<p>I think Dowd was making a somewhat different point.</p>
<p>Hey, I think “Gone With the Wind” is a good book and an even better movie. That said, it is hardly a documentary regarding the treatment of slaves in the antebellum South and the immediate post-Civil War period. “12 Years a Slave” is much closer to the truth. As a white American, I can say–and truthfuly mean–that I enoy “Gone With the Wind” for the great, tragic love story it is. I doubt that African-Americans would regard the book/movie the same way. The part of the book that makes the KKK seem like the good guys is particularly offensive. </p>
<p>In “Downton Abbey,” the Irish are in an analogous position. The whole Lady Sybil/Branson story line is preposterous–and lots of fun. Branson isn’t the only Mick. O’Brien is one too. Not all that sympathetic a character, is she? </p>
<p>In reality, while they were lots of Irish servants in England during the time period, they VERY rarely got jobs in houses like Downton. The Irish, especially Irish Catholics, were seen as decidedly inferior beings. They ended up being hired by the middle classes who wanted servants but who weren’t able to pay enough and offer working conditions good enough to attract English servants. Even then, they were usually ineligible for any position that bought them into close contact with children for there was a widespread fear they would teach children “Papish” nonsense. </p>
<p>They were treated as beasts of burden, often working 14 hour days, 7 days a week. If they weren’t willing, there were plenty of others willing to take their place.Without a reference, they couldn’t get a job. The minimum wage laws didn’t apply to them. </p>
<p>So, Dowd can’t stand watching Downton because the aristocrats care about the opinions of their servants and treat them as people. This is as far from the reality of Irish servants of that era as “Gone with the Wind” is from the real life of a slave.</p>
<p>None of this stops me from enjoying Downton. Still, I understand where Dowd is coming from.</p>
<p>I just watched the trailer for Jessica Brown Findlay’s (she was Sybil) new movie Winter’s Tale, with Colin Farrell. Looks terribly romantic. It was nice to see her again. And she’s in the middle of filming a new Frankenstein (with Daniel Radcliffe as Igor?!?!). It’s nice to see the “Downton departed” going on to bigger and better things.</p>
<p>How can there be anything bigger than DA? Masterpiece Theater is saying DA is the biggest renue-producing show they’ve ever made.</p>
<p>I heard somewhere the reason why many of the actors/actresses “wanted out” is tradition. Most signed only a 3-year agreement. They don’t sign long term contracts the way it’s done in the States.</p>
<p>I though the Lady Rose dancing plot was ridiculous; no under-gardner would take her for anything but upper class, not in a country where accent gave (and sometimes gives) the game away. </p>
<p>I thought the premiere was mechanical but that’s the nature of soap operas; sometimes they grab you and sometimes the plot machinery shows through.</p>
I think starring in a couple of big Hollywood films is a step up career-wise from being one of many cast members in a TV show, and no doubt much more remunerative for the actor. The season premiere of DA got about the same number of US viewers as a typical episode of CSI or Criminal Minds, and no one would be surprised if one of the actors on either of those shows jumped ship for films. I can’t fault any of the departing players for moving on in hopes of broadening their careers–besides, I imagine there’s a limit to how much soapsuds and mediocre dialogue an actor can tolerate–and I say that as a DA fan!</p>
He also likely heard that Anna warned Braithwaite about Thomas. And even though Bates did save Thomas, Thomas still doesn’t like him.</p>
<p>He’s always looking for a way to position himself as the “good guy”. And now that O’Brien is gone, he needs another ally, so he cultivated one.</p>
<p>I’m glad that Lady Grantham got rid of Nanny West for the right reason, not because of Thomas, but I also don’t buy that she is so naive as to believe Thomas without even speaking to Anna. After all, Anna’s the one who helped them hide the body in Season 1; there should be some sort of bond there.</p>
<p>Okay, this was probably the last one for me. Drama is okay, violence can have a place, but this was melodrama and sets up horribly bad things to come. I don’t like what they’re doing with Tom (more melodrama with the Braithwaite shenanigans), but what happened to Anna was gratuitous while at the same time being wildly unrealistic in the setup. I call shark-jumping.</p>
<p>I think I’ll just read the Facebook parodies–I’ll found out what happened, and get to laugh, too!</p>
<p>I knew it was coming. There were a lot of complaints about it in the UK, and as I hit BBC every day for up to date news, (surprising how often I read news about the US there long before I hear it over here) I had read all about the complaints.</p>
<p>Really, was this entire episode necessary (outside of the wonderful Dame Kiri!)? The attack on Anna, and her complete unwillingness to at least trust in her friends and in Cora? And are we really to believe that Tom is stupid enough to risk losing Sybbie to her grandparents if he takes up with that trashy, scheming maid? And while I know that Portugal was the “pit of despair” and Greece “the hinterlands” to the Brits, becoming a German citizen so soon after WWI is totally ridiculous- as if her parents and granny aren’t going to kick up a hell of a fuss when Edith breaks that news to them! I’m sure that they’ll have to work in how a “German, divorced brother-in-law who works for a living” will impact Lady Mary’s chances for a good match.</p>
<p>What I meant by unrealistic was this guy just assuming, in the midst of things, that no one would hear, that Anna would be alone, that she wouldn’t tell anyone (guess he knew of Bates’ prior prison experience?), that it was another servant and not an upper class member…</p>
<p>I’m not saying the idea isn’t real, but the actual set up as written was wildly contrived.</p>
<p>Everything in this felt like soap opera to me, a genre I’ve never gotten into. When I started watching this, it didn’t feel like that, but it’s gradually become more so. </p>
<p>Oh, I did like the Gregson poker incident, except it was telegraphed from the start, so zero surprise when he out-sharked the card shark and won Lord Grantham’s money back. (though Sampson’s line about winning back the money for the rich guys from the poor guy was a nice spin. I wish there was more better writing. aside from Violet, no one gets good lines anymore.)</p>
<p>If the Gregson poker incident was telegraphed from the start, I must have been asleep when that telegraph came through! I thought that was one of the best parts of the episode.</p>
<p>Along with watching Mary ride side-saddle with that very nice what’s-his-name.</p>
<p>garland, I agree. I think the writing isn’t as sharp as it was once. And I also agree that it’s starting to feel more like a soap opera, when there’s some kind of side-story for each character. Nothing seems long-term, just little vignettes.</p>
I did too, and tastefully done - not gratuitious at all compared to a lot of scenes of that nature. I think maybe people are protesting because it doesn’t fit in with Downton’s fairy tale nature.
What I’d like to see is Branson tell that sleazy tramp Braithwaite to take a hike once and for all.
Give them time - they’re still setting up the season. It’s like the beginning of the school year, with teachers reviewing material for the first few weeks.</p>
<p>I agree. IMO the series has gotten increasingly soapier with each new season. The first season didn’t feel very much like a soap - more like a normal PBS/BBC costume drama. But now I find myself rolling my eyes a lot. But I’m still watching though. However, I think I won’t be left all that sad and deprived when the series finally ends. I’m pretty sure I won’t mourn about the prospect of no more Downton the way I did over no more Upstairs, Downstairs.</p>