Why no movies about 1916?

Lt J.R. Bell · 22-04-2015 12:20am

c_man wrote: »

"It would make a sh!te movie cos I don't agree with their politics..."
"People would be upset that it was actually a military screw-up," classic and utterly predictable boards. Meanwhile for the rest of us who have knowledge of the event and a bit of imagination, there are a few shows/films definitely worth checking out. As said TG4 did a very good series. I seem to recall some RTE mini-drama taking in 1916 up to the Civil War? It was made in the past ten years... any ideas?

Rebel Heart?

Loosely based on Earnie O'Malley. Get it on YouTube. Covers everything 1916,Tan War and Civil War.

Tg4 stuff is excellent

BuilderPlumber · 27-04-2015 7:55am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

There have been a number of decent documentaries on the period done by TnaG 4

While it was politically a success in the long term, it achieved it's aim (ie reawakening Republician attitudes) it was hardly a glaring success militarily. No one "celebrates" 1798 either

Any attempt to do a film would be utterly ****e. Unionists, being Unionists will feel insulted and complain, and too many Gob****es like Myers and Former Republican Fan boy, Eoghan Harris, and amateur no it amateur know it all Fintin Otoole would be given more oxygen

There was no 1916 scene in Wind that Shakes the Barely

All these revisionists annoy the hell out of me. Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards, Ian O'Doherty, John Waters and all the rest of these types are sickening. A list of people where Harris is the best of them says a lot!

All 1916 media revisionists have many things in common. They are die hard right wingers. They support the Iraq war. They condemn Islam. They condemn dictators not supported by the West. They don't question the wrongs of the West, Israel, etc. They condemn Sinn Fein and the IRA but never mention loyalist terrorism at all.

Now, I am not a supporter of Sinn Fein, the IRA or any dictator (whether pro or anti West) but wrong is wrong on all sides. 1916 revisionalism is all about sweeping the carpet from under Sinn Fein I think and is all about taking aim at all of what Sinn Fein stands for by rightwingers. I think the attitudes of some of the above mentioned journalists are much worse than Sinn Fein. Just look at Ian O'Doherty's controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_O%27Doherty

Ironically, if this stuff was being written in an IRANIAN paper, there'd be a march for a bombing campaign on Tehran within hours! The fact that this racist fascist is writing very offensive stuff for an Irish newspaper is ignored. He calls people who opposed the disasterous Iraq war cowards, he mocks Steve Staunton's appearance, and worst of all his discriminatory views on gays and Romany gypsies are revolting. He advocates scrapping anti-discriminatory laws. Total fascist. Harris, Dudley Edwards and others are much milder than him admittedly but still form part of a hard right that would prove very dangerous if politicised. Eoghan Harris besides would rather torture us with The Big Bow Wow than write a movie about 1916!

I think free speech is like freedom to bear arms in the US. A certain responsibility comes with it. Ian O'Doherty and others like him are the result of a too free press. 1916 was a major event for Ireland and while we can debate its merits or demerits (like all such events, there were both good and bad elements) but one thing I don't buy into is any revisionist attitudes put forward by the affore mentioned fascists who are not worthy of being taken seriously.

ricero · 27-04-2015 8:02am

Gerry Adams won't give up the filming rights thats why.

Lt J.R. Bell · 27-04-2015 8:09am

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

All these revisionists annoy the hell out of me. Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley Edwards, Ian O'Doherty, John Waters and all the rest of these types are sickening. A list of people where Harris is the best of them says a lot!

All 1916 media revisionists have many things in common. They are die hard right wingers. They support the Iraq war. They condemn Islam. They condemn dictators not supported by the West. They don't question the wrongs of the West, Israel, etc. They condemn Sinn Fein and the IRA but never mention loyalist terrorism at all.

Now, I am not a supporter of Sinn Fein, the IRA or any dictator (whether pro or anti West) but wrong is wrong on all sides. 1916 revisionalism is all about sweeping the carpet from under Sinn Fein I think and is all about taking aim at all of what Sinn Fein stands for by rightwingers. I think the attitudes of some of the above mentioned journalists are much worse than Sinn Fein. Just look at Ian O'Doherty's controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_O%27Doherty

Ironically, if this stuff was being written in an IRANIAN paper, there'd be a march for a bombing campaign on Tehran within hours! The fact that this racist fascist is writing very offensive stuff for an Irish newspaper is ignored. He calls people who opposed the disasterous Iraq war cowards, he mocks Steve Staunton's appearance, and worst of all his discriminatory views on gays and Romany gypsies are revolting. He advocates scrapping anti-discriminatory laws. Total fascist. Harris, Dudley Edwards and others are much milder than him admittedly but still form part of a hard right that would prove very dangerous if politicised. Eoghan Harris besides would rather torture us with The Big Bow Wow than write a movie about 1916!

I think free speech is like freedom to bear arms in the US. A certain responsibility comes with it. Ian O'Doherty and others like him are the result of a too free press. 1916 was a major event for Ireland and while we can debate its merits or demerits (like all such events, there were both good and bad elements) but one thing I don't buy into is any revisionist attitudes put forward by the affore mentioned fascists who are not worthy of being taken seriously.

Whatever about Harris, Ian O'Doherty is not in the same league. He is a know it all but know nothing.Harris is dangerous because he is actually intelligent

. At least we are fully aware of where Kevin Myarse stands (hilarious he didn't get his invite when HRM The Queen came to town) Harris? Ah sure he was a stickie, he has zero credibility. Dudely Edwards, again, you know where you stand with her and why.She will even go off on a rant before even watching the film and ignore the facts that events shown in a film actually did happen (ie Army raiding villages and towns, destruction of property as a reprisal)

What their attitudes towards other events is kinda irrelevant.

Badly Drunk Boy · 27-04-2015 8:26am

mikemac1 wrote: »

Young Indiana Jones fought in 1916 alongside Sean Lemass.

I saw it on TV so it's true!

And the bould Indy tried to do the bould thing with the bould Maggie Lemass.

(Did you know that Seán Lemass shot his 22 month old brother to death in January 1916?)

Lt J.R. Bell · 27-04-2015 8:56am

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

And the bould Indy tried to do the bould thing with the bould Maggie Lemass.

(Did you know that Seán Lemass shot his 22 month old brother to death in January 1916?)

Don't remember that sceNE about brother shooting. Rather insensitive considering what really happened to Noel Lemass. I remember Liam Lynch playing Sean O'Casey (the writer) how true he was

Sure Sean was only 16 at the time of the Rising (not disputing he was there, he was)

BuilderPlumber · 27-04-2015 11:07pm

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Whatever about Harris, Ian O'Doherty is not in the same league. He is a know it all but know nothing.Harris is dangerous because he is actually intelligent

. At least we are fully aware of where Kevin Myarse stands (hilarious he didn't get his invite when HRM The Queen came to town) Harris? Ah sure he was a stickie, he has zero credibility. Dudely Edwards, again, you know where you stand with her and why.She will even go off on a rant before even watching the film and ignore the facts that events shown in a film actually did happen (ie Army raiding villages and towns, destruction of property as a reprisal)

What their attitudes towards other events is kinda irrelevant.

Name any ideology in recent Irish politics and you can bet that Harris was part of it for a time!! Yes, he was a man both a Unionist and an IRA member, or more profoundly managed to be both a Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporter!

Yes, he is also a lot more intelligent than a lot of the others of his ilk. And harder to figure out. Sometimes, I feel he is trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records as the follower of the most diverse causes! His support for diverse causes down the years are very much tied into those who paid him, ranging from David Trimble to Bertie Ahern to once favoured Iraqi post Saddam leader Ahmed Chalabi. In other words, a man who works for anyone no matter the cause. I think he being the co-creator of the RTE classic The Big Bow Wow confirms this!

BlitzKrieg · 27-04-2015 11:53pm

Tordelback wrote: »

The answer to 'why no big movie' is pretty obvious: the vital US market would never stomach an even vaguely accurate movie about the Rising - even the fantasy-tinted version of the longer story in Michael Collins with Julia Roberts singing her brogue out and Alan Rickman sobbing behind the turf stack didn't make much of dent ($27M Worldwide on a $28M budget is a bloody disaster).

What makes 1916 so interesting is the complexity of those involved, their diverse motivations (would anyone have believed Connolly and Pearse would fight and die on the same side... really?), the (wonderfully and typically Irish) reaction of the populace, the moral questions of treason in wartime and undemocratic uprising, the vastly greater numbers of Irishmen that fought and died in WWI, the disastrous misjudgements by first the Volunteers and then the British... and of course how all that shaped everything that followed, for good or ill.

What it definitely is not, and shouldn't be, is an easily marketed story of heroism. It's a defining political event, it's got 'splosions and girls with guns, it deftly catches the romance of Cuchulainn's death, but a popular entertainment for a wider audience? Well, maybe, but it'd be the kind of gamble studios don't often take.

Kind of hits the nail on the head.

Other issues to consider is the tendency in films to not directly do the event but to try and frame it through a more traditional story (consider Titanic and pompei with the love story, saving private ryan doing normandy but using the finding private ryan as the framing device etc etc, films rarely directly tell the event, especially not today, a few did (A bridge too far, the longest day) but if they were to do a 1916 film, they'd want a framing device of sort and that is a reason why most films (and we are talking specifically films) tend to use 1916 as a primer and not as a central point, its a difficult series of events for structuring just around 1916 itself and put some character framing device in without coming across as either pandering or potentially putting off certain markets

a better approach might be to look at it as more of a bio pic towards one of the key contributers to the rising, which gives a framing device and opens up a lot of room in the lead up to the rising. It would mean the Rising wouldnt be the focus, but the end point of the film, but it would make a better narrative overall structurally.

problem there is who would you pick and convince funding to support who you pick.

Personally I'd like to follow James Connolly as narrative wise its more rich with conflict and he stands as the more unique perspective in the lead up to the events Also he's outside the IRB which is genuinely a difficult entity to deal with in film, but he might not go down well with some audiences.

I wouldnt find Pearse interesting as a lead, he's interesting from a historians perspective and would be a great supporting character but as the focus its a difficult tightrope of how to portray him

Lt J.R. Bell · 28-04-2015 10:23am

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Name any ideology in recent Irish politics and you can bet that Harris was part of it for a time!! Yes, he was a man both a Unionist and an IRA member, or more profoundly managed to be both a Fine Gael and Fianna Fail supporter!

Yes, he is also a lot more intelligent than a lot of the others of his ilk. And harder to figure out. Sometimes, I feel he is trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records as the follower of the most diverse causes! His support for diverse causes down the years are very much tied into those who paid him, ranging from David Trimble to Bertie Ahern to once favoured Iraqi post Saddam leader Ahmed Chalabi. In other words, a man who works for anyone no matter the cause. I think he being the co-creator of the RTE classic The Big Bow Wow confirms this!

Ah, sure, he still doesn't have anything on Conor Cruise O'Brien; though Cruiser was never a Republican.

Ah yeah, Harris was up to his neck with Stickie mantra. You get the sense that he changes theories solely on the basis of some personal vendetta that eventually, every club he is associated with becomes a "No Eoghan Harris" Club.

Harder to figure out, hence, he is dangerous.

His funny though, I never really realised that he was an exert on the Arts (even though he had a major job in RTE) Away from politics, when he talks about films, books , plays, he is brilliant (remember him on Sean Moncrieff show)

Still, like Myarse, he has provoked thinking, often, making people become more supportive of their stances that they already held

One thing that infuriates me, was his support for the late Peter Hart, remember him?. The "historian" that some how magically interviewed a participant of the Kilmichael attack , even though he was dead years before Hart came to Ireland. Media Ryan and many others exposed that chancer. Awful embarrassing stuff.

The Coolarcresse killings, far enough, that story had to be told, if true .Dog on the street knows that there were elements of revenge killings on Protestants during the end of the Tan War, whether they aided the British or not.

whisky_galore · 28-04-2015 10:42am

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The Coolarcresse killings, far enough, that story had to be told, if true .Dog on the street knows that there were elements of revenge killings on Protestants during the end of the Tan War, whether they aided the British or not.

Think the old IRA were placed on pedestals to be hero-worshipped for far too long, conveniently ignoring murkier activites.
PH did put his foot in it, big time, but the old spiel from our school days held that the boys of the old brigade were the all round good guys, like the 'white hats' in a cowboy movie. Questioning and re-examining events (with the research and proper evidence to back it up) shouldn't be a bad thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-04-2015 10:44am

Just take any-imperial movie and use your imagination. Star Wars will do at a push.

BuilderPlumber · 28-04-2015 7:44pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Think the old IRA were placed on pedestals to be hero-worshipped for far too long, conveniently ignoring murkier activites.
PH did put his foot in it, big time, but the old spiel from our school days held that the boys of the old brigade were the all round good guys, like the 'white hats' in a cowboy movie. Questioning and re-examining events (with the research and proper evidence to back it up) shouldn't be a bad thing.

This is true so long as those doing the re-examining are not biased, agenda driven individuals. The likes of the Sindo crowd at it are agenda driven individuals involved with rightwing organisations who down the old and new IRA but put other less than worthy organisations on a pedestal instead.

The old IRA were a mix of good and bad. Yes, they were often fighting against dictatorship and can be seen as a reaction against the Penal Laws and other such things. The Black and Tans were no doubt violent, deranged and nervous -the deadliest cocktail- often but can one generalise all B&Ts as 'evil' any more than all old IRA as 'good'? Good and bad existed on both sides.

Today's revisionists often denounce (rightfully) the excesses of the Provos and question blind following of the 1916 leaders. They also condemn 'Islamic' fascism and its terrorist offspring but let themselves down by not condemning Western and Israeli aggression like the invasion of Iraq and the whole Palestinian issue.

To cut a long story short, I do not believe ANY political ideology should be placed on a pedestal. No more than I believe any should be 100% condemned. With hindsight, both Ireland and the UK are a lot better countries today than in 1916. Much freer. Would Ireland have fared better if it remained in the UK? The answer could well be yes. It certainly would not be in any worse a shape, and perhaps maybe in a better shape. Both countries are now modern and as free as one gets in today's world. But in 1916, things weren't all that clear with World War 1 threatening the status quo of the time and the direction of the then future. We can revise history based on what we now know, but back then no one knew.

cruais · 28-04-2015 9:05pm

The One Doctor wrote: »

I don't think anyone cares about 1916 anymore. I certainly don't.

Shame on you.

bnt · 28-04-2015 9:41pm

It wouldn't be the first time a film was made about a defeat. Gallipoli, A Bridge Too Far, and more. You have to wonder who the target audience would be, though, if you'd want to sell it outside Ireland. You couldn't have it say "all Brits are evil" and expect it to sell in the UK, but you could get away with an English "baddie", such as in The Patriot.

BuilderPlumber · 28-04-2015 11:23pm

bnt wrote: »

It wouldn't be the first time a film was made about a defeat. Gallipoli, A Bridge Too Far, and more. You have to wonder who the target audience would be, though, if you'd want to sell it outside Ireland. You couldn't have it say "all Brits are evil" and expect it to sell in the UK, but you could get away with an English "baddie", such as in The Patriot.

I think it would have to show a very balanced view of the whole thing. You have 4 contingents here -old IRA, pro-British non-Unionist Irish (Home Rule included), Unionists and the British.

The British were probably the most moderate side in it post rising and their offer of 26 and 6 county entities was probably the best solution for everyone and still is.

Tordelback · 02-05-2015 10:41am

A Connolly biopic could be a brilliant way to approach 1916 - his earlier career is easy to grasp and get behind, then showing how the hell he ended up in the Rising and eventually Kilmianham could explore pretty much everything about those events. Hell of a downer, mind.

Lt J.R. Bell · 02-05-2015 3:13pm

Tordelback wrote: »

A Connolly biopic could be a brilliant way to approach 1916 - his earlier career is easy to grasp and get behind, then showing how the hell he ended up in the Rising and eventually Kilmianham could explore pretty much everything about those events. Hell of a downer, mind.

Time in Belfast and America would be interesting.alot of sad stories too from a human story point of view eg death of his child

He was intending his own rebellion, a socialist one. IRB got word and somewhat strong armed him to join their cause

The Corinthian · 08-05-2015 2:39pm

c_man wrote: »

Meanwhile for the rest of us who have knowledge of the event and a bit of imagination, there are a few shows/films definitely worth checking out.

Emphasis on the imagination rather than the knowledge, methinks...

FrostyJack · 08-05-2015 5:11pm

Does the The Plough and the Stars not count?

SaveOurLyric · 08-05-2015 6:54pm

Possibly because it is an element of our history that we are still embarrassed about and dont really wish to face up to ourselves or highlight to people abroad. Rebel terrorists attempting to overthrow a government by force in Dublin is too redolent of Hitler's Munich Putsch to many, and an aspect of the seizure of power that we prefer to brush under the carpet.

fiachr_a · 08-05-2015 7:15pm

There is a movie link with the Rising. Two future Hollywood actors were there, Arthur Shields and John Loder.

The Corinthian · 11-05-2015 8:54am

FrostyJack wrote: »

Does the The Plough and the Stars not count?

It portrays an interpretation of the rising that many would prefer were not made known.

conorhal · 21-05-2015 4:03pm

veryangryman wrote: »

Just wondering given

a) The centenary
b) How many movies are out commemorating practicallly anything these days

Why they arent doing anything movie-wise on the Rising. Seems like a great topic to cover.

Is it the sensitivity etc...didnt stop them with Wind That Shakes Barley. Any theories?

Here you go OP:

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/charlie-murphy-brian-gleeson-and-sarah-greene-to-star-in-new-rte-drama-series-rebellion-31241686.html

Of course it is RTE, so doubltess it will paint all those involved in the rising as tragically gullible fools.

Why no movies about 1916?

Comments