Downton Abbey: Discussion Thread

[DRW50]

I watched a bit of this and saw very little complexity - it was an easy, sort of Cliff Notes thing of that era, complete with the predictable writing choices (they always have the woman who is too outspoken and ahead of her time and such -- it's a shame ITV doesn't bother to have strong women on their soaps anymore). I don't buy that it would be too complex for American audiences. It's a shame because I was going to tell some people about this who normally wouldn't see it otherwise but now I won't bother. As there is little to bother with on PBS now anyway.

[SFK]

I had never heard of this but am now quite interested. It's too bad I won't even give it a chance knowing that it's been so cut! Maybe I will and if I love it I'll seek out the original cut to compare and contrast, but this is really annoying and insulting and I'm sad that PBS feels the need to stoop (I think this is less about us not understanding, and more about their fear that we'll turn the channel when things aren't immediately rolling). Laura Linney (see: overrated) coming out to give us Period Drama for Dummies reminds me of Susan Flannery giving the B&B backstory in foreign markets.

[EricMontreal22]

To be fair it does get much more complex as it goes on--and the stuff about the inheritance needs some explanation (but as the blog mentions the Brits watching would need explanation too for the most part). And if youw atch the show they offer enough explanation in the dialogue, cleverly done. But yes, as far as costume dramas go, or even typical Masterpiece Theatre stuff goes it is NOT complex. And even that tiny amount of complexity is the kind of stuff PBS audiences congratulate themselves for watching, and enjoy! It's like shooting themselves in the foot--I don't see them going out of their way to sell this to non typical PBS/costume drama viewers, so why bother??? So they're insulting and putting off some of the audience they would get (though the edits haven't been too well publicized and it has been getting good reviews) and IMHO won't gain any new viewers by doing this. Truly dumb. (And as Ent Weekly said in their positive review of the show, besides their increasingly rare British imports on Masterpiece or Mystery--now of course combined into the same show so not even on biweekly--there's next to nothing of excitement or interest to watch on PBS anyway--even the children's block is of more interest, and that's nothing like it used to be either).

[SFK]

That's really interesting then. It's like, why are people making shows that need such explanation before viewing? Perhaps the writers took their own knowledge for granted and realized some of their audience was lost upon the intial viewings.

[EricMontreal22]

SFK, I shoulda never said it was cut. It *really* is good--full of expert soapy plot points (evil servant causes a miscarriage! secret gay scandals!) but of course "classed up" (which reminds me of 1970s soap books claiming almost depserately, albeit quite rightly, that Upstairs Downstairs was just dressed up well done soap opera yuet got critics to consider it art). I can't wait for next season--but I'm glad I watched the ITV downloads (and it is easy to find online...)

And that's exactly my point, you do NOT need prior knowledge--PBS has too little faith. I didn't know about the terms of ancestry and inheritance at the time, but soon did thanks to the show.

Laura Linney (who I love even if she is overated--she was the ONLY good thing about The Big C ) to be fair does that for EVERY Masterpiece Classic--I remember her givign some cliff notes when they did the great miniseries of Dickens' Little Dorritt last year that I found annoying--the blog doesn't mention that she is their host (liek Alistair used to be way back when Cookie Monster did his own version on Sesame Street ). But it's still ridiculous

[SFK]

LOL, yes i remember Alistair Cookie! Okay okay, I will give it a try. BUT if it's on Netflix instant, I will watch it there instead. How long is the whole thing?

[EricMontreal22]

It prob will be out on DVD ina few months (it's out in the UK of course). It was 7 episodes in the UK--on iTV (Their successful attempt to compete with BBC exzpensive productions like the new, probably similar sequel to Upstairs Downstairs) so it has commercials, but from my memory of my downloaded files, without commercials the first episode was about 66 mins, with the others being 47 mins until ep 7 which was a full hour. (I never was good with math ). PBS has edited it to 4 episodes of just under 80 mins. (which means about 40-50 mins will be cut I guess...)

[SFK]

Cool, cool. I wonder if it'll be uninterrupted here or if we'll have to sit through a bunch of Pledge Drive breaks.

[EricMontreal22]

Masterpiece traditionally gets by without pledge breaks (the local Seattle PBS when they aired Sondheim's Birthday Concert put so many pledge breaks in that they actually "had" to edit out more numbers than any of the other PBS's did--though like most PBS concerts they all cut a few numbers to drive up DVD sales. Sigh). Of course PBS seems to be getting worse and worse so who knows...

[Bright Eyes]

OT: Is watching the new adaptation of Upstairs, Downstairs worth it? I really love Nico Mirallegro and have been wondering if it's worth a look.

[EricMontreal22]

I haven't heard--I think it JUST premiered this week in the UK? But I haven't heard any gossip. PBS is airing it in April and I was thinking I'd just wait and check it out then--I'm gonna hope it's unedited I did love the original series--I watched it all in the 90s when a new cable station here Women's Network premiered (like most specialty channels they started with great, interesting programming--they later carried the quirky UK soap Night and Day, etc--but now seem to only show SVU and Friends reruns...). But I admit it seems kinda too late to do a continuation of U/D, and in a way ITV has stolen their thunder. So we'll see... But it's only three episodes long (and if it's a hit will be a longer series next year) so prob worth checking out if you're a fan of Nico (who I really cannot picture right now in a period drama, lol).

[Sylph]

I am rewatching. This show is magnificence. Julian Fellowes knows how to write this sort of stuff.

Where do I begin? I'd love it if someone rewatched it too. It's a pity we haven't commented on a per episode basis.

Michelle Dockery is fabulous. A real revelation, indeed.

[Sylph]

<span style="font-size:10.5pt;">Well, I sure had one big marathon. Faster than expected.

WHAT SUCKED

The accent. It was "not too progressive RP". Some words were pronounced a bit too correctly, others weren't pronounced right. The dowager countess and Isobel Crawley were perhaps the closest to the older model of speech. On the other side, the servants were too RP. I wonder why they didn't hire a dialogue coach, especially since money isn't a problem, it seems. And obviously RADA, Guildhall, Central... are doing something wrong.

A big fat truckload of cliches: "stalwart, anvil-faced mass of crinoline underskirts, default mode 'livid'", "prissy socialite needing to make a good marriage", "moneyed American who no one ever wholly accepts as posh", and of course "sexually repressed/terminally sad house staff", "poor souls who've eschewed a lifetime of fun in favour of laying out cufflinks and steam-ironing gussets". Every single storyline and plot point was so cliched, every single one, including the soap slip and the war announcement, the horse incident, I am utterly amazed at the sheer magnitude of it.

Pilfering. From Mrs Miniver and Little Women. The flower show and the salt incident, respectively.

"Semaphored plotting".

"Clunky dialogue" (at times).

What Carl calls a "evil gay cliche". Not because of it being a cliche, there was something else about Rob James-Collier that was wrong. How trivial it felt. I can't put my finger on it. Still, in its best moment it was delicious "evil pantomime".

Double yellow lines, aerials, an "anachronistic conservatory". Other inaccuracies (if you paid this much, you might as well gotten it right; furthermore, Julian Fellowes, known as a notorious snob, should have known better; obviously, no one cares – it made money, full stop).

Cora. I liked her in brief moments, then I didn't. It's a mixed bag.

Moments of unneeded sentimentality, done badly.

Amateurishly written politics issues.

The earl being Downton Abbey's Stephanie Forrester. Just like her, he just kept going around the place fixing problems. I just didn't get to know the person, his story. He was used as a tool, not written as an integral character.

Lady Edith Crawley.

John Bates. Lord Grantham's valet. I hate soppy, mawkish stories. Though, this one did have its moments.

WHAT WAS GOOD

Everything. It was just delicious and I can't wait for it to come back.

It being a "soap opera in starched collars".

The photography. All those violets, lush spring greens, the yellows, the grey colour of stones. It wasn't soaked in hideous darkness they way these things usually do get done. Set design. Costume design.

Maggie Smith. Maggie Smith/Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham's lines. "What is a week-end?", "I must have said it wrong", "We can't have the ambassador assassinated... I suppose...", "So put that in your pipe and smoke it"...

Dowager Countess' fox fur pelts.

O'Brien's lines. The octopus one. Several others.

O'Brien. Until she moved the soap bar. Her cliched scheming with a gay fellow. All the while while smoking a cigarette (the villains always do — a cliche, again).

Lady Rosamond Painswick.

Michelle Dockery. Hugh Bonneville.

Jessica Brown-Findley. Phyllis Logan. Jim Carter (the phone!). Joanne Froggatt. Simply – the "upmarket acting talent". And their characters.

All in all, superrrb. It didn't, however, felt unbelievably gripping, engrossing, enthralling, something was lacking, or the amount of cliches killed that. It wasn't this amazing new thing, so new yet so familiar. But it was splendid. Mixed bag? Not really, although everything I just wrote says precisely that. More, please!</span>

[EricMontreal22]

OMG a show me and Sylph agree on? And one we almost entirely agree on the good and bad as well? The evil gay cliche didn't bug me--I guess I would have been more annoyed with a story about a nice, closeted gay character at this point in time. But the actor has said his character's past will play a part and give it more depth next season. (I'm guessing the Abbey might be partly turned into a war hospital as many of those big old houses were--and he could work there? Of course a big turn around would suck and be ridiculous).

[EricMontreal22]

Also I think, for good or bad, some of the cliches were there on purpose (like the villains always smoking--though it did give them a way to conspire away from others). Fellowes is too smart not to play into the genre and past similar series and works--although I know it could be said that's just making excuses for it, he obviously wanted it to be a popular mainstream piece--arguably more so than Gosford Park for example.