SusanSunflower

It did occur to me that Fellowes himself might have "leaked" to VF ... Regardless VF has more credibility that most newspapers .. Actually, the "lack of imagination" AFTER Mattthew's death (rather than that dreadful car wreck) is what makes me groan. Rather than endlessly-mournful-Mary, I'd have liked to have seen more Scarlett-O'Hara I'm-not-dead-yet Mary and sooner and with more verve ... even an initially more-mournful more-tearful Mary in the early episodes. Y'know more flesh-and-blood. Nuf.

This was the first post after my post of the VF article -- but there have been reported denials from JF within the last months -- I'm assuming these reports of denials are more-likely-than-not accurate and true ... ergo, short of some "clever" deception by JF (claiming it's not ending when really it is for some arcane reason) -- he's not willing to make an announcement ... reminded me of Dan Stevens -- will-he/won't he be back for an episode of two next season, what was offered, what was refused, etc. ... but all this "drama" and accompanying denials and "secrets" about cast changes became, imho, silly. eta: If I were a cast member who had been through months of keeping Stevens widely-rumored departure "secret" -- I might be tempted to "leak" to a "respected source" just to get-it-over-with and force JF's hand. His demands on the actors to keep "secrets" must be tiresome at at this point, particularly for those leaving. I don't know VF's track-record but JF will be hard pressed to just wave-away this report.

I'd be tempted to suggest that Fellowes may CURRENTLY be in as much denial about cast members wanting to leave NOW as he was when Dan Stevens decided to exit THEN -- and with regard to the extreme writing challenge involved ahead if he tries to simply "carry-on" ... I don't think he's up to the challenge and his new project beckons. He's squandered so much time and audience buy-in -- everyone rooting for his success -- and ended up with characters going through their well-recognized paces in predictable plots. Sorry, but imho, Santa's not coming to endow Fellowes with either the imagination or the talent to pull it off. eta: Yes, and Downton moves at a glacial pace ... I don't see any way "move" George from preschool to the battlefields of WWII in 1, 2 or even 3 seasons -- as with most children we don't "know" him and have no personal reason yet to be "invested" emotionally in his story

March 20, 2015 Vanity Fair: Downton Abbey Is Reportedly Ending After Its Sixth Season http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/downton-abbey-ending-sixth-season March 2, 2015 Vanity Fair Downton Abbey’s Sixth Season Will Probably Be Maggie Smith’s Last http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/maggie-smith-leaving-downton-abbey

My guess is that it's deliberate and meant to simplify shooting / continuity. You're right, it is conspicuous. Very rarely someone is holding a book, I think Cora was once shown doing needlework, newpapers at the breakfast table. Laura Carmichael looked gorgeous -- continuity with that mousy little creature seen earlier be damned and I don't care!!

I hated the whole last season of the emasculated Matthew and was disappointed that there was so little friction and that Cora never reached out to Matthew in an "I know that you're going through marrying into this family" way -- or -- to Mary, in a "you are going to ruin your marriage if you do not stop treating Matthew like an underling and always side with your father." Matthew was not allowed to disagree with Robert for very long before Mary would "punish" him. And then yes, as with Edith's baby crisis, where sensible Isobel? She became a face in family photos and nothing more -- not even "sensibly butting out." There should have been more conflict and more laughs. Surely Matthew would have resisted being treated like a nincompoop by both Mary and Robert ... what fun if Matthew and Tom had been allowed to conspire ... oh well.

Regardless, I think giving both Gillingham and Blake the heave-ho badly hobbles audience buy-in to Mary's next suitor. She's been shown to be a cold fish even when presented with two attractive very-eligible age-appropriate men. I think either could have and would have succeeded with the audience (not all of the audience, that's the problem when you have a choice of two attractive....) if Mary had shown any emotional investment. The only time she looked vaguely "hurt" was when Blake declared surrender and went to bed, leaving her along in front of the fire. She spent more time and effort getting rid of Gillingham than she did "wooing" him -- and I think much of the audience mistrusted him and thought him rather cluelessly overbearing. Not as bad as Carlisle, but he was presumptuous. It did not feel to me as if Fellowes had somehow plotted or planned all this, more as if he (like Mary) was unwilling to commit to the actors/characters and/or they were less than enthusiastic. If this bland love-less "triangle" was intended to be some plot engine ... well, I think more people chose to care about Edith or Cora or even Isobel or Isis -- some place where happiness / misery was in the balance. If Fellowes was just stringing-us-along, he's a terrible showrunner. Next year he can wasted our time by throwing Downton into financial peril and casting Matthew Goode as a new-improved Carlisle. Is Mary/Dockery capable of genuine chemistry with anyone? We will have to wait and see.

My memory of one of the very first extensive press junket** several of the actors -- specifically Elizabeth McGovern -- said something only mildly not-even-negative -- and then spent days walking it back, as if the boom had come down. Someone else, I think it may have been Siobhan Finneran who played O'Brien, said something and it was similarly walked back ... but I remember McGovern's repeated sputtering "I didn't mean that ..." that gave me the impression that the production company was monitoring them carefully. It was part of the creation in my mind that Fellowes (and likely Eaton as well) were control freaks. McGovern's instant retraction piqued curiosity and I certainly have wondered from time to time just how exhausting filming in the house, likely under Fellowes exacting eye might be. I wondered it again this season with Mary's I'm-so-bored delivery in most dining scenes, which someone in the cast said took FOREVER -- I'm guessing repeated performances with different cameras/angles to pick up all the details, dialogue, servants, etc. Contracts can have all sorts of clauses and I'm guessing theirs are actually very restrictive -- consider the lack of real details about anything -- including Dan Steven's departure -- but also Anthony Foyle (Gillingham) and/or Julian Ovenden,(Blake), particularly the latter who was written out rather abruptly (off to Poland, bye!) -- Gregson anyone? I've looked to see what else various actors have signed up for .. Ovenden apparently took a not-leading-role in a new TV series between season 4 and season 5 when he was written out. No idea why he would do that. It doesn't -- by any means -- mean that things are unhappy, but that there's either something in the contract or people know "better" than to talk out of class. ** it was apparently season2 : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/downton-abbey-elizabeth-mcgovern_n_1452396.html

Molesley's nice because he doesn't seem to carry grudges... he learns who's who and what's what and after a sulk, gets on with being pleasant and professional. I'm not sure Fellowes intends or "plots" these character shifts. Isobel between season 1 and 2, from upright middle class do-gooder to meddlesome and even quarrelsome then back again to the nice Isobel, minus social condition concerns. Violet's recent shift has been to "kinder, gentler" and more open but it's still startling and more startling because she had been "aging" significantly before this last season and now seems almost spry. See also Cora this last season and Robert this last episode, almost unrecognizable. Thomas is always malevolently scheming, but if he has some inner rage or despondency, it's well hidden. He seems to interact well-enough with other staff on a day-by-basis but after all this time, I have no idea what wellspring of anger keeps him going -- sometimes it's sort-of-obvious revenge, but other times mysterious -- the idea that to comes from "being gay" isn't really enough. I originally thought Fellowes was "shaking things up" and "keeping things interesting" but the more I thought, the less coherent that explanation became.

I think the whole Sinderley family capers does not bear thinking about and was/is only possible because we are never going to see those people ever again. He now knows that a half-dozen people -- not family -- know about his "indiscretion," and he doesn't seem the type to decide to move to India and give up his "significant role in the community." It was disproportionate to his "crime" and I'm doubtful he even connects it to rudness to Tom Branson or any action on his part -- just that he was screwed over by "someone" and the Rose and Granthams saved his bacon for reasons unclear. He will make inquiries, at very least trace the message to his mistress back to the house. But it doesn't matter to us - we've moved on. I can envision the butler smiling as he discretely pushes Thomas in front of a train, fwiw.

Dockery just completed a movie co-starring Matthew Goode (of all people) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140379/

Funny because Dan Stevens isn't my type -- at all -- and I had originally thought he was the next BBC/PBS costume drama crumpet of the week ... but he grew on me, playing that rather thankless character and really trying (and often succeeding) in adding some spontaneity and humor to his lines/scenes. I never quite understood the protestations of the staff and cast that they were stunned by the popularity of the show (given its pedigree, in hindsight, it would seem a natural, except that it's so shallow and so soapy), so I've never known what how long they expected to playing these roles. Stevens declined to re-up. If it was in fact about money, that's never been revealed, to my knowledge, but I'm doubtful. Given season 2 -- without some promise about story/character development (again if this was an issue, I do not know), just refusing to spend another year in grin-and-bear-it mode, regardless of money. The clock is ticking for all young actors -- suddenly you're not the ingenue, not the romantic lead, not an action hero (though Downey has pushed that age limit enormously -- but who'd have guessed it? not me). I was happy for him when he left -- even without knowing of any future projects because at that point Fellowes' writing had hit a low-point ... Regardless, it's still very frustrating because this show should and could be so much better ... eta: Fellowes' ego seems to be stumbling block -- he wants all the credit and plows on -- oblivious that the ship had foundered many times ... If there were something competitive at 9 p.m. on Sunday evenings, he might be unpleasantly surprised. I still weary of the New Guard at Masterpiece -- we've got 6 or more weeks of Selfridges coming up -- for (older and/or poorer) folks without cable -- both are better than most everything else that's on, but not remotely challenging or particularly "dramatic" or engaging ... they're more like thumbing through Martha Stewart's Living magazine ... not a bad way to pass an hour. I re-watched North and South this last week and then did some googling because I knew nothing about the leads -- startled to discover that sharp-beaked (not my type) Richard Armitage was the heart-throb of Robin Hood ...

My problem with Hughes and Carson is that Hughes seems so much quicker than Carson and much much more forgiving -- and -- she's going into a relationship in which she will financially dependent and in running a B&B, an employee of this same man. Bates and Anna's relationship arose without financial concern. I think Hughes and Carson have a good enough working relationship, but 24/7/365 might get too much, in fact, for either of them. Carson needs to lighten up and becomes rejuvenated -- which is entirely possible. Hughes will need to be a bit less deferring, which will not be hard for her -- unless Carson exerts his "perogatives".

The only extended interview I read with Stevens was one that talked about his troubles keeping up with his reading having been chosen to one of the Booker Prize panelists shortly before starting Downton. My memory is that he also wants/wanted to write, studied literature and act in theater, which all seems rather "boilerplate" -- I remember a similar endearing interview with Kiera Knightley talking about "learning her craft" etc, after starting out very young -- which more recent interviews (after audience backlash) rather contradict. The media is so powerful and often cruel -- they built Nicole Kidman post-divorce up as some "you've hardly seen the beginning of her talents and beauty" greatest actress, and while she can be very good, she's not all that and her looks really do get in the way when the director/cinematographyer will.not.stop. with the camera. It's impossible most of the time, particularly in actual movies, to know where the director/writer leaves off and the acting begins. I saw Knightley savaged in comment sections for "A Dangerous Method" -- a role critics applauded and that was likely carefully and meticulously directed based on Freud/Jung's notes. I thought it was both a good and a brave performance, but it and Anna Karenina apparently sparked some avalanche of social medial disappointments. Dan Stevens -- wiki -- Cambridge, Literature, Footlights, Marlowe Society -- solid education eta: I should add that I'm not a "big" Knightley fan, but I have thought (and may still) that she had genuine potential -- if -- directors would stop fawning all over her -- I thought her Pride and Prejudice performance was awful, but I thought that whole production was god-awful -- if pretty and enjoyable -- see also Donald Sutherland's doddering charicature of a performance as the father. I think she's often much better than her detractors would admit ...

Oh, probably -- my guess is that Fellowes believes he "made" Steven's entire career and is entitled to remind everyone of that forever ... just part of "his" (Fellowes) genius to have cast Stevens ... or something. At the time Stevens left, It did feel (to me anyway) as if there was an effort to paint him as having just committed career suicide ... and for DA's fans to "never forgive him" which seemed petty and unfair. If Stevens has ever said an unkind thing -- eyeball rolling at the "he walks!!!" and other plot contrivances excepted -- I've never heard of it. I have my own guesses as to why he felt he needed to leave ... but they are guesses ... along the lines of wanting to do other things and avoiding type-casting. With his looks, it will take care to avoid being shoe-boxed -- see Richard Chamberlain and/or Rob Lowe as also considered at least somewhat unfairly imho "too pretty to be taken seriously"

I have no memory -- I'm just glad that Beauty and the Beast will give him some "breathing room" to be choosy about his next part or go do theater or whatever. The pressure to "keep working so they don't forget about you" and to make sure your support team is happily getting paid to match their expectations, etc. must be intense. I have no idea how many movies will be made in the next decade with a part for him ... though many of the "old guard" are getting long-in-the-tooth for roles he'd be up for (thinking Depp, DiCaprio, Colin Farrell). Oh, I saw Winter's Tale on netflix and thought that while far from perfect it was perfectly enjoyable if you don't mind heart-on-sleeve stories ... All this reminded me of Jessica who was not a luminously amazingly beautiful as she probably needed to be to overcome that movie being declared a turkey. It was an "impossible to film" book that probably should have stayed a book since it went well beyond "magical realism" ... but in a very long book with a very strong first third, it worked. (I hate magical realism). She's up soon in a Frankenstein movie with Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy ... so that's good.

Don't remember Dan Stevens singing but I take your word that Christmas carols were sung by him ... I was thinking it was Dockery who was in a "band" but then remembered it was Elizabeth McGovern ... who apparently captivated many many hearts years ago (during a period I obviously was not going to the movies). -- oh wait, Dockery sometimes sings in McGovern's band and elsewhere, for realz -- "Dockery is a jazz singer. She sang at the 50th Anniversary of Ronnie Scott's Jazz club in London and has occasionally sung with Sadie and the Hotheads, a band formed by Elizabeth McGovern, who plays her mother in Downton Abbey. Dockery cites her musical influences as Peggy Lee, Melody Gardot and Billie Holiday in her more melancholy moods." Didn't realize Daisy was playing an Evil Stepsister in the new Cinderalla (photo) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/movies/cinderella-has-a-dusting-of-downton-abbey.html?& Sounds like playing "the Beast" in Beauty and the Beast was probably a much-coveted role, if just for the almost guaranteed big paycheck -- so I'm guessing Stevens sings at least as well as the runner ups. I'm surprised and pleased that they didn't cast teenagers ...

It's funny -- I come from an "old New England family" and admired the Alcotts and the whole Trancendentalist traditions, etc, so I do not know how wide spread generally pride in old-fashioned "American" values of lack of pretension, plainness (in the puritan sense) and forthrightness (even in women) really is/was, but I am reminded of the pretensions of the "Age of Innocence" -- storing new Paris designer clothes for a season to avoid being too "new" -- re-wearing of the wedding dress the following season, etc. These certainly were pretensions of "humility" (or something) by the very wealthy elite of Wharton's New York. I still think "Little Women" is a great exemplar of "American values" ... no matter how old-fashioned and idealized. eta: Yes, I am a boomer and there was an enormous revival of interest in intentional-communities like Brook Farm and the Shakers in the 1960's along with back-to-the-land and voluntary simplicity.

Yes, as I recall, sun exposure was the basis of some of Violet's put-downs of Shirley Maclaine's character's complexion. Hats, face powder, parasols -- all protected the face -- gloves protected the hands, and all encumbrances that regular folks could not afford, since most were purchased items and expressions of vanity for those who eschewed vanity. Part of the American stereotype was "ruddy" complexion and a bounding gait, as I recall, oh, and loud, indiscreet and grating voice -- and laugh!

What ambitious casting! I suspect they are trying to lure parents to bring their children (of all ages) to that big theater downtown -- and the usual DVD sales. I don't recall the story exactly (never saw the cartoon or the musical), but I do remember it was one of the fairy tales I did like (and I was not big on fairy tales as a child -- only appreciating them after college "ethnographically" as cultural and cross-cultural icons. This production sounds almost "instant classic" ... good news.

What we saw of Talbott felt a bit like a cheat ... I saw Goode recently on a re-watch of Death comes to Pemberly where he was really strikingly handsome -- so I know what he CAN be .. but Talbott really doesn't have much to recommend him except that he's not swooning over Mary already and he had demonstrated -- to her satisfaction -- that he can keep up with her.. what-the-ev'. I'm guessing it's too much to ask for him to be interesting, as in intelligent or well-educated ...

JF's idea of a "cute meet" -- why would she bother to be rude to him if it wasn't the "start of something." -- Probably Mary as Darcy ...

Never gonna happen, but If Fellowes wanted to keep DA running for another half-decade, the bold move would be to do a big time jump -- say 10+ years and start next season full of suprises -- with Mary and/or Edith married, with more children 6 and 7 year "younger" children playing with the teenaged Sybbie, and George and Marigold ... with -- let's see, Violet, Robert and probably Isobel all dead -- with Cora sitting in Violet's place at dinner and probably living in the Dower House, etc. It's going to be very hard work to re-invigorate these present characters so they again become must-see-Tee-Vee. I suspect it would have been leaked if they were going "bold" ... but another "saying goodbye" season is likely to wear out its welcome quickly and be deadly dull. (Not terminal illnesses, please!! Too many of us have been or are living with that through that IRL)

It may be more of a business partnership to run the B&B ... in which case marriage is probably necessary for cohabitation and other things like inheritance of shared-deed (which may have been signified by "I'm not marrying anyone else" and I'm not sure Carson has ever mentioned any family, i.e., no other heirs -- oh, and didn't he put her on the deed without her knowledge or consent, much less marriage?). I was surprised a bit because people who are congenitally "not right in the head," needing ongoing care, tend to not live to "old age" -- even today -- because they tend to have impediments in communication so things like pneumonia or even appendicitis are often recognized a bit later -- see also compliance with treatment. "These days" such people are more likely to live to "old age" (and have heart disease and diabetes, etc. that need managing), but that is a relatively "modern" phenomenon/trend.

I'm not sure how many episodes or years it was before we saw the outside of Beacon Place on U/D, besides the front and back door ... but they had so many people coming and going (as Rosmund and Strallen served in DA first years). I think that not only is it called DA, it is also largely shot on location at DA and environs, so to bring in Edith-in-London (even the present trips there, staying with Rosmund or at "the London House") requires either more locations or sets and significant costs/logistics. God knows, imho, it would be worth it, but again it's not apparently within Fellowe's "vision" (or writing skills). I had hoped that Tom/Bunting, Anna/John and even The Drewes would open the immediate environs a lot more than they did -- but that has little to do with Edith finding security in the relative anonymity of London, the biggest of big cities. Actually, development of Mary's extraordinary equestrian skills might have been used to show some sort of contrast between the girls -- if Edith had any similar hobby or passion... oh, wait, that column for, oh wait, that magazine/newspaper ... oh, yes, I remember now! (seriously, a mine of potential character development). I've always been a little surprised the Isobel has taken so little interest in the depressed/withdrawn Edith, but then I said ages ago she would have been an obvious ally for fallen-woman/unwed-mother-Edith, so never mind. Isobel is elderly bachelor/widow magnet ... nuff said.