships, and myriad ills that resulted. The series, with the limitations of television drama admittedly, also falls into this trap, presenting a very skewed, indeed inaccurate, image of the wider population beyond the little band of play soldiers and dreamers.
P. Breathnach wrote: » There was something a bit like it in the 1950s: judges told people convicted of middling-serious crimes like assault and battery that they would be spared jail if they decided to emigrate. I can't remember if Britain was mentioned, but my impression was that it was seen as going to England to avoid jail.
CramCycle wrote: » It still happens to this day, a man with a decent rap sheet who ran over a cyclist and killed him while on drugs was let off on the basis he went back to his own country.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » That's not at all the same thing.
CramCycle wrote: » Someone being spared a jail sentence over a serious crime involving bodily harm if they moved abroad? Sounds very similar. Admittedly the offender was moving back home rather than emigrating but it is similar, so there are major differences but the point is the same, the guilty escaped jail because they left the country and the judicial system were Ok with that.
