All Creatures Great And Small (2021) - General Discussion

[magdalene]

Shrugs. I was a child of the eighties and we always got mandarins and walnuts and chocolates in our Christmas stocking.  It would have never occurred to us to make a fuss about it. We liked having fruit and nuts.  That girl was a bad-mannered brat.

[Sarah 103]

4 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

I still think that "behind the curtain" thing is creepy.

I'm 100% with you and others on that. 

[Dowel Jones]

41 minutes ago, magdalene said:

That girl was a bad-mannered brat.

I wonder if her parents jumped at the chance to 'evacuate' her from London.😆

[peacheslatour]

I guess I'm the lone voice of dissension here but I thought Eva was a breath of fresh air and she worked really hard to learn Noel on the piano so she could bring some Christmas cheer to the party, I also thought her reaction to the orange was understandable. I didn't think she was rude. Maybe she will go to stay with Mrs. Pumphrey, she seems lonesome.

Edited February 21, 2023 by peacheslatour

[Cetacean]

54 minutes ago, magdalene said:

That girl was a bad-mannered brat.

Well, in all fairness, if she never had Christmas before she didn't know what to expect.Especially if she had her tales about other kids asking Father Christmas for something special.

[Bunnyette]

1 hour ago, Dowel Jones said:

I wonder if her parents jumped at the chance to 'evacuate' her from London.😆

Lol, my Nana did when my Dad & Uncle got ‘evacuated’…

[4merBachAddict]

This won't be a popular opinion here, but this season was the worst! It strayed so far from the books, it should barely share the same name! NOTHING from last night's show was in the books EXCEPT the cat/kitten part & even THAT wasn't done as it was in the books.  Plus SO much of the veterinary details are SO wrong!The first 2 seasons were more in line with the books - but the original series was much closer! AND better -  IMO! The one thing they do WELL in this series is always showing the gorgeous Dales countryside -  J. Herriot  mentioned many times how beautiful it was & how lucky he felt to live & work there. The books are truly classic - don't know why the producers thought they could re-write perfection.😢

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by 4merBachAddict

[Doublemint]

Some more nitpicking.   No child would call these adults by their first name.  Even in my youth adults were addressed as Mr______ and Mrs_________.   Also, they set her hair in rags for Christmas, yet she's got braids - what happened to the curls?  Curiously, Helen never sets her hair, she wakes up with a headful of lovely curls.  I rewatched tonight, so just little things.   The main problems have been covered previously.   Overall disappointing and sloppy - there were good moments, Tristan & Siegfried.  The rest - no.  

[Llywela]

11 hours ago, statsgirl said:

In a disappointing and bleak season, this episode I thought was the worst episode. Was there any happy, heartwarming story at all?  Even the kitten I thought didn't make sense other than to highlight the child because how can one kitten be overwhelming its mother?

Mrs. Hall made them for her from ordinary shoes (which must have been a feat to get given the rationing of the time).

The cat was a stray that Mrs Pumphrey had taken pity on. As a stray, it was probably very young and malnourished, which was why it was unable to care for its kitten. I saw plenty like it when I was a child, when there was a colony of feral cats living on the railway embankment nearby. My family acquired several kittens that were abandoned in the garden by mother cats who just couldn't support them.

Rationing was not yet in effect.

[PattyorSelma]

21 hours ago, ML89 said:

Not just hobble - if the horse runs badly on drugs and pulls up lame  - that's best case. He could get really injured and have to be put down (cf Black Gold, Kentucky Derby winner in his later career). Terrible choice all around. Also, what the hell did the owner get out of running a lame horse unless he'd made some other bet about it showing up?

Yes, for me too.

I worked many years in the thoroughbred racing industry.  There are very strict rules about the use of painkillers.  If a horse cannot feel an injury, a bone can shatter and the horse and rider will fall. Jockeys can be paralyzed or even killed.  I was horrified by Siegfried's willingness to sacrifice River and maybe his rider too.  Absolutely unacceptable. 

[JudyObscure]

Your username mad me laugh, PattyorSelma.  Now I want to hear you talk.

[Pallas]

1 hour ago, PattyorSelma said:

If a horse cannot feel an injury, a bone can shatter and the horse and rider will fall.

Yes. River has a stress fracture that caused him to pull up after a few circles at a trot in an open field. With the pain masked, while being urged on at up to 40 mph while carrying 130 pounds among a small herd and roaring crowd, his leg is more likely to shatter than not. He would probably be put down where he fell. And as PattyorSelma pointed out, a fall also imperils his jockey and every horse and jockey near him at the time: a potential multiple fallen horse and rider melee that would scar anyone who witnessed it.

Siegfried knows this, and the writer likely does as well. That's what makes this storyline dishonest. Siegfried assures River that he will be nearby and do everything he can to minimize his pain, and this is played as poignant; we are meant to be touched by Siegfried's conflict and his hope that somehow, he can make it all work out. But all he could really mean is what he told the horse he was ordered to shoot in 1918: "I'm sorry. You deserved better."  So does Siegfried.

[PattyorSelma]

3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Your username mad me laugh, PattyorSelma.  Now I want to hear you talk.

HaHa!!  I've never smoked a single cigarette. A friend's husband called the two of us Patty and Selma back when The Simpsons were all the rage.  😁😁

[4merBachAddict]

8 hours ago, Llywela said:

The cat was a stray that Mrs Pumphrey had taken pity on. As a stray, it was probably very young and malnourished, which was why it was unable to care for its kitten. I saw plenty like it when I was a child, when there was a colony of feral cats living on the railway embankment nearby. My family acquired several kittens that were abandoned in the garden by mother cats who just couldn't support them.

Rationing was not yet in effect.

The ACTUAL cat/kitten story(fr/ the 3rd book) was much more touching even though bittersweet. And it had nothing to do w/Mrs. Pumphrey.

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by 4merBachAddict

[peacheslatour]

28 minutes ago, 4merBachAddict said:

The ACTUAL cat/kitten story(fr/ the 3rd book) was much more touching even though bittersweet. And it had nothing to dp w/Mrs. Pumphrey.

 

Nope, just basset hounds.

Has anyone here checked out the re-caps on Vulture? Here are a couple of choice quotes.

"The Pumphrey Sanctuary for Those Who Need It comes in handy, because someone leaves a beautiful Springer Spaniel named Dash tied up outside the practice with a note that reads “Please look after me.” Mrs. Hall instantly is like, “I’ve only had Dash for a day and a half, but if anything happened to him, I would kill everyone in this room and then myself.” 

 

"Tristan, after a pause to ask what James will do about the war because James always does the right thing (awww!), goes to see Florence. He pulls up a flower, roots and all, from outside her home, and then asks to speak with her in the fresh air, right by a drain. If you’re thinking, Surely Tristan is not proposing, I am sorry to disappoint you. Prepared as always, he pulls his keys off his keyring and tells Florence he wants to plough his own furrow and plough it with her, a line he immediately knows is not good. Florence, being a sensible lady, gently turns him down, saying it’s not the right time, and maybe Tristan needs to learn more about who he is first. And, also, they barely know each other, what’re you doing, buddy? Tristan is sad, but agrees these are all good points."

 

[4merBachAddict]

16 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

I guess I'm the lone voice of dissension here but I thought Eve was a breath of fresh air and she worked really hard to learn Noel on the piano so she could bring some Christmas cheer to the party, I also thought her reaction to the orange was understandable. I didn't think she was rude. Maybe she will go to stay with Mrs. Pumphrey, she seems lonesome.

I didn't mind the girl Eve at all but she is totally a creation of the producers or whoever wrote S3: she was NEVER in the books. Just FYI.

 

[peacheslatour]

3 minutes ago, 4merBachAddict said:

I didn't mind the girl Eve at all but she is totally a creation of the producers or whoever wrote S3: she was NEVER in the books. Just FYI.

 

Oh I know she wasn't but they've strayed so far from the books, at this point I've given up trying to understand their reasoning. I'm just going with it.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

Siegfried knows this, and the writer likely does as well. That's what makes this storyline dishonest. Siegfried assures River that he will be nearby and do everything he can to minimize his pain, and this is played as poignant; we are meant to be touched by Siegfried's conflict and his hope that somehow, he can make it all work out. 

Possible translation:  "I'll kill you with an overdose of an anesthesia instead of a shot to the head."

I absolutely hated that entire story line.  

[Ilovepie]

20 hours ago, 4merBachAddict said:

This won't be a popular opinion here, but this season was the worst!

I hate to say it, but I totally agree. This season was less about the treatment of animals and more about the drama of the characters. It bears little resemblance to the books at this point other than in name. James was almost a secondary character as it focused more on the personal lives of Siegfried, Audrey and Tristan rather than the "creatures great and small". 

The scene that annoyed me the most was the Christmas episode where Audrey abandons the man she stage an entire party for just to insert herself in the argument between Siegfried and Tristan. And in this instance, it felt like intrusive overstepping. They are two grown men having a painful, very personal, private conversation, and she didn't just happen to be there, and nobody asked her to join. She was only there to create the drama of Gerald being left alone and leaving. As she stood there watching the back and forth and making half-hearted attempts to sweep it back under the rug, all I could think was buzz off lady - this doesn't concern you! Go back to your maybe boyfriend who is leaving in 10 minutes!

[cinsays]

1 hour ago, Ilovepie said:

I hate to say it, but I totally agree. This season was less about the treatment of animals and more about the drama of the characters. It bears little resemblance to the books at this point other than in name. James was almost a secondary character as it focused more on the personal lives of Siegfried, Audrey and Tristan rather than the "creatures great and small". 

The scene that annoyed me the most was the Christmas episode where Audrey abandons the man she stage an entire party for just to insert herself in the argument between Siegfried and Tristan. And in this instance, it felt like intrusive overstepping. They are two grown men having a painful, very personal, private conversation, and she didn't just happen to be there, and nobody asked her to join. She was only there to create the drama of Gerald being left alone and leaving. As she stood there watching the back and forth and making half-hearted attempts to sweep it back under the rug, all I could think was buzz off lady - this doesn't concern you! Go back to your maybe boyfriend who is leaving in 10 minutes!

i guess i am glad i never read the books, so i can just enjoy the show as it is.

true, audrey didn't need to interfere, but she really just hovered, thinking she might be needed to ease things along and that's what she does a lot, so i didn't mind it.

 

[4merBachAddict]

1 minute ago, cinsays said:

i guess i am glad i never read the books, so i can just enjoy the show as it is.

true, audrey didn't need to interfere, but she really just hovered, thinking she might be needed to ease things along and that's what she does a lot, so i didn't mind it.

 

You're really missing out then. I would urge everyone - especially   if you're an animal lover - to read the books... at least the first 3! And if you really aren't a reader, then watch the original series - you won't be sorry! 

 

[peacheslatour]

Just now, 4merBachAddict said:

You're really missing out then. I would urge everyone - especially   if you're an animal lover - to read the books... at least the first 3! And if you really aren't a reader, then watch the original series - you won't be sorry! 

 

I second this.

[Haleth]

I cried my eyes out at the railway scene.  Oh, we're huggers now?  Of course you are.  However I thought it was really out of character for Siegfried to make a bargain that would harm an animal.  As much as he loves his brother and did not want him to experience the horrors of war I can't imagine him being so sanguine about letting River run and risk further (possibly life ending) injury to his leg.

I didn't mind Eva but I hope she's shipped off to live with Mrs Pumphrey who seems to enjoy a precocious child.

[marycontrary]

This version is def not as good as the earlier version. The earlier version stayed truer to the books. Also had longer seasons w more time to develop the characters. This is a verry sappy and simple version. Certainly it is well acted and beautifully filmed but watch the original it is so much better.

[cinsays]

14 hours ago, 4merBachAddict said:

You're really missing out then. I would urge everyone - especially   if you're an animal lover - to read the books... at least the first 3! And if you really aren't a reader, then watch the original series - you won't be sorry! 

 

I am a reader.  My point was that I am not criticising what I consider to be an excellent show because it doesn't follow the way the books portray things.

[Llywela]

This show has never claimed to be a faithful adaptation of the books. It is based on them, which is a different exercise entirely. With this kind of show, there comes a point where viewers just have to accept that it is its own thing and stop comparing it to the source material, for their own sanity - as well as that of the people around them. This show is following very different dramatic constraints than the books did - and also than the earlier adaptation did. Some of what it does is going to work, and some isn't, but it does need to be viewed on its own terms and judged against whether the narrative holds up as a narrative, rather than critiqued simply because it is different than other versions of the story. It is okay for different versions of a story to be different. What matters is whether they hold up within themselves.

I mean, I get it, it can be hard to watch a show based on a book that follows a very different path than the book did - that was why I stopped watching the recent Poldark, in the end. But Poldark did claim to be a faithful adaptation, which it very much was not. All Creatures Great And Small has made no such claim.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Oh I know she wasn't but they've strayed so far from the books, at this point I've given up trying to understand their reasoning. I'm just going with it.

I've never read the books (or seen the original series) so I'm enjoying the show - this season included - just fine. 

That said, I wonder if the books played down the drama and significance of the war, compared to the series. The books may not have wanted to go on and on about the horrors of war but with a live TV show it's harder to ignore the impact of something like that. It might account for the vast difference people seem to be complaining about.

[ofmd]

I don't care how closely it follows the books (which I haven't read) or the old show (which I loved very much), as long as it's good. YMMV of course and that's perfectly fine, we prefer what we prefer. However, everyone should be aware that with today's regulations, they simply can't have as many animals in the show anymore.

That said, I agree the focurs should be more on the animals again.

Granted, as they are getting into the war part so early (I assume), this might become difficult viewing.

For me, the season was good, up to this episode. I wonder, did they get in new writers? One episode I don't like is fine, I just hope they haven't lost their mojo.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by ofmd

[DonnaMae]

I've never read the books nor seen the first series, but I'm enjoying this series very much.  The beautiful Yorkshire countryside, the wonderful acting, I love it all.  Maybe this series is more about the veterinarians and their friends and families and not so much about the animals.  

[Ilovepie]

17 hours ago, cinsays said:

i guess i am glad i never read the books, so i can just enjoy the show as it is.

true, audrey didn't need to interfere, but she really just hovered, thinking she might be needed to ease things along and that's what she does a lot, so i didn't mind it.

 

The books are truly special, and I can appreciate them as a separate thing, but even without the books, this season leaned too far into the personal drama for a show called "All Creatures Great and Small". Compared to previous seasons, I felt it was a let down. I did still enjoy it, just not as much.

Audrey's hovering was what annoyed me the most. She didn't need to be there, especially since she knew Gerald had showed up just for her. Most of the time the arguments between Tristan and Siegfried take place in front of everyone, and I don't mind when she tries to keep the peace in those situations, nor when either Tristan or Siegfried seek her out for her opinion or just to vent. But in this instance, they went off to have a private conversation that neither invited her to join. As I said earlier, she inserted herself unnecessarily into their conversation and her presence there seemed awkward.

[ofmd]

8 minutes ago, Ilovepie said:

Audrey's hovering was what annoyed me the most. She didn't need to be there, especially since she knew Gerald had showed up just for her. (...) As I said earlier, she inserted herself unnecessarily into their conversation and her presence there seemed awkward.

Yes. And all that contrivance just to get her weird ooc rom-com moments, plus Siegfried's equally unsubtle lightbulb moment... sigh.

Edited February 22, 2023 by ofmd

[dargosmydaddy]

I've read the books; never watched the first series. I greatly enjoyed watching series one and two. I don't care that it deviates from the books, and I think the deviations in terms of character development (making Mrs. Hall and Jenny actual human beings instead of the nonentities they are in the books, and the depth they've given to the Siegfried/ Tristan relationship) have been excellent. 

That said, I thought series three was a let down in terms of all the contrivances. The writing just wasn't as good as the previous series. And I'm worried about how they're going to handle the war going forward-- even if they do a Downton Abbey-style speed up and move through a bunch of years in one season (which I doubt they'll do), it seems likely that there will be a lot of focus on war angst and even less focus on nice animal stories, which is kind of the premise of the show/ why most people watch it.

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

That said, I wonder if the books played down the drama and significance of the war, compared to the series. The books may not have wanted to go on and on about the horrors of war but with a live TV show it's harder to ignore the impact of something like that. It might account for the vast difference people seem to be complaining about.

Yes, this is basically what the books did. Herriot's war years (covered in a single book) were mainly amusing stories about his training interspersed with flashbacks to his veterinary practice. Which the show can't really do... I do wonder why the show didn't try to fudge the timeline and start the show a little earlier in the 30's, or just let less time pass each season. 

And not to get into another endless comparison, but what did the original show do about the war?

 

[statsgirl]

The first series basically skipped the war; episode 3x14 was James and Tristan called up and the following episode had the war over. I understand completely why they did that.

My problems with this season are two: first that it's really become bleak, especially this last episode, rather than heart-warming. I listened to the PBS presenters talking about how this is their happy place and thought "What show are you watching and how can I see it?"

My second problem is inconsistency in the characters. The most obvious in the Christmas episode was Siegfried willing to harm a horse (and other horses and jockeys) in order to keep Tristan from going to war when he has always been about protecting the animals foremost. If Siegfried's arc has been learning to trust Tristan and let him grow up instead of always berating him for not living up to Siegfried's expectations, there were better ways to do that than throwing his character in the trash.

23 hours ago, cinsays said:

true, audrey didn't need to interfere, but she really just hovered, thinking she might be needed to ease things along and that's what she does a lot, so i didn't mind it.

She felt that she had to be there to make sure that Siegfried didn't totally blow it with Tristan. This was not romantic, it was parental or at best big sister to Siegfried so his lightbulb moment as he watched her kiss Gerald was a jarring note.

Another problem that I had with the Christmas episode was how anachronistic Eva was. The idea of giving a Jewish girl a look at Christmas was good but the indulgence they showed her was not how I saw from my older English friends and in-laws behave. Even in my 50s I still call my parents' friends "Mr." and "Mrs." rather than by their first names.

[peacheslatour]

I just wish we had seen more interaction with the animals and fewer relationship storylines. I could really have done without Mrs. Hall and her son and the whole focus on Tristan and Siegfried's problems with each other.

[libgirl2]

54 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

 

Another problem that I had with the Christmas episode was how anachronistic Eva was. The idea of giving a Jewish girl a look at Christmas was good but the indulgence they showed her was not how I saw from my older English friends and in-laws behave. Even in my 50s I still call my parents' friends "Mr." and "Mrs." rather than by their first names.

So, I'm not the only one? 

[Doublemint]

6 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

So, I'm not the only one? 

No - I mentioned it way back.   They wanted a child, but she was a modern  child, speaking and behaving the way children do in 2023 - not 1939.   I suppose they didn't need a sad, mopey kid to bring things down even further, but she was way over the top.

[RGro]

I wholeheartedly agree with https://www.primetimer.com/about/mark_blankenship Mark’s assessment of this seasons show. Far too full of heavy war drama that weighed the show down. Its carefree nature is what viewers loved about it. Refreshing with just the right amount of friction between the brothers and James. Certainly the farmers and animals can create enough lighthearted drama to keep it heading in the right direction. Let’s hope so!

[Doublemint]

43 minutes ago, RGro said:

I wholeheartedly agree with https://www.primetimer.com/about/mark_blankenship Mark’s assessment of this seasons show. Far too full of heavy war drama that weighed the show down. Its carefree nature is what viewers loved about it. Refreshing with just the right amount of friction between the brothers and James. Certainly the farmers and animals can create enough lighthearted drama to keep it heading in the right direction. Let’s hope so!

Yes, I agree with the reviewer.   If the child has been living there for a few months, they should know she's Jewish, and the War is too heavy for this show.

[AJS]

In this crazy, chaotic world how comforting to view a program that shows heart, wit and wisdom while dealing honestly with personal relationships. Your cynical review of this one episode displays how jaded the media has become. My only regret of this PBS offering is that it isn't a nightly broadcast. The film writing does the book great justice. Just wait until the next season to understand more of the effects of the war on the lives presented.

[possibilities]

On 2/20/2023 at 8:57 AM, Daff said:

I liked her sharing the menorah with them-but isn’t there one candle (a ninth) in the middle that’s used to light the other eight each night?

Yes, there is. I figured the Christian folks didn't know that and the visitor was too polite to inform them. You also don't light all the candles every night. It was a totally unresearched gesture, but I'm not sure who in Darrowby would know the right way to do it. Are their any Jewish people living there, other than the refugee children?  I was more offended by the idea that the kid would be fed a bunch of Christmas propaganda, and would be super-starved to receive it... but the show played that as though it was the most delightful thing ever. 

 

On 2/21/2023 at 4:45 PM, Ilovepie said:

This season was less about the treatment of animals and more about the drama of the characters.

This bothered me, too.

[Daff]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

You also don't light all the candles every night.

I do know that-representative of the miracle of the small amount of oil lasting 8 nights. It’s natural for kids to consider the advantages associated with other cultural traditions. When I was young, I thought it would be nice to celebrate for eight days-to extend the fun. I think Eva was just curious and wondering (hoping) if Father Christmas, the Wizard, or the shoes could possibly deliver her from her current circumstances. Developmentally, she was too old for such magical thinking, but it’s not a surprising regression after having to separate from her parents. Born in the’50s, I remember at 8 years old being shamed out of continued belief by the neighborhood kids (and being relieved when ‘Miracle on 34th Street’ came along).

[Daff]

After giving due consideration to all the views expressed here, I’ve concluded that the writers had a massive brain f-.  War is declared..we have to show how it affected the residents of Darrowby (all at once). 
If you compare/contrast to a period piece like CtM, where thoughtful consideration is given to each year’s passing, it’s fairly evident these writers bit off too much, resulting in a disappointing final episode. I’m glad I’m saving all the old ones, so this episode is not my last memory till next season. 

[YorkshireLass]

I just watched this

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/clips/all-creatures-great-and-small-s3-looking-ahead-to-season-4/#

and found it quite interesting that Melissa Gallant(Executive Producer of the show), said, to paraphrase, there are so many more "Herriott animal stories" in the books and they're looking forward to bringing them to the screen in Season 4.  Makes me wonder if the criticism about the lack of animal stories in Season 3 has been duly noted.  I hope it has.

[MrAtoz]

15 hours ago, statsgirl said:

The first series basically skipped the war; episode 3x14 was James and Tristan called up and the following episode had the war over. I understand completely why they did that.

It may be worth noting that there was a huge gap until the following episode.  Series 3, which ended with the vets going off to war, was broadcast in 1980.  As far as anyone knew at the time, that was the conclusion of the show.

Series 4, which was set after the war, didn't happen until 1988.  It was as much a revival of the show as it was a continuation.  Incidentally, while series 1-3 had been closely based on Herriot's books, series 4-7 were for the most part original stories, not derived from any particular book incidents.  So even the original series eventually strayed from what Alf Wight wrote.

There were two Christmas specials, in 1983 and 1985, which were also set after the end of the war.  In fact the 1983 special dealt, to some extent, with James's PTSD (although they didn't call it that in those days).

[Ilovepie]

18 hours ago, Doublemint said:

They wanted a child, but she was a modern  child, speaking and behaving the way children do in 2023 - not 1939. 

Totally agree with this! Contrast her behavior with the child who shadowed Siegfried a few episodes ago. But I will say Jenny is has always been portrayed as pretty sassy, so there is that. Also, considering she is an only child being raised in the city, it might also explain her behavior a little more. Okay, now I'm talking myself out of my argument. ;-0

I do think she was a tad too old to think magic shoes would transport her back home though, and I don't think she would be calling the adults by their first names.

[Llywela]

Anne of Green Gables was written much earlier than this show, and in that Anne was told to call Matthew and Marilla by their first names, because she was living with them, so 'Mr' and 'Miss' wouldn't be appropriate, but she was not related to them, so 'Uncle' and 'Aunt' weren't true. Maybe the Skeldale House crew took the same approach to Eva.

[Zella]

My thing about historical fiction is that there've always been people who are out of step with the times they live in. But what's key is how the other characters react. So, okay, maybe this kid is unusually disrespectful by the standards of the time. But how are the other characters responding to it? Do they just shrug it off as no big deal or does it actually seem shocking to them?

I've not had a chance to watch this season yet (I always wait for it to be over and then binge watch, but I don't mind following the discussion here because I don't care about spoilers for the show), so I don't know how they react, but what I've often found in modern depictions of historical periods is that what really undercuts the realism isn't so much that there's some person acting out of step with the time so much as nobody else in the scene finds it particularly weird or rude, which is just anachronistic. 

As for geographical differences in manners, I think that's probably still true even today. I live in a fairly rural area of the American South. At the library where I work, there are a lot of parent patrons who are still having their kids "ma'am" us and attach a title to our name ("Miss Zella"). It's not universal, though, and my boss, who used to work with teens in another city in the same state, has told us several times that even the "disrespectful" kids here are still pretty mild and deferential compared to what she's dealt with at other jobs. After she pointed out, I realized she was right. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Zella

[Moxie Cat]

12 hours ago, possibilities said:

I was more offended by the idea that the kid would be fed a bunch of Christmas propaganda, and would be super-starved to receive it... but the show played that as though it was the most delightful thing ever. 

THIS. Given what was going on in Europe at the time, Eva's unabashed eagerness to celebrate Christmas, and the household's enthusiasm in giving that to her, didn't set right with me. I was happy that they made an attempt at a menorah and the prayer with the dinner scene. But I wish there would have been more of an attempt to balance both the household's Christmas traditions with Eva's Jewish traditions, even if it wasn't Hanukkah. In my view, there was a general theme of "let's teach the little Jewish girl the RIGHT way to celebrate December!" Maybe that wasn't intentional but I found it unsettling.

Also agree with many other sentiments in this thread, especially having Siegfried actively going through with the horse decision and Mrs. Hall's inexplicable 11th-hour regret about a guy she hadn't wanted to get involved with until he was leaving. The episode was saved by Tristan's maturity and insight, and of course, by any animal that appeared onscreen. 

[ofmd]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

My thing about historical fiction is that there've always been people who are out of step with the times they live in. But what's key is how the other characters react.

 

This.

22 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

Given what was going on in Europe at the time, Eva's unabashed eagerness to celebrate Christmas, and the household's enthusiasm in giving that to her, didn't set right with me. I was happy that they made an attempt at a menorah and the prayer with the dinner scene. But I wish there would have been more of an attempt to balance both the household's Christmas traditions with Eva's Jewish traditions, even if it wasn't Hanukkah. In my view, there was a general theme of "let's teach the little Jewish girl the RIGHT way to celebrate December!" Maybe that wasn't intentional but I found it unsettling.

I agree. Now, our heroes may not have fully known what was going on with Jewish people in Europe. But we do, and the writers do, and it was a decision to frame it like this. (Even though I agree they might not have meant it the way it comes across.)

[HappyHanna]

2 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

15 hours ago, possibilities said:

I was more offended by the idea that the kid would be fed a bunch of Christmas propaganda, and would be super-starved to receive it... but the show played that as though it was the most delightful thing ever. 

THIS. Given what was going on in Europe at the time, Eva's unabashed eagerness to celebrate Christmas, and the household's enthusiasm in giving that to her, didn't set right with me. I was happy that they made an attempt at a menorah and the prayer with the dinner scene. But I wish there would have been more of an attempt to balance both the household's Christmas traditions with Eva's Jewish traditions, even if it wasn't Hanukkah. In my view, there was a general theme of "let's teach the little Jewish girl the RIGHT way to celebrate December!" Maybe that wasn't intentional but I found it unsettling

Count me three. I was not loving the "sure she's Jewish, but let's have her learn Noel, meet Santa,  get Christmas presents, while we play two seconds of lipservice to her actual religious background" that ran through the show.