<p>I guess I’m in the minority, but I liked the premiere episode–preferred it to most of Season 2! And Shirley MacLaine’s character seemed to be a good fit. I don’t know about this set chucking a whole formal dinner for a picnic, but whatever.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s apparently at some point in the future - perhaps in Season 4 or later. The news reports were that the actor who plays him wants to move on to other things. And he doesn’t have to die. They could just write him out of the script by packing him off to India or America or someplace. That way they could leave open a possible later return without having to resort to a terrible Dallas-like dream sequence. </p>
<p>I thought last night’s show was okay. It had some moments of humor. Shirley MacLaine came out better than I had feared. I was worried she’d be an over-the-top parody - a fast-talking, heavy-accented New Yorker similar to an aged version of Barbra Steisand in Funny Girl.</p>
<p>Cora’s family name is Levinson, a recognizably Jewish name (I am Jewish, so I’m allowed to ask this!)–yet her mother has a home in Newport, which was probably “restricted” at that time, and there has never been any mention that I have heard of the family being Jewish. Was the Cora’s father Jewish, and just conveniently not mentioned? All of you knowledgeable CC’ers must have an answer for me.</p>
<p>From [Cora</a> Crawley, Countess of Grantham - Downton Abbey Wiki](<a href=“http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Cora_Crawley,_Countess_of_Grantham]Cora”>Cora Crawley | Downton Abbey Wiki | Fandom) “Born Cora Levinson in Cincinnati on July 18, 1868, she was the only daughter of a dry goods multi-millionaire, Isidore Levinson and his wife Martha Levinson, and had an Aunt.[1] Cora has a strained relationship with her mother[2].
As a young woman, she was brought to London around the 18th July 1888[3] for her first season by her socially ambitious mother, in order to marry a member of the British nobility. During the season she met Robert Crawley, Viscount Downton, the future Earl of Grantham. Much to Robert’s mother’s chagrin, Cora became engaged to him and the two of them married in 1889[4]. As part of their marriage contract, Cora’s fortune was tied to the family estate to prevent it from going bankrupt.”</p>
<p>Also, we were surprised while visiting to learn that Newport, RI has one of the oldest (possibly the oldest - it has been many years since we visited) synagogues in the country.</p>
<p>Here’s a good read on the topic: <a href=“http://www.jewlicious.com/2012/01/is-something-jewish-brewing-at-downton-abbey/[/url]”>http://www.jewlicious.com/2012/01/is-something-jewish-brewing-at-downton-abbey/</a></p>
<p>Also re/ RI Jewish history: <a href=“http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/rhode.html[/url]”>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/rhode.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which houses the wonderful letter [George</a> Washington Letter](<a href=“http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/gw-letter]George”>http://www.tourosynagogue.org/index.php/history-learning/gw-letter).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I read in some backstory article in the paper that Cora’s father is Jewish, but her mother, the Shirley MacLaine character, is not, making Cora herself half-Jewish. It went on to say that Cora had been baptized and raised nominally Christian - which certainly would have made her marriage into the Crawleys more acceptable to the anti-semitic elements of British aristocratic society. However, I don’t know what the authoritiative source was for all this detail.</p>
<p>I guess it’s similar to Benjamin Disraeli being allowed to be Prime Minister despite being Jewish-born due his father having had him baptized as child to spite the local rabbi, with whom he was in a dispute. His baptism provided enough Christian cover that his Jewish origins were not an impediment to his political advancement in an anti-semitic era.</p>
<p>I enjoyed it though Mary is really starting to really get on my nerves. </p>
<p>I think the Dowagers remarks about Martha having spent too much time in the sun has to do with her wrinkles. The Dowager obviously doesn’t see her 80ish year old self when she looks in the mirror!</p>
<p>I watched it for the first time last night, and have to admit, not sure what all the buzz is about. But I did enjoy it, and will try a few more episodes to see if it grows on me.</p>
<p>I think they shouldn’t have tried to re-connect us with every character for this first episode. Had they just gone a little deeper with a couple of plot lines and developed them more and it would have been more engaging. But I still enjoyed it.</p>
<p>A bit of a disappointment… I felt the episode seemed ‘rushed,’ trying to advance the story too far in one episode. </p>
<p>What’s with Matthews’s inheritance luck? Two out-of-the-blue stupendously huge inheritances in one lifetime seems two too many to this peasant, but hey…</p>
<p>^^Yeah two incredibly lucky strikes like that is stretching credulity quite a bit. I suppose the second fortune was needed as device for Matthew to disappoint Mary just when they were in danger of living happily ever after.</p>
<p>And so their roles are reversed now. Previously Mary could not bring herself to accept the good fortune of Matthew falling in love with her due to her guilt over the Pamuk incident. And now Matthew cannot bring himself to accept the good fortune of the huge inheritance due to his guilt over over not having loved Lavinia enough, which would have somehow saved her from death by Spanish Flu. And to boot this now puts Mary’s love for him in jeopardy.</p>
<p>I found myself thinking “C’mon you two. Get over all the guilt trips already. You are making yourselves miserable, and your noble self-denials aren’t impressing anybody.”</p>
<p>I’m going to see Dan Stevens in The Heiress on Broadway this Sunday, so I’ll get a double dose of cousin Matthew. Wait – Mary can’t call him that anymore, can she? </p>
<p>I think I might enjoy Downton more with the sound off. The dialogue in last week’s episode was pretty lame, now that I think of it.</p>
<p>Class of 2015, please give us a report on what you thought of Dan Stevens in The Heiress after you see it.</p>
<p>I was rather disappointed in Sunday’s episode. I thought Shirley MacLaine was a disappointment as Martha. She just didn’t project a believable character to me. All the other characters in Downton seem like real people to me, but Shirley seemed to be playacting and not too happy with the role either. And she is not in the same league as Maggie Smith.</p>
<p>I was not enthralled with Shirley MacLaine, but perhaps this says more about me and my comfort level with different types. I did not like seeing Maggie Smith acting like she felt uncomfortable. Wise, clever old women are NEVER uncomfortable, at least the way I hope to grow old(er!). I had liked the Matthew character quite a lot until I saw him interviewed on one of those lead-up shows, and he was not appealing, rather weak. There was something about the way he talked, his mouth, that bothered me. In the latest plot twist, he is full of himself and his high ideas…boring. I like the friendships below stairs, particularly between Mrs. Hughes and the cook. I love the relationship between Mary and the butler, very sweet.</p>
<p>It really cracked me up when the Maggie Smith character ordered a drink from her apparently under dressed son, and then quickly apologized “I’m sorry dear-I thought you were a waiter.” :D</p>
<p>The day after Christmas while vacationing in Spain, I happened upon an episode from Season 3, but not the opening and not the closing. I’m not going to say what happened. I have no clue where it falls in the sequence, but there was a character no longer in the series that I had enjoyed.</p>
<p>I saw the opening last night when it replayed on my PBS station. Didn’t like Shirley, but I confess that she never was a favorite of mine.</p>
<p>Did anyone else find the side plot involving Cousin Isabelle (in her ‘new occupation’ of helping ‘fallen women’) & the former Downton maid Ethel rather superfluous? What was the point - unless there is a future storyline?</p>
<p>^that, plus the breast cancer plot development for Mrs. Hughes. Did I miss something – was this foreshadowed in last season? Or did they run out of steam and figure they’d throw in something to increase the drama? What’s next – one of the dogs is gay?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would expect them to throw in new story lines. Otherwise, it’s just same song 3rd verse, boring, and predictable.</p>
<p>I do confess that I fast forwarded through the prison scenes.</p>
<p>In that gigantic house with both upstairs and downstairs to feed, they have only one stove/oven, which is capable of being suddenly broken beyond repair? All the food for a big dinner party needed to be cooked in the time between the guests’ arrival and the seating? The roasts wouldn’t have been done and resting so close to the dinner hour? And a serious cook who came of age in the 1880s or earlier wouldn’t have known how to heat up a pot using one of her 50 fireplaces if it really came to that? A crack crisis-management team doesn’t think of using the stove in the keeper’s lodge or gatehouse, enabling the food to be ferried back to the dining room?</p>
<p>Bosh.</p>
<p>For reference, compare the last first-class dinner on the Titanic, which was probably more elaborate than even the richest houses in England could have put together in the immediate post-war period. Practically everything was either served cold (like oysters and pate), was super easy to reheat (like consomme) or would need to be mostly cooked in advance (like roasts). The idea that most food would be cooked moments before it is served is, with the exception of steaks, an extremely modern one in Britain – like, 1970s modern. I’ll grant that the souffles wouldn’t have worked without an accurate oven, but the rest? Come on. [The</a> Titanic’s Last Meal - First Class Dinner on Titanic - Delish.com](<a href=“http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-reviews/the-last-dinner-on-the-titanic]The”>The Titanic's Last Meal - First Class Dinner on Titanic)</p>
<p>/food history nerd</p>