Mrs Robinson: a Wikipedia entry brought to life
It's a shame, then, that her life has been flattened out into a functional feel-good story by
Mrs Robinson
(RTÉ One,9.35pm). The documentary, released in cinemas in 2024 and now airing on terrestrial television, has a becalmed, 'eat your greens' quality and is incurious about the private person behind the public figure.
The best that can be said is that it does an efficient job tracing the broad arc of Robinson's career – from her childhood as the daughter of two doctors and the grandchild of a well-connected local lawyer in Ballina to her advocacy for women's rights as a young barrister in 1970s Dublin. Her fearlessness in the face of power is confirmed all over again as we see her become UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and stand up to both China and the United States – only to be asked to leave the job before her term was up.
But while these milestones are ticked off, Mrs Robinson doesn't seem to have any opinions of its own about the former Uachtarán and what has ended up on screen has the quality of a Wikipedia entry brought to life. Across its 90 minutes, the film cries out for a spark – a zinging insight, a surprise that adds to our appreciation or understanding of Robinson. None is forthcoming.
READ MORE
It also glosses over Robinson's privileged background as the daughter of doctors, who grew up in a prominent house in the middle of Ballina. At a time when most people had very little, the Bourkes had a lot. There was a nanny at home and rather than attend school in Mayo she was educated privately at Mount Anville in Dublin.
She was, as she says on camera, a woman and, thus, a second-class citizen in post-de Valera Ireland. But there were a lot of third-class citizens at the time, too, and it is a shame that she isn't asked for her views about privilege and power in Ireland.
The turning point in her life, of course, was the 1990 presidential election. As the film shows, the campaign against her had a nasty edge. One low was Charles Haughey apparatchik Pádraig Flynn going on the radio and claiming that she was presenting a fake version of herself and of her having a newfound interest in her family.
However, Mrs Robinson makes the baffling decision to skirt around rival candidate Brian Lenihan's self-sabotage when he contradicted himself on television over whether he had phoned the Aras to ask President Hillery to decline to dissolve the Dáil in 1982.
At the time, the 'mature recollection' debacle was widely regarded as having swung the election. And yet Mrs Robinson does not mention it. Nor does it broach the whispering campaign against the President once she had taken up residency at the Phoenix Park - for instance, the notorious 'Big Bird' incident in which her fashion sense was mocked. There was a feeling at the time that many in Ireland wished to undermine her and could not come to terms with a woman in power. You wouldn't know it from watching Mrs Robinson.
There are contributions from celebrity admirers such as mogul Richard Branson and musician Peter Gabriel. The film isn't quite a hagiography, however. Robinson admits to bad judgment over leaving the presidency three months early to take up her job with the UN. She is embarrassed, too, over having been manipulated into vouching for the safety of Dubai's Princess Latifa.
Good on her for having the courage to acknowledge her missteps – and for her continuing advocacy for climate justice. As both a young lawyer and today as an outspoken elder stateswoman, she has always walked towards the future with dignity and courage. She deserves better than this often plodding film.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Social media and responsibility
Sir – The random stabbing of a young member of An Garda Síochána on Capel Street in Dublin has been properly condemned. What also needs to be condemned is the fact that hours after the Garda clarified that the suspected attacker was an Irish man, social media such as X was still carrying comments claiming that the attacker was a 'foreigner'. Surely social media companies have a responsibility to take down comments which are clearly inaccurate and harmful? We should all be mindful of the vulnerability of immigrants to violent behaviour by people likely to have been motivated by false and malicious social media comments. – Yours, etc, PETER FEENEY, READ MORE (Former press ombudsman), Donnybrook, Dublin 4.
Irish Times
8 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on X's court defeat: the conflict will continue
The High Court's rejection of X's challenge to Ireland's new online safety code may come to be seen as a milestone in the enforcement of Europe's digital rulebook. It is also a reminder that the battle over online content regulation is not simply a matter of legal interpretation or child protection policy. It sits squarely in the middle of a transatlantic struggle over who sets the rules for the digital economy. Ireland's Online Safety Code, enforced by Coimisiún na Meán, requires platforms to shield children from harmful video content, introduce age checks and parental controls, and prevent the sharing of material that promotes self-harm, eating disorders or bullying. The court ruled these measures fall within the EU's Audiovisual Media Services Directive and complement the Digital Services Act, dismissing X's claims of overreach. That finding may seem straightforward from a European perspective. The EU has long sought to assert that technology companies must respect European standards if they wish to operate here. But the US views such measures through a different lens, shaped by its dominance in the tech sector and a political culture that prizes free expression in almost absolute terms. The commercial stakes are immense. The global tech services market is overwhelmingly dominated by American firms: Meta, Google, Apple and Amazon. EU regulation is therefore not just a neutral exercise in public protection but, inevitably, a rebalancing of power between the jurisdictions where these companies are based and the markets in which they operate. That tension is heightened by the fact that Ireland is home to the European headquarters of many of these firms, making it the front line in this conflict. READ MORE In Washington, the issues are often couched in the language of principle. Conservative figures such as JD Vance have been vocal in their defence of unfettered online speech, casting regulation as censorship. Such arguments, while grounded in America's First Amendment tradition, also align neatly with the commercial interests of the companies whose revenues depend on maximising user engagement. The defence of principle and the defence of profit are intertwined. The ruling against X will not end these disputes. The tech industry's legal resources are vast, and its political allies influential. But it confirms that Ireland, acting within the EU framework, has the authority to challenge the ethos of the platforms it hosts. That will not be welcomed in boardrooms in California or on Capitol Hill. As the digital economy becomes a key arena of US-EU competition, Ireland's decisions will be read not only as regulatory acts but as statements about where power lies in the online world. Tuesday's judgment suggests that, at least for now, that power may be shifting.
Irish Times
8 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the Government VAT row: tensions ahead
With many Government ministers now scattered to the beaches and byways, attention to matters in Leinster House has turned briefly quiet. But the reverberations from a row over VAT on hospitality still linger, offering a taste of fractious budgetary debates to come in September. The flare-up, pitting Fianna Fáil against Fine Gael, may seem familiar. It echoes the tensions seen earlier this summer over third-level college fees and once again highlights the uneasy balance at the heart of the Coalition. The proposal to reduce the hospitality VAT rate to 9 per cent was a Fine Gael manifesto pledge that found its way, with caveats, into the Programme for Government. But enthusiasm for the measure is not universally shared. Simon Harris, eager to demonstrate economic support for small business and the regions, has championed the move. However, his party colleague, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe, was notably blunt in the Summer Economic Statement. The cut, he noted, would consume nearly two-thirds of the pot set aside for tax measures. READ MORE That alone was enough to raise eyebrows. More pointedly, Fianna Fáil's Minister of State Niall Collins described the proposal as an unnecessary concession to a 'price-gouging' industry. Fine Gael countered that hospitality is a major regional employer under pressure from rising costs. Both sides later sought to play down the public spat. Coalition tensions are nothing new, but the nature of this disagreement suggests tougher debates to come. While calling the 2026 budget a 'hairshirt' one would be absurd, it is clear nonetheless that the era of fiscal generosity is drawing to a close. Trade-offs are inevitable. One such compromise may involve delaying the reduction until mid-2026. That might provide enough breathing room for competing demands, though no one will be entirely satisfied. In the end, the episode may be remembered as a sideshow to more serious economic challenges. Still, it has cast a light on the limits of coalition unity in an era of fiscal tightening.
