Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
“I’M JUST GOING to turn off my phone and turn off Twitter when it’s on.”
This evening, Colin Teevan will see his latest RTÉ historical drama hitting the small screen. Resistance, the follow-up to its 1916 drama Rebellion, brings us the same characters as it takes on the events around Bloody Sunday in 1920.
And with that will come the inevitable online dissection of his work.
With a plethora of Irish actors, including Brian Gleeson, Aoife Duffin and Simone Kirby, on board, it’s a flagship show for RTÉ One.
In focusing on the war between the IRA and British forces during the War of Independence, the five-part series will depict “a world of shadows and echoes, double-agents and unreliable narrators at a time of high tension, fear and anxiety”.
With the original Rebellion series attracting 619,000 viewers for its first episode in January, hopes are high that Resistance will follow suit. And in the era of social media, like with Rebellion there will be much dissection of the show on Twitter as and after it airs.
When TheJournal.ie speaks to London-based Colin Teevan – who as well as being a screenwriter is a playwright – before the launch, he’s feeling quite balanced about the whole thing. Reflecting back on the first season, he says: “I think there was a lot of pressure and expectation on Rebellion because of the centenary celebrations.”
This time around, things are a little different, given that as Teevan points out: Ireland likes to commemorate the Rising but doesn’t quite commemorate the War of Independence or the Civil War. In this writer’s mind, “they are all part of the same revolutionary wave”.
But he won’t be spending time on social media to see how his latest series is received. By the time it has aired, his work is done. “The response to Rebellion was very, very good and worldwide has been very, very positive… But social media just allows the haters to hate,” says Teevan.
Drama vs fact
The balance between historical fact and dramatic licence is one that has to be finely managed with a show like Resistance. While it’s not a historical documentary, there has to be drama in it. But forsake historical accuracy for drama and people will notice.
Any possible anachronisms or questionable moments were certainly noticed in the case of Rebellion, something Teevan has not forgotten. “One has to be fair. The difficulty certainly in the furore that seemed to surround every episode of Rebellion is that everybody thinks their view of history is correct,” he says.
Here on this site, we looked at people’s questions around whether or not a police officer was shot outside Dublin Castle, as depicted in Rebellion. Spoiler: He was, just a bit quicker than the episode suggested. The national anthem was sung in English, as Rebellion depicted, even though many were annoyed at just the thought of it.
Taking some license in dramatic depictions of Irish history isn’t new. In Neil Jordan’s film Michael Collins, an armoured car is driven into Croke park, in an incident that didn’t actually happen in real life.
Teevan says that it is those who deny historical accuracy “are promoters of fake news or fake history”.
The irony is that sometimes being true to history you get just as much flack.
He adds: “There is a big pressure but I would endeavour, as with Charlie [his series about Charlie Haughey], I would endeavour to be as accurate as possible. On the other hand there is always the truth that drama is real life with the boring bits taken out. You can’t do it in absolute. The kind of tiny details a historian would [include], but I think wherever possible you should be informed by the facts and often enriched by the facts.”
Personal stories
While some of the figures in Resistance, like Michael Collins, feature prominently in the series, some other characters are a melange of a few people. Teevan says he hopes that the series will touch on well-known aspects of what happened in 1920, but introduce “an unexpected perspective” to the historical framework.
Brian Gleeson’s character is based on a few people, while there are also characters based on particular historical women. While the main story involves the IRA, there are some less well-known subplots from the archives which Teevan stumbled across in the archives during his research.
It’s those small personal stories that Teevan is particularly fascinated with – how to tell the greater story through individual experiences.
“I often find with drama it’s not the big things that provide inspiration, it’s when you find a little detail. This is where drama lies – in the details. Not in the big gun battles but in the little asides of history,” says Teevan.
The personal details, it’s always the personal beause drama is about individual characters. Leave it to the documentaries to tell the overall story.
For example, he discovered details of how Michael Collins “went about hiding the new State’s finances”. When it was discovered that a forensic accountant was brought in, the man was “taken off a tram in Ballsbridge and shot on the street”.
“[Michael Collins] managed to create and run a whole underground organisation and I think that is even more interesting than the shooting of people,” adds Teevan.
He describes 1920 as having a “bizarre situation with two governments, both claiming to run the country”. He describes a state of “almost anarchy” at the time.
“I think we’re sort of facing it now in Britain,” he says. “It’s interesting [to see a] State tearing itself apart trying to extract itself from the union.”
He started writing the series before the Brexit vote, but elements of the vote and of recent events worldwide clearly found their way in.
It’s the patterns that inspire him. “The pattern of nearly every revolution is the same – it starts with an optimistic, perhaps even naive, uprising by the people and it swiftly descends into chaos,” he explains. “And out of the chaos the right wing tend to take over the revolutionary organisations. Like you saw it in Iran, saw it in Russia, essentially a new oppressive regime as a result of revolution.”
But what about Ireland? “I wanted to explore that in the Irish context. I think it’s a fascinating thing. And hopefully we get to make a third series which would explore the Civil War, and chart the rise in influence of the church.”
“That’s where I think Jimmy is a fascinating character – where he starts season one as an optimistic socialist, I will be interested to see where people think of where he finishes. I would have plans for him in season three if we get that far. You can see someone change over time.”
‘Women were pushed out of public life’
When reading a book about this period of Irish history, often you’re left asking yourself “where are the women?”. That’s something Teevan also found himself asking, and was inspired to ensure his series included plenty of female characters.
“Women were pushed out of public life over this period,” he says. “Concomitant with the rise of the church. There was a whole generation of very well educated women prior to the first World War in Ireland and even attendance at university from the Rising onwards greatly diminishes, and then the church by 1925 saying the woman’s place is in the home.
And I think that’s really interesting, which is one reason why I’ve had so many female leads in the two series. Because looking at their journeys and how gradually their opportunities were blocked off from them I think is kind of fascinating. It’s very much coming from ‘here are the women?’.
He was inspired by women like a cousin of Michael Collins, who worked as his secretary in Dublin Castle. “She is actually the one living that quite terrifying spy life, not Michael Collins and his men,” says Teevan. He asked himself was it possible to “shift the camera of history to look at those people rather than the big names who went on to run everything”.
And though he won’t be watching the response, he does add:
“I hope a vast majority of people not sitting there saying ‘that’s wrong, that didn’t happen’.” As with much of history, truth is often stranger than fiction.
Resistance was made for RTÉ by Zodiak Media Ireland, a subsidiary of French television giant Banijay Group. Resistance episode one airs tonight, 6 January, on RTÉ One at 9.30pm.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If religion means that much to parents read the bible at home and just bring your kid to a mass and leave them take communion. .
Communion and confirmation is all about God, not dress up and not bouncy castles. If your priority is the dress up or the party then you are not inline with core catholic beliefs.
@Barry Somers: what do you care how other people raise their children? Do we have to run everything by Barry now?
@Seamus Mac: Once the Church is out of educational institutions you can start preaching about ‘how people care about raising others people’s children’. Until then you really shouldn’t point out how people outside the family home don’t have a say yeah?
@Diarmuid Hunt: if that is what the majority of parents want that will happen. Until then there is educate together in any reasonable sized population centre. Catholic schools aren’t exactly non inclusive anyway Diarmuid my old pal.
@Seamus Mac: Unfortunately not, many parents send their children to Catholic run schools because it is easier, because it is what their parents did and because they don’t actually realise the impact. I went to a non-denominational Gaelscoil and the amount of times I was excluded due to Catholicism being incorporated into the school time was ridiculous so your non-inclusivity argument is easy to make as a Catholic but not so much otherwise.
@Seamus Mac: There isn’t an Educate Together in every town, and neither are there enough in the cities as the high application rates attest. In addition, being tolerated to enrol in order to make up numbers to keep teachers in the local “Catholic” school, only to have to spend much of the day in the corridor to get away from the constant indoctrination of the Integrated Curriculum doesn’t count as “inclusive” to anyone but those protecting their privilege.
@Diarmuid Hunt: you have fantastic insight into parents motivations. How do you know all this?
@Seamus Mac: You first assumed to know that the reason they have not changed is based in parents motivations, how do you know it?
@Barry Somers: God. Lol. Believing in a deity is intelectually lazy in this day and age.
@Diarmuid Hunt: I didnt assume anything. I said if the majority of parents want religion out of schools then Im sure that would happen.
@Diarmuid Hunt: nailed it!!!
@Seamus Mac: It is happening. Something like that doesn’t happen overnight. But rest assured it is happening inexorably.
@Teddy Bear: Wow .. What an intellectually lazy comment.
@David Bohane: I don’t think so believing in a fairy that lives in the sky and grants wishes is pretty childish in this day and age
100 allowed attend a wedding. 50 allowed attend a funeral in the same venue. It just doesn’t make sense.
@sandra macken: but there is absolutely nothing time sensitive about a communion or confirmation. You cant compare it to a funeral in any way, that must happen, there is a corpse. Any weddings I am aware of happening under the current restrictions have a reason to get married, be it illness, legality, visa deadlines or pregnancy. Perhaps that is just those I know of and there is this world of weddings occurring across the country daily or perhaps weddings are few and far between. But there is a huge difference between getting married or buried and making the communion/confirmation.
@Sarah Lou: I thought it was about health and safety. Number of people in a particular venue practicing safe socially distanced gatherings.
@sandra macken: I would imagine its more about necessity and volume. Weddings and funerals are necessary. No one can argue the same about communions and confirmations.
@Sarah Lou: You could, from a religious standpoint, make an argument for communion and confirmation in a terminally ill child. That would require two present, the child and the priest, I’d prefer a parent or guardian was present personally though.
@Sarah Lou: That really is open to your own interpretation of what is necessary or not.
@Diarmuid Hunt: And to be fair diarmuid no more than baptisms if there was a time sensitive reason I am sure it is occurring and very few would take issue with it. That is an exception. Sandra is making out that i am unreasonable with my argument and interpreting things to suit myself, I am just being realistic. plenty of time of communions and confirmations after we can get the kids back to school and keep society open at the same time. Most people who dont agree with that just want to have a child communed or confirmed.
@sandra macken: Everything about the Roman religion is a matter of “interpretation”, since there is no evidence to corroborate their stories.
@Sarah Lou: I never thought you were unreasonable. I am only stating the difference between numbers congregating in the same venue with the same restrictions in place.
@sandra macken: it is about the after parties
@sandra macken: The events that are reopening though are mainly open to smaller groups of adults, with plenty of caution involved. They aren’t generally big gatherings of unprotected young children.
@sandra macken: It makes absolute sense if you care to think about it
No one is stopping you just do it by yourself.
It is very important to respect the freedom of (and/or from) religion. Every religion should be allowed to have the right to congregate indoors to the same extent as the rest of the population are at regular events. Wedding and funeral numbers would be appropriate for communion/confirmation numbers since all are (with the possible exception of weddings) are a once off event for the individual. If 50 can attend a funeral then 50 should be able to attend a communion/confirmation which would be about 16 children and their parents and the priest. If it truly just about your faith that should be enough.
@Diarmuid Hunt: All of that said religions should respect others’ right not to be impacted by them in any way shape or form and should step back from education, healthcare and politics (especially politics [Matt 22:21; John 17:16; 1 John 2:15; Matt 6:24]). For the love of God if you’re Catholic or Christian and don’t have a Bible get one, read it and study it.
@Diarmuid Hunt: it’s not the communions or confirmations they are worried about it’s the party gatherings that go with them
@Diarmuid Hunt: pubs are open Diarmuid. No reason for any restrictions in a large high ceilinged building when all the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
@Eileen Downing: I understand that, unfortunately you can’t really account for that. The communions and confirmations should be able to go ahead as much as it pains me to say it. The parties afterwards are not the fault of the communions or confirmations themselves but of negligent people. If the people truly have faith they should only be thinking of the importance of the rite and not the party afterwards. If they are only in it for the party then both the RCC and in this case the government should call them out for such.
@Seamus Mac: Séamus, my old friend, I call for Churches to be held to the same standard as everyone else and it is still not good enough for you. Gatherings are limited, there are restrictions on pubs and restaurants. Some churches are tiny some are massive, all with fairly high ceilings due to the labour of the layperson to be fair, maybe a percentage capacity would be better but the same could be said of every other gathering. If you don’t want to be held to the same standard as every other gathering but want to be ‘special’ then you are advocating for a privileged position of your religion over all other and/or none. Have you read the verses I mentioned? I do hope you own a bible.
@Diarmuid Hunt: restrictions in the pubs?? Did you venture anywhere near one last weekend? Genesis 19:24 comes to mind.
@Seamus Mac: No I didn’t venture anywhere near a pub last weekend? How do you know so much about the goings on in pubs last weekend? Also Gen 19:24 – where God didn’t like people having fun or being gay and decided to kill them all? “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” – You’re bringing that up?
@Diarmuid Hunt: it was a joke Diarmuid as you well know. Are Catholics not allowed into pubs for some reason?
@Seamus Mac: It was only a joke after I pointed out how ridiculous the point and verse were, but I, at least, find it quite funny.
@Diarmuid Hunt: it was a joke when I compared an Irish bank holiday weekend to Gomorrah Diarmuid.
@Seamus Mac: I’m sure Séamus. Also why are we know adding each other’s names in comments Séamus? Seems Kind of strange since the @ at the start really has that task fairly well covered Séamus.
@Diarmuid Hunt: ill stop if you do
@Seamus Mac: No bother. Earlier I said it affably as I do actually enjoy our encounters. As for the above you said you were sure that it would happen if parents wanted it which means you assume parents want it to be part of their children’s education. Anyway it matters not, I enjoyed our talks again this evening, if you haven’t already got one then invest in a Bible and study it you will learn a lot.
@Diarmuid Hunt: apologies for misunderstanding you. Talk to you again hopefully.
Its because the parents of these children are inviting up to 40 people at a time to whatever after event they have after the mass. All for one child having to go through a superstitious ritual that is completely nonsensical in the 21st century. Religion is so odd.
The common right not to be recklessly endangered by the actions of others comes ahead of the right of religious observance (and a great many others) in my view.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: pubs at the weekend were pretty reckless but it the church everyone is talking about?
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: Not only does that common right exist, but since such “reckless endangerment” is (arguably) immoral, A44 supports such limitations as now exist.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: “The common right not to be recklessly endangered by the actions of others”
Where do you derive this common right from?
It’s open ended and undefinable. Some people feel endangered by loud noises.
The government has said that up to 50 people may gather for public prayer, in a church, a synagogue, a mosque, or similar venue, provided guidelines on distancing, etc., are observed. It is their right and duty to set public health guidelines. However, I do not believe they have the right to dictate what form the public prayer takes, or to interfere with any service that complies with their guidelines. Surely this is the freedom of religion that the constitution protects?
I believe the figure of 100 for a wedding relates to the reception not the ceremony. Which makes concern about ‘after sacrament’ parties somewhat odd. Plus many of the parties went ahead in June / July, because they were ‘organised and paid for and sure don’t we deserve it …’
@Pharmy: They have no right to dictate the form you are right. Does the 50 person limit somehow dictate the form?
@Pharmy: Disregarding the second half of your comment and after a 3rd and 4th read I’m pretty sure I actually agree with you.
@Diarmuid Hunt: is that surprise? We both seem to be logical individuals so, yes, I agree with some of what you said too. To answer your question the number of attendees does not impact on form or rite of worship in a Catholic context. The minimum number for a mass is two (the priest and another), the most I think was 5 million, but I’m open to correction. The rite of the mass is essentially the same in both cases. If only families who want the sacrament attend, and several time slots are made available, then keeping it under 50 (& safe) should be easy. At least then the atmosphere is prayer not party …
Yawn… Why should religion be treated any different from other “group events”?
@Sana Diwan: what, like sporting events which are allowed to happen? Or weddings?? Or Baptisms?
Hmmm. The Assistant Professor omits that A44 renders religion as a contingent right, not an absolute one. The wording “Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen” makes clear that limitations are envisaged. Further, the restrictions on mixing do not hinder individual citizens from practicing their religion individually or in household or other familial groups. In any event, the right (contingent as it may be) is of the living, breathing, individual, not of a Church building, or of a local organiser of such religion such as a priest, or of a foreign Monarchy and crime syndicate operating tax-free in the guise of a religion.
@Fachtna Roe: “The State guarantees not to endow or favour any religion and not to discriminate on the grounds of religion”
If gatherings are allowed in other settings but not religious ones then you are favouring one group over another. You are discriminating on the grounds of religion and cannot make the argument that the public good is being protected.
If people can meet up for drinks, for food , for concerts, for protests etc. then the ban on religious gatherings is purely discriminatory.
@Will: To start with, you have conflated and misquoted. That error recurs in your logic: the varying nature of “gatherings” isn’t allowed for. 4 adults going for a meal, at arms-length from each other, is not the same as 40 *children* from different households, with attendant adults, fidgeting and fooling about. That’s a textbook super-spreader event. After which – at the meal – comes the immediate spreading into another public environment of whatever was shared around at the first gathering. It’s not really too difficult to comprehend the risk to the “public good” if one thinks about it clearly. In addition, you should note that baptisms are re-starting as they do not include the same level of mixing. Weddings, similarly. Both of those, being religious, invalidate your hypothesis.
@Fachtna Roe: The Constitution is clear. You cannot discriminate on grounds of religion unless in the public good. This can’t be for the public good because other indoor gatherings are allowed up to 50 people. It’s as simple as that really. Everything beyond that is just your own attempt at justifying a ban that isn’t supported by our Constitution which is why it’s not the law, just guidelines.
Inventing scenarios in your own head of a possible super spreader event is tabloid journalism, not a logical argument.
The Church have said they will keep these ceremonies under the same limits as other gatherings and with the same precautions.
They should be allowed the same rights as any other group.
@Will: “The Church have said”? That’s the same Church who after getting a sweet deal said they’d contribute to a redress scheme, but didn’t? The same Church that said “do unto others”, while brutalising generations of children? The same Church that said don’t “covet thy neighbour’s wife”, preached immaculate conceptions, yet systematically raped defenseless children? The same Church that preached that slavery was wrong, but sold children? The same Church that said it will try a Cardinal for dipping into the personal slush fund of Don Bergoglio, but hasn’t taken similar action against the pedophiles in it’s midst? There’s one of us is gullible, with lots of imaginary and invented scenarios in their head, but no rational person would confuse which of us that is. Shame, not support, is apt.
Freedom to have schooling and every part of the civil service entirely Religion free is far more important.
@David Grey: Correct
Why do people have to go to a church to pray if they believe God is everywhere ?
@Gerry in London: Because it’s not just about praying. It’s about getting the Eucharist which is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic church.
@Podge: And … the collections.
@Podge: the eucharist is akin to teaching cannibalism.
@Shay Leonard: It’s not akin, it actually _is_.
This is nothing to do with religion. It’s all about the money. The party and dressing up.. If. I was a Catholic bishop I would be worried. The sacraments is meaningless if they was a secular alternative . No one would pick a cold and drafty church over a nice hotel or venue.
Are they banning 1st confessions? it’s strange that they can’t allow communion during normal Sundays
Confirmation of what? Communion with what?
Why don’t the Catholic Church fight as hard fr partners to be allowed into Maternity Hospitals .???? Because there’s no money in it that’s why ! You don’t see any other faiths complaining .
Yes, it’s very important to allow the contagious Covid-19 delta variant freedom of assembly so that it can spread and infect yet more people.
If the health advice keeps the children out of the hands of paedophiles that will be an added benefit.
The simple truth is that parents cant be trusted not to have parties or drag their kids from relation to relation looking for the infamous communion money which for my class was the most important thing about the whole farce. Who got the most money?
The Catholic church has a history of ignoring the laws of this country
Reporting child abuse for starters, So wats new with a so-called spiritual leaders
You cannot be moral and believe in god there I said it
@Simon Fusco: “You cannot be moral and believe in god there I said it”
Trying to hard to be edgy there Simon.
Oh, and you’re wrong which would be obvious to anyone who lives in the real world.
@Will: I don’t think slavery is good god does I don’t think misogyny is good god does I don’t think child molestation is good god does. Do you believe in god because if you do you believe all of that is good too. Oh wow I’m so edgy pointing out how immoral you are.
@Will: oh no response how expected
The church want 50 people so let work it out, one parent per child, no make it two and the grandparents that 7 people, so 7 children make their communion with 1 priest and an alter boy.
They would have to be doing the 24 a day on 8 hour shifts for the priests and alter boys
The problem is not the church service, its the parties afterwards which is where religion plays second fiddle and is in fact forgotten.
The hierarchy as usual have no clue.
Bring on the superspreader events
have your say