saki

This made me laugh out loud! To add some proper content - I agree with the person up thread who is not that impressed with Sybbie. I don't think the child actor is particularly good or appealing.

I think Mabel Lane Fox is a missed opportunity. It made me realise how great it would be if Mary had a proper nemesis - someone who was her equal and who actually won some of the time. Instead, we have a character who appears to be Mary's equal but who takes her left-overs (Gillingham) and can't even beat her in a minor thing like a horse race. It's a bit pointless dramatically.

I think it's more of an UO to think, as I do, that Matthew genuinely loved Lavinia. He (unaccountably) clearly loved Mary more and preferred her, in the end, but I believe that - when Matthew got engaged to Lavinia originally - he did love Lavinia and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her. He just changed his mind. I think this largely because I don't think Matthew was the type of person who would propose to someone he wasn't in love with - he might feel he had to go through with an engagement, having fallen out of love, but I really don't think he loved Mary at the time when he proposed to Lavinia. I also, actually, think that Lavinia would have been a perfectly good Countess - being a Countess is not all about presiding over grand dinners, it's also about making sure that guests are comfortable, developing relationships with tenant farmers and being fair. I think Lavinia would have excelled at that side of things. Probably not an UO as such but related to the above, I found it profoundly irritating that Isobel shipped Matthew/Mary when she was clearly the sort of person who would despise Mary and prefer Lavinia.

There isn't an exact equivalent but, having a go (because I love cricket!): Failing to get anywhere = "duck" (really failing to get anywhere = "lame duck") First base = "off the mark" Second base = "boundary" Third base = "six" Home run = "six, right out of the ground"

I kind of wanted Mary to marry Richard Carlisle.. I found them much more interesting and compelling to watch than Mary/Matthew. Not only did I want to see this but I actually genuinely thought for a bit in Season 1 that Matthew was going to marry Sybil.

Yes, exactly, I don't think most of the cast look 13 years older than they did in the first series. I think they've done a better job with the men than the women - doubtless because they don't want to make the female characters look less attractive. In particular, I think Mary, Edith, Daisy and Anna look 5 years older at most! But, for me, it's also that I don't feel like they do anything useful with these jumps - the plotlines don't actually move on at all in the meantime - so what's the point?

It won't happen but I would really like (in the sense of thinking that it would be a powerful choice) George to die in WW2 in the epilogue. I guess I think one of the flaws of the show has been how insulated the family have been by external events and I think the heir dying in WW2 would be a really interesting ending. I don't want them to do more time jumps, they are getting kind of silly now - they make no effort to age any of the actors and don't really make the storylines realistic (so, Gillingham and Blake have spent 2 years hanging around Mary? really?)

Totally agree. I love the film Clueless but had never realised that Cher was meant to be Jewish, let alone a Jewish stereotype. Similarly, I had not thought of Cora's mother as a Jewish stereotype at all. A lot of it is that the American Jewish population is much much more prominent in American public life/arts/culture than the British Jewish population. I am British and happen to have lots of Jewish friends but that's very unusual - most British people have never met a Jewish person and there really aren't strong stereotypes of them for TV/film. To the extent that there is a stereotype, I think it's about being clever/intellectual rather than rich - see, for instance, Ed Milliband. Actually, thinking of the Milibands reminds me that there's a strong tradition of Jews being involved in trade unions/socialism in the UK, which is almost exactly opposite to the American rich capitalist stereotype.

I think what happened with Mary and Tony was partly misunderstanding - I think Tony definitely saw this as them having a firm 'understanding' that they were all but engaged whereas Mary was much more ambivalent still. And I think it was partly about how difficult it is to read Mary's feelings - I think Tony assumed that, since she didn't show any outward signs of having changed her mind about him, she hadn't. I don't think that's unreasonable - particularly given the context, given that Mary went away with him and had sex with him for a whole week, if she didn't show any signs of disliking him/the sex, I don't blame him for being quite shocked. I don't think she was in the wrong for changing her mind - she was perfectly entitled to do that - but I also don't think he was in the wrong for being quite shocked and upset at being dumped without any warning. I do think he was in the wrong for how aggressive he became but, then, I also agree with Andorra that telling lots of other people that she was going to dump him before him was pretty tacky.

I am completely indifferent to Tom and have been all along. The character and actor are just not very compelling to me in an any way. I really couldn’t care less whether or not he is on the show. I don’t hate him, I am just indifferent. I didn’t really buy Matthew/Mary as a love story. I didn’t get what they saw in each other, I didn’t think they were a good fit for one another – they didn’t have the same values and I didn’t feel like their personalities meshed (I felt like Mary needed someone a bit stronger who was able to say no to her and Matthew needed someone with more empathy). I didn’t think the chemistry between the actors was very strong either. I thought the chemistry between Matthew and Sybil was far far stronger and I genuinely thought that’s where it was going in Season 1. In fact, in general, I find myself unconvinced by the romances on the show – the only ones that are working for me are Atticus/Rose and Molesley/Baxter and I suspect that’s because they aren’t major plot lines. I really like Isobel – her humanity, her interest in the less fortunate, her kindness. I don’t hate Bunting. I don’t love her either but I don’t hate her with the passion that everyone else seems to. I think she can be a bit abrasive but I don’t think she’s as rude as people think she is – for example, I really didn’t think it was rude or disrespectful for her to express her opinion about the war memorial. I don’t think she was dishonouring those who had died at all, she just had a different take on it. Other characters – particularly Mary and Violet – also often express different opinions but never seem to be criticised for it in this way. I also (again v. unpopular) don’t take the view that she was too unattractive for Tom – I think she’s perfectly pleasant looking and I don’t think Tom is especially handsome (especially after his weight gain recently) so I think they look fine together. I loved the Pamuk storyline in season 1, I think the episode where he dies is the best episode in the entire show. As an aside, I don’t think it’s an unpopular opinion to think that Mary/Michelle Dockery is pretty, I think it’s more that many people (myself included) don’t think that she’s pretty enough to explain the level of interest that she gets from men and their indifference to other women on the show (particularly Rose!). To be honest, I’m not sure it’s possible for anyone to be pretty enough to have the reaction to her make sense – it really is like she’s Helen of Troy!

I think that's right - that seasons 2 and 3 are quite different re: Lavinia. That said, I often see people saying that they really liked Mary in season 2 and that it was a good redemptive kind of season for her. I find it the worst season for Mary - because of her attitude to WW1 and the wounded soldiers. The only thing she does for the war effort, other than nurse Matthew because she's in love with him, is sing in a concert and - even then - she whinges about it. My favourite season for Mary - really the only one I can tolerate her in at all - is season 1. I don't like her that much in season 1 but I find her entertaining to have on screen.

I wonder if this is an accent thing - to me (and I have a very RP English accent - much like Edith's!), Mary and Marigold really don't sound that similar. Ethel and Edna were quite unhelpful, though, particularly because both were servants - I didn't mix them up with Edith particularly.

I don't think it's Mary's responsibility, at all (and I hate Mary!) but... They did know that she was ill with the Spanish flu, that she wasn't very physically strong, so - yeah - while they didn't know that she would die, they did know - from the fact that so many people died from this - that it was serious. And, even if they hadn't known that at the time, I think it would be normal human feeling to look at that retrospectively and feel bad. I honestly think most people would. Mary's reaction to Matthew's very natural scruples about taking Swire money and giving it to support Mary in the style to which she's accustomed is so angry and disappointed, it really shows a complete lack of feeling. I could understand why she'd disagree with his position but she shows no understanding of it which comes across to me as almost sociopathic. I also completely disagree that Lavinia was a "simpering doormat" - she had the guts to cut a deal with Sir Richard. No, she wasn't constantly rude to people and didn't think herself superior but she had her own opinions, she had the strength to do things when she needed to, she was a good match for Matthew, I felt.

Mad Men – just found it really dull. I think it was mostly the characters – just not engaging for me in any way. Arrested Development – found it completely unfunny. Because of the rave reviews, I watched about 6 episodes before realising that I’d smiled twice and not laughed once. I have seen so many people tell me how clever this show is but, when I read about what people find funny about it, it just leaves me completely cold. The Wire – I just couldn’t follow it. I’m British and the accents threw me off totally. The West Wing – again, I found it too difficult to follow. Think it’s the combination of being a really fast paced show and, not being American, not really understanding the set up. Angel – I loved Buffy but I found Angel pretty mediocre. The show gets more and more ludicrous as it goes on - the character of Cordelia, especially, just becomes unrecognisable from the original character who used to be great fun. The story arcs drag on and on and on - the Season 2 one spends so long setting up the story that I'd lost interest in it by the time things started happening. I don't hate long arcs but I don't think Angel is a show that manages to pace them very well.

I think the way that they pair Isobel with the Dowager makes it appear like she's older. In fact, she's in between Cora and Violet in age but in terms of the dynamic of the show, it wouldn't make sense for Isobel to spend more time with Cora.

Tara. It's mostly the actress who seemed to play the role as if she was stoned out of her mind or incredibly stupid. She had no spark, no chemistry with anyone else. Really boring. But the writing was also not great for her - she's basically Willow but without Willow's flaws. That's not very interesting. Oddly, given that everyone else on this thread seems to go the other way, I disliked basically all the characters more on Angel than on Buffy. I think because the show just seemed to me to be much more simplistic - it seemed to be about how Angel somehow could miraculously Save people and everyone who went over (Cordelia, Faith, Wesley, Darla) somehow had their flaws removed through being in Angel's presence.

This was brilliant! Separately, because I feel bad posting just to say that, I think - for me - Baxter/Molesley's slow-burn romance has actually been the best written and acted romance on the entire show. I totally believe in it and root for them in a way that I haven't for any of the other romances on the show.

Yes, she clearly didn't want pretty dresses/nice house enough to stomach Sir Richard - though, she did consider it strongly - but she did consider them sufficient reasons not to marry Matthew. I still don't really understand on what basis anyone thinks that she wanted to save Downton because of her wider understanding of its importance - I can't recall a single line from the show that would suggest that but plenty that would suggest that it was about not wanting to live in a smaller house and have fewer nice dresses. For example, Cora says "Mary, a lot of people live in smaller houses than they used to", Mary replies, "Which shows you're American and I'm English. I shall be Countess of Grantham one day and the Countess of Grantham lives at Downton Abbey." Or, a couple more examples, "Get it done quickly.This dinner has to be the grandest of the grand." "What do you hope to show her?" "Why Downton matters, why it mustn't fall apart." "'I'm glad we've planned a dinner. We can show you the real point of Downton." I honestly can't find a single line, looking through the transcripts, that suggests that Mary has these broader interests in Downton or the wellbeing of the staff, etc

For me, this is not about disliking Mary for putting ambition before love - I don't generally dislike female characters for that, though I realise many do. It's about disliking Mary for being so shallow as to put living in a nice house, being important and having lots of money ahead of love. I don't see any evidence at all to support the idea that the reason why she wanted to stay at Downton was about preserving the estate for future generations or looking after tenant farmers or anything of the sort. On the contrary, I think there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that it's not about that - she is advocating, in season 1, getting rid of the entail when its entire purpose is to preserve the estate for future generations and to keep the historic link between title and estate, and (as I've said earlier in the thread so won't repeat too much) what she presents her grandmother with to justify further investment into Downton. Being a "responsible chatelaine" was about more than nice dinners and pretty dresses but I see absolutely no evidence that Mary understood that. I don't find that kind of shallowness attractive or interesting. (Separately, I love Becky Sharp and, actually, kind of dislike Elizabeth Bennet!)

Taking this over from the Edith thread I really don't agree that Mary was hard done by in season 1 with the entail business. Nor do I think she was in any way "the rightful heir". The way that the aristocracy works is that the title and estate goes through the male line. They all knew that. Mary had known that for her entire life. They stood absolutely no chance of changing that. Cora's money didn't have to be tied up with the estate - they chose to do that when they assumed that they'd have had a son. But, even if they'd been able to get that back in some way, the norm would be for the mother's money to be split equally between the daughters. It was really not standard at the time for the eldest daughter to be given something extra. I get that, with modern eyes, we view this as tremendously sexist. But I think, if we're going to do that, we shouldn't pick and choose - the modern way is to split your money between all your children, not discriminating on the basis of gender but also not discriminating on the basis of age. I.e. Why should Matthew feel like he had to give the money to Mary? Why not to Mary, Edith and Sybil? I guess, basically, I don't find it easy to root for someone who wouldn't agree to marry the person who we are led to believe is the love of their life because of money. I think it is straightforward gold-digging. Until very recently, Mary showed absolutely no interest in running the estate, caring for the tenants and noblesse oblige. Honestly, I see no evidence that Mary's desire to marry whoever was inheriting Downton (unless, obviously, that was her little brother!) was about anything other than a desire to wear nice dresses and be very important. That is brought out, for me, by the storyline with her American grandmother and Robert losing the money - Mary wants to save Downton, she wants to show her grandmother what Downton means and why her grandmother should invest in it. What does Mary do? Does she show her grandmother how many people rely on Downton for their livelihood? Does she show her how Downton supports and cares for its tenants and their wellbeing? No... she throws a fancy dinner. Because that's what Downton means to her. Of course, of late, Mary has taken an interest in pig farming and all sorts. But none of that was a factor in her not wanting to marry country-lawyer!Matthew. I don't think it's similar at all to Pride and Prejudice - I can't imagine Elizabeth Bennett being told that Darcy had lost his money and deciding against marrying him.

Tapplum - I'm going to take this to the Mary thread.

I also don't think that Robert betrayed Mary over the entail. They knew all along that none of their daughters would inherit. Mary never had any right to it. Really, she should have got over that a very long time ago. Particularly as she said that she wasn't committed to marrying Patrick so she actually basically had the same options that she'd always had.

I think some of this is about the actress. To me, the scene where Mary says "So, I've ruined everything" doesn't come across to me as remorseful at all. When I watched that scene, what I got from it was that she was trying to confirm where she stood with Matthew. I find it really bizarre that she thinks it's even possible that someone she didn't want to agree to marry because there was a 50:50 chance that he might not be wealthy would still want her. But it is also about the writing - at no point does she say anything approaching "I'm sorry" or "I made a mistake". So, I don't really agree that she took responsibility there. Or for Pamuk.

I'm interested to know what unfortunate decisions/choices you think she's made? I think there are some - having sex with Gregson and not being more decisive about Marigold. (Although I find especially the stuff with Marigold incredibly frustrating to watch, I do also have some sympathy with her situation there.) But I don't think she's made a whole load of unfortunate choices or anything, I think - mostly - she's just had incredibly bad luck. It, frankly, doesn't make any sense that every man who visits Downton falls for Mary and not her - Edith is very pretty and much more well informed and interesting to talk to. I get the impression that she'd be a much better wife - more likely to compromise, communicate, take an interest in her husband's life. In particular, I find it unbelievable that she didn't get half a dozen proposals during the period where she was looking after the wounded officers. And, of course, it is incredibly unusual to get pregnant from a single one-off sexual encounter. Just as Mary (and Robert and, to some extent Tom) are teflon, Edith is a velcro character.

I really didn't enjoy Mad Men. I kept going for about half of season 1 and just couldn't continue. The big reasons why were: I found it boring, the story just didn't move at a sufficient pace; I found the characters all unlikeable - I don't have to like everyone in a show but not liking anyone at all, even a little bit, isn't compelling for me. I also gather that a lot of fans really find Don Draper attractive but I really did not. I also didn't really enjoy Grey's Anatomy. I watched for most of the first season but it was clear that Meredith and Derek were the central part of the show and I disliked Derek so much that I didn't think I'd enjoy watching that. I watched Private Practice instead.. I liked Pushing Daisies a lot but I'm glad it got cancelled when it did as I just can't see how they could stretch out the storyline much further.