nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2016 RTE Drama: Rebellion - no spoilers please (mod warning in post #1)

The Rape of Lucretia

All star cast and looks like being one of the highlights of the TV year :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ueThSkUgk4

Should be a fitting tribute to the birth of the nation and RTE centrepiece of the 2016 commemorations.

Mod: please use spoiler tags for spoilers

Find more posts tagged with

rte

television

drama

1916

rebellion

Quick Links

Comments

nagdefy

Deleted User wrote: »

Leadership as in not going over to negotiate the actual treaty?

It's a hard one to argue with TippGunner.

Though Dev had his own ideas of leadership. In that he would send a delegation and not compromise the Republic by he, the president, going himself. I know Lloyd George the British Prime Minister was there..but the Empire was never going to be compromised! If you know what i mean.

Also the boys never phoned home.

I flip flop on both sides of the argument tbh but the more i read and think about it i don't feel it was as simple as setting up Collins as he knew they couldn't bring back the republic.

But yeah at the end of the day he should have went. Bad judgement at best..

The Rape of Lucretia

That was a damp squib alright. Weakest ep of the series for sure. But I suppose, thats in line with the damp squib ending of the proceedings themselves, so hard to make much drama out of it. Just tieing up the loose ends.

Overall though, worthwhile.
An interesting depiction of the times and events, but mainly of the people that made the society of the time. Not one for those familiar with the nitty gritty and minutiae of the events themselves, but then it wasnt intending to be a history lesson on the blow by blow. And all the more interesting for that. So certainly the correct choice by the writers.
At this remove, when it is ancient history now but for the oldest of out population, it is a general feel for the mood of the time that is interesting to look at. Few have any of the old hangups of our parents or grandparents colouring their views - or better still, be able not to have a view at all.
A series that sought to see the wood from the trees.

Did look like a follow-on is setup !

P. Breathnach

nagdefy wrote: »

The crying/vomiting scene in the stone breaker's yard in Kilmainham was ridiculous

I don't know. Not in the sense that I disagree with you, but in the sense that I really don't know how people might react in that situation: they had steeled themselves to face death bravely, even heroically; then, just as they were expecting to be marched before the firing squad, they were told that it wasn't going to happen; all the courage they had summoned up was suddenly unnecessary. I can't imagine how one might feel, but they would hardly react in the same way as if they were told that lunch was going to be delayed.

The Rape of Lucretia

Curio for the true historians among you, when did 'Rebellion' become 'Rising' ?
Was the term used at the time ? Both terms ? Interchangeably ? Or by one side or the other ?
Or was it the first step in revisionist history on the topic ?

nagdefy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't know. Not in the sense that I disagree with you, but in the sense that I really don't know how people might react in that situation: they had steeled themselves to face death bravely, even heroically; then, just as they were expecting to be marched before the firing squad, they were told that it wasn't going to happen; all the courage they had summoned up was suddenly unnecessary. I can't imagine how one might feel, but they would hardly react in the same way as if they were told that lunch was going to be delayed.

That's true. i agree in the sense that we're all human and after such fatigue, tension etc God knows how anyone would react. But they picked Dev and not one of the others is the point i'm making more so.

BlibBlab

nagdefy wrote: »

Yes i knew that but changing the context and having it take place at an execution scene that was fictional took the biscuit. Implied cowardice.

But that's the lazy narrative fed for over 30 years now and especially since the Michael Collins 1996 film. It's almost obligatory to have jovial Mick clapping lads on the back and pedantic Dev being sly or cowardly. I expected they'd do as much tonight. No middle ground on the two men.

He was sly, a trait the Fianna Fail party he created never lost. He made some awful decisions that hurt this country from the war of independence to his death.

josephryan1989

nagdefy wrote: »

Yes i knew that but changing the context and having it take place at an execution scene that was fictional took the biscuit. Implied cowardice.

But that's the lazy narrative fed for over 30 years now and especially since the Michael Collins 1996 film. It's almost obligatory to have jovial Mick clapping lads on the back and pedantic Dev being sly or cowardly. I expected they'd do as much tonight. No middle ground on the two men.

De Valera was the Irish De Gaulle.

nagdefy

No shame in having a nervous breakdown either for Dev. many great leaders have had them.. Lincoln, Churchill bouts of 'the black dog'. Many many others.

One more notorious leader to suffer mental breakdowns in the 1620s was Oliver Cromwell. Pity it wasn't in the 1640s

The Rape of Lucretia

josephryan1989 wrote: »

De Valera was the Irish De Gaulle.

Hard to say who of the two was the more guilty of, and had the greater autocratic leadership aspirations and mentality, but yes, similar.

[Deleted User]

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I have seen it before, its an excellent interview. Wogan has great insights and observations. RIP.

That program is a load of nonsense tbh but that's my opinion and for another thread

nagdefy

BlibBlab wrote: »

He was sly, a trait the Fianna Fail party he created never lost. He made some awful decisions that hurt this country from the war of independence to his death.

The trouble with being in politics for a very long time into your 90s is you will make mistakes. The young man who dies who never led his country for any length of time will always be the romantic hero.

I wouldn't say Lemass, Aiken, Brian Lenihan, David Andrews, George Colley to name but a few Fianna Failers were sly. Major generalisation.

I think we have the king of sly and cute hoorism leading us at the moment.. Deputy Kenny. He won't even give us a date for a general election.

P. Breathnach

nagdefy wrote: »

That's true. i agree in the sense that we're all human and after such fatigue, tension etc God knows how anyone would react. But they picked Dev and not one of the others is the point i'm making more so.

Yes, overall, Dev's reputation was given a rough ride by the programme.

While I think that his later career was deserving of strong criticism, I had never come across any suggestion that he performed particularly badly in 1916. Perhaps not brilliantly, but most of the rebel leaders were somewhat militarily inept.

The Rape of Lucretia

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I had never come across any suggestion that he performed particularly badly in 1916.

No ? I am no expert on the events but did know those suggestions and thought this was a pretty standard and widely, if debated/contested, view on Dev's rising. Commented on in some way in any treatment of him or the rebellion.

Lt Dan

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not as easy as people think to create a drama and work within constraint. I'm no fan of rte and the outrageous salaries they pay to

I wasn't having a go at you by the way.

There was plenty to work on in this project. The producers were too afraid to spew out history. Frankly, they were afraid that the Irish viewer, whose tax went to this project, were too stupid or unwilling to grasp the nuances of the period. They taught the viewer wanted more style rather than substance.

There was plenty of potential dramatic scenes to be had by putting more meat on incidents that they half arsedly covered, and they still could have put the women involved in the story. eg Spend the first episode dealing with pre Rising. With incidents like having one of the women working for John Dillon / John Redmond and show their reaction in Westminster throughout the period. Dillon's post rising speech was a master piece. Elizabeth's back story could have had more meat , all within 4-5 minutes, maybe she could have been involved or witnessed the IRB kidnapping Connolly and twisting his arm to join up with them; also the issues within IRB with Clarke (the real mastermind of the Rising) and McDermott (his prodigy) on one hand and Bulmer Hobson and McNeill on the other (1 minute job)

Clearly they had no intention of showing the more gruesome side of the war such as the murder of Francis Sheffton Sheehey and how the women reacted or the revenge attacks on North King Street. To be fair they did show one British incident of a civilian shooting (though technically, he was a solider) Instead they did show a few incidents of the rebels shooting Civilians (which did happen) But they made Pearse out to be some sort of lunatic (which is partly true) Of course, it is noticed that part of the production company is British, so no one wants another row as seen with The Wind That Shakes The Barely (also directed by a British person)

The Trials got no coverage and could easily been dramatic. Of course, the director probably thinks that would be going down the romantic Ireland route and idiots here would raise a statement that they somehow doubt that happened (with their admitted limited knowledge)

Despite that, they had no qualms showing Michael Collins extensively (that actor looked the part and was very very very convincing) They did accurately convey that De Valera lost the plot and most importantly, why no one ever dared to question his conduct during the Rising , even during the Civil War when people were bitter. (TP Coogan cited that his men stayed loyal and threatened anyone who opened their gobs) However, the scene of De Valera acting like a coward after being told that his execution was cancelled was uncalled for and there was a clear anti De Valera message there.

These incidents, while were legitimate (bar the puking incident), had no involvement of the women who were suppose to be central to the story and yet they were happy to include them.

Instead we got the will they won't they kiss, the pointless sex scenes and the pointless show down with the bit on the side and scorned wife. People are complaining, legitimately , about what was left out and what was included, there was plenty to work on. Dramatic licence and even a few historical inaccuracies could have been tolerated at some points. There is little excuse for the poor execution of the pace of the story either. And frankly I laugh at the comments made that you could clearly see the 6 million euro on the screen. Damn all actual fighting (which did not have to cost lot) and the slums looked decent enough. It glorified a bit on the Big House and Well to do (hence the reference to Downton Abbey) Alas , Strumpet City did show the story of the well off but was convincing with the other half of the population (with less money)

To be fair, the last episode was solid and they finaly made use of the women's story;

May conveyed what it was like for a woman who had divided loyalty and most importantly what it was like to bearing a child out of wedlock to a married man and the lack of options she had. Francis character seemed more solid though I thought it was going to go down Albert Noobs territory (dressing like a man, acting like a man and wanting to play a role in the raising of the child - such incidents did happen in life, the kiss) Elizabeth, meh, not used properly, the Belfast girl was more convincing

Lt Dan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, overall, Dev's reputation was given a rough ride by the programme.

While I think that his later career was deserving of strong criticism, I had never come across any suggestion that he performed particularly badly in 1916. Perhaps not brilliantly, but most of the rebel leaders were somewhat militarily inept.

TP Coogan dealt with it slightly but admitted that it was not conclusive. He did mention that his men remained very loyal to him through out his public life and that people were threatened if they made any negative comment. Coogan is known to have an axe to grind with the De Valera family

Ryle TDwyer, who is more sympathetic to De Valera, also touched on this period. But nothing conclusive. Nevertheless is was correct to show the warning that Jimmy received.

Suppose, if people knew that this last Commandant did not act bravely, it may have cast negative vibes about the other leaders. Remember, by June of 1916, there were post cards and masses said for the dead and poems written to St Padraig Pearse. Irish are weird. The legacy had to be protected , I guess.

De Valera was shown in an awful light compared to Collins.

If there is a War of Independence project in the pipeline, these writers and producers should be barred from doing it. It will only be an absolute revisionism of De Valera. Shame, as I think the actor who played Collins was great

P. Breathnach

Lt Dan wrote: »

...
To be fair, the last episode was solid and they finaly made use of the women's story;

May conveyed what it was like for a woman who had divided loyalty and most importantly what it was like to bearing a child out of wedlock to a married man and the lack of options she had. Francis character seemed more solid though I thought it was going to go down Albert Noobs territory (dressing like a man, acting like a man and wanting to play a role in the raising of the child - such incidents did happen in life, the kiss) Elizabeth, meh, not used properly, the Belfast girl was more convincing

And Minnie's life went just as it was shaping up to be before the rebellion, even though a good deal happened to her and around her.

And her mother suffered, including losing a son, but went on into an uncertain future with stoic resignation.

nagdefy

[QUOTE=I think the actor who played Collins was great[/QUOTE]

He was a good solid Cork man alright..

Bellerstring

Bellerstring wrote: »

Can't believe the broadly positive reviews for the first episode of this.
It was everything I feared RTE would do wrong.
They sacrificed the story of the signatories and leaders of the insurrection, the planning, the setbacks and doubts, the drive that led them to the GPO, for a glossy costume drama about love and infidelity across the social divide.
I thought it was cliched nonsense, more suited to a modern soap opera than a serious reflection of the birth of our nation.
Could they not have enlisted someone like Paul Greengrass to direct this?
Certainly would have injected some badly needed grittiness and realism into it (try Bloody Sunday or United 93. No unnecessary love stories/unwanted pregnancies in those!)
I read somewhere that this will be equal to RTE's production of Strumpet City.
It won't.

Same opinion for the last, and all episodes in between.
Was looking forward to this since it was first mooted a year ago, but feel sadly let down by revisionist, 21st century politically correct nonsense.
A wasted opportunity.

Lt Dan

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you read "Éamon de Valera : a will to power by Ronan Fanning" you will see that De Valera was more then a bit clueless in 1916.
He had a nervous breakdown during it, also he was his usual pedantic self when he refuse to allow his men to escape before the British forces arrived (unlike other leaders. He wanted them all to surrender the "right way".
But he was no solider. Politician yes, but soldier no.

Most of the leaders were "a bit clueless".

The puking incident was putting the boot in. It made him look like a coward while in detention. Seconds later it shows Collins to be a great friendly fellow - Sadly, people are stupid enough to put find that 1+1 = 5. Reports from British don't record such a thing, nor any comments from other people (worryingly, from a Historian point of view British files on De Valera have yet to be released, and we know De Valera burned a lot of papers during World War 2)

They could have put more meat on the ambush scene with was carried out by his men (and portrayed by Francis and Jimmy) That was the time to highlight the incident. Or they could have just have left the valid scene where Jimmy was warned to keep his mouth shut about De Valera's behaviour and omissions

Lt Dan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And Minnie's life went just as it was shaping up to be before the rebellion, even though a good deal happened to her and around her.

And her mother suffered, including losing a son, but went on into an uncertain future with stoic resignation.

Elizabeth's parents had conflicting views on the whole thing. The mother did not appear to be as British as her Protestant husband. Perhaps that was a mixed marriage.? What would have happened had he lived? Or was it that she was more concerned about her children and was not prepared to abandon them as readily, it appeared , as the father was.

Minnie's story was getting interesting.(even Elizabeth's brother seemed interesting - would he change?)

The Belfast girl seemed to have meat on her story

Actually, Elizabeth's character was under cooked.

Lt Dan

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, overall, Dev's reputation was given a rough ride by the programme.

While I think that his later career was deserving of strong criticism, I had never come across any suggestion that he performed particularly badly in 1916. Perhaps not brilliantly, but most of the rebel leaders were somewhat militarily inept.

The things is though, it would have been hard to stomach the fact that he allowed himself to be portrayed as the great last Commandant , bastion of 1916, the automatic number choice to head the movement after 1916.

Even Brugha of all people could easily have been jealous or annoyed considering he performed heroically in 1916 (key point to remember about him is that he was like a bull in a China shop)

Imagine the anger those surrounded around the area of the ambush must have felt when De Valera failed to support them, especially when Boland's Mill (and South Union) were two of the better posts selected for the war.

The 1966 Celebrations must have been hard enough to bear. ( Haughey the cute hoor made sure that De Valera was all over it - and boost his Presidential Election campaign)

Alas the men and women involved realised the legacy (and myth) could not be tarnished by news about De Valera's conduct , however understandable it was.

fin12

I thought rebellion was really boring, didn't learn anything from the program.

TCDStudent1

wp_rathead wrote: »

...so we learnt the whole "Brother and the Loan Shark" arc was completely pointless ...
I actually thought episode 2 and 3 was rather entertaining but overall I found the show bit disappointing..
That episode particularly was all over the place though - the slow mo bit with fist in the air was just cringey

Best scene of the series imo was the Shooting of the Policeman at Dublin Castle - that was very well done

I think the money lender story might have been written with a 2nd series in mind. We see how irresponsible Harry is with money. Now, he seems to be the head of a bank if he succeeds his father.

Lt Dan wrote: »

I wasn't having a go at you by the way.

There was plenty of potential dramatic scenes to be had by putting more meat on incidents that they half arsedly covered, and they still could have put the women involved in the story. eg Spend the first episode dealing with pre Rising. With incidents like having one of the women working for John Dillon / John Redmond and show their reaction in Westminster throughout the period. Dillon's post rising speech was a master piece. Elizabeth's back story could have had more meat , all within 4-5 minutes, maybe she could have been involved or witnessed the IRB kidnapping Connolly and twisting his arm to join up with them; also the issues within IRB with Clarke (the real mastermind of the Rising) and McDermott (his prodigy) on one hand and Bulmer Hobson and McNeill on the other (1 minute job)

There is no way they could have fitted all that into the time you suggest. The only way they could succeed in that was if every viewer had a detailed knowledge of 1916. However, while many posters on this thread are interested in history (including me), not everybody is. You have to remember that people with no knowledge or limited knowledge of 1916 also watch the series. Imagine putting in a scene of Bulmer Hobson for just 1 minute. There would be endless questions of "Wait, hang on - who's he now?" Or putting in the IRB kidnapping James Connolly. Again, it would just confuse viewers who have no knowledge of 1916 with them asking "What, why are they kidnapping this guy when he's on their side?"
One thing that the show probably did do well was to fit in as much of the rising as they did.

TCDStudent1

fin12 wrote: »

I thought rebellion was really boring, didn't learn anything from the program.

From my viewpoint, I actually learnt a lot from it. I had read a fair bit about the rising (not as much as other parts of Irish history admittedly). But I found myself reading up much more about the women of the rising like Lynne. I also found some small snippets fascinating, like the church moving to protect it's possessions. And British army soliders home on leave being called to assist in quelling the rising (something that would seem so obvious but I just never thought of).
So maybe I didnt learn a whole lot directly from it but it certainly got me thinking about aspects of the rising that I never did before. And it made me go read up on those things.

Strazdas

Lt Dan wrote: »

I wasn't having a go at you by the way.

There was plenty to work on in this project. The producers were too afraid to spew out history. Frankly, they were afraid that the Irish viewer, whose tax went to this project, were too stupid or unwilling to grasp the nuances of the period. They taught the viewer wanted more style rather than substance.

There was plenty of potential dramatic scenes to be had by putting more meat on incidents that they half arsedly covered, and they still could have put the women involved in the story. eg Spend the first episode dealing with pre Rising. With incidents like having one of the women working for John Dillon / John Redmond and show their reaction in Westminster throughout the period. Dillon's post rising speech was a master piece. Elizabeth's back story could have had more meat , all within 4-5 minutes, maybe she could have been involved or witnessed the IRB kidnapping Connolly and twisting his arm to join up with them; also the issues within IRB with Clarke (the real mastermind of the Rising) and McDermott (his prodigy) on one hand and Bulmer Hobson and McNeill on the other (1 minute job)

Clearly they had no intention of showing the more gruesome side of the war such as the murder of Francis Sheffton Sheehey and how the women reacted or the revenge attacks on North King Street. To be fair they did show one British incident of a civilian shooting (though technically, he was a solider) Instead they did show a few incidents of the rebels shooting Civilians (which did happen) But they made Pearse out to be some sort of lunatic (which is partly true) Of course, it is noticed that part of the production company is British, so no one wants another row as seen with The Wind That Shakes The Barely (also directed by a British person)

The Trials got no coverage and could easily been dramatic. Of course, the director probably thinks that would be going down the romantic Ireland route and idiots here would raise a statement that they somehow doubt that happened (with their admitted limited knowledge)

Despite that, they had no qualms showing Michael Collins extensively (that actor looked the part and was very very very convincing) They did accurately convey that De Valera lost the plot and most importantly, why no one ever dared to question his conduct during the Rising , even during the Civil War when people were bitter. (TP Coogan cited that his men stayed loyal and threatened anyone who opened their gobs) However, the scene of De Valera acting like a coward after being told that his execution was cancelled was uncalled for and there was a clear anti De Valera message there.

These incidents, while were legitimate (bar the puking incident), had no involvement of the women who were suppose to be central to the story and yet they were happy to include them.

Instead we got the will they won't they kiss, the pointless sex scenes and the pointless show down with the bit on the side and scorned wife. People are complaining, legitimately , about what was left out and what was included, there was plenty to work on. Dramatic licence and even a few historical inaccuracies could have been tolerated at some points. There is little excuse for the poor execution of the pace of the story either. And frankly I laugh at the comments made that you could clearly see the 6 million euro on the screen. Damn all actual fighting (which did not have to cost lot) and the slums looked decent enough. It glorified a bit on the Big House and Well to do (hence the reference to Downton Abbey) Alas , Strumpet City did show the story of the well off but was convincing with the other half of the population (with less money)

To be fair, the last episode was solid and they finaly made use of the women's story;

May conveyed what it was like for a woman who had divided loyalty and most importantly what it was like to bearing a child out of wedlock to a married man and the lack of options she had. Francis character seemed more solid though I thought it was going to go down Albert Noobs territory (dressing like a man, acting like a man and wanting to play a role in the raising of the child - such incidents did happen in life, the kiss) Elizabeth, meh, not used properly, the Belfast girl was more convincing

I thought the episode was absolutely fine and for the first time we went heavy on characterisation. I'm convinced the only way the series would have been warmly received is if it had gone in favour of a nationalist / republican narrative. Once people realised this was not the case (episode 2 onwards) the negativity seemed to start : "awful", "abysmal", "boring", "revisionist" etc. I'd actually be interested to hear what an international audience would make of it.

We should perhaps have guessed that Frances was a lesbian or had lesbian tendencies and Harry Butler surprisingly turned out to be one of the highlights of the series : lol @ him trying to bribe the detective into freeing Elizabeth

fin12

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

From my viewpoint, I actually learnt a lot from it. I had read a fair bit about the rising (not as much as other parts of Irish history admittedly). But I found myself reading up much more about the women of the rising like Lynne. I also found some small snippets fascinating, like the church moving to protect it's possessions. And British army soliders home on leave being called to assist in quelling the rising (something that would seem so obvious but I just never thought of).
So maybe I didnt learn a whole lot directly from it but it certainly got me thinking about aspects of the rising that I never did before. And it made me go read up on those things.

I just think I would be better of watching documentaries on it, does anyone know some that are available on line?

nagdefy

fin12 wrote: »

I just think I would be better of watching documentaries on it, does anyone know some that are available on line?

On youtube..

'The Man Who Lost Ireland' about Sir John Maxwell and the Rising Executions is a good RTE production from 10 years ago.

Lt Dan

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

There is no way they could have fitted all that into the time you suggest. The only way they could succeed in that was if every viewer had a detailed knowledge of 1916. However, while many posters on this thread are interested in history (including me), not everybody is. You have to remember that people with no knowledge or limited knowledge of 1916 also watch the series. Imagine putting in a scene of Bulmer Hobson for just 1 minute. There would be endless questions of "Wait, hang on - who's he now?" Or putting in the IRB kidnapping James Connolly. Again, it would just confuse viewers who have no knowledge of 1916 with them asking "What, why are they kidnapping this guy when he's on their side?"
One thing that the show probably did do well was to fit in as much of the rising as they did.

It was possible to get some of it in, especially Redmond and Dillon, that element should definitely have been in. The IRB-Connolly/Hobson stuff might have been superfluous as we had Pearse and St Enda's . The scenes with Hammond's wife and May could have been scraped, even the pregnancy story - but maybe not as we found out that that had a purpose in the last episode

It could have been done in a way that people would get it. Don't treat people like idiots, even if many of them are. (not referring to you here)

Those who don't get Bulmer Hobson or don't know who he is, don't really have to. A dramatic scene could have been done with that. Showing Connolly to be a voice in the future rebellion have competing and different views to Pearse and then being kidnapped (Love / Hate style) a scene later and told to join them would hardly confuse people, if done right. Drama and action baby, drama and action

Considering how utterly pointless last weeks episode was, much of it could have been cut out.(or was it the week before, it was so forgettable and dealt with little , I can't even remember when it was on)

God forbid people wouldn't put down their mobiles and facebook and do some research after watching rebellion. If they had no problem getting Love Hate, 24, The Wire, Homelands or whatever crap drama was the trend , surely they could have got some of these parts.?

Remember BBC/RTE Rebel Heart? They managed to get 1916, Tan War and Civil War all covered within a similar amount of episodes and covered a lot of incidents as inspired by the books of O'Malley and Barry

Strazdas

Lt Dan wrote: »

It was possible to get some of it in, especially Redmond and Dillon, that element should definitely have been in. The IRB-Connolly/Hobson stuff might have been superfluous as we had Pearse and St Enda's . The scenes with Hammond's wife and May could have been scraped, even the pregnancy story - but maybe not as we found out that that had a purpose in the last episode

It could have been done in a way that people would get it. Don't treat people like idiots, even if many of them are. (not referring to you here)

Those who don't get Bulmer Hobson or don't know who he is, don't really have to. A dramatic scene could have been done with that. Showing Connolly to be a voice in the future rebellion have competing and different views to Pearse and then being kidnapped (Love / Hate style) a scene later and told to join them would hardly confuse people, if done right. Drama and action baby, drama and action

Considering how utterly pointless last weeks episode was, much of it could have been cut out.(or was it the week before, it was so forgettable and dealt with little , I can't even remember when it was on)

God forbid people wouldn't put down their mobiles and facebook and do some research after watching rebellion. If they had no problem getting Love Hate, 24, The Wire, Homelands or whatever crap drama was the trend , surely they could have got some of these parts.?

Remember BBC/RTE Rebel Heart? They managed to get 1916, Tan War and Civil War all covered within a similar amount of episodes and covered a lot of incidents as inspired by the books of O'Malley and Barry

From what I can recall, Rebel Heart was a bit of damp squib ratings wise despite a fair amount of hype beforehand. It certainly didn't come into the 'big success' category.

Lt Dan

Strazdas wrote: »

I thought the episode was absolutely fine and for the first time we went heavy on characterisation. I'm convinced the only way the series would have been warmly received is if it had gone in favour of a nationalist / republican narrative. Once people realised this was not the case (episode 2 onwards) the negativity seemed to start : "awful", "abysmal", "boring", "revisionist" etc. I'd actually be interested to hear what an international audience would make of it.

We should perhaps have guessed that Frances was a lesbian or had lesbian tendencies and Harry Butler surprisingly turned out to be one of the highlights of the series : lol @ him trying to bribe the detective into freeing Elizabeth

No major complaints about the last episode , myself. There was a fair bit a meat on it and even a decent story. I didn't mind Harry at all. He was able to shine in the last episode . "Up me" was a good one

Was that really a lesbian kiss or an act of compassion? lol. Probably the former. Not sure about her, she had the hots for Pearse until he spurned her a few times

Wrong on your idea of what would be warmly received. That is also unfair and down right insulting. Intelligent people, even with Republican sympathies know well what 1916 was and was not and have spent time studying beyond a secondary school text book

. How could they not? Attitudes have changed since 1966. State records have been released , people in their last years came out and gave their stories Check youtube with interviews from veterans whose story is far from romantic. David Nelligan came out and said knowing what he had known by then, he would never have done what he did during the Tan War and that Anti Treaty lads were you know what. Others admitted that they killed civilians in a matter of fact manner . None of them glorified killing British soldiers. Many of them said the Professional Tommie were grand and not like the Tans or Auxiliaries . That 1916 men were not popular when they surrendered by such unpopularity was not completely widespread

Many of the books written in the romantic Ireland way were often written by people who were not involved - see the problems raised by the author who wrote Liam Deasy's book. Earnie O'Malley was far from ignoring the problems or painting the movement in a way that it was not. Tom Barry too, for most part. Richard Mulchay is famous for pointing out that many IRA units struggled to take a decent sized RIC barracks never mind running the Brits into the sea.

There has been an absolute nonsense assumption, by people who are defensive of the show, when belittling the historical issues raised by many people over the various social media sources - "amateur historian", "eating school text books", the latter being a hilarious one. All often stated by people who don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to Irish history. Brilliantly such defenses are often not followed up with an actual counter argument containing any facts, hence, the major problem with revisionists - the failure to that into context the standard of the day or replacing facts and evidence with their own theory or speculation - the big one for me is what would happen with Home Rule (people should bloody read the text of the bills first)

The criticism started the first night! Like films inspired by historical events, glaring inaccuracies get called out immediately . It got worse when actually the so called drama and acting border lined Fair City Standards

As a whole, it was NOT critical of the men of 1916. It was neutral, tell it as it is story. Nothing wrong with that. The perception however is another thing, but one must expect that people are intelligent

Most of the complaints has been on the over use of the women's story (what story?) that had little purpose at all (could have been dealt with much better) and expectation that Pearse and Co would get more analysis and an expectation of covering some actually fighting. The other complaints were the script/dialog and pace . Had people known what this would have turned out to be , it may never have got the big ratings on the first night in the first place. Not everyone wanted to watch another costume drama that was going no where in particular

Who cares what the International world thinks, it is not their history. Nothing worse than a pack of lies being allowed to be portrayed .In fairness, there were NO lies about the Republicans in this - just portrayed badly and completely failed to show context and the true British reaction Without showing the context of what happened, it looked like the IRB had no good reason to rebel , or even any reason and they were just a bunch of nut jobs