DianeDobbler

I really think this was a misfire by the writers. According to Yael Stone, she was shocked when twitter was so supportive after Morello broke into Christopher's home. "I'll marry you Lorna!" and stuff like "My husband is named Christopher - you can have him!" Stone said after a point she was thinking, come on, she stalked him! Sometimes a story point has a visceral impact and people overlook the logic of the given circumstances. Lorna's actions were of the aggressor, but the emotional weight was all on her side. Sure, the audience doesn't know Christopher, and Lorna's backstory was initially heartbreaking, but if the writing then tries to pay back Christopher for rejecting Lorna, that becomes cult of personality writing, where a character wins even when it's unjust, simply because they're popular or a star of the show. That never ever works, but I suspect this is what happened here. Christopher FELT like a villain because Lorna was humiliated in the visiting room, but the writing should never treat him as the villain just because he's not a star of OITNB. Anyhow, don't think this was a character point, but a writing misstep. Lorna brought his reaction to her on herself, and then some. I think having her beat him down and the quasi-comic way it was played was fan service, but it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if he's mean or not nice about how she stalked him. HE doesn't have "Almost Paradise" playing on a track every time she shows up. Also didn't like her story with Vince - too try-hard adorable. What was heartbreaking about her backstory was the vulnerability and level of delusion in someone we cared about. Not getting rejected by Christopher. ThatsDarling the Tiger Mom - me too! Hell, even the setting ripped off the original photo of the original Tiger Mom article. Lazy is right. I thought - are you serious? You're just cutting and pasting from a years-old NYT article?

Now that I've watched more of it, I don't think S3 was THAT bad, although I missed Natasha Lyonne's character so much. The meth heads are a complete chore. None of the actors in it are engaging. I find Aleida completely unsympathetic and the Daya baby story tiresome. Gloria is the standout there - wish she had had stronger material. Two seasons running, the black characters have had the best acting and the best storylines. Of the various groups, that's the strongest, most defined ensemble. I also consider Red practically her own ensemble and Mulgrew managed the Healy storyline really well, although that got cringe-inducing at points. I do feel sorry for him at times but he's got to cut out the sad sack routine. I got a huge kick out of Time Hump chronicles. Someone on the writing staff really knows not just fan fiction, but fan response. Somebody in Litchfield should have mailed that stuff to the outside and Suzanne would have been a new, much better E.L. James. The excerpts we heard about killed me. I found it completely believable for Suzanne. Smart, talented and creative plus lack of filter could certainly combine to produce a wildly imaginative and addictive storyteller. IMO Piper and Alex are a believable couple with a lot of chemistry, BUT, as one review pointed out, Alex is an island. Her stories are only about her. They haven't integrated her, and when we'd catch up to her, her worries about her drug kingpin taking her out sounded like she'd dropped in from a bad movie of the week. I also think sometimes the writing for them panders, and the promotions for Ruby Rose were beyond pandering, and beneath the show. Against everything the show presents itself as being, the Ruby Rose hype was: "Hot lesbian joins OITNB!! Will we see a sizzling triangle?" ETA - I was reading an interview with Lea DeLaria, and OITNB was compared to the L Word, which I haven't seen, but which was described as basically a soap opera pandering to those looking for titillation. All the happiness in that interview that OITNB WASN'T that, and the second they started promo-ing Ruby Rose it started becoming The L Word. I'll throw an unpopular-ish opinion in here as well - I think Prepon can act. I didn't think she could act in That 70s show, but here she can. She's very very dry, but when I look at her eyes, she's doing it. She also conveys, when called upon, a ton more warmth in this role than in That 70s Show. I was disappointed when Piper ruined Stella's release, ensuring that the character stays. Not to mention, I find it a little shady that the officers accept this stuff on face value. Anytime there's a conflict one of the inmates can set up the other by planting stuff, and they have to know that. All the interesting stuff on this show is happening without Piper. Also love Boo and Doggett. Boo's affection for Doggett, and her appreciation of and amusement for Doggett's personality is just very genuine, and vice versa. It seems to me the writers have set them up for next season, since when we left them they'd both clocked, with dismay, that Donuts had a new, young van driver, and the two characters do "conspiracy for the good" stuff really well. Also hope the writers are setting up Piper's workers to turn the tables now that they think she's basically toothless. That's way more interesting than Stella.

I don't believe Natasha Lyonne is a "dry junkie" in real life.

I just find Schilling really unconvincing as a badass or even sharper-than-she-used-to-be operator, and I simply don't believe the other girls wouldn't be able to play her somehow in this whole business. Sure I believe a pretty girl from a privileged background would have the wiring to take that step and make it happen; I just don't believe it of Schilling as Piper, and while I can sort of see what the actress is going for/choices she's making, her performance this season, in these circumstances, isn't working for me. It's not as if all of her employees are so incredibly convincingly street smart either - the writing was so on the nose this season, Piper's minions are low hanging fruit telegraphing their every passing thought - easy pickings. Not sure that's intentional, though. I can actually see what Schilling's trying to do with her acting - make this true to Piper, use what's already in her, working a little comedy in there as well as showing Piper made a conscious, self-aware choice to do what she's doing and handle it the way she's handling it. She's not riding some transitory emotional or psychological train. But I'm not feeling it. I think the story isn't supporting her very well, either. I thought Natasha Lyonne was great in her last episode of S3 - she was pretty much a dry junkie even if she wasn't using. Nicky is glib even when she's stable; Lyonne IMO did a really good job doing the hollow glib, and the self-disgust of someone who doesn't think she's got the right to cry or be upset at what's happening to her - I'm talking about her being escorted out as Red and Morello cried at her. The dialogue this season was a little too pat for me, but I did like Nicky's mom telling her she's no match for Nicky, and Nicky has to confront herself, deal with herself, herself. The only one who can do it, but I can see that being an exhausting job for Nicky. Nicky knows this is her own fault, but she's probably too much for herself to handle. It's ironic that this whole spiral started when she went after Vee's heroin because of what Vee did to Red, but once that happened, Nicky was in this hustling, conspiratorial mode that, along with the goods, probably activated the wiring that's still there. It also fired up her natural intensity which could be her worst enemy at the wrong times, always ready to turn inward. I'm glad she fought it and didn't use, but her problem isn't using, but the wiring that drives her to do it. In the van you could see her hit that place of self-loathing where she's not even allowed to have affect.

So I guess my question is, if there's only one "extra", use it for your own purposes and nobody's the wiser, garment (I hate the "p" word) per fabric piece, how many fabric pieces do they go through in a shift? Even at $70.00 per item, by the time you get through the overhead it doesn't seem to me you end up with profits for three people. Seems you'd run into debt pretty fast.

After my binge watching/watching this show for the first time I agree that Tucky and Boo were the best thing about the season. I hate even talking about Piper's business except for the fact that it doesn't make sense to me economically. I don't see how she has enough product to generate a profit and pay workers. How much extra fabric is there? Not to mention the whole marketing of Ruby Rose is the cheapest, predicated on lowest common denominator titillation, and all for a very limited actress and boring character because the actress is so limited.

I recently binged-watched select episodes of Seasons 1-3, which constitutes watching this show for the first time. My unpopular opinions: I understand Larry/Polly, especially Polly. I've never particularly bought Larry/Piper, and I think Piper's righteous fit when they apologized for falling in love was pretty rich, considering this is exactly something Piper herself would do, and exactly how she herself would have handled it all - earnest, wishing everybody could stay friends. I don't usually want to slap characters but wanted to slap her. I'm not particularly interested in the Larry end of things, and sleeping with someone's best friend is usually unforgiveable, but since it's Piper we're talking about, I had no sympathy. I enjoyed the "Vee" plot but the resolution felt pretty soap opera to me - I guess in a good way - where all the characters we were supposed to root for unambivalently had her number at the end, turned the tables, and stood up to her. Not sure that would really happen. Overall, I try not to be distracted by the fact that this prison appears to be a hodgepodge situation with no correlation in life. Do minimum security prisons have guard towers and fences topped by barbed wire, such as those we see in the opening credits? The images of FCI Danbury (where I believe the real Piper served her time) look nothing like OITNB and Litchfield. It's like the show borrows from whatever strata of the prison system is the most dramatic, even if it's a stretch for minimum security.

Well, she has a point, even if she got the locales confused. Don didn't have a ride because Stephanie took off with the vehicle. But the Eselan center was full of rich hippies there to be enlightened, and they didn't materialize there. They got there with a vehicle, and Don could have requested one of them drive him to the bus stop or nearest/best departure outpost. I think under the circumstances, one of the participants would have understood. I think it's also unlikely Eselan itself lacks a vehicle, as it needs to bring in food, do the banking, etc.

For me, it's more about self-destructing the SAME WAY. You can take the basics - mistress plus drinking plus unconventional behavior on the job - and put twists on it. Write the elements as actual characters, so you mix it up a little. Instead it was, oh look, the same elements are reappearing. If the story is headed where I think it is, it's a good story, and quite clever. Sort of the opposite of Breaking Bad, where we knew how it would end with Walter White, but wanted to see it happen and how it happened, I guess. With Mad Men, it sort of set up that we KNEW where it was going with Don, because he appeared to be coming apart the entire time, except there's this other story underneath where he's really not - he's becoming himself. That "really not" piece of it is what makes it different from all the other "difficult men" shows, particularly with the death of Betty and the plight of the kids, an event and finale that, to me, augers to redeem Mad Men from its past X number of seasons stasis, against all expectations. It's just that the journey, IMO, was WAY more tedious than it needed to be, with wasted side trips. If you look at The Sopranos, IMO it was very uneven, and the best/strongest story arc was Season 1, the mother. However, along the way there were some entertaining short arcs, some of which featured Tony's quite diverse mistresses. There was Gloria, very sexy and sultry, he thought was his soulmate, but she turns out to be his mom! There was the Russian woman with the limp - sort of a real curve ball as she was connected to his longer term, younger, more glamorous mistress. There's plenty of stretches of the Sopranos where I was like "Shoot me now." but the show did a good job mixing things up when it got down to repeating the basics. With Mad Men, it was Groundhog Day.

After a bit of reflection, I'm thinking they married Rose off rather hastily in response to the belly flop of the Season of Mary's Suitors, and we are indeed in for Mary/Tom. I don't foresee a triangle with Edith; rather, they'll resurrect Greggson. Even if they didn't, I don't believe that in the world of Downton Abbey an illegitimate child will be considered much of an issue.

I liked everything but Clooney. He's so dull, and when you sweep the hype away he doesn't convey that Mr. Hollywood, Rat pack-ish, charismatic, glamorous charmer stuff at all. He's an irritant with an orange tan. Too much time spent with him. Lily James was sparkling, Allen Leech was funny, Michelle Dockery was wry and funny, the downstairs staff was on point, and I loved Penelope Wilton's quick "While we were discussing how to end poverty in the east end!" as Isobel. Hugh Bonneville glued it together as usual. I was cringing having to click on to watch Part 2 because that was the Clooney stuff and he just doesn't pull off being who Clooney is supposed to be. I don't even like Jeremy Piven and I thought Piven worked out just fine much better than Clooney.

Well, I'm talking about one thing really, what I've seen, not really what Fellowes intends. Of course Fellowes thinks Mary is the bees knees, sexy and all that. We've gotten to where he actually has to tell us, or have other character tell us, because IMO it's not on the screen. So it's really a writing situation. If Mary were incredibly sexy (a stick of dynamite), charming, wonderful company, and add in her estate and status, sure, she would have suitors, particularly as the kid situation really isn't an obstacle - the next husband won't really be raising George if he doesn't want to - the nanny would. However, until the end of this season, for two series straight Gillingham has been written as madly in love and so, apparently, was Evelyn Napier all this time, with Charles Blake poised to be the come from behind winner. It's Mary being a subject of on screen fascination that I don't think works, or is convincing, anymore. If she were written so that her money, the landed estate, her status, were a strong part of her attraction for men, that would make a difference, but instead the writing has been that that stuff is a given, but what makes this men stick around is they're madly in love and want her for herself, because she's so fascinating, gorgeous and sexy. For my money, it simply didn't work. Dockery and Mary sank under the weight of those three suitors, even though the writing only toyed with the premise and didn't play it out. My money's also on Charles Blake being done, and I believe initially he was set up to be The One. The new Matthew. Dockery even described him that way a bit, described the dynamics as evoking Matthew, sort of steering in that direction. I guess maybe the audience didn't follow.

Re Mary, Downton, the show, hasn't informed us or shown us that the eligible male shortage is now over and there are plenty to go around pursuing all these all these real life female aristocrats. I guess I just find it implausible that Mary would be among their number and not, say, Rose. Or even Edith. Or not INCLUDING Rose and Edith. It's only Mary. I know Mary's got a lot of money, but she's pursued by men genuinely in love with her, not fortune hunters who like her awfully well or maybe a little. I simply don't believe she'd have this many men falling madly, genuinely in love with her, as was certainly suggested at the end of last series and beginning of this. The show backed off at the end, but for most of two series, that was the premise. As it's played, we don't see context. We don't see the bees buzzing around other queens. In fact, other queens (such as Mabel Lane Fox) get dumped - while engaged! so the man can simply PURSUE Mary. Mabel Lane Fox is adorable, fun, and rich, Mary is pallid, dry and also rich, and has a kid. Don't get it. Why has only Atticus fallen in love with Rose that we've seen. And part of it is last season the series ended with Mary surrounded by three suitors, all present and accounted for. It was ridiculous, particularly as, again, they were all meant to be wild for her in her own right and not after her money. Whatever the charms of the real life aristocratic women who had men in hot pursuit, Mary, IMO, has not been shown to possess the sort of charm, nor does she possess the sex appeal, that would have wealthy men dumping other rich, pretty, fun, eligible girls to fall at her feet and take their chances.

Since reading in another thread that Julian Fellowes writes the last three episodes as the show is airing, I wonder if he'll even "fake" write Tom off. The ratings have been dropping as the show has aired. Those connected with Downton did this big spin about how well the stories were received, but they weren't received well, not by the critics, not by the audience, if ratings are to go by. Tom is popular; I don't know if they can even tease his departure at the end of the CS. What a mess. They really haven't set up ANYTHING to be paid off. S1 and S2 are the yardsticks of course. S3 it was bye bye to Matthew. S4 was incredibly lame, and S5 nothing happened that would make anyone wonder what the Xmas special holds - nothing that makes one hope for positive developments anyway. If I were writing I'd give Mary a complete breather from love interests, exactly as they made Edith loveless for 2 seasons, and Tom as well. Then perhaps there would be an audience rally for her romantic life, and more interest.

Didn't know it happened that specifically, interesting. I've read the actors saying Fellowes picks up on what you do, but I didn't know if that occurred during filming or in the subsequent season. I definitely enjoyed the final 3 episodes more than the rest of the season - primarily the complete shift in the writing of Gillingham. By the end, he was a completely different man from the man refusing to accept being dumped, to the far more self-aware man feeling awkward because he actually would rather be with Mabel but is too honorable to take Mary's break-up at face value without the assistance of Charles Blake. Then Charles Blake suddenly emerges as a sort of musical comedy sassy best friend. AND the writing of Mary altered substantially at the end, with a lot of the Mary-worship suddenly abated, and more awareness from the script that she had been written as a trifle over-entitled. The biggest shift for me was the Bates stuff. Clearly this conclusion was set up from the beginning of the series, but I thought it pretty funny that once Anna was arrested nobody else but Mrs. Hughes dwelled on it. More than anything the past couple of episodes, however problematic, made me have SOME hope that next season will be more balanced, more entertaining, and less focused on propping up certain characters at the expense of others. The way Mosley emerged at season's end was especially nice. Instead of being a sad clown he was someone interesting, someone to respect. I also thought that there was an additional tonal shift in the writing of Bates at the end of this series - how petulant Bates was about Baxter. In Series 1 he was the eternal, turn-the-other-cheek-ing martyr. I didn't enjoy Bunting at all (although the actress's performance modulated somewhat at the end) - just zero chemistry and all wrong for Branson, no enjoyable humor, sparkle or sex appeal - but I had no idea that the negative reaction to her had been so intense. I didn't particularly dislike her for being a bitch or obnoxious, just for wasting Branson's screen time and having no chemistry with him, him being a favorite. Probably the character who was written the same way all the way through was Cora. It seemed that Fellowes started out the season deciding to give Cora more consideration, and it worked, so that carried through to the finale.

Aristocratic influence with the police in the case of Thomas/Jimmy: as I recall, Robert used his influence more with the servants than with the police. The police were respectful, but it was Robert getting whoever that really tall, appalled servant was (O'Brien's nephew?) to recant his testimony that made the police back away. They didn't back away on Robert's orders. The servants were all singing from the same playbook (this was at the cricket match) with Robert having gotten them sorted, and when the police lingered a bit Robert reminded them that they really didn't have a case anymore what with it all turning out to be a misunderstanding. At that point, the police were in the wrong and Robert reminded them that they were, and that's when they retreated. He had no power to tell them to back off without Robert first using his influence with the SERVANTS to convince them they had nothing of interest to tell the police. Greggson's obit can't report what isn't known. Many obituaries get the info from the family or the job, not from their own reporting ingenuity. It's possible the existence of his deranged wife wasn't generally known, or at least not known to the press. We weren't led to understand he was famous.

We don't know that Tom is leaving or Allen Leach being written off. This is just story. I thought it was wry but also completely off-tone, because there's no reason (save Pamuck, lo these how many years later) that Mary would want to murder Edith but plenty for Edith wanting to murder Mary. However, I don't believe any of Mary's Edith barbs were meant to be taken seriously, rather, they were purposefully written to NOT be stinging, IMO, to sort of protect Mary from some of the reaction to her prior, nastier Edith remarks. When you have her do the same thing but the spin is different, it may urge people to receive these lines less seriously. I thought the whole effect was unearned, and pretty cheap. I don't think anybody would say "Where did Mary's barbs about Edith go?" If Fellows backed off them. He can show the dynamic simply in other ways, such as the exchange about worrying about your kids.

I think we were meant to take Mary's "Even Edith" as sort of sardonic or wry - a comment on her own historical attitude towards Edith, and not really an insult directed at Edith herself. It was just so terribly forced and awkward. Fellowes can't let go of his set pieces. Shoehorning the Dowager witticism/bon mot in whether or not it's organic is one thing he does all the time, and spending a good part of this episode showing the four "siblings" and unable to NOT have Mary say something about Edith. It's such juvenile writing. This was one instance where I didn't take it as an insult but rather the reverse, sort of an acknowledgment of her past attitude rather than a real example of her doing it again. It just played in an awkward way, but not, IMO, because Mary meant it. I wish he'd give the audience some credit. I much preferred the bits before that, when Edith asked Tom and Mary if they worried about their children when away from them. That exchange achieved two things - showed the attitudinal/emotional divide still existed between the sisters but at the same time, showed they were becoming more peers/sibling like because Edith actually asked the question in the first place. I also took Mary's remark about "don't leave me here with just Edith" as another thing she didn't entirely mean, but was using to express her distress over losing Tom and even Rose. Re the Bates, I thought it was funny that after everything washed out, only poor Mrs. Hughes got tagged with showing distress over the Bates, and after the requisite catch in her voice, Carson was all "Oh come on now, everything's going to be fine, we've got better things to talk about!" Rewind back to S1 or whenever it was, every conversation seemed to center on Bates and his predicament. Here, there was drama when the arrest was made, but after that nobody seemed terribly preoccupied with them. At all. I HOPE that the way this season played out - uber focused on Mary and her suitors, short shrift to other characters, just some obnoxious writing - followed by a final few episodes where Fellowes' writing appeared to adjust to some negative feedback - augers well for Season 6.

Oh God, it completely is marking time. But Matthew's story only lasted a couple of seasons. By Series 3 they were clearly "Tom"ing him - he was still living at the main house, which was meant to be a temporary situation, and when he had his crisis of conscience of the inheritence, he ended up using the money for Downton. He was going to be Downton-neutered himself. His forward progression was already halted. In this episode I was thinking that wouldn't it be nice if they switched out Lord Merton for Shrimpy and he and Isobel got together. Not crazy about Violet and the prince -think it's there so she doesn't look TOO pathetic over losing Isobel, having some action of her own. But I don't really care about it in its own right Susan (Mrs. Shrimpy) is as OTT as the Merton sons. I expected the Marigold situation to turn out exactly as it has - well, not EXACTLY, but it being no big deal. There's no worry about lying to Marigold as she grows up; the situation will long since have been resolved so she knows who she is. Felt there were two awkward bits of dialogue - one was Mary's "Even Edith." - just shoehorned in there, very contrived. And tiring. Mary's allowed to suggest all four have lunch on a Tuesday without reminding US that she's not crazy about Edith. It didn't feel like a natural thing, but swung straight at us. The other was Cora asking Robert if he'll love Marigold. I know she meant even though illegitimate and all that (and perhaps even though he hasn't known her since birth), and him saying "I think I will" and "Surprising even myself." but something about it came off as gee, he thinks he might be able to love a child of Edith's - that's not something he ever expected. Mosley used to get on my nerves something terrible, up to as recently as when he dyed his hair. But Baxter has done wonders for him, and so has the revelation that he wanted to be a teacher. I love all the museum stuff, and the three of them having that outing. I expect Daisy and Mrs. Patmore will never part - she'll inherit the farm, Mrs. Patmore will have her local cottage, she'll be a surrogate mom forever. I'm not quite sure what Daisy WANTS. It's great she wants to get on with her studies, but towards what end? Is it all so she manages the farm properly down the line? Totally agree about the Tom/Edith/Mary anvils. OY! Didn't even find the Atticus/Rose wedding much in the way of eye candy. Don't know why. Maybe everything looked overly fussy or something.

Andy wasn't Thomas's nephew - it was just an expression I guess signaling the audience that Thomas's intentions towards Andy are honorable and he's long past the days of sneaking into footman's bedrooms and making a pass.

The episode did hit the usual points - disappointed that Rose met someone two episodes ago and marries him in the finale. Great. I got this weird Edith/Tom/Mary vibe. "I'll miss you!" "Mary says she's going to be devastated but I'LL miss you as well!" Oh geez. That said, I did enjoy the foursome scenes, played on more or less equal terms, and I felt that Mary's "Even Edith" was cheap (not on Mary's part so much, but the writing). Edith looked good AGAIN in this episode, particularly in her outfit at luncheon. And it least it wasn't an episode where Mary was the principal character. I actually felt most of the women looked better than Mary in this episode. That hair is just too severe. Mabel looked adorable, Edith wore clothes that were gorgeous for her coloring, some of Rose's clothes were a little mumsy (as she said) but her blessing gown was nice, and Mary just looks SO colorless. If she were more of a goth type character, had more of an edge, in her life or attitude, it might be carried off better, but she's just a wealthy aristocrat with pretty mainstream interests, and I think the severity of her wardrobe helps to flatten out her character, who hasn't been helped by somewhat one note acting and bad storylines this series. Matthew always warmed her up a bit, even despite herself. I always like nice Thomas and since I usually have to wait a really long time to GET nice Thomas, I'm glad to get two episodes or whatever it was. Not such a fan of Denker. I gather the actress is meant to be a coup but for me she lacks the charisma and chops of the other mature ladies on the show, Maggie Smith, Penelope Wilton, Rachel Cassidy, Leslie Nichols, Phyllis Logan. Atticus's dad reminded me distractingly of Yul Brynner. It's so striking I think the actor must cultivate it intentionally. Oh. Totally forgot the Bates. Do Not Care. I think Fellowes knows it. He might have planned it to be a big deal by the finale, but it was written in a somewhat cursory way, not nearly amped up a la previous Bates dramas such as the original murder mystery and Anna's rape. Now it's, well, we set this up so we have to play it, but we're going to try to just get through it without spending too much time.

I also agree with saki about the episode, and about it being a good season for Cora, of all people. I've never had much respect for Elizabeth McGovern's acting but she's been very effective this season. I believe her story points. The Merton sons were ludicrous. They'd be a county scandal, no matter how rich, if they acted out that way in public. Opposition to marriages occurred behind the scenes - they'd work on dad and if they succeeded, Isobel would hardly know what was said that left her without a husband-to-be. This blatant sneering at not just Isobel, but the whole Crawley family wasn't believeable. I believe Lord Merton might be weak when it comes to his sons, but not how it played out. I agree Rose/Atticus is rushed, and moreoever I don't feel I know him at all, which makes me feel that if this relationship is meant to be the real deal, Fellowes really doesn't care and is just rushing her off. But then, we really didn't know Tony and Charles either. They just talked about Mary. Matthew talked about a lot of stuff besides Mary, especially in the beginning. I didn't get the impression that Mabel was second choice, just that there was some massive re-write/shift tone with Gillingham. When Mary tried to dump him (and nobody should have to "try" to dump somebody, it's not something that takes two), his response was obnoxious, including challenging her about his prowess in the sack. FF to THIS episode, and Gillingham appears to want to be with Mabel, "can't" break up with Mary because it "wouldn't be honorable" and because she's sending mixed signals about whether she wants him to go away. Enter Charles who explains Gillingham is confusing Mary's wish with her instincts. Mabel/Gillingham were played as a sophisticated duo who preferred each other but Gillingham had gotten himself into this Mary situation. He was still not extricated from this Mary situation when Blake/Mary and Gillingham/Mabel encountered each other at the cinema. It's like Gillingham went ahead started re-dating Mabel while waiting for the Mary situation to sort out. So strange. Too bad. As soon as Mabel entered the picture Gillingham became a much more attractive character. It's amazing how that works. He even had charm! But not so I wish he'd stick around for Mary (nor do I wish that of Charles Blake either). No romantic chemistry. The Gillingham story went in one big nonsensical circle. Ostensibly he dumped Mabel for Mary, but when we meet Mabel Gillingham feels sort of "obliged" to stick around for Mary even though he bends towards Mabel. So why dump Mabel in the first place. My impression is Edith isn't Earl of Grantham wealthy, but financially independent. She's got grandpa's money, her column (which is money she earns) and now she owns a business. It appeared fairly prosperous to me in the scene we saw, several employees, not a shoe-string, fairly busy. While I've said I don't think any of the actresses who've played the daughters are any great shakes in the acting department, I thought Laura Carmichael sort of gave a key to Edith in the way she particularly focused on "Papa" about Marigold. It wasn't just hoping he'd give permission; it was nakedly hoping for his approval in the way she said the line.

Shipperx, just want to co-sign every single one of your points and all of your reasoning, as I see it the exact same way. I do want to comment on the quoted section. There's nothing wrong, dramatically, with Mary's regression. The problem is I'm not sure it's intentional, but rather what we're left with absent any other qualities in either the writing or the performance. From everything I've read and seen on video of Michelle Dockery, she's a lovely, funny person with a good heart, and I'm looking forward to the movie she is apparently making, or has made, with Elisabeth Moss. But Moss has the ability to find subtext in the most impossible, the most rigidly constrained dialogue, as she was able to do in S6 of Mad Men. Dockery doesn't have this quality. I believe she's an honest actress, an earnest actress, but lacks enough imagination or a real ability to mine her dialogue for subtext. As I've said before, it's very unfair to compare any actress to Maggie Smith (or Penelope Wilton), but if you just "picture" some of their dialogue on the page, there's not much to it. They themselves find the shadings. They have both been written consistently throughout the series. I do understand the sort of personality that Mary is meant to be. However, Mary is not uniquely reserved and constrained on Downton Abbey. Other Downton characters are seen to have these attributes in their own way, from Carson to Violet to Cora to Rosemund and even Mabel was quite a cool character. If I picture Mabel's dialogue, it's not so different from Mary's dialogue. She, too, hates sentiment and said so, she dislikes drama, she expresses affection with put downs "Not if I see you first." It's as if Fellowes hardly bothered to write a different sort of dialogue for Mabel than for Mary. They were just women of similar backgrounds with different points of view. Mabel, however, had a pulse. Mary does not, and that's a Dockery thing. She plays what's on the page. If expressly directed or written to do something else, she'll do it. Otherwise she plays simply what's there, nothing else, no discernible inner life but what can be projected onto her knowing what we know of her history, but IMO she's not projecting it in her performance. Another performer who practically master classes dialogue and shading is Leslie Nichol. Sometimes she has fun getting a little schticky, but most of the time she's got the most basic dialogue and creates a complete inner life and awareness of given circumstances for Mrs. Patmore. We know there's stuff on her mind, or she's busy with her tasks, or whatever. Rachel Cassidy (Baxter) plays another quite reserved character, and I believe the sensitivity in the character is in her performance, because her dialogue doesn't drip with it. Mary's also meant to be sensitive in some ways. I'm not certain Laura Carmichael is all that as an actress either - nor any of the daughters, truly, including the late, lamented Sybil played by Jessica Brown Findley. For all the derision I see about Rose around the web, Lily James does invest her with energy, life and empathy. She's alive in the scene even if it's not her scene. Laura Carmichael, however much of a whipping post and scapegoat her character has been on Downton, IS, as others have pointed out, given actual protogonist material. She takes action, and she's given real stuff to react to. A lot of the important stuff in her story happens off camera so that we can get Mary's two extraneous suitors and a discarded financee' walking the grounds explaining Mary to us, but when Edith IS on camera she has active stuff to do most of the time, with actual stuff at stake. And really, that "walking the grounds" scene is something we're getting a lot. OTHER characters explaining Mary, when Mary should explain Mary - not in speech, but in the actress's performance. Just as Maggie Smith explains Violet and Leslie Nichols explains Mrs. Patrmore and so forth. In my opinion, where we are in Downton in S5 is an unfortunate combination of actress and writing/plot. I've taken the time to see Dockery in other things. She's always genuine, and communicates intelligence, but that's about it. Not that interesting. She needs a lot of help from the writing, because IMO she lacks the imagination to pull what's not there out of what's on the page, bring her own thing in it. We're getting to where the character is being formatted round the performer's limitations (which happens a lot on television, particularly on soap operas), rather than for the performer's strengths or towards a direction where the character should go. It's been said Fellowes writes towards what the actor gives him, and more and more with Mary I'm seeing other characters telling us who Mary is, which IMO signals an acting problem. IMO the true test of an actor's abilities isn't a great script, or classic play, but bad scripts.

As I recall, after Lavinia died and while Matthew was still nailed to the cross, he referenced at least once that he'd been to see Reggie Squire in, I think, the hospital. There were indications that Matthew was maintaining his relationship to her father after her death, and, as well, I THINK, that when he was dying, Matthew acted as a son. At least that's how I took the script's shorthand. So if we just use Downton logic that simply mentioning something in passing creates a rationale or motivation, then perhaps, lacking other heirs, Matthew's continued devotion and attention to Mr. Squire during his illness or whatever, even after Lavinia's death, created a Farmer Mason-esque feeling in Mr. Squire towards Matthew, as if Matthew were his son. I can get on board with that, applying Downton logic. Mary's entitlement I cannot. Matthew inherited a pile of money from the father of the woman Matthew cheated on with Mary. Mary knows this and should have kept her big mouth shut. Matthew actually would have been the better man to use the money elsewhere. How many fortunes does it take to save Lord Grantham from his bad decisions? Let the place go already.

Mary also needs someone who will more actively bring out her sense of humor, and sort of steamroll over her more unpleasant characteristics. Mary's hauteur and froideur is only effective vis a vis people who put up with it. Or maybe it's only effective/hurtful vis a vis certain women (Anna and the device, Edith and everything) and not men. Gillingham was all - eh, we're not breaking up - and Mary had no answer. Charles Blake was all "We're doing this, then that, oh please with you and that other thing, now go there." and Mary was all "Okay." I don't mean she needs someone to order her about, but she needs someone who doesn't take her as terribly seriously as she presents herself. I also think Cora could kick her ass and just chooses not to. Tom actually does have a sense of humor, but I do agree that they lack romantic chemistry, same as he lacks it with Edith. The guy who played Gregson did a smashing job of being in love with Edith. I still do want Rose for Tom, truth to tell. ZulaMay, ^Oops- initially read "Isobel" as "Violet" and wrote this whole thing that I had to delete. Mary is oblivious. I could see her having no instinct/insight about Violet's feelings, and taking Violet purely on surface. But she's spent time with Isobel, and still believes Isobel would be Violet's "protoge?" That's just absurd. That takes a willful ignoring who Isobel has presented herself to be, and seeing her only as a social class. You don't even need a relationship with Isobel to know she can't possibly be Violet's protoge. Isobel has spoken up at the dinner table, taken contrary views to Violet's, was the first to challenge Violet's annual, predetermined wins at the flower show (which Mary witnessed), and has bravo'd all kinds of unconventional behavior from all kinds of people. Violet and Isobel's friendship grew over the course of locking horns. Isobel's also been extremely strong and generous regarding Matthew's loss and Mary's future love life. I agree Maggie Smith was so moving in this episode, but she also used what little dialogue she had in previous episodes to set up that wonderful scene. I particularly remember her saying "You'll come?" to Isobel - there was so much in that line. An expectation that Isobel WOULD come, pleased that she could have the expectation, while making certain not to be SEEN to be assuming, making sure she showed decent respect, and so requesting confirmation, and also wanting her to come. Very affecting, and two damn words! I get a kick out of what Smith did, because I've loved her for years, and we all know she could do Downton in her sleep. She does almost no publicity for the show and doesn't watch it, she says. It appears to me it's just an easy paycheck, and why not. Sometimes the inevitable Countess Violet "witticism" appears to fatigue even her, if it's just done as a rote thing, and sometimes it appears in the script only because the script is pandering to the expectation she'll get off a zinger. That she spots not just the depths of her major scene, but the small stuff in the previous episodes leading up to it, and gives it full value, is really touching.