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

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think if the writing is strong enough it won't matter if it's another language or country or era or whatever.
Generation War is the perfect example of this. Three of the 5 main characters are involved in the war on the German side and another one is banging a Nazi commander to further her singing career (and other reasons). And yet most people would have found themselves ridiculously invested in the fate of all 5 main characters. 1864 is another example. I had no idea of the history behind that one and yet was very emotionally invested.

There's another aspect to good writing that you didn't mention: The unexpected. A good writer is always a few steps ahead of the audience. The Generation War characters were well done and the thing was that the older brother was the one who, based on the earlier episodes, was the one expected to die. But he survived. There's no real equivalent WTF moment/resolution in Rebellion.

Regards...jmcc

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again, not exactly a great comparison. Strumpet City focused almost entirely on fictional characters, had 7 episodes and didn't have to bother with dealing with characters like Pearse, Connolly, Devalera and so on in any detail.

The writer of Rebellion had a difficult issue, how to balance the leaders of the Rising with fictional characters and he was never going to please everyone.

Something like Downfall might be a better comparison - a film I know, but a mixture of characters - it balanced a plotline about Hitler with other plotlines of other characters. The BBC series War and Peace, on now, might also be a good comparison.

Strumpet City was pretty much a regular soapish style melodrama (though a very good quality one) which focussed on the relationships between the main characters and romantic relationships. It was actually very light and frothy and could be shown at 2.30pm in the afternoon if necessary, something that certainly couldn't be done with Rebellion.

iguana

This was a disappointing series over all. It looked fine, there were some anachronisms but even Mad Men had those from time to time so that's to be expected. There was some seriously unforgivable laziness with the scene continuity and I didn't feel the occasional forays into the docudrama style of direction worked well at all. The acting was mostly ok. The actor playing Peig was brutal and some of Gleeson's choices/direction were badly pulled off (most notably the constipation like grief) but other than that it was fine.

But the writing was very poor, it was like someone took an interesting first draft and made the show from it. Characters like Ingrid and George needed to be culled completely while Minnie and Harry needed to be minor supporting characters not characters with their own totally pointless storylines. Edward dropping dead added nothing to the story just sucked up more time. We didn't even see Elizabeth learning about his death and her feelings about it! May's story needed a re-write, sticking her out in Dalkey for days on end with her lover's wife and pregnancy reveal sucked the life out of the series. And the motivation of characters like Frances and Elizabeth needed to be explained better. It would have been nice to see some of Elizabeth's radicalisation, presumably at medical school with Kathleen Lynn. And what we learned about Frances in the last episode made even less sense than what I'd initially assumed about her. How does the fact that she and her mother were victims of theocratic interference make her want to support the ultra-religious Pearse? I can kind of see what they were trying to do but it was executed in a way that made no sense.

I was also left confused about Stephen. Was he a member of parliament? When did we learn that? I was shocked to hear that during his 'trial' for attempting suicide. That could have been a really interesting plot point throughout. Was he active in pursuing Home Rule? He always seemed in favour of it but totally passive in assuming it would happen. If he was a parliament member actively aiding Redmond then his fiance turning radical and literally at war against him would have been much more interesting. Also the suicide attempt. We saw him at the end of ep 4 contemplating killing himself, then the next we know George is telling him to keep it quiet. Did he actually try kill himself? Did he pull the trigger but move his hand at the last minute and shoot the ceiling? Did he try but the trigger mechanism was conveniently stuck? Did he just think about it, then decide against it but go report himself anyway in the hope of a discharge. I don't know but I do know that Minnie got paid to shag Harry after the credits rolled. Great story-telling priorities!!!

On top of that the history shown was real primary school stuff. Lots of surface knowledge but nothing in depth. I gained no understanding of why what happened happened and I feel that's because the writer didn't bother to do much more than very cursory research. I wouldn't have minded that so much if the story had been compelling but it wasn't. I think I'll give the series 3/10.

maudgonner wrote: »

Ah I dunno Strazdas, there's definitely an element of that. But there's also the fact that I felt more in the execution scenes of Seachtar than I did at any point during Rebellion. (I'm no history buff or glorifier of the leaders of the Rising btw, and Seachtar definitely had its own faults).

Rebellion failed at producing characters I cared about, situations that had me on the edge of my seat. It's a sad indictment when a documentary series is more successful at sparking emotion than a drama is.

Yes, Rebellion was hampered by having to portray the key military events of a one week Rising and also having to introduce us to it's characters and develop them. They were clearly caught between two stools. I've a funny feeling a second series (which I believe is to be set in 1918) would / will be much stronger on characterisation and getting to know what makes each of them tick. I'm sure too that the writers have been taking the criticism of the negative aspects of the show on board.

Seachtar was absolutely and given the fact that it was made on a low budget, really excellent at times.

Double post

maudgonner wrote: »

I agree. With the addition that they should have avoided the cliches that plagued the series and given it an injection of the dark humour that Dublin is great at.

Actually, do you know what would have benefitted Rebellion most? A really, really good script editor.

That's why I think a second series would be good to see. Few tweeks here and there and it could be a much better show.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I said this before but I think where Rebellion falls down is that it's ambition was greater than it's execution.
Sidelining the leaders was a good idea, in my opinion, but then they should have just stuck with the 5 main characters (the ones on the promotional material) and got them right.

<snip>

Anyway, I don't think RTÉ should be criticised for attempting something like this. It wasn't the success it could have been but I'm glad they're trying something different and I'd hate to see them throw in the towel now and revert to type with their bog standard dramas.

I agree. With the addition that they should have avoided the cliches that plagued the series and given it an injection of the dark humour that Dublin is great at.

Actually, do you know what would have benefitted Rebellion most? A really, really good script editor.

maudgonner wrote: »

So sorry my example didn't meet with your approval I could argue that in terms of setting, scope, budget and context it's a much closer match than Downfall or War and Peace.

Strumpet City (the series and novel) chose not to deal with Larkin etc in depth, but rather to focus on fictional characters. And those characters were compelling, rounded and memorable. The writer of Rebellion was presumably free to make that choice as well, indeed it may well have been a wiser idea to stay away from the leaders altogether. But my point is that the characterisation, across the board, was poor. No matter what the limitations of time or budget, that's a failure of the writing (and to an extent the directing and acting). A drama that fails to make you care about the characters is a poor drama, regardless of whether those characters are real or fictional.

I said this before but I think where Rebellion falls down is that it's ambition was greater than it's execution.
Sidelining the leaders was a good idea, in my opinion, but then they should have just stuck with the 5 main characters (the ones on the promotional material) and got them right. Instead they seem to have been trying to include as many different viewpoints as possible and then a few extra for good measure.
It was important to show what life was like in the slums so we could understand why Arthur chose first to join up and then to go back after the Rising. We didn't need to see Minnie and all her plot lines. Likewise we needed to see how someone from the well off Anglo Irish upper class like Liz could find themselves drawn to the rebellion but we didn't need to see how her brother didn't give a flying F about any of it and was happy to just get drunk and spend his money.
Making it clear that the whole island was affected by the goings on was important but having a character from each province and giving them all their own storylines was maybe not necessary. Or could have been better incorporated.
Some of these things on their own would have been fine, for example if the focus was solely on Liz's family then the contrast between her brother's attitude and her's could have been interesting. Thrown into the middle of everything else going on it seemed irrelevant and like a waste of screen time that could have been spent on someone else.

Anyway, I don't think RTÉ should be criticised for attempting something like this. It wasn't the success it could have been but I'm glad they're trying something different and I'd hate to see them throw in the towel now and revert to type with their bog standard dramas.

P. Breathnach

maudgonner wrote: »

...
Strumpet City (the series and novel) chose not to deal with Larkin etc in depth

Neither was there a choice to ignore them. They were there as context. You could argue that a similar choice was made in Rebellion. I will grant you that the rebel leaders were not so far in the background.

but rather to focus on fictional characters.

Agreed that this is how Strumpet City was focused - and I think there was a similar intention for Rebellion. But the context in which they were portrayed was an essential part of the story. It was the reason for creating the story.

And those characters were compelling, rounded and memorable. The writer of Rebellion was presumably free to make that choice as well, indeed it may well have been a wiser idea to stay away from the leaders altogether. But my point is that the characterisation, across the board, was poor. No matter what the limitations of time or budget, that's a failure of the writing (and to an extent the directing and acting). A drama that fails to make you care about the characters is a poor drama, regardless of whether those characters are real or fictional.

And that, I think, is the problem with Rebellion: exactly as you say - the writing and, to an extent, the directing and acting.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again, not exactly a great comparison. Strumpet City focused almost entirely on fictional characters, had 7 episodes and didn't have to bother with dealing with characters like Pearse, Connolly, Devalera and so on in any detail.

The writer of Rebellion had a difficult issue, how to balance the leaders of the Rising with fictional characters and he was never going to please everyone.

Something like Downfall might be a better comparison - a film I know, but a mixture of characters - it balanced a plotline about Hitler with other plotlines of other characters. The BBC series War and Peace, on now, might also be a good comparison.

So sorry my example didn't meet with your approval

I could argue that in terms of setting, scope, budget and context it's a much closer match than Downfall or War and Peace.

Strumpet City (the series and novel) chose not to deal with Larkin etc in depth, but rather to focus on fictional characters. And those characters were compelling, rounded and memorable. The writer of Rebellion was presumably free to make that choice as well, indeed it may well have been a wiser idea to stay away from the leaders altogether. But my point is that the characterisation, across the board, was poor. No matter what the limitations of time or budget, that's a failure of the writing (and to an extent the directing and acting). A drama that fails to make you care about the characters is a poor drama, regardless of whether those characters are real or fictional.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think if the writing is strong enough it won't matter if it's another language or country or era or whatever.
Generation War is the perfect example of this. Three of the 5 main characters are involved in the war on the German side and another one is banging a Nazi commander to further her singing career (and other reasons). And yet most people would have found themselves ridiculously invested in the fate of all 5 main characters. 1864 is another example. I had no idea of the history behind that one and yet was very emotionally invested.

While I don't think everything about Rebellion's writing was a disaster I will admit that Arthur aside I wasn't that emotionally invested in what happened to anyone. It was more I wonder what happens to them rather than OH GOD! PLEASE DON'T LET X, Y OR Z DIE!

Fair enough about Generation War and I liked it myself. Its just I hear this ridiculous criticism about Rebellion that the Rising leaders are cardboard cutouts, not given enough screentime, blah blah blah. They don't really get that Rebellion is not about the Rising leaders.

Its possible that Rebellion had too many characters, fictional and real, but as I said its impossible to please some people. Give a lot of airtime to people like Pearse, and its criticised for not focusing more on the fictional characters, their back story and so on. And then vice versa.

jmcc wrote: »

So you resort to personal attacks when you can't attack the main argument?

Regards...jmcc

I'll take that as a compliment...coming from you.

maudgonner wrote: »

Hang on, where was I directly comparing the two? In fact I did exactly the opposite - said that Seachtar, as a very different type of series, succeeded better in the areas where a drama should easily exceed a documentary.

And I've already given the closest comparison I can come up with - Strumpet City.

Again, not exactly a great comparison. Strumpet City focused almost entirely on fictional characters, had 7 episodes and didn't have to bother with dealing with characters like Pearse, Connolly, Devalera and so on in any detail.

The writer of Rebellion had a difficult issue, how to balance the leaders of the Rising with fictional characters and he was never going to please everyone.

Something like Downfall might be a better comparison - a film I know, but a mixture of characters - it balanced a plotline about Hitler with other plotlines of other characters. The BBC series War and Peace, on now, might also be a good comparison.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Its clear you have no experience of writing for drama as you display no understanding of the need to write to fit a budget and number of episodes. We await your big writing debut with interest.

So you resort to personal attacks when you can't attack the main argument?

Regards...jmcc

Shurimgreat wrote: »

If you or jmcc can come up with a similar program, fair enough. As for Deutschland 83, haven't watched it and probably won't. I find it very hard to identify with any of the characters because its a different country, different language and so on. There is no buy in from me and a lot of others, none.

I think if the writing is strong enough it won't matter if it's another language or country or era or whatever.
Generation War is the perfect example of this. Three of the 5 main characters are involved in the war on the German side and another one is banging a Nazi commander to further her singing career (and other reasons). And yet most people would have found themselves ridiculously invested in the fate of all 5 main characters. 1864 is another example. I had no idea of the history behind that one and yet was very emotionally invested.

While I don't think everything about Rebellion's writing was a disaster I will admit that Arthur aside I wasn't that emotionally invested in what happened to anyone. It was more I wonder what happens to them rather than OH GOD! PLEASE DON'T LET X, Y OR Z DIE!

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But the main characters of Rebellion were not executed. This is like comparing apples and oranges to be honest. You are not comparing like with like. You'd really need to compare it to something of a similar genre.

If you or jmcc can come up with a similar program, fair enough. As for Deutschland 83, haven't watched it and probably won't. I find it very hard to identify with any of the characters because its a different country, different language and so on. There is no buy in from me and a lot of others, none. Some might say the same about Rebellion, they are entitled to say that.

Hang on, where was I directly comparing the two? In fact I did exactly the opposite - said that Seachtar, as a very different type of series, succeeded better in the areas where a drama should easily exceed a documentary.

And I've already given the closest comparison I can come up with - Strumpet City.

jmcc wrote: »

Bad writing is like that. There's no emotional buy-in on the part of the audience. The audience doesn't care what happens, even if it is a "historical" drama. Compare the response of the audiences of Deutschland 83 or The Americans to the programmes, characters, plots and storylines and they are almost completely different to that of the audience of this progamme. No amount of fluffing by friends and family of RTE, entertainment churnalists dependent on RTE press releases, and, of course, the completely unconnected fans of the series on web fora, can compensate for the poor writing and poor character development on the series.

Regards...jmcc

Its very hard to do character development in a couple of episodes, with a bare minimum of budget and with people like you screaming for the Rising leaders to be front and centre all the time. You are beginning to contradict yourself at this stage. Who do you want to be the stars? The "cardboard cutout" leaders or the fictional characters? (And again keep in mind the tight budget and number of episodes).

Its clear you have no experience of writing for drama as you display no understanding of the need to write to fit a budget and number of episodes. We await your big writing debut with interest.

maudgonner wrote: »

Ah I dunno Strazdas, there's definitely an element of that. But there's also the fact that I felt more in the execution scenes of Seachtar than I did at any point during Rebellion. (I'm no history buff or glorifier of the leaders of the Rising btw, and Seachtar definitely had its own faults).

Rebellion failed at producing characters I cared about, situations that had me on the edge of my seat. It's a sad indictment when a documentary series is more successful at sparking emotion than a drama is.

But the main characters of Rebellion were not executed. This is like comparing apples and oranges to be honest. You are not comparing like with like. You'd really need to compare it to something of a similar genre.

If you or jmcc can come up with a similar program, fair enough. As for Deutschland 83, haven't watched it and probably won't. I find it very hard to identify with any of the characters because its a different country, different language and so on. There is no buy in from me and a lot of others, none. Some might say the same about Rebellion, they are entitled to say that.

maudgonner wrote: »

Rebellion failed at producing characters I cared about, situations that had me on the edge of my seat. It's a sad indictment when a documentary series is more successful at sparking emotion than a drama is.

Bad writing is like that. There's no emotional buy-in on the part of the audience. The audience doesn't care what happens, even if it is a "historical" drama. Compare the response of the audiences of Deutschland 83 or The Americans to the programmes, characters, plots and storylines and they are almost completely different to that of the audience of this progamme. No amount of fluffing by friends and family of RTE, entertainment churnalists dependent on RTE press releases, and, of course, the completely unconnected fans of the series on web fora, can compensate for the poor writing and poor character development on the series.

Regards...jmcc

The opponents of Rebellion have been vocal, its fans less so. I thought it was decent and passable, moreso as light entertainment than anything else. There seemed to be a lot of unresolved plotlines there at the end. I would say there might be interest from some people in a second series.

Strazdas wrote: »

They're absolutely fine and well produced but are still niche programmes on a minority channel and made on a fairly low budget too. The real reason they are being held up as superior to Rebellion though is because they didn't go down the old revisionist route.

Ah I dunno Strazdas, there's definitely an element of that. But there's also the fact that I felt more in the execution scenes of Seachtar than I did at any point during Rebellion. (I'm no history buff or glorifier of the leaders of the Rising btw, and Seachtar definitely had its own faults).

Rebellion failed at producing characters I cared about, situations that had me on the edge of my seat. It's a sad indictment when a documentary series is more successful at sparking emotion than a drama is.

amdublin

Mod

Big load of posts deleted as per MrE's warning.

Don't waste your time writing these posts, they will be deleted. Take it to the history & heritage forum where they are better suited.

Please take note - jmcc, josephryan1989, shurimgreat (and others I'm sure)

Strazdas wrote: »

They're absolutely fine and well produced but are still niche programmes on a minority channel and made on a fairly low budget too. The real reason they are being held up as superior to Rebellion though is because they didn't go down the old revisionist route.

They showed the signatories as human beings rather than cardboard cutouts and used dramatic reconstructions quite well to tell each story.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

They're absolutely fine and well produced but are still niche programmes on a minority channel and made on a fairly low budget too. The real reason they are being held up as superior to Rebellion though is because they didn't go down the old revisionism route.

I actually learned a lot from watching them that I didn't know before, the fact that the whole thing was a massive clusterf**k and failure, for example. I thought they did a pretty decent job of presenting the facts without trying to put people on pedestals.

But anyway, my point was, as yours seems to be, they're two completely different things. You might as well hold an episode of Neven Maguire Home Chef up in comparison.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The TG4 series have been mentioned in here a few times and they're excellent productions that deserve to be seen by way more people than actually saw them. That said they're a completely different genre of program and as companion pieces to a fictional drama they're fine but using them as a like for like comparison is pointless.

They are quite powerful and would run very much against the grain of some in RTE. TG4 produces some very good programming.

Regards...jmcc

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The TG4 series have been mentioned in here a few times and they're excellent productions that deserve to be seen by way more people than actually saw them. That said they're a completely different genre of program and as companion pieces to a fictional drama they're fine but using them as a like for like comparison is pointless.

They're absolutely fine and well produced but are still niche programmes on a minority channel and made on a fairly low budget too. The real reason they are being held up as superior to Rebellion though is because they didn't go down the old revisionist route.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Er no it wasn't.

If it wasn't, then Ireland would still be part of the UK. You lose.

Regards...jmcc

Strazdas wrote: »

I notice too that people who are bashing Rebellion to pieces on places like thejournal.ie are bigging up TG4's Easter Rising docudramas instead, while neglecting to mention these were watched by about 40k people an episode.

The TG4 series have been mentioned in here a few times and they're excellent productions that deserve to be seen by way more people than actually saw them. That said they're a completely different genre of program and as companion pieces to a fictional drama they're fine but using them as a like for like comparison is pointless.

jmcc wrote: »

You seem to like to use military terms like you know what they mean.

It could be said even more so about you. In terms of history, military matters and the ability to critique a drama in detail as opposed to tired generalisations, you are pretty clueless to be fair.

Regards.