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

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Or it was a purely accidental result that made them look like a smarter bunch of men than they were.

Sometimes victory depends on making fewer mistakes than one's enemies.

Regards...jmcc

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Was wondering how long it would take before you started to roll out the "strawman" line of attack!

You seem to like to use military terms like you know what they mean. You don't. The Rising may have been a tactical defeat but in what it achieved, it was a strategic victory.

To be honest jmcc, all people on here are sensing from you is a general antagonism towards all things RTE, regardless of what they broadcast.

Is that the vote of the jury in the RTE canteen?

Regards...jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

With your ability to create so many strawman arguments so rapidly, did you ever consider a career as a writer of fiction?

Regards...jmcc

That's not a strawman argument. It's a fact. People like to complain. They'll always find something to complain about. It's relevant to the post I was replying to and all of the things I listed are pretty much the things people complained about when discussing Rebellion.

Shurimgreat

jmcc wrote: »

With your ability to create so many strawman arguments so rapidly, did you ever consider a career as a writer of fiction?

Regards...jmcc

Was wondering how long it would take before you started to roll out the "strawman" line of attack!

To be honest jmcc, all people on here are sensing from you is a general antagonism towards all things RTE, regardless of what they broadcast.

Shurimgreat

jmcc wrote: »

You can tell them just that if it pleases you. That's exactly what is driving a lot of the criticism of the series. That and the really crass Political Correctness and anachronistic Dortspeak dialogue. To paraphrase one cardboard character, it was a crime scene in a war zone.

Regards...jmcc

Generalised criticism without specific examples. I'm sure you can do better.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

And then they would have found something else to complain about. Pearse didn't walk like that. Connolly's mustache was never that long. There's too many people from South County Dublin involved in the production. That guy's uncle works in the RTÉ canteen. They should have included this. They should have included that. They should have shown every single execution in great detail. The should have given the entire RTÉ schedule for 2016 over to a minute by minute recreation of 1916. The British soldiers should have had devil horns on their hats to make it 100% clear that they were the bad guys. Collins should have been riding a white horse and been centre of attention despite having relatively little involvement in events.

With your ability to create so many strawman arguments so rapidly, did you ever consider a career as a writer of fiction?

Regards...jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

It may have been a tactical defeat but it was a strategic victory far beyond what the leaders of 1916 could have hoped.

Regards...jmcc

Or it was a purely accidental result that made them look like a smarter bunch of men than they were.

Strazdas wrote: »

It seems the only way Rebellion could have escaped this type of flak is if they'd gone the 1966 route and keep things very black and white and definitely kept any shades of revisionism out of things.

And then they would have found something else to complain about. Pearse didn't walk like that. Connolly's mustache was never that long. There's too many people from South County Dublin involved in the production. That guy's uncle works in the RTÉ canteen. They should have included this. They should have included that. They should have shown every single execution in great detail. The should have given the entire RTÉ schedule for 2016 over to a minute by minute recreation of 1916. The British soldiers should have had devil horns on their hats to make it 100% clear that they were the bad guys. Collins should have been riding a white horse and been centre of attention despite having relatively little involvement in events.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The 1916 Rising was a blood sacrifice and a protest in arms which succeeded in awakening the nation.

It may have been a tactical defeat but it was a strategic victory far beyond what the leaders of 1916 could have hoped.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

Don't forget the political correctness and anachronistic dialogue accusation has frequently been levelled at the juggernaut that is Downton Abbey.

You seem to be as confused as to why I was referring to Rebellion as Down Town Abbey.

Regards...jmcc

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It also irked me that everything and everybody seemed too clean.

I could probably argue a little against most points that people have found fault with in Rebellion but this is 100% the thing that annoyed me most. Even leaving the fact they were all involved in an armed battle with fires blazing around the city and then thrown in stinking cells.... they hadn't been home to have a wash for about 2 weeks. Even just walking around town minding your own business for 2 weeks without having a wash you're going to be filthy.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

This idea that what was shown on Rebellion was in any way anti Irish or pro British or anything like that drives me nuts. For every moment they showed the rebels or leaders in a less than flattering light there was another moment showing the British in the same way.

Not a single English character came away looking good, did they?

No Irish characters, real or fictional, were completely hung out to dry either?

It seems the only way Rebellion could have escaped this type of flak is if they'd gone the 1966 route and keep things very black and white and definitely kept any shades of revisionism out of things.

P. Breathnach

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think once more you are missing the point that Rebellion is a drama. There are hundreds of similar dramas out there like it, set against various wars, as well as novels. War and Peace, Brideshead Revisited, For Whom the Bell tolls, Generation War and so on and so forth. All have stuff "made up" in them.

The whole point of dramas is that much of it is made up. Otherwise it wouldn't be a drama.

Again, I really would advise the historical anoraks to give dramas like Rebellion and so on a very wide berth. Stick to the historians and the factual programs.

And that is the issue that bothers a number of people who are posting here: they wanted a different programme. That's no more valid than complaining about a station broadcasting the news at a time when you wanted to watch a situation comedy.

I accept the basic premise of Rebellion: a drama set in the context of the 1916 Rising, where the rising impacted on the lives of the players.

I think that by and large, the treatment of the historical context was good. I don't think it was insufficient, because there is only so much that can be handled in the time available, and only so much the second target market, those outside Ireland, might want.

The budget was insufficient for major set construction or for large-scale battle scenes. But they were not necessary for the drama.

The two great weaknesses were:
(a) the script, which did not deliver good story development, and where some of the lines jarred;
(b) outside locations - there was overuse of a few places, and a failure to find others that might have worked well enough (they might have looked outside Dublin).

There were minor weaknesses in some of the performances, and some of the plot details (e.g. Frances appearing to be lesbian was no more than a distraction).

It also irked me that everything and everybody seemed too clean.

jmcc wrote: »

You can tell them just that if it pleases you. That's exactly what is driving a lot of the criticism of the series. That and the really crass Political Correctness and anachronistic Dortspeak dialogue. To paraphrase one cardboard character, it was a crime scene in a war zone.

Regards...jmcc

I completely agree on that sentence, especially when I see a lot of the criticism elsewhere claiming that RTE are pursuing a specific agenda with Rebellion.

Don't forget the political correctness and anachronistic dialogue accusation has frequently been levelled at the juggernaut that is Downton Abbey.

Strazdas wrote: »

I've a feeling the writers of Rebellion would take great issue with the idea they are pursuing a West Brit / anti Irish-nationalism agenda or that they are filled with some form of post colonial self loathing to the point where they are embarrassed to be Irish.

You can tell them just that if it pleases you. That's exactly what is driving a lot of the criticism of the series. That and the really crass Political Correctness and anachronistic Dortspeak dialogue. To paraphrase one cardboard character, it was a crime scene in a war zone.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

I've a feeling the writers of Rebellion would take great issue with the idea they are pursuing a West Brit / anti Irish-nationalism agenda or that they are filled with some form of post colonial self loathing to the point where they are embarrassed to be Irish.

This idea that what was shown on Rebellion was in any way anti Irish or pro British or anything like that drives me nuts. For every moment they showed the rebels or leaders in a less than flattering light there was another moment showing the British in the same way.

Not a single English character came away looking good, did they?

No Irish characters, real or fictional, were completely hung out to dry either?

Caprica wrote: »

I thought it was a very disappointing series, can't believe it cost €6m. I though it was poorly written and acted, with most of the characters pretty much forgettable. Hopefully there won't be a second series. It's a pity for RTE as they have been on a good roll with their dramas in recent years.

You didn't like it, that's fine but I don't really get this shock at the cost (not just from you). It's expensive by RTÉ's standard but it's not like it cost €6 million and everything was shot on one wobbly set with painted sheets outside the windows and they were all dressed in their own clothes.

For comparison the average cost of an episode of Downton Abbey is £1 million and the majority of their episodes are people sitting around talking. Most US network dramas cost an average of $3 million dollars per episode.

And I don't know what dramas you've been watching on RTÉ that make you think it's been on a roll. Clean Break from last year was a cheap Happy Valley knock off, Amber was a cheap "Nordic Noir" knock off, Love/Hate was exploitative rubbish, although bizarrely popular, which is no indication of quality. Everyone seems to have hated Charlie. What else have they done?

jmcc wrote: »

Harris and his Workers Party cronies plagiarising the "New Journalism" of the 1960s and ranting about "factualism". Corrupting the whole journalistic process and turning RTE into a discredited propaganda station. Then telling RTE reporters to run the UVF/UDA line on everything. Taking a very pro-British angle on anything that happened instead of providing balanced journalism.

This is a Republic despite some people wishing it was still part of the UK. You use the term "republican" like it is some kind of insult. But that anti-Irish propaganda doesn't work any more. The Irish people are a lot more mature, better educated and better informed. Thus when the likes of "Rebellion" is produced by the "national" broadcaster, it doesn't get treated with the universal acclaim that RTE expected. It is treated with derision. The sad thing is that RTE is capable of so much better as that programme on Ireland before the Rising showed.

What some of the posters here, if they are not trolls, and some in RTE don't seem to understand is that Irish people no longer feel inferior. The majority of us are no longer toadying little cretins waiting for a pat on the shoulder from some lower middle class pseudo "royal" German family. We are Irish. We are not British. The Rising is part of our history.

Regards...jmcc

Wouldn't the easiest thing to do would be to present the Rising leaders in Rebellion as noble and heroic and with the benefit of hindsight, totally justified in their actions? That's how it was presented in 1966 and was well received.

I've a feeling the writers of Rebellion would take great issue with the idea they are pursuing a West Brit / anti Irish-nationalism agenda or that they are filled with some form of post colonial self loathing to the point where they are embarrassed to be Irish.

Shurimgreat

josephryan1989 wrote: »

That's why we have historians and historians find agreement on the facts of what happened during the Rising. There are more than enough witness accounts of what occurred and from numerous angles to faithfully reconstruct the events as they happened.

I think once more you are missing the point that Rebellion is a drama. There are hundreds of similar dramas out there like it, set against various wars, as well as novels. War and Peace, Brideshead Revisited, For Whom the Bell tolls, Generation War and so on and so forth. All have stuff "made up" in them.

The whole point of dramas is that much of it is made up. Otherwise it wouldn't be a drama.

Again, I really would advise the historical anoraks to give dramas like Rebellion and so on a very wide berth. Stick to the historians and the factual programs.

HeidiHeidi

josephryan1989 wrote: »

That's why we have historians and historians find agreement on the facts of what happened during the Rising. There are more than enough witness accounts of what occurred and from numerous angles to faithfully reconstruct the events as they happened.

Historians have angles and biases too. Very little in this world is black and white. Don't believe everything you read (and clearly you read a lot).

Caprica

I thought it was a very disappointing series, can't believe it cost €6m. I though it was poorly written and acted, with most of the characters pretty much forgettable. Hopefully there won't be a second series. It's a pity for RTE as they have been on a good roll with their dramas in recent years.

Strazdas wrote: »

Others are of the opinion

Who? The Unionist John Bruton? The dead Peter Hart (via Ouija Board communication with Eoghan Harris)? Or is this just some RTE talking point that you've picked up?

Regards...jmcc

josephryan1989

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Whose "facts" though?

I'm assuming you're not 120 years old, so have no direct experience of the time. So everything you know is someone's version of events. The same event can be seen from lots of angles, and won't necessarily be told/seen in the same way afterwards.

That's why we have historians and historians find agreement on the facts of what happened during the Rising. There are more than enough witness accounts of what occurred and from numerous angles to faithfully reconstruct the events as they happened.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Whose "facts" though?

I'm assuming you're not 120 years old, so have no direct experience of the time. So everything you know is someone's version of events. The same event can be seen from lots of angles, and won't necessarily be told/seen in the same way afterwards.

Slightly off topic here but there's a documentary called Stories We Tell which illustrates this point perfectly. It's not a particularly interesting story but basically there's different members of the same family and some other people telling the story of something that happened to them and even though it's the same sequence of events they're talking about they all tell it completely differently to the point that it's almost several different stories being told.

But I digress....

HeidiHeidi

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If they stuck to the facts and didn't make up bullsh*t they wouldn't get it wrong would they?

Whose "facts" though?

I'm assuming you're not 120 years old, so have no direct experience of the time. So everything you know is someone's version of events. The same event can be seen from lots of angles, and won't necessarily be told/seen in the same way afterwards.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If they stuck to the facts and didn't make up bullsh*t they wouldn't get it wrong would they?

People are still divided about the Rising though. Some people think it was totally necessary and that those who carried it out were courageous and heroic for striking a blow against a brutal and oppressive regime. Others are of the opinion that there were only 1500 people involved in the Rising and we could have worked our way towards independence without the Rising and a violent War of Independence and Civil War afterwards. It's impossible to square that circle through a TV drama IMO, you're bound to irritate part of your audience no matter what angle you go for.

Mebuntu wrote: »

RTE showed their own contempt for the series (and for us viewers) by running an ad for the 6-Nations on the screen right through Part 1 of the final episode.

Common practice on lots of TV channels these days.

josephryan1989

Strazdas wrote: »

In that case, Rebellion would have been about the actual Rising and Pearse, Connolly, Clarke etc.

As some people have pointed out here though, even such a series may have come under attack from the same people who are attacking Rebellion. In fact, I'd nearly bet money on it. It would probably be more of the same "This series could have been great but RTE made a complete mess of it and got the leaders of the Rising all wrong".

If they stuck to the facts and didn't make up bullsh*t they wouldn't get it wrong would they?