Dan Stevens/Matthew Crawley: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow

[Eolivet]

I am creating this topic, as I have noticed (and am very guilty of) the hot-button issue of Dan Stevens' departure and performance on the show has the tendency to eat a number of topics -- including media, cast in other roles and even past season talk.

 

I propose a topic devoted to discussion of him and his role, to keep it separate from other topics -- and also for mods to have a convenient dumping ground if a discussion about him threatens to take over another topic.

 

(I realize the actors don't have individual threads here, but noticing how discussions surrounding him tend to go on longer than other actors -- and any discussion of his character is brought back to the actor, as well -- I thought he might have his own thread. Mods, feel free to delete if you do not feel this is necessary).

[DkNNy79]

Loved Matthew.  He made Mary tolerable to me.  Otherwise, she is just a nasty piece of work.  I have not watched the show regularly since his departure.

 

Also, Dan Stevens is really easy on the eyes.  Love his eyes!

[photo fox]

Mods, feel free to delete if you do not feel this is necessary.

Not at all, thanks for starting!

I was always pretty meh on Matthew, especially his last season. And I'm not a great fan of Dan Stevens's acting; like almost all of the actors on Downton, he does okay but doesn't wow me. So I wasn't bothered at all by him leaving the show, or Matthew's death. But now that he's gone, I think he left a big whole in the show that they've never managed to fill.

I feel like Matthew was the bridge between upstairs and down. He was obviously gentry, but didn't take having servants for granted like the rest of the upstairs crowd. Plus, I always felt that progressive, middle class Matthew (and Isobel) were the closest to my own 21st century middle class American values.

They tried to slot Tom into that spot, and I really like Tom (and Allen Leech), but it just never really worked.

[ZoloftBlob]

I always liked Matthew in that he made Mary a more likeable person and was a rarity in being someone who occasionally called Mary on being an utter bitch. I also agree with Photofox that he did serve as a bridge between the upstairs and the downstairs (less so in the third season) but also that he served as a bridge between the story and the modern audience. It's difficult to relate to the aristocrats - we just don't live that way, and its difficult to relate to the servants in that we're a hell of a lot better off, but Matthew was a character that the audience could relate to - well educated but not quite good enough for the aristocrats, not quite down on the servants level. There was a sense that he was uncomfortable with the idea of fox hunting and extensive parties being his entire life. With him there, I could believe someone would drag the Crawleys kicking and screaming into the modern era. Without him, it seems like they'll fade away.

 

They definitely tried to fit Tom into that slot and the failure was that Tom was already too established as the lower class firebrand. That wasn't Allen Leech's fault at all, it was forcing the character to be something he wasn't meant to be.

 

Acting wise, I like Dan to the point that I will be curious to see how Beauty and the Beast turns out. I don't like him enough to watch Night at the Muesuem though ;)

[Eolivet]

I liked Matthew when he was on the show, but the more I think about it, his "personality" seemed to be a plot device from season 2 onwards.

 

For example, his social conscience of season 1 (the whole "I don't need a valet" plot, for example) was replaced by an out of nowhere rigid sense of morality/honor/guilty conscience about Lavinia and his engagement. Wouldn't he have then found it dishonorable to withdraw his proposal to Mary in season 1? Yet that same guilty conscience evaporated into the falling snow to facilitate his engagement to Mary, only to return with a vengeance when the Swire inheritance plot surfaced in season 3.

 

I don't know when the tensions between Fellowes and Stevens started, but I find it interesting that the independent-thinking, middle class Matthew vanished after season 1, to be replaced by a more (dare I say) emasculated version in season 2. You could write a novel on the psychological implications of Fellowes (literally) neutering the character. To say nothing of season 3, when he was assimilated into the Downton family -- basically never to share a scene with his own mother again. I get the feeling if Matthew had lived to drive another day, he'd have become...for lack of a better term, a benevolent loser. He was there mostly to disagree with Mary until he eventually saw the light and did what she wanted. For example, I'm sure the plot to modernize the farms would've gone a lot less smoothly if Matthew had lived.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I loved Mary and Matthew's relationship, but with a few years of perspective, it could've been a lot more. Season 1 promised a kind of "point/counterpoint" of tradition and progress -- with each side learning to slowly see the virtues of the other. Instead, it became "Matthew is always wrong, and only right when it benefits Mary." (and I love Mary!)

 

Put it this way: when Mary opines on her happy marriage and how much she cared for Matthew, I'm sort of left wondering (from her perspective)...why? Because he did everything she said? Because he thought she was a good person? That really was Matthew, and Mary and Matthew, for 2 out of 3 seasons of their relationship. And yet, I sort of get the feeling we're supposed to remember a challenging, culture-clashing, spark-filled relationship...even though we never really saw them that way again after their first breakup in 1914.

[SusanSunflower]

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

[helenamonster]

Put it this way: when Mary opines on her happy marriage and how much she cared for Matthew, I'm sort of left wondering (from her perspective)...why? Because he did everything she said? Because he thought she was a good person? That really was Matthew, and Mary and Matthew, for 2 out of 3 seasons of their relationship. And yet, I sort of get the feeling we're supposed to remember a challenging, culture-clashing, spark-filled relationship...even though we never really saw them that way again after their first breakup in 1914.

 

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

[Eolivet]

But...Tony Gillingham thought Mary was a good person (until she didn't marry him). So did/does Charles Blake. So did/does Evelyn Napier. I guess I'm wondering what made Matthew different, and if it's just because of that time in season 1 when they actually had interesting discussions and some semblance of passion. That seems to be what the show is saying, but they went out of their way to remove anything special about Matthew and his relationship with Mary, that I'm wondering what exactly we're supposed to think she saw in him. (That's not a slight against Matthew, but more against the writing).

[ZoloftBlob]

That seems to be what the show is saying, but they went out of their way to remove anything special about Matthew and his relationship with Mary, that I'm wondering what exactly we're supposed to think she saw in him. (That's not a slight against Matthew, but more against the writing).

 

Well, part of the problem is that the writing went to crap because Fellowes was getting rid of the character (it happened with Sybil as well and is more noticable but people just don't care as much) and part of the problem, and it extends into seasons four and five, is that Mary is Fellowes's avatar character.

 

The other part of the problem is that Matthew was written too decently in season one and two to make him more at odds with Mary in season three. You can't have the guy nobly forgiving Mary's indiscretion with the Turk and declaring on the grave of his dead fiance that a chaste smooch with Mary means he can never allow himself to be happy, and then have him do anything remotely caddish in ensuing seasons without MAJOR changes in the character. I think this was talked about in different threads - if Matthew had been around for season four, knowing that Mary is Fellowes's favorite, what storylines are open? Not much but fertility issues and Matthew arguing with Robert. Anything else - an affair by either character, ruins the magical engagement and marriage. Coupled with hearing how Fellowes allows the actors no input in things... I can see why things went the way they did.

[helenamonster]

But...Tony Gillingham thought Mary was a good person (until she didn't marry him). So did/does Charles Blake. So did/does Evelyn Napier. I guess I'm wondering what made Matthew different, and if it's just because of that time in season 1 when they actually had interesting discussions and some semblance of passion. That seems to be what the show is saying, but they went out of their way to remove anything special about Matthew and his relationship with Mary, that I'm wondering what exactly we're supposed to think she saw in him. (That's not a slight against Matthew, but more against the writing).

 

I think it's a combination of things. For starters, I think Mary loves a challenge/conquest. She wants what she can't have. Donk said it best in S1 (paraphrasing): "Mary is like a child with a toy. She puts it down and expects to still be there when she wants it again." Tony, Charles, and Evelyn all tripped over themselves and each other vying for her love, which is boring to her. Matthew put up a little more resistance, which I think was more appealing to her.

 

So then when she "had" Matthew, and the "chase" was over, she needed something else out of it. For better or worse, Matthew clearly thought she hung the moon by the time they were married. Mary knows exactly how terrible she is, but I think she enjoyed being able to see herself through Matthew's eyes, especially after spending eight years fighting for and earning his love.

[helenamonster]

Since this is technically the Matthew thread and not the media thread, here's a Matthew topic. Am I the only one who kinda wanted him and Thomas to have an illicit PTSD filled affair?

 

Absolutely not. Ever since people on here and over at TWoP started joking about Secretly!Gay!Matthew, I have totally and unironically thought that that would have been a great direction to go with the character if he had stayed on past S3. It would be totally plausible in that era for Matthew to have not even realized he was gay; I mean, that kind of thing still happens today. He and Thomas having an illicit affair, with Mary eventually finding out but being forced to keep it quiet because of the family's reputation, Matthew deciding to end it in the interest of having a civil Mary, Thomas applying what he learned from the Duke and blackmailing Matthew...idk how it would all end but I would have enjoyed the hell out of something like that.

[SusanSunflower]

Someday Dan Stevens will answer if there was anything that could have induced him to stay at Downton ... but that probably won't be for another decade or more... 

I had noticed on several occasions in scenes with Mary, while delivering excruciatingly awkward dialog, Stevens had a glint in his eye as if this were perhaps the 5th take, the previous 4 having ended in giggles. My fantasy was that Fellowes was far from amused by Stevens lack of respect for his genius, and that they might well have quarreled over dialog and Stevens was already being punished by being written as duller and duller, more emasculated and dreary with every episode.  Fellowes assumed Stevens would never leave Downton. Stevens quite deliberately (perhaps with relish, even malice) proved him wrong. But again, that's my fanfic. 

 

eta:  As to where Matthew might have gone -- if he had not died -- I don't know. I was so disappointed in that last season. I really wanted some fireworks between Matthew and Robert about running the estate and to learn more about how that worked -- how do you hold onto a money-pit like Downton? I still don't know. I also expected and wanted more Matthew/Mary conflict ... and (I think I've said this before) more Cora/Matthew bonding over joining this family.  When NONE of this transpired in any dramatic fashion ...  sure Matthew and Tom, why not? or how about a couple of farmer's daughters and some little brats ... since all we've really had in the way of upstairs messing with their underlings was the major and Edna -- Robert being too noble to do the deed. 

 

I miss do-gooder Isobel still and fully expected her to side with her son if need be .. Yes, I'm duil., pedestrian even. I would have welcomed Thomas falling for a farmer who fell for him ... or even a visiting valet... since I'm certain there were "underground" networks by which men met and drank and played darts and cards and .... I was dreading another season of Robert and Mary effectively shutting Matthew down... Matthew, the bright one, the lawyer, remember? 

Edited March 22, 2015 by SusanSunflower

[ZoloftBlob]

Well, I don't think Fellowes would have gone for a Matthew/Thomas gay sex plot so here is the idea I had for season 4. What if Matthew really did have lingering ptsd from the war? It wasn't unheard of, and it is one of the few things that Fellowes would have gone for  as it doesn't ruin the M/M or the idea that Mary chose the nicest guy in the world.

 

Cora and Matthew is an interesting concept, Susan

 

I don't understand this at all. Violet going on an indefinite vacation is unbelievable, but Sybil abandoning her husband to go to America is fine? You might as well argue why Mary wasn't in the car with Matthew and they were both killed?

 

I probably wasn't clear - when I said "send the kids off to America" I meant Sybil and Tom - so that the young couole is off screen and yet in a plausible non deadly character removal. Yes, it meant losing Tom... who's entire role in seasons four and five has been to be Robert's errand boy and look sad. I like Tom but really, this was as doable as "Sybil dies hideously" and Fellowes could have adapted it easily.

Edited March 23, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[reveilles]

To be honest, I thought William's death was gratuitous and ridiculous - the implication of his inability to breath was that he got a dose of the mustard gas which makes no sense since he was with Matthew, who had no lung issues at all...

 

I just wanted to clarify: William seems to have died from a pulmonary contusion, not mustard gas. It does make sense, because William threw himself between Matthew and the shell blast, and thus took most of the impact, sparing Matthew. The symptoms are consistent with that diagnosis, and it was actually a common (and fatal) injury in WWI. Fellowes actually got the medicine right on this one, as unbelievable as it may seem. :)

[ZoloftBlob]

My bad! :) I actually don't recall there ever being any detail other than that he was dying and there was no hope and I assumed mustard gas.

Edited March 24, 2015 by ZoloftBlob

[jordanpond]

I liked Matthew when he was on the show, but the more I think about it, his "personality" seemed to be a plot device from season 2 onwards.

 

For example, his social conscience of season 1 (the whole "I don't need a valet" plot, for example) was replaced by an out of nowhere rigid sense of morality/honor/guilty conscience about Lavinia and his engagement. Wouldn't he have then found it dishonorable to withdraw his proposal to Mary in season 1? Yet that same guilty conscience evaporated into the falling snow to facilitate his engagement to Mary, only to return with a vengeance when the Swire inheritance plot surfaced in season 3.

 

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.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jordanpond

[Eolivet]

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.

 

I suppose, except the reason he kept giving Mary in the first season for getting married was being in love -- he wanted absolutely no part of marriage if it didn't involve love. Now he's already released Lavinia once, she comes back and he won't release her a second time? It's been a while since I've seen the episodes, but if he's marrying Lavinia for reasons other than love (which is implied as I believe he never mentions how much he loves Lavinia after they get re-engaged, it's all about "honor"), to me, that goes completely against his character from season 1. It would've been extremely honorable -- the most honorable thing ever, actually -- to marry Mary, even if she did only want his title. It was implied that it was a progressive view to marry for love (or at least a "middle class" one) -- now suddenly it's OK he doesn't love Lavinia, because it's all about honor? That's inconsistent, to me -- which is why it seemed like a plot device designed to drive a convenient wedge between him and Mary whenever necessary.

 

As for the thread, that's likely something to take up with the mods. I chose the title deliberately to evoke both the actor and the character, because conversations about the actor have the tendency to eat other threads. But I disagree that the notice he gave is any kind of private matter -- he's a public figure, after all, and numerous newspaper and magazine articles were devoted to his departure. That's fair game for discussion, as far as I'm concerned -- however, I defer to any mod judgments on the subject.

[photo fox]

There's no need for a separate Dan Stevens thread, but the conversation about his departure has become almost as repetitive as any number of Downton plots. I created a new "behind the scenes" topic, and I'm going to move a bunch of stuff in there.

Comments about Dan's acting, his hair, basically anything that's not about why, when, or how he left, can still go here.

[caligirl50]

Moderator - I'm searching for BEHIND THE SCENES thread but cannot find.  Was it deleted?

[AndySmith]

Dan and Thomas as lovers is a horrible idea, and I am glad the show never went there.

 

Also, I never saw season 3 Mathew as being *that* emasculated that both Robert and Mary were walking all over him. He stood up for himself rather well, especially with his plans to modernize the estate. And he also occasionally put them in their places when they needed it. So it isn't like he a welcome mattress strapped to his back.

[ZoloftBlob]

Dan and Thomas as lovers is a horrible idea, and I am glad the show never went there.

 

I get where you are going and I mostly agree with one caveat.

 

If it had actually been developed subtly, I think both actors were skilled enough to have rocked a "hidden passion" storyline. The problem is that I  think subtle and Downton Abbey pass each other like ships in the night and Fellowes pretty consistently writes homosexual characters as a bit overly villainy for my tastes. I mean, Thomas, in season four, is experienced at hiding his nature and simply falls for O'Brien telling him that Jimmy, a guy who has been bird dogging all the girls, wants to sex him? And proceeds to commit what would be considered an attempted rape at worst and sexual misconduct at the least in our current society... all because someone who clearly hadn't been on good terms with him told him Jimmy wanted him?

 

But a slow burn plot between Matthew and Thomas that started with the war and went to experimentation after Lavinia's death? The actors could have made it excellent.

[AndySmith]

Lol I just noticed I typed Dan instead of Matthew. Oops!

 

Yeah, still not feeling the Matthew/Thomas potential. Though I do like the idea of exploring repressed homosexuality among the aristocrats, Matthew wouldn't be "Upstairs" enough for me in that story.

[photo fox]

Moderator - I'm searching for BEHIND THE SCENES thread but cannot find.  Was it deleted?

 

Nope, it's just dropped to the second page of threads.  You can find it here:  http://forums.previously.tv/topic/24031-a-letter-to-the-turkish-embassy-the-behind-the-scenes-drama-of-downton/

[caligirl50]

thank you!!!