After viewing the first two episodes of RTÉ’s ‘Rebellion’, you might be tempted to think that the subject-matter made it impossible to craft a series that was other than hammy and histrionic. Not so. TG4 made a series called ‘Seachtar na Cásca’ and this is a very short clip from it. Even inside five minutes, you can tell quality film-making from half-assed hokum.
Seachtar na Casca is brilliant – has the input of expert historians throughout that adds to its historical accuracy and credibility. I watched the first 20 minutes of “Rebellion” and switched it off. I’m not sure dramatising the Easter Rising, from a totally historical perspective, was a good ideal, but then again, this is wholly representative of RTE and the southern states revisionist attitude to the Rising, namely, to minimise its historical accuracy.
I use Seachtar na Casca with students and it engages them very well. A subsequent 7 part series called the Seachtar Dearmata “forgotten seven” examines the lives of the other seven rebels who were executed following the Rising. All of these including Seachtar na Casca are available on YouTube (apart from Patrick Pearse).
Seems a bit harsh raving about the TG4 programme and condemning the state for the RTE one when they’re both public broadcasters. I think they’ve both got their place. One’s about the leaders, the other’s about the rest of society.
EH? Say that again slowly, BYC. Especially the last sentence…
“The Hist” said that the RTE programme “is wholly representative of the southern states revisionist attitude to the Rising”. I was pointing out that TG4 is a public broadcaster.
The TG4 program is concerned with the leaders and the military operation. The RTE program has other characters I like the Trinity prods and the officer training corps myself. They seem quite real to me.
I hope if I ever make a film, byc, that you do the reviewing. It’ll surely get an Oscar nomination at least.
“Seems a bit harsh” – in what way, byc? I don’t see the point your trying to make, byc that both are “public broadcasters” – does this mean both RTE and TG4 have to have the same opinion / view on the Rising?
I like this bit, “they seem quite real to me” – is this the motive of the RTE programme, to dramatise an event to depict it as “real” in accordance with their narrative? TG4 relies on historical fact, RTE doesn’t! Says it all really!
What I did like about TG4 though was the greater honesty about the leaders intentions. Its clear in Pearse’s and Childers and Casement that Home Rule was worse than an insult to the Fenians. Casement said Britain was treating Ireland as a criminal by deciding how much freedom she could be trusted with, Pearse wrote that Ireland needed to refuse even to commit to military alliance with Britain and Childers dismissed land reform as state socialism. Somehow republicanism (including Danny Morrison here the other day) has decided to tell the world that the rising was needed as Britain couldn’t be trusted to deliver on Home Rule but Michael Foy’s (try not to hold his job at Methody against him) belief is that they worried more that Britain would deliver Home Rule and that that would mean increasing assimilation and the end of the Irish as a distinct people. That’s what Pearse’s “Murder Machine” seems to be obsessed with as well.
I think Pearse’s ‘Murder Machine’ talked about a great deal more – I thought it was startlingly modern in its notion of education
Me too. I wonder if it part explains the readiness of the new state to hand education to non-state “patrons”.
“Somehow republicanism (including Danny Morrison here the other day) has decided to tell the world that the rising was needed as Britain couldn’t be trusted to deliver on Home Rule”
Why, byc, could the British be trusted to deliver Home Rule? This certainly isn’t the Republican mindset, the facts state the British couldn’t be trusted to deliver Home Rule.
The facts state this. From February 1912, before the bill was introduced into the HOC, members of the British cabinet had been considering a partitionist solution to the crisis. August 1912, Churchill, senior cabinet minister, had stated to George that an Ulster solution was needed and the only solution was a settlement with Ulster – publicly the British were stating the opposite – It was realised by Asquith, late 1913, that he couldn’t fully deliver on Home Rule promise – did he inform Redmond? (trust and all that). NO! Asquith secretly met Carson and Bonar Law to discuss an Ulster “opt out” clause, that Redmond was only made aware of in Feb 1914. Redmond accepting this. By early 1914, it was publicly clear the British were reneging on their Home Rule promise, this is before a Rising was even considered, never mind planned – the suspended legislation of September 1914 is further evidence of British mistrust when the question of Ulster needed a solution before any legislation was to be implemented – So, the British could be trusted, right?
Perhaps, you could provide evidence to the contrary to illustrate the British could be trusted ?
“Perhaps, you could provide evidence to the contrary to illustrate the British could be trusted ?”
New Zealand, Canada and Australia which already had independence, constitutional reforms including the end the Lords’ veto to facilitate the third Home Rule bill and the fact the if there was no Home Rule bill there’s no reason to believe the balance of parliamentary representation would have been any different after the war than before.
I can’t tell whether you’re arguing that the British wouldn’t deliver Home Rule or you’re saying that they wouldn’t (couldn’t?) deliver it peacefully without partition.
But that’s not the point anyway. The TG4 program argued from its first episode that the Rising leaders were concerned that Home Rule would mean further assimilation and “the death of a people”. Michael Foy (talking about Tom Clarke) argued that the Rising’s leaders were in “a race against time” to stage a rebellion against the British before a Home Rule parliament was installed.
So do you agree with the TG4 program that the Rising was a strike against the Home Rule settlement, not in favour of it? And if that’s the case why would a motivation of the leaders be a lack of belief that the British would deliver Home Rule?
Reminds me of the time an Irish News journalist (from where else but Ballymena!) described either the 1916 men or their comrades in the tan war as “terrorists” .It was’nt even a so called “opinion piece” but a straight forward news report!
“Terrorists ” is relatively mild compared with that tormented genius Patsy McGarry, “Religious Correspondent” of Urish Times calked rhem. “The suicide bombers of their day” Christian charity how are you?