Past Seasons Talk: Upstairs Downstairs Revisited

[Andorra]

I think you can find most of them here:

http://angel-princess-anna.tumblr.com/post/102020021540/masterpost-downton-abbey-deleted-scenes

[Mrsjumbo]

Thanks for the deleted scenes link. I haven't rewatched the early seasons since I first started watching.

It is a difference in how much the show used to show downstairs- the staff having conversations around the big table, goofing off, going out together to the fair. Now it's quick glimpses of Daisy trying to fit her lessons in. They don't show the staff hanging out together like they used to.

[HoodlumSheep]

Just rewatched season 2, eps 3 and 4. Otherwise known as probably some of the only episodes that Edith doesn't "Edith" things up. Couldn't help but laugh when half of the dinner table looked like they were about to keel over in shock when the army dude congratulated Edith on being a big help to the officers.

Also couldn't help but fist pump and yell "way to go Mary!" when she had to repeatedly defend Lavinia against Violet and Rosamund. I wanted to slap them both when Rosamund called Lavinia a harlot and Violet pretty much chuckled along.

Angry/extremely grumpy Branson is my all time least favorite "version" of Branson. I just wanted to give him a good smack too.

Poor Mr. Moseley, just when he was about to be Robert's substitute valet for a little while...Bates just had to waltz in. I actually wanted to smack him too. I thought it was kinda...rude, mean? of how when Moseley mentioned a new shoehorn for Robert, Bates takes it and is like, "Okay, thanks...bye!"

Lots of people I wanted to smack in these episodes and I never realised it before: Violet, Rosamund, Branson, Ethel, Ethel's officer guy, MRS. CRAWLEY.

I was rooting for Cora the whole time with that whole mess. Isobel completely bulldozes Cora over on everything and then when she gets a taste of her own medicine when Cora starts do the same, she kinda throws a fit and leaves. Really?

Edited February 6, 2015 by HoodlumSheep

[ZoloftBlob]

I was rooting for Cora the whole time with that whole mess. Isobel completelt bulldozes Cora over on everything and then when she gets a taste of her own medicine when Cora starts do the same, she kinda throws a fit and leaves. Really?

 

Worse, in later episodes, she's got Matthew dumped off Robert and Cora on a permanent basis, and gets really uptight that the Granthams have no intention of just converting their home into a permanent hospital and has to be directed to saving Russian refugees in order to get her out of everyone's hair.

 

I recently rewatched season two and there was a lot of really convoluted plot twists and Isobel was the world's most annoying person throughout.

[jordanpond]

My interpretation of what we see between Edith and Mary is, that they both love to quarrel with each other and it is not that one of them is "better",

Although I agree with a lot of your thoughts in the above post, I have to disagree about what I bolded.

 

I got the impression early in season one, that, while Edith picked on Mary whenever Mary acted superior to Edith, Mary picked on Edith whenever Edith merely tried to act as Mary's equal. And the conversation they had during Anthony Strallen's first visit seemed to confirm my interpretation.  As Edith was sitting all happy in the drawing room after she and Anthony hit it off at dinner, Mary made some comment that I forget to which Edith replied that "you can't have every prize."  Up to that point, Mary had had every prize: no male visitor to Downton had been interested in Edith, yet Matthew, Evelyn, Kamal Pamuk, and, even Anthony (intially) were all interested in Mary. When they entered the drawing room, Mary and Edith were tied on that particular evening: Edith had enjoyed Anthony's interest, while Mary had enjoyed Matthew's. That was fine with Edith, but Mary couldn't stand it. So when the men joined them, Mary went about luring Anthony (a "booby" and "bore" in whom she had no interest) and she suceeded. Edith was delighted with her one prize, yet Mary had to have hers and Edith's too. .

 

And I think the patttern has continued. I've always felt that Edith would be perfectly content if Mary considered her to be her equal, whereas Mary seems to find repulsive the idea of Edith being her equal. Mary simply has to be seen as Edith's superior, and I think that's the main reason she continues to pick on Edith more than Edith picks on her.

[jordanpond]

JF seems to have some sort of issue with names:

• The “TB”s - Tom Branson, Thomas Barrow

• The “E” girls:  Edith, Edna, Ethel

• The “RC”s - Richard Carlisle, Richard Clarkson

• The Flower Girls:  Rose, Daisy, and (unfortunately) Marigold

Surely there were enough historical names out there to avoid using repeats or sound alikes.

 

 

Anthony Strallan, Anthony Gillingham

Reginald Crawley, Reginald Swire

Charles Carson, Charles Blake

James "Jimmy" Kent, James Crawley, James MacClare

It's even worse, with respect to the names I bolded

 

Isobel's latest beau is evidently another Richard: "Dickie" Merton.

 

And there are at least 3 more Charles/Charlies: Charles Grigg (of the Cheerful Charlies), Ethel's baby Charlie, and his father, Charles.  

 

I think it's realistic that an occasional name or two is repeated, but to repeat so many names when there are other popular names of the times that aren't used (e.g. Henry, Myrtle) seems a bit lazy.

Edited February 6, 2015 by jordanpond

[amensisterfriend]

• The Flower Girls:  Rose, Daisy, and (unfortunately) Marigold

 

And Violet! And can we count Ivy?! 

[craziness]

I've started rewatching from season one, and came across a great bit of continuity/recycled plot. In the Mr. Pamuk episode (season 1 ep 3), he sneaks into a side room after dinner, motioning for Mary to follow, and before laying a big old kiss on her, nods to a painting and says, "is this painting really a della Francesca." So it seems all the male visitors who see the della Francesca painting at Downton get very inappropriate ideas. At least Pamuk and Simon Bricker.

[Badger]

I don't think Julian Fellowes has the power to tell anyone involved with the show what they can and can't do regarding the show.  He doesn't own the show.  I do think he was a bit annoyed that Dan wouldn't agree to come back to do a scene in the opening episode of the fourth season.  I think he would have preferred to have Matthew killed off then and not have to do it in the Christmas special.  I also think Dan was right to want to have Matthew's death shown and not just be someone receiving a telegram or something.  

 

I remember going through Dan's tumblr tag after the Season 3 Christmas special and man, there were a lot of very angry former Dan Stevens fans on there.

[SusanSunflower]

 

I don't think Julian Fellowes has the power to tell anyone involved with the show what they can and can't do regarding the show.

My memory of one of the very first extensive press junket** several of the actors -- specifically Elizabeth McGovern -- said something only mildly not-even-negative -- and then spent days walking it back, as if the boom had come down. Someone else, I think it may have been Siobhan Finneran who played O'Brien, said something and it was similarly walked back ... but I remember McGovern's repeated sputtering  "I didn't mean that ..." that gave me the impression that the production company was monitoring them carefully. It was part of the creation in my mind that Fellowes (and likely Eaton as well) were control freaks. McGovern's instant retraction piqued curiosity and I certainly have wondered from time to time just how exhausting filming in the house, likely under Fellowes exacting eye might be. I wondered it again this season with Mary's I'm-so-bored delivery in most dining scenes, which someone in the cast said took FOREVER -- I'm guessing repeated performances with different cameras/angles to pick up all the details, dialogue, servants, etc. 

Contracts can have all sorts of clauses and I'm guessing theirs are actually very restrictive -- consider the lack of real details about anything -- including Dan Steven's departure -- but also Anthony Foyle (Gillingham) and/or Julian Ovenden,(Blake), particularly the latter who was written out rather abruptly (off to Poland, bye!)  -- Gregson anyone?  I've looked to see what else various actors have signed up for .. Ovenden apparently took a not-leading-role in a new TV series between season 4 and season 5 when he was written out. No idea why he would do that. It doesn't -- by any means -- mean that things are unhappy, but that there's either something in the contract or people know "better" than to talk out of class. 

** it was apparently season2 :  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/downton-abbey-elizabeth-mcgovern_n_1452396.html

Edited March 11, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[ZoloftBlob]

I admit, I am curious what the tell all autobiographies from the cast will look like on several levels.

[Eolivet]

Fellowes controlled a number of things in season 2 -- I actually remember Dan Stevens getting in trouble for one of his tweets that alluded somehow to the fact that they were filming and he was lying on his back. I believe that tweet was deleted, likely for spoiling the fact that Matthew was injured. I do believe Fellowes micromanages what his cast says about the show. I wonder just how angry he was when the Norwegian trailer for the season 3 Christmas Special aired several days before the show, which completely spoiled Matthew's car accident. However, I disagree with this:

 

consider the lack of real details about anything -- including Dan Steven's departure -- but also Anthony Foyle (Gillingham) and/or Julian Ovenden,(Blake), particularly the latter who was written out rather abruptly (off to Poland, bye!)  -- Gregson anyone?

 

We know exactly what happened when Dan Stevens left -- we've heard chapter and verse from both him and Fellowes about when he gave notice, how Fellowes wanted to write him out, how he wanted to be written out, what he would and would not come back for, etc. Short answer: His contract was up. I completely disagree there was a lack of real details there (if anything, there were too many -- from too many people!)

 

As for the others, Charles Edwards (Gregson) was a recurring cast member. Fellowes obviously never intended Edith to marry the guy -- likely why he made Gregson married in the first place -- and he was clearly written off for plot purposes, to make Edith into a single mother. Tom Cullen (Gillingham) was also written off for plot purposes, and got a nice tidy ending: a marriage to Mabel Lane Fox. Ovenden's Blake hadn't been a suitor for Mary for months, so his departure was also clearly plot-dictated: he served his purpose, reunited Mabel and Tony, and then was off.

 

I suppose I don't see any kind of conspiracy that none of them gave interviews about leaving. None of them clearly had long-term contracts (nor did we ever hear about any from them) and their departures were dictated by the plot. It's the same as a recurring character on any other show -- they can (and often are) cut at any point.

[ZoloftBlob]

Tom Cullen (Gillingham) was also written off for plot purposes, and got a nice tidy ending: a marriage to Mabel Lane Fox. Ovenden's Blake hadn't been a suitor for Mary for months, so his departure was also clearly plot-dictated: he served his purpose, reunited Mabel and Tony, and then was off.

 

So here's where I disagree with you, and oddly enough it's not over Dan Stevens!

 

At the end of season four, both Tony and Charles were viable candidates to be the next Mr. Mary Crawley. We spent an entire season of the show watching them attempt to woo the ice queen.

 

At the beginning of season five - suddenly Tony was a crazy sleaze and Charles was the homosexual boyfriend who was besties with Mary and Mabel and who's heart's desire was apparently making sure Tony and Mabel got back together.

 

So to be blunt, we spent all of season four on two guys who Mastermind Fellowes never ever intended Mary to hook up with and all of Season Five watching her shake them off even though at the end of season four she seemed smitten with both.

 

Since we wasted two fucking years on it, yes, I do kinda wonder what the fuck happened on the back end because as much as I like Matthew Goode - whats the point in getting attached since every season now wipes the slate clean?

[Andorra]

I think the whole reason for neither Tony nor Blake winning in the end was, that none of the suitors caught fire with the audience. Most viewers took it badly that Tony declared his love to Mary in Episode 3 of series 4, which was way to hasty and way too early for the audience.

And Blake, while having his fanbase, also had a lot of haters, who didn't like his instant rudeness, his snobbish way and actually the fact that he was so short.

 

So when series 5 started, Fellows had already decided that neither of the "suitors" was going to win Mary's precisous hand and that explains the transformation.

 

The same happened with Daisy Lewis as Miss Bunting IMO. Sarah Bunting was hated by the audience (me included) from the minute she arrived on our screen. I recently rewatched series 4 and I'm now convinced it was the actress. Her overfeisty behaviour, the voice the harshness in her appearance, she could have been a very different character with a different actress. But when she returned in series 5, she had gone from bad to worse and was so one dimesional and almost clownish, that even the  very few people who had not disliked her before, changed their mind about her.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Andorra

[Badger]

My memory of one of the very first extensive press junket** several of the actors -- specifically Elizabeth McGovern -- said something only mildly not-even-negative -- and then spent days walking it back, as if the boom had come down. Someone else, I think it may have been Siobhan Finneran who played O'Brien, said something and it was similarly walked back ... but I remember McGovern's repeated sputtering  "I didn't mean that ..." that gave me the impression that the production company was monitoring them carefully. It was part of the creation in my mind that Fellowes (and likely Eaton as well) were control freaks. McGovern's instant retraction piqued curiosity and I certainly have wondered from time to time just how exhausting filming in the house, likely under Fellowes exacting eye might be. I wondered it again this season with Mary's I'm-so-bored delivery in most dining scenes, which someone in the cast said took FOREVER -- I'm guessing repeated performances with different cameras/angles to pick up all the details, dialogue, servants, etc. 

Contracts can have all sorts of clauses and I'm guessing theirs are actually very restrictive -- consider the lack of real details about anything -- including Dan Steven's departure -- but also Anthony Foyle (Gillingham) and/or Julian Ovenden,(Blake), particularly the latter who was written out rather abruptly (off to Poland, bye!)  -- Gregson anyone?  I've looked to see what else various actors have signed up for .. Ovenden apparently took a not-leading-role in a new TV series between season 4 and season 5 when he was written out. No idea why he would do that. It doesn't -- by any means -- mean that things are unhappy, but that there's either something in the contract or people know "better" than to talk out of class. 

** it was apparently season2 :  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/downton-abbey-elizabeth-mcgovern_n_1452396.html

FWIW, I'm not saying that people involved with the show don't get directives about what they can and can't say, who they can or can't mention, I'm just saying JF doesn't have any power to enforce it.  That's beyond his pay grade.  

[Eolivet]

At the end of season four, both Tony and Charles were viable candidates to be the next Mr. Mary Crawley. We spent an entire season of the show watching them attempt to woo the ice queen.

 

At the beginning of season five - suddenly Tony was a crazy sleaze and Charles was the homosexual boyfriend who was besties with Mary and Mabel and who's heart's desire was apparently making sure Tony and Mabel got back together.

 

I think Andorra has it right, that they never caught fire with the audience. So, Fellowes changed his mind -- as every other showrunner has done since time immemorial. Shonda Rhimes spent the entirety of Grey's Anatomy season 6 building up a merger between her original cast and a new hospital, only to have most of the new hospital people die in a hail of gunfire at the end of the season. She never came out and said "Everyone hated these characters, so I had to get rid of them" because no showrunner ever does that, that I can remember. I know people really want to hear Fellowes say he made a mistake, but that will never happen. Very few showrunners ever say they made a mistake, in my experience -- they just write out the characters and make it plot-related.

 

I know some showrunners who wouldn't have brought Cullen or Ovenden back at all in season 5, but I think that speaks to Fellowes' stubbornness and determination for Mary to have a suitor plot. He's not the first to do it and he won't be the last. But when I think of all the ridiculous ways characters have left shows over the years, Gillingham and Blake are near the top of believable, plot-related exits.

 

At least they didn't fall down an elevator shaft.

[ZoloftBlob]

Oh, agreed, we're never going to hear Fellowes admitting to a mistake. I would say, in all seriousness, that he's pretty much got to commit to a suitor soon because there's a point where the audience is going to get bored.... and I expect to see some significant cast leave at the end of season six so he doesn't have forever to make it work, because that issue is also going to cause problems.  

[SusanSunflower]

Regardless, I think giving both Gillingham and Blake the heave-ho badly hobbles audience buy-in to Mary's next suitor. She's been shown to be a cold fish even when presented with two attractive very-eligible age-appropriate men. I think either could have and would have succeeded with the audience (not all of the audience, that's the problem when you have a choice of two attractive....) if Mary had shown any emotional investment. The only time she looked vaguely "hurt" was when Blake declared surrender and went to bed, leaving her along in front of the fire. She spent more time and effort getting rid of Gillingham than she did "wooing" him -- and I think much of the audience mistrusted him and thought him rather cluelessly overbearing. Not as bad as Carlisle, but he was presumptuous. 

 

It did not feel to me as if Fellowes had somehow plotted or planned all this, more as if he (like Mary) was unwilling to commit to the actors/characters and/or they were less than enthusiastic. If this bland love-less "triangle" was intended to be some plot engine ... well, I think more people chose to care about Edith or Cora or even Isobel or Isis -- some place where happiness / misery was in the balance. If Fellowes was just stringing-us-along, he's a terrible showrunner.  Next year he can wasted our time by throwing Downton into financial peril and casting Matthew Goode as a new-improved Carlisle.  Is Mary/Dockery capable of genuine chemistry with anyone?  We will have to wait and see. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[Andorra]

Personally I think Matthew Goode's character got a better initial reaction from the audience than any other male actor since Matthew. There was univeral gushing on the boards over Henry Talbot. So I think Fellows got it right this time.

[HoodlumSheep]

Just rewatched the season 3 opener. It was cornier than I remember. And more cringeworthy than I remember.

I thought they were harsher on Alfred than they had been on other newbies or whoever for dome reason. Like, the 1st evil redhead maid (I can't remember her name), deserved to be grouches at because she was always slacking, etc., but what dis poor alfred do to deserve all the grouching? He at least was putting in effort.Didn't stop me from disliking his character the rest of the season though.

And of course, this is the start of when the evil besties break up.

Also, I liked the little banter O'brien and Molesly had about the whole "essential" business.

Larry was still his excellently evil self.

Ugghhh...the whole Matthew/Mary stuff. Did Isobel not just tell you to never speak of poor, sweet Lavinia again at the end of season 2? I have more of a problem with Matthew than I do with Mary in this situation. He turned straight back into the "drama king/woe-is-me/guilty-because-it-was-his-fault-Lavinia-died-and-not-the-spanish-flu's" self he was for what seemed like most of season 2. And then Mary threw her little tantrum, which was ridiculous as well. And then Mary doomed their relationship by looking at him before the wedding (which was unscripted according to many here).

And then there's Daisy. she's just so whiny. don't you think the others would like better wages/positions/lives/whatever too, but you don't see them complaining and having small tantrums!

Feels good to rant once in a while.

[Llywela]

I thought they were harsher on Alfred than they had been on other newbies or whoever for dome reason. Like, the 1st evil redhead maid (I can't remember her name), deserved to be grouches at because she was always slacking, etc., but what dis poor alfred do to deserve all the grouching? He at least was putting in effort.Didn't stop me from disliking his character the rest of the season though.

From memory, I think the servants at large were hard on Alfred at first because they knew he was O'Brien's nephew, she'd got him the job, and they automatically mistrusted him because of that - he was suspected to be her stooge.

[JudyObscure]

Personally I think Matthew Goode's character got a better initial reaction from the audience than any other male actor since Matthew.

He certainly got a better initial reaction from Mary than any man since Pamuk. I was a bit embarrassed for her when she came gushing out to say goodbye, for a minute there she looked like she was going to run after the car. If we're going to get to see Lady Mary Crawley forget herself and act all undignified over this new one, I might start really liking her for the first time ever. Take a tip from Rose, Mary! Real women in love look a bit silly.

[ZoloftBlob]

I really am hopeful, with the show ending, that the Mary/Henry thing works out. I am curious as to what sort of backstory they build for him - all we know is that he seems to have money and races cars.

[jordanpond]

Ugghhh...the whole Matthew/Mary stuff. Did Isobel not just tell you to never speak of poor, sweet Lavinia again at the end of season 2? I have more of a problem with Matthew than I do with Mary in this situation. He turned straight back into the "drama king/woe-is-me/guilty-because-it-was-his-fault-Lavinia-died-and-not-the-spanish-flu's" self he was for what seemed like most of season 2. And then Mary threw her little tantrum, which was ridiculous as well. And then Mary doomed their relationship by looking at him before the wedding (which was unscripted according to many here)/quote]

I never got the impression that Matthew wasn't fully aware that Lavinia died of the Spanish flu. He knew the kiss didn't actually kill her, since the sight of the kiss didn't make her drop dead on the stairs. But Lavinia ' s own words, not anything that Matthew made up in his mind, indicated that she not only did end up with a broken heart, but that she had lost her will to live. "Isn't this better?" was a tragic thing for her to say, and a devastating thing for him to hear. I think Matthew was so full of guilt because he was truly a decent man. There's a world of difference between a truly honorable person, and one who, whether out of ego or a desire for public show, offers an honorable front. I always felt that Matthew was a sincerely decent man whose reaction to Lavinia ' s death was completely understandable.

As for the inheritance. There's a great variety about how people feel about accepting inheritances, even inheritances from long-time loved family members, let alone from someone more distant like Mr. Swire. I saw Matthew's reluctance to accept it as very understandable and consistent with his character. It seemed quite reasonable to me. He didn't seem like a martyr, or someone pretentious, or the like. Just someone who would feel justifiably reluctant to accept something huge like that, especially in light of what had transpired.

Edited April 22, 2015 by jordanpond

[SusanSunflower]

Yes, I thought Matthew's reluctance wrt Mr. Squire's fortune was the belief if Mr. Squires knew what Lavinia knew on her death bed, he almost certainly would not have left his fortune to Matthew -- simple false pretenses  -- better to give it to a foundling hospital. 

Saying that Matthew made Lavinia happy and she loved him just really is not enough to forgive the fact that he loved Mary more ... quite possibly -- truth be told -- because of class differences.

I liked Lavinia better than Mary and I thought she would have made him a better wife and their life together would have been genuinely happy with Matthew married to the understanding daughter of the lawyer he worked for... very middle class... in the footsteps of his own father (except being a lawyer I believe was considered more respectable, physicians still stigmatized for dealing with the unmentionable and other people's secrets.)

Ugh, doormat Matthew actually sought out and married a woman who looked down on him when convenient. 

[jordanpond]

Interesting post, but it actually brought up two more questions. I never got the impression that Matthew, as you suggest, might have been attracted to Mary in part because of her social class. He started out reluctant to accept his place at Downton, and even when he more fully embraced it, I never felt the appeal of it all made a difference. I always got the impression that his feelings for her were simply for her and not her social position.

Also, you mentioned, as have others received recently, that Matthew worked for Mr. Swire, but I don't recall ever hearing that stated. Was that something mentioned only on the European versions, or something that I just missed?

I agree with you that I did not enjoy seeing him with a woman who treated him so poorly, which I thought went from the time they first met, all the way through their marriage. I didn't even find her very warm with him in their last moments together with their newborn. I always wanted to see him with someone nicer.

Edited April 22, 2015 by jordanpond

[ZoloftBlob]

I saw Matthew's reluctance to accept it as very understandable and consistent with his character. It seemed quite reasonable to me. He didn't seem like a martyr, or someone pretentious, or the like. Just someone who would feel justifiably reluctant to accept something huge like that, especially in light of what had transpired.

 

If it was enough money to save the estate and allow the Crawleys to comfortably maintain their 16k acre plot of land without needing to sell anything, then Reggie Swire was HELLA RICH because really, that's Matthew receiving a lifetime of money in one fell swoop. Considering the circumstances - Lavinia dying with "isn't this better" as her last words - which btw is a surprising twist of the knife considering Lavinia was the nicest girl in the world - and then Reggie dying not long after, I can see why he would be uncomfortable accepting an immense windfall from Reggie.

 

I agree with you that I did not enjoy seeing him with a woman who treated him so poorly, which I thought went from the time they first met, all the way through their marriage.

 

I always thought an interesting path they could have gone down was the basic marital problem that Mary sides with her daddy against her husband almost all of the time.

[SusanSunflower]

I think Matthew working for Mr. Swires came up in discussions of how they met on their first visit to Downton during the war ... and Lavinia rescuing her father from Carlyle and where/how they were planning on living after they were married, I think, in London with Mr. Swires, widower -- but I may have filled in those gaps myself. 

Reggie Swire being quite so Hella Rich so quickly after being saved from ruin by his plucky, brave and resourceful daughter was face-palm indeed.  I've thought I 'should' review all that, but then I realized I really don't care nearly enough. It may just have been that Matthew wanted to "win" the woman who had dumped him (when his services as a legal sperm donor might not be required, thank you very much, because another heir/bun was in Cora's oven), but Fellowes' high regard for Mary has always skewed things.... 

[Badger]

Matthew lived and worked in Manchester before he became Robert's heir and i'm pretty sure the Swires were based in London.  I don't think Matthew worked for Reggie.  I'm guessing Matthew met Lavinia socially maybe at a dance or an officer's tea or something.

 

I'm thinking that maybe Lavinia didn't realize how much money her father actually had and maybe he wasn't really in danger of losing everything the way she thought.  Remember Matthew was shocked by how much Reggie left to him because he had a very simple standard of living.

[jordanpond]

Badger, I think you are being much too kind to the writing staff. I thought the fact that a lawyer would secretly have enough money to save Downton for decades to come was ridiculously far fetched. It was one of several things in season three that signaled that the quality of the show was going downward.

Season three seems to reveal the two major flaws to come in all future seasons: plot points in a new story line that wildly contradict some previously established point (Mr. Swire had a middle-class income and couldn't afford to pay his debt to Richard), and repetitive, repetitive, repetitive story lines. In season three, Alfred, Ivy, And Jimmy all joined the cast, stayed nearly two seasons each, and left the show, and in that time 90% of their story line was a repeat of season one, in which person A likes person B who likes person C (who likes person D).

Edited April 23, 2015 by jordanpond

[ZoloftBlob]

Badger, I think you are being much too kind to the writing staff. I thought the fact that a lawyer would secretly have enough money to save Downton for decades to come was ridiculously far fetched. It was one of several things in season three that signaled that the quality of the show was going downward

 

Made worse that it revolved around Matthew - who was already in line to inherit the estate because the two people ahead of him (James and Patrick) died in the Titanic - was somehow third in line for this giant inheritance and sure enough, the two fellows ahead of him turned up dead. Again.

 

Even more worse - the silly pretense of "a letter from a dead man" was then reused in season four to establish Matthew wanted Mary to inherit.

 

And yes, the downstairs plot line of Person A likes Person B and Person B likes Person C but every one involved is utterly oblivious was old in season one. Also "Daisy is forced to be WIlliam's girl because he's a soldier and wants it and that's more important, to where she'll need to *marry* him or else be deemed a horrible person" wasn't nearly as charming a storyline as I think was intended. I don't even like Daisy and I thought this was cruel, anti-women, and also really ridiculous (I could see a death bed marriage if there was genuine love, don't get me wrong, but it was patently obvious she was being forced)

[jordanpond]

Funny, but I found the Daisy and William story to be one of those well-developed storylines that gave good insight into how really powerless any servant, but particularly the lowest of the low, can be to claim ownership of even the most private areas of her life. I thought they did a great job of bringing together a few forces: Daisy's extremely low and powerless position among the servants, the staff's complete adoration of the lovely William, and Mrs. Patmore's own deeply felt motive (due to the death of Archie) to never let another soldier go to battle feeling alone, and showed how a silly "symapthy" kiss could snowball all the way into a forced marriage to a man Daisy didn't love romantically.

Back then, I thought the show gave a much more balanced view in that several really tough things about the servants' lives, including not having control over things that should rightfully be their own, were exposed in the shows' stories. In some ways servants' lives were shown to be really difficult. But the show seems to have shifted in focus, in which the Crawleys all seem to think servants are lucky to be employed and living such a "great life" at Downton. And the servants all either cheerfully agree at how lucky they are, or they are presented as annoying or ungrateful. But never actually justified in wanting more privacy, or shorter hours, or more autonomy, or better pay.

So to me, the multiple-episode story that kept carrying along Daisy further and further away from what she wanted was one of the last really good examples of showing how powerless these servants could be. I miss that kind of honesty in the seasons of late.

Edited April 23, 2015 by jordanpond

[ZoloftBlob]

I agree they did a much better job of showing the servants as something other than Lady Mary's cheeringh section in season and two, but I disagree that Daisy was forced into marrying William simply because she was the Crawley's servant and had to do what she was told. All of the external pressure was coming from Mrs. Patmore and various lower level staff and it was never presented as "you'll lose your job if you don't make nice to William." It was all emotional blackmail

[jordanpond]

Agreed, good point. The Crawleys weren't responsible for any of this (other than Violet's well-intentioned involvement at the end.) I don't think Daisy ever though she would lose her job. But I think she was so used to being at the very bottom of the power structure, I don't think it ever crossed her mind that she could say no.

Even the most powerful servants had very little power over their own lives: small bedrooms that could be invaded by staff or family or the duke at any time, extremely long hours, etc. And with Daisy being at the bottom of the hierarchy of servants, I don't think she ever thought she had a choice to stop things from going too far. I found that a very sympathetic story line. Downton didn't control only those areas directly related to her employment, it also controlled decisions about her personal life. She was the best example because her position was so low, but it was true for the others, too. Gwen ' s typewriter, Thomas' letters, and Edna ' s book were things that most of us would consider private property and things that should be considered our own, but if you worked at Downton Abbey, clearly they were not viewed that way.

Edited April 23, 2015 by jordanpond

[helenamonster]

I liked the Daisy/William story because I could, for the most part, see both sides of the arguments. William was a nice boy, and losing Daisy, who could arguably be considered the love of his life, just before heading into battle could have spelled disaster for him. Also, while no one was morbid enough to say it, there was a good chance he would simply die in battle anyway and Daisy would never have to follow through on her promise. I don't think anyone anticipated the relatively slow death that he ended up facing, one that gave him enough time to marry Daisy. On the other side, Daisy didn't love him like that and felt terrible about being false to him in his final hours. I thought it was a really good, interesting conflict, and was resolved relatively well: Daisy and Mr. Mason are now their own little family, and she stands to gain some pretty impressive inheritance down the line.

 

One of the major problems with this show now is its constant spinning of its wheels and its lack of consequences for literally anything, which was not always the case. Mary/Pamuk had consequences. O'Brien and the soap had consequences. Plots moved forward, things changed, relationships were established, shattered, and sometimes put back together. Where are the consequences now? Anna gets raped and a season and a half later she and Bates are both on the hook for a murder that neither of them committed (and that might not even be a murder). One-woman wrecking crew Edith Crawley fears for her social position and ruins the Drewes' marriage in the process only for everybody to be totes cool with Marigold. Alfred, Ivy, and Jimmy are introduced and written off without having really made much of an affect on the overall show arc. Mary has two suitors engage in a pissing match over her only for both of them to ditch her eventually. Where are the stakes?

 

Without getting into the whole "whose fault is it that Dan Stevens left/Matthew was killed off" thing, I believe that a lot of this can be traced back to Matthew's death. There's no telling whether whatever endgame Fellowes had in plan for the show before Stevens decided to leave would have been good or not, but I think it threw a lot of things out of whack and left him scrambling to come up with half-baked plots to fill in the giant Matthew-shaped hole that was left after the S3 CS. It's one of the reasons I'm glad the show is ending: Fellowes can't waste time spinning his wheels this season. Plots need to be wrapped up, there's no room for storylines that go around in circles only to peter out at the end.

[ZoloftBlob]

There's no telling whether whatever endgame Fellowes had in plan for the show before Stevens decided to leave would have been good or not, but I think it threw a lot of things out of whack and left him scrambling to come up with half-baked plots to fill in the giant Matthew-shaped hole that was left after the S3 CS

 

Then he should have bitten the bullet and recast Matthew. If the season four was that compelling, then dye David Tennant's hair and slap some blue contacts on him and be done with it.

 

But here's the thing. I don't think Fellowes had a Matthew hole to fill. They were building tension between Robert and Matthew disagreeing over how the estate was run. There was some infertility angst coming. Maybe Matthew would have had some lingering PTSD from the war but we weren't going to see major war or major conflict surrounding Matthew.

 

The audience was willing to roll with it, I think. I mean, I love Matthew but I also watched season four and five  with hope and anticipation and got a rehash of the Bates murder, Mary being a bitch, Daisy scowling, and the Dowager and Isobel scoring zingers.

 

O'Brien and the soap had consequences.

 

 

On a complete aside, this was one of the most soap operish moments of the whole show. I loved it, don't get me wrong, but *really* - O'Brien just happens to intentionally leave a bar of soap on the floor, and Cora just happens to step on it and sustain such injury from falling that she has a full on miscarriage at what five months? And the baby was of course the boy Robert always wanted? If only Pharoah had died on the same day... wait... maybe he did!

Edited April 23, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[jordanpond]

Helenamonster, I liked your whole post, but I have just one nitpick of disagreement. Although the Pamuk situation left the threat of consequences in the air for a good long time, Mary has never really paid consequences for anything. She was threatened with disgrace but it never happened; she faced marrying a man whom she didn't love in order to keep Pamuk a secret, but she got out of marrying him; she faced having the man whom she did love marry another woman, but that never happened either.

I agree that they kept the suspense going a long time. And that kept things very interesting over the course of the first two seasons. And I agree that the more recent stories don't do that.

Edited April 23, 2015 by jordanpond

[helenamonster]

On a complete aside, this was one of the most soap operish moments of the whole show. I loved it, don't get me wrong, but *really* - O'Brien just happens to intentionally leave a bar of soap on the floor, and Cora just happens to step on it and sustain such injury from falling that she has a full on miscarriage at what five months? And the baby was of course the boy Robert always wanted? If only Pharoah had died on the same day... wait... maybe he did!

 

I actually can't even complain about the soapiness (heh) of the soap thing. This is a soap opera, no? Just because it's not on five days a week at two in the afternoon doesn't change that (and I actually think a lot of primetime US dramas are basically soaps, but that's a discussion for another thread). Anyway, how many other shows could use the phrase "Her Ladyship's soap" as a major plot point two seasons (and six in-show years) after it happened? I embrace its ridiculousness wholeheartedly.

 

Helenamonster, I liked your whole post, but I have just one nitpick of disagreement. Although the Pamuk situation left the threat of consequences in the air for a good long time, Mary has never really paid consequences for anything. She was threatened with disgrace but it never happened; she faced marrying a man whom she didn't love in order to keep Pamuk a secret, but she got out of marrying him; she faced having the man whom she did love marry another woman, but that never happened either.

 

I actually do agree with this, and meant to clarify in my earlier post. For the most part, any of the consequences it did have were eventually resolved, but it drove plot for quite some time, and I think in general the show got some great mileage out of it. I mean, it even seeped into the whole Anna/Bates/Vera thing. I just think in comparison to things like, say, Edith and Marigold, there were more stakes. At this point, I feel like Edith could stand in the village square with a megaphone and announce that she had a daughter out of wedlock and no one would bat an eye. It seems like we went through all that angst for nothing, whereas the Mary/Pamuk drama doesn't feel like that. At least for me.

[Avaleigh]

Helenamonster, I liked your whole post, but I have just one nitpick of disagreement. Although the Pamuk situation left the threat of consequences in the air for a good long time, Mary has never really paid consequences for anything. She was threatened with disgrace but it never happened; she faced marrying a man whom she didn't love in order to keep Pamuk a secret, but she got out of marrying him; she faced having the man whom she did love marry another woman, but that never happened either.

I agree that they kept the suspense going a long time. And that kept things very interesting over the course of the first two seasons. And I agree that the more recent stories don't do that.

I disagree that these aren't examples of paying consequences. Just because things worked out for her in the long run doesn't mean that she didn't suffer because of the Pamuk situation. She started suffering the second he died in her bed on top of her. She was suffering when she had to confess the truth to her mother, when she was labeled a slut by her sister, when she had to hear it from Evelyn of all people what a bitch Edith was to her and that it's because of Edith that the news is being spread, she suffered when she had to deal with Richard Carlisle, she felt horrible when she had to tell Matthew and felt that she was killing her chances with him, when her father found out he thought it would be best for her to be sent away to America even though this wasn't something that she wanted to do, etc. Mary definitely had to suffer consequences for what happened with Pamuk it's just that her character didn't suffer enough for people particularly people who hold the opinion that Edith is the only member of the Crawley family to suffer consequences for her behavior. (Edith of course was permitted to get away without anyone in the family other than Mary finding out about how awful and selfish she can really be.)

 

This stuff and the years that Mary had to deal with a single indiscretion doesn't just go away because she managed to be mostly happily married to Matthew for a couple of years or because Edith has had more bad luck than the other upstairs characters. 

[jordanpond]

Well stated! I do agree with you. (Although my feelings about whether Mary suffered don't have anything to do with what you wrote about how much Edith suffered. Not all of us completely like the one and dislike the other☺)

.

Yes, agreed. Mary lived with a lot of fear and worry for years. Those were a certain type of bad consequence of their own. That suspense about how things would turn out kept things very interesting for long time.

But I was referring more to a whole tone that has been set, where this show has created such a long-term pattern for Mary in which whatever short-term suffering she endures, she will in fact get exactly what she wants in the end. Whether it's the Pamuk scandal never going public, marrying the man she loved, having Downton saved from financial ruin, or becoming the controlling heiress of Matthew's portion of the estate.

If this were any other TV show, or even another character on this show, there would be lot of suspense as to whether the polite and handsome, but clearly not smitten, Henry Talbot will eventually show as much interest in Mary as she already does in him. The answer? He will if Mary wants him to. Oh, she might worry about it, but if she wants it, it'll happen. Despite some of the earlier and quite real consequences she paid for Pamuk, there has become a very predictable pattern in that Mary ultimately gets exactly what she wants.

And that predictability hurts the show in my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2015 by jordanpond

[helenamonster]

Interestingly enough, I've seen a few shows where predictability has actual worked in their respective favors. But this show--by design, I suppose--just can't seem to do the same. I think because a lot of the big moments have been rather out of left field. Shit, I didn't see Pamuk dying in Mary's bed--and then being carried across the house by Mary, Cora, and Anna--coming at all. O'Brien and the soap caught me completely off-guard. I binge-watched the first three seasons about a week before the fourth aired in the US, so I hadn't been paying attention to any Downton BTS news that may or may not have crossed my path and hadn't known that Sybil and Matthew both bought the farm. I found Sybil's death especially to be very well-done with not one but two fakeouts, and would rank it as one of the best (as in well-written, emotionally devastating) television deaths of all time. Anna's rape threw me for quite a loop. This show can actually be very, very good at the big moments when it wants to be. Unfortunately, it has become rather predictable (and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is spinning its wheels something fierce). I can't see anything short of a blanket happy ending for all of the characters at this point, so I will be very pleasantly surprised if we get even just one more of these types of "wait...WHAT?" scenarios.

[caligirl50]

I've been in a marathon watching all the seasons over and over (I don't know why) and here are some observations:

- Lord Grantham does two very nice things for Mrs. Patemore: gives her cataract surgery and gives her nephew a memorial in the town but she never thanks him in either scene

- When Matthew is injured in the war, Mary gets cold and drops her tea cup but when he dies, she feels nothing (they show her holding the baby in the hospital).

- Mary and Tony Gillingham are talking after their week together he says that he doesn't care who sees them together in Liverpool as they will be announcing their engagement shortly.  Mary tells him that she has been tarnished once and won't be again. Did she tell him about Mr. Pamouk?

- Tony and Mary see each other after the police have been questioning Anna and Mr. Bates about the death of Mr. Green but he never mentions anything to her.

- I wish they would have shown Tony and Mable's wedding, but instead they go right to Christmas at Downton in the series finale.  Sigh.  

I apologize for any spelling mistakes...I think I spelled everyone's names wrong.

[caligirl50]

One more thing...as much as I like Henry Tolbert, I think Charles Blake was a great match for Mary.  I really liked his character.  He didn't take any shit from Mary.

[SusanSunflower]

The whole Mary and/or Gillingham and/or Blake triangle played out so awkwardly it feels as if there were no author in control -- which I why I've wondered despite no evidence if the actor playing Blake decided to pursue other options. The Mary/Blake/Gillingham triangle was predictable and pleasant -- three attractive young people, two men vying for Mary's affection or at least hand in marriage (for whatever reason -- and evil or ulterior motives seemed likely in the absence of much chemistry or affection between any of them). Being evil myself, I rather hoped that Blake and Gillingham were cooking up Mary's comeuppance for being such an entitled prig of a woman, some princess and the pea unable to chose between two oh-so-eligible and handsome suitors -- perhaps to end up a spinster with equestrian inclinations.  The whole contest felt as if some strange outside poll of the audience as to which suitor the audience liked best was being allowed to control the plot, when the plot was controlling which suitor the audience believed was on the ascendent. Like some rigged horserace, in which Blake "fell back" to give the impression that Tony was the winner ... only to have Tony disqualified and Blake mysteriously leave the field altogether. 

 

It will be interesting to see how much effort and creativity Fellowes is willing to put into Talbott's character and that pairing.  Will he rouse himself to give Mary a proper send-off or settle for some recycling or conventional and tired girl meets boy, girl loses boy, etc. There was a flicker of chemistry between them, maybe, I think, but no fireworks or even natural affinity, except for dangerous fast cars. Will George's need for a father decide Mary's fate? Ugh, I'm glad it's all going to be resolved in a dozen hours or less. 

 

eta: Mentioned George because I so often discover I've forgotten that Mary has a child, a son, named George ... as if Fellowes has forgotten him also except for obligatory at-home cast-with-children scenes. Even Scarlett O'Hara demonstrated more material commitment in competing with Rhett for Bonnie's affections ... 

Edited May 7, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[ZoloftBlob]

Will he rouse himself to give Mary a proper send-off or settle for some recycling or conventional and tired girl meets boy, girl loses boy, etc. There was a flicker of chemistry between them, maybe, I think, but no fireworks or even natural affinity, except for dangerous fast cars.

 

Well, I am willing to say they only put the two of them together for like what, five minutes? I can give it a little bit of time to play out - not too long since the show is ending but...

 

And psst we don't see much of George, complete with no one seeming to acknowledge him because he's *Matthew's* child aka He Who Must Not Be Named and doing anything with George reminds the audience of the guy the producer doesn't want mentioned. I make this point in part because I've always found it odd that Isobel takes so little interest in her only surviving family and that Robert has seemingly no interest or affection for the heir to his estate. Mary not wanting to be around her own child I totally get, but this - Robert and Isobel having no interest is what I am talking about when I say sometimes in order to completely avoid seasons one thru three, it warps the characters and stories in a way that I don't think the producer intended.

[SusanSunflower]

Goode was so stunningly handsome in Death Comes to Pemberly, I think I expected a second Pamuk. I've grow so tired of women (and men) on TeeVee with no discernible sex drive or sense of humor or playfulness for that matter ... not confined to DA or to TeeVee or movies ... even Mary's scandalous sexy week had so little naughtiness.  Talbott at Rhett perhaps?  

[caligirl50]

There is A LOT of eating on this show. Why PBS has not come out with a cookbook is a missed opportunity.  They should also make a Down Abbey Claret, as it was drank at every dinner.

[Eolivet]

The whole contest felt as if some strange outside poll of the audience as to which suitor the audience liked best was being allowed to control the plot, when the plot was controlling which suitor the audience believed was on the ascendent. Like some rigged horserace, in which Blake "fell back" to give the impression that Tony was the winner ... only to have Tony disqualified and Blake mysteriously leave the field altogether. 

 

Good analogy. I firmly believe Gillingham was intended to be Mary's "second husband" back in season 4, and Blake was just an obstacle (in the same way Carlisle was), but the producers were so skittish about throwing Mary back into a relationship, they (I believe) told Fellowes to slow it down. Remember Blake's hastily written "Oh BTW, he's an heir to an estate" plot from the season 4 Christmas Special? I believe he was meant to enter the field there, but something changed. My guess is the total lack of support for either suitor from the audience, and thus a determination to completely start from scratch.

 

Why Fellowes needed a season to rid himself of both men, I'm not sure -- except that season 5 feels like a tug-of-war between producers and Fellowes in terms of the suitor plot. I think the producers wanted Blake there, and Fellowes cast him aside, since Blake was never his first choice. Gillingham got an exit story that I think was supposed to play as more noble than it actually did (for instance, I don't think we're actually supposed to cry "Stalker!" and "Abuse!" at Gillingham's temper tantrum when Mary breaks up with him, but instead smile and say "Oh, that changeable Mary!"). And Blake was kept around as the fool, the clown, the "gay best friend" (not really, that's just how it played). The Duckie to Gillingham's Blaine (in Fellowes' mind). Gillingham was given an (off-screen) wedding with the lovely Mabel Lane Fox, and Blake was unceremoniously shipped to Poland after participating in a kissing farce that almost mocked his scant appeal as a leading man.

 

Basically, season 5 was treading water until they could come up with Plan C, but since I guess they planned no plots for Mary beyond her love life, they had to draw out the suitor plot as long as they could. I'd wager money that in Fellowes' original drafts, it was Mary and Gillingham getting together after a respectable amount of time had passed. Blake would be Carlisle 2.0, but she would ultimately choose Gillingham.

 

But something changed. And a (G)ood(e) thing, too.

[AmandaPanda]

There is A LOT of eating on this show. Why PBS has not come out with a cookbook is a missed opportunity.  They should also make a Down Abbey Claret, as it was drank at every dinner.

 

There actually is a DA cookbook. It's unofficial, so PBS isn't involved.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Unofficial-Downton-Abbey-Cookbook/dp/1440538913

[caligirl50]

Thanks AmandaPanda.  It's a wonder they weren't / aren't 300 lbs given the richness of the meals.