jordanpond

I have to agree with a lot of what all of you have said. I must say, I did love the scenes of Gordon and Grace. Last season she was spot on when he was struggling to write the condolence letter and she took him to deliver his message in person. This time the stakes are much higher, and I hope she once again has read him correctly and his work in all those different departments will make him a success as deputy. I'd love to see him do well, and for the two of these very nice people to continue their very sweet romance. But the two of them were not enough. We needed more happiness in the show. So now Doris has had an affair, Nancy has turned out to be a crook, Kitty is being blamed for her own attack, Victor and all his customers can get arrested for obeying the law. It's just bad news all around. The show has changed its tone so much that it's not like the first two seasons of "Mr. Selfridge " at all any more. By the way, I think that Violette had the potential to have a much more interesting story. She was a teenage suffragette, and in this season's premiere, was someone who wanted to work rather than be idle. For all his relatively progressive ways regarding opportunities for his female staff, Harry's not very progressive with his family, since he made Gordon sole heir to the business. So I do sympathize with Violette. That was probably a very limiting and frustrating gender role for someone to be forced to play at that time. But the young Violette of season one would have been smart and resourceful enough to figure out something to do that would have been interesting to both her and us, the audience. Instead, she is chasing after a man who took great pleasure in being rude to her the first time she visited the bar. That to me is the opposite of independent. And it's far from being interesting. Jolie, as much as it pains me to say it, I think you may be right in that the show should have concluded after season two. The combination of having bad things happen to most of the old characters, while focusing so much on new characters that have boring stories isn't a good formula for success this season. I thought that the one really interesting addition to this season's cast was Nancy. And now they destroyed what made her so compelling. (It appears to me that she is fictional. If not, they do have to go with what really happened, but could have given some of the fictional characters like George some happier story lines to balance things out.)

I'm trying to avoid all information about the real life happenings so that I remain unspoiled for any actual events they mix in with the fiction of the show. Perhaps we need a spoiler thread for discussion of any real life events? Then the spoiled folks could chat about things they know will happen, while those of us who want to remain completely unspoiled could keep out of the spoiler thread and remain spoiler free in all the episode threads.

I think Miss Mardle refused to accept rent from anyone. I would guess Agnes insisted on chipping in for things, but with paying no rent, and with a bigger salary as head of displays, she probably saved a good bit over the last 4 years.. I wouldn't be surprised if she started to work sometime in the next few months or year, once she saw Henri improve. And with Henri being Henri, I could see him in a few months passing some florist or other artistic endeavour in need of some part-time help, and being unable to resist taking at least a small step into doing something creative. So although Agnes expressed no plan for them working, I think it'll unfold. I don't usually like to speculate, but since this couple appears gone for good, this is the type of realistic and happy ending I think would be consistent with their characters and with their story lines that were developed. I forgot to sing the praises of Mr. And Mrs. Crabb. Both together and apart they did their share of bringing some fun to this episode. I've always loved Mr. Crabb 's humorous faces and sayings, and ever since his impressive showdown with Harry a few episodes ago I appreciate him even more for the extra depth to his character. And I find her a great addition. They're a very sweet couple, and she is as entertaining as a shopper as he is as an employee.

Oh, dear. I used to love so much about this show. I thought last season was a marvelous mix of suspense, business strategy, grief, friendship, romance, comedy, and music and dancing. I thought it did a superb job of showing both the human and business costs of war, but presented it in a highly entertaining show about a fabulous department store and its variety of interesting characters. But now it's entirely too much doom and gloom for my taste. It's not that I mind the show dealing with such severe effects of the war as shell shock, violence, job shortages and death. But the lack of balance between these themes and themes of lightness and fun is making this show take on more of an air of a documentary. You know, season 2 of this show actually inspired me to watch a 5 - part documentary about WWI in which I learned a great deal more about the human cost both during and after the war. But that was the documentary. "Mr. Selfridge" is supposed to be entertainment. And it's becoming much too dark for me. Some random thoughts about the episode: Although I thought Agnes' solution for Henri seemed really inspired, and an excellent move for the couple, I'm quite sad to see two more central characters gone. Initially, I was very proud of Miss Webb for turning Harry down. I didn't read it at all as a lack of self esteem on her part, but rather a wise decision to not enter a romance with this business partner whom she barely knew. Didn't it ever occur to Harry (or evidently to the show's writers) that perhaps Nancy didn't think that she was so unworthy of Harry but that she simply didn't think Harry was right for her? Not only does Harry seem to see Nancy as Rose the second, rather than Nancy Webb,the individual, it's not like he treated the first multi-talented woman in his life all that well. He married Rose, then repeatedly cheated on her. So Nancy has not married any of her other suitors because she didn't want to settle, but the philandering Harry is the type of man she could really get involved with? My other disappointment with the episode was that the fun date of Gordon and Grace looked like it would give some much needed youthfulness and lightness to breakup all the darkness of Kitty and Frank, Agnes and Henri, etc. But not only was their scene interrupted by the annoying Violette, the scene of Gordon and Grace never actually concluded. After Violette once again shouted some version of "I am independent!", the scene never really returned to Grace and Gordon again. It simply drifted off into Gordon eyeing Violette kissing Victor hello. And why must the actress who plays Violette accent random words and syllables when she speaks? So I guess this season is starting to be nothing more than darkness and gloom about the characters we "know and love" interrupted by dull and repetitive scenes about characters (Serge, Violette, Marie) who lack any charm or interest. I hope this turns around really soon. It's been a big drop in quality from season 2.

I don't think that there is real lot of nudity in this show, but rather that there is too much female nudity relative to male nudity.Was there a pilot that was shown prior to the series? Because if by the pilot you mean episode one, Frank did not show just as much flesh as Claire. Unlike with Claire, his backside was not shown at all. They barely even showed his chest, which as stated above, is simply not considered nudity in the way that women's breasts are. Jamie hasn't shown as much flesh as Claire either. Jamie has never been shown naked unless Claire was naked, too. Claire, however, has been shown naked several additional times, including by herself, with Frank, and with B. J . Randall.

Well it's two days until this episode airs in the US, and I'm so glad that the preview shows Gordon and Grace are going to go on a date. I'm really enjoying this season, but after all the sadness so far, I'm ready for two such likeable people to go out and just have a fun time.

I'm re-watching the season and something jumped out at me. The first time around I was so appalled at the things Larry Grey was saying, that it didn't even dawn on me that the Crawley family members themselves have, at one time or another, said every single thing that Larry said, with one notable exception. The chauffer? Every Crawley family member has treated him as unworthy. The only time Edith and Mary ever joined forces for more than the length of a song was to try to prevent Sybil from eloping with Tom, and Mary also said some nasty things about him. Robert tried to bribe Tom to break up with Sybil, and neither Robert nor Cora attended the wedding of their daughter to this chauffer. And in the Christmas special, five years after marrying into the family, Violet was still referring to him by his servant title, Branson. The middle class? Mary did everything from bluntly telling Matthew he was not "our kind of people" to referring to him as the "sea monster" who was not worthy of marrying the "princess." Age differences between spouses? Well, I think we all recall what Robert and Violet did to break up the marriage between Edith and the injured, much older Anthony. The only exception? No one ever made an unkind comment about Jews. If it wasn't for the infusion of the Jewish Mr. Levinson 's fortune into the property-rich but cash-poor Downton Abbey estate, Robert would have long ago had to move out of the abbey, start combing his own hair, and learn how to step into his underpants without assistance.

Interesting points, Nara,but I don't know why we shouldn't include Frank's character as an example. It seems to me that if the directors believe that a love scene should show nudity, then it should show it equally for both parties in the scene. I don't think that a woman should have to reveal more private parts in a love scene just because the actress has less political power. As to topless scenes, yes, one could argue that Jamie has been shown shirtless as much as Claire has been shown topless. But, a shirtless man isn't necessarily considered sexual in the same way topless woman is. Where I live, shirtless men are permitted outdoors whereas it is illegal for women to appear that way. And I believe that a movie with a shirtless man can have a G rating, whereas a topless woman makes it R-rated. So, a topless woman is viewed in a sexual way that largely isn't true for men. I don't think that the excessive nudity of Claire in this episode can be accounted for by Jamie being the episode's narrator, because in prior episodes there was "Claire only" nudity, and all of them were told from Clare's perspective.

Terrymct, for some reason I'm having trouble quoting your post. As regards Jamie's arse being shown so much, I find that Clare's naked body is shown much, much more. In fact it's one of the things that has really bugged me about this show from the beginning. In the very first love scene, they show Claire in bed with her husband. And although no nudity is shown on Frank's part, both Clare's breasts and buttocks are shown. Then when Claire arrived at the castle, the show did what I think is a dirty trick: they showed an undressing Claire successfully hiding her body from Mrs. Fitz --- but not from the camera, as the audience sees her partially exposed. And they often do lingering closeup shots of Clare's body parts in addition to whatever nudity is revealed during the action of particular scenes. They did this again with the beating scene. It's like "we're not sure if we'll get full exposure of Clare's body during the action, so let's add a few still shots". And the worst thing of all? The press has been calling the perspective of this show a feminine gaze! Yes, In this episode, Jamie's backside was shown at the end. But only after Clare's breasts were shown in the beginning of the episode, her backside in the middle, and then her breasts again at the end. I find it really irritating that a show with a female lead shows so much more of the lead's body than anyone else's.

More random thoughts: I am so glad that Gordon wants to take Grace out to dinner to celebrate her promotion. Last season, I thought their very sweet and supportive friendship had such an innocent quality to it that brought balance to the all the story lines of suspicion or evil or sorrow (which I thought were all really well done.) If they show scenes of Grace and Gordon this season it will once again provide good contrast to the darker story lines. Miss Plunkett looks great with her wavy new hairdo. I think the scenes of Miss Mardle and Mr. Grove don't imply any leanings toward future romance (even though I wouldn't be surprised if he still desires her.) I just think that after all they have experienced together, and all he witnessed of her and Florian, their relationship has a real ease about it now. I liked how she really needled him in the premiere when he was practically begging her to return to work. They never used to joke. I think it's really good for her that she can now. Victor was a real jerk to Agnes. And I love Nancy Webb. Her conducting a survey to find out what women want in their homes was really innovative for that time. She, like Harry, was a pioneer, but on a smaller scale, and in a much more quiet way. Three cheers for Mr. Fraser and his detective work on Marie!

Very thought-provoking post, Nara. Quite interesting.

Because with the child, the tone of the show indicated that, despite the times, the ear nailing was indeed unacceptable. The priest and the judge are presented as wrong to administer this kind of punishment. Claire thinks it's wrong and convinces Jamie to go against custom to release the boy. By contrast, the perpetrator of the wife beating is being presented as a romantic hero. In the case of the boy, the audience is led to be against the punishment, regardless of the custom of the times, but with the wife beating we are expected to accept it because "that's just the way things were."

Oops, I accidentally opened the book readers' thread, and since I didn't see a comment like this in the non-readers' thread, I'll respond. I didn't object to the much more violent scene such as the ear - nailing and Jamie's whipping because of the tone of those shows. We were supposed to despise Randall for whipping Jamie. And we were meant to both adopt Clare's perspective that the ear - nailing was ridiculously harsh and to applaud Claire and Jamie for allowing the boy to escape without tearing his ear. Though much less physically harsh, the beating of Claire by Jamie is much more offensive to me because we were supposed to suddenly switch our perspective to embrace this form of physical punishment and humiliation. Whip a man, pin the ear of a young boy, publicly beat a teenage girl accused of loose behavior? All of these were meant to show the dangerous world Claire had entered and from which she would rightly want to escape. But when it comes to beating one's wife, we are suddenly supposed to blindly accept this particular form of physical punishment as "a part of that culture." I don't condone watching a program with a view that anything in that culture that is different from a 21st century perspective is automatically wrong. But I think it is equally wrong to expect the viewer to view something like wife beating as automatically right simply because "that's how it was in that culture." And this is the first form of physical punishment in this series that expected us to do that.

Although I'm with many of you that this season has a much darker tone, I was much more comfortable with the tone this episode than I was in the premiere. I think it was because this episode focused much more on people we know and really care about. And also I think there was more humor and lightness mixed in. Although heartbreaking, I found Kitty's assault and Henri and Agnes' very public difficulties - played out in their beloved window front of all places - to be very effective. Other sad moments: I thought that the formerly rather naive and innocent George looked very grown up in a sad and weary way during his talk with Agnes. Even the personalities of those not suffering from anything as severe as shell shock are probably changed forever. And the sacking of the feisty Miss Ellis of the loading bay (who looked so different in her shop floor attire that I almost didn't recognize her) was incredibly sad. The most unprofessional thing she could have done in front of Harry was to start crying and I'm so glad she did! I don't blame Harry for letting them go, as they were told that their jobs were temporary, but I'm glad she wasn't ashamed to show some honest human emotion in front of the boss. Some lighter notes: Kitty was so very Kitty in this episode! She was such a natural posing for those rooftop photos, and she was sassy with Grace about her promotion, her sister about getting a job, and with Harry about how very "qualified" Gordon had been when he "earned" his job at the store. And I thought the fashion department looked more fabulous than ever. The bad: I wish the actress playing Violette studied the actress who played her in the first season. That young actress did a wonderful job portraying the independent and modern Violette in a way which made you root for her, rather than wish that she'd just get off the screen. Young Violette joined the suffragettes' march, argued against Gordon being the sole heir to Selfridge's, and told Rose she should have as many freedoms as Harry. She was more adult, and more proactive and likeable, than the actual adult Violette, who confuses shouting everything she says with actually being independent, and who complains that she's only good for shopping. I think some of this isn't the actress' fault as she can only say the lines she is given, but I think her delivery could be improved a a lot.

I think that Jamie's own words during the beating indicate that he absolutely did not hate himself for doing it. He told her that I said I would punish you but "I dinna say I wouldn't enjoy it." Although I don't personally believe in hitting children, I know a few people who do. And although they all believe that it is their duty to punish their children in this manner, I never heard any one of them ever say that they enjoyed it. But Jamie did. He did appear to regret it later, but at the time he did it, it was not mere duty that drove him; he enjoyed beating her. And I find that to be a serious problem.

I don't think your opinion is a soapbox at all. And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that people can always choose to be uncommon. In the US, during times of slavery, there were always white people who refused to have slaves; before women had the right to vote, there were always men who thought women should have the right. Do we really think there was such complete agreement among men in Jamie's time that there wasn't at least a significant minority that said "I don't care what our customs say. I simply refuse to hit my wife." And Jamie in particular had twice previously demonstrated that he was willing to go against custom when it came to corporal punishment. (I'm not saying that he was completely against it, but that he did not blindly follow custom where corporal punishment was concerned.) So for this episode to present him as someone who was essentially required to follow custom and beat Claire ignores not only that people of all cultures do indeed choose to be uncommon, but that Jamie in particular had on two previous occasions chosen to be uncommon with respect to physical punishment.

There were so many things about that beating scene that bothered me that I can't even articulate them all. Where to even begin? The complete switch from Jamie being someone who broke rules to spare physical punishment for others to someone who embraces it long enough to beat his wife, and then has a convenient change of heart by the end of the episode; the fact that he told her he enjoyed beating her; the completely gratuitous shots of Clare's backside; her public humiliation as the men below knew what was happening and joked about it, the fact that she was punished for putting the men at risk yet these very men have been holding her against her will since she arrived... I'm a non book reader who stumbled on this show by accident and had thought it was a real gem. But that scene completely turned me off of the show. So this independent woman was humiliated and punished like a naughty child and I guess she will fall in love with her beater? I have no interest in staying around to see that happen.

Some thoughts: Of all the new characters, Nancy Webb is my favorite. It's not often enough that we get to see women portrayed in shows as both compassionate and assertive, so I was quite pleased to see her. I thought Mr. Crabb was fabulous! He was never a yes man -- in fact some of his most comical moments were when he would voice his worries over Harry ' s "modern" or risky or even risque ("you want to sell lip rouge, Mr. Selfridge?!") Ideas. But in this episode, everything was so much more serious, and as bad as I felt for him, I thought he really shone like never before. I loved how Harry just tore up the resignation letter! Okay, I have to call baloney on Harry's claims that Selfridge 's was all about Rose. Last season, before he even knew Rose was sick, he was saying that every brick, every counter, was for Rose. But that clearly was not the case. Selfridge ' s department store was always his dream, not Rose's. I don't think anything is wrong with that, so perhaps he should stop saying it was all for Rose, when it simply isn't true. What's worse is that Selfridge's was the site of frequent humiliation for Rose, with Harry making one of his mistresses the very public "face of Selfridge's," and had spending accounts at the store set up for other mistresses of his. I think he truly loved Rose, but I think he needs to stop laying the "all about Rose" shtick on so thick before someone calls him out on it (like Violette so boldly did to Rosalie at the wedding.)

Well, that was an eventful premiere! It had my head spinning a bit. General thoughts: It was nice to see some black people on "Mr. Selfridge." I really liked Agnes' blue wedding suit, and loved her and Henri's very romantic picnic reception. I was glad to see most men made it safely back from the war, but was gutted for both Florian and Miss Mardle. As to those wondering up thread whether it was realistic for Mr. Grove to serve in the war and for a jazz club to be already popular in 1919: I believe that both things would be historically accurate. Although Mr. Grove did say last season that he was too old, my understanding is that as the war progressed and casualties among the younger men were so great, older men started to serve. Also, black American soldiers were embraced by European troops, much more so than by their American counterparts. Black soldiers were known to entertain European troops with dixieland and jazz music, along with dancing. So I could see how such a club could be so successful in 1919 England. Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the premier was that so many characters felt unfamiliar to me that it almost felt like it wasn't the same show. Not only were there a lot of new characters, but ones like Rosalie were so different that it didn't feel like Rosalie. It wasn't just the actress' appearance that seemed foreign, but her personality was completely transformed from that of the former Rosalie. I hope I'll get used to all the new people soon, because I just love this show, and am hoping to enjoy it as much as I did the first two seasons. I have some thoughts on Mr. Crabb, Nancy Webb, and Harry ' s memory of Rose, but I think they were more concentrated in the second hour of the premier, so I'll put them in the "Episode Two" thread.

I never found any of the things that you referenced above to be inconsistent. I didn't think his sense of morality regarding staying engaged to Lavinia to be rigid or out of nowhere: from what I understand from this show and from others is that for a man to break his engagement to a woman during the "Downton" era would have been a very public and lasting humiliation to the woman. It seemed to be a common thread among decent men of the time. That was a completely different set of circumstances than his breakup with Mary in season one (which was not an engagement), and I don't see his behavior in these two instances inconsistent at all. And regarding his guilt about Lavinia evaporating and then reappearing regarding the inheritance, again I find no inconsistencies. These, too, were completely different matters. There was the passage of time as well as a lot of advice from his mother (and even, I think, Robert) that allowed him to put aside enough of his guilt in order to move ahead with his romantic future with Mary. But I don't see how marrying Mary meant that he was wrong to feel guilt about inheriting a fortune from Lavinia's father. I saw Matthew as a very consistently good and moral person, and I don't see how any of the major happenings regarding Mary/Lavinia/the inheritance contradict that. --- On to another matter: I wish this thread was the same as all of the other character threads and was only about Matthew himself and not about the actor who played him. I've always felt that the circumstances of someone's employment -- including how much notice a person gave when resigning -- is a private matter between the person and his/her employer. Matthew Crawley was one of my favorite male leads ever in a series, and I looked forward to discussions about him in this thread. But Mr. Stevens is not Mr. Crawley and it takes some of the fun out of the thread for me to see discussions about the actor's personal career decisions mixed in with the discussions about the fictional Matthew. Just my opinion of course, no better or worse than any one else's, but I felt it was worth saying.

But, is Mary's ambition primarily for George? I've always had the impression that the number one reason, by far, that Mary wants Downton to remain viable is for herself.

I was standing in line at the bank a few days ago, when I saw a man wearing a shirt with a logo that looked very familiar. I then realized that it was the same as the avatar of our dear fellow poster, Kohola3. Mygawd, I spend entirely too much time in this forum! Overall, I thought this was a lovely finale. I agree with whoever said up thread that it was sentimental without being hokey. It was my favorite episode since the season 2 finale. I loved the tribute to Sybil. In addition to the great fashions mentioned above such as Mary's gorgeous red coat, I thought Isobel's red gown in her final scene with Dickie was lovely. and I thought Edith in her red dress and Marigold in her green dress looked wonderful together. I think it's adorable how the little girl who plays Marigold wraps her fingers around the hem of Edith's garments when she holds her. It reminds me of George wrapping his fingers around Mary's on the day of his birth. And Wow! The way Henry leapt into his snappy chariot was amazing! On the not so great side: Although Bertie (?) the agent seemed rather handsome as well as very nice, I was disappointed that he wasn't younger, and that he was someone they "felt sorry for." In the first five seasons,they've only ever shown three men being interested in Edith, with all three of them a good bit older, and with two of the three being middle class. I'm finding it too hard to believe that no young, attractive member of the aristocracy ever came to one of these gatherings and was bowled over by the pretty, intelligent, and interesting Edith. I was glad to see her enjoying his company, but once again a man interested in Edith was someone who would be considered (by their standards, certainly not mine) as well beneath what would ever be considered good enough for Mary. A bit disappointing in a finale that I thought had an otherwise rather lovely tone to it. ETA: I forgot to mention the archways! The scenes shot from the abbey's balcony, showing the Christmas party through the archways, were stunning. They were a beautiful complement to the all the shots of the archways outside the castle from earlier in the episode. Just when this show can't get any more gorgeous, it gets more gorgeous!

Although I agree with you in that I also would like to know if I had inconvenienced my hosts, and that Henry was glad to learn of it, I think that the way that Mary told him was inexcusable. She didn't tell him in a friendly, concerned, "I don't mean to embarrass you, but I thought you might want to know this" kind of way. Rather she essentially told him off. She was incredibly rude. Also, I don't think Atticus and his family looked at him as a nuisance, let alone as someone who had been "pushy." He was invited by Atticus' friend, and it seemed that the family thought any inconvenience was completely accidental. If I were hosting a party and the friend of a friend had accidentally inconvenienced me, and I chose to do nothing about it, the last thing I would want is for another of my guests to point out the fauxpas, and I would be mortified if my guest did it in such a rude manner as Mary.

I got the impression that Rose intervened in order to save her mother in law from a very public humiliation. I don't think gaining Daniel's approval motivated her in the least, although I'm sure she welcomes his change in his attitude toward her. I agree that it is a shame that Rose is stuck with the burden of having to keep such a major secret from Atticus. But I think her only motivation to keep the secret is because she believes Atticus would be deeply hurt to know the truth. I don't think any amount of acceptance by her father in law would matter if she thought that Atticus was actually better off knowing the truth. I think her major concern is for Rachel and Atticus, even though her silence benefits Daniel as well. And Rose and Atticus do completely adore each other don't they? In the scene with all the dancing, they kept twirling around the room, staring into each other's eyes and smiling at each other. It's been so nice to see a couple this season so crazy about each other. I have found them to be quite the breath of fresh air.