Downton Abbey (and other BBC type dramas)

[Spiny Norman]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: This topic was split off from What is the last film you watched? (2016)

Re: Downton Abbey (and other BBC dramas)

It isn't from the BBC.

[Paul Penna]

I gave up when I realized that the main plotting strategy was to dream up yet more ways to torture the characters.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

BTW, just found this link while trying to refresh my memory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... laims.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

This article amuses me greatly. The entire *series* is simply GWTW set in another country (but hey, so was DR. ZHIVAGO.)

I admit that DA is a guilty pleasure for me. The production values are first rate, Maggie Smith is an eternal delight, most of the other actors are fine ... and then you have the scripts.

I've long said that DA suffers from "EASTENDERS disease": the more successful it gets the more outlandishly soapish it needs to keep the punters jonesing for more.

It didn't help when Dan Stevens opted out of the series. Fellowes tried to get Allen Leech to fill the void as antagonist/new-to-the-old against Bonneville, but it just doesn't work.

A real pity, because with the resources available, Fellowes could have planned out and made a real epic drama showing the gradual end of the country manse. (Watching DA makes me realize, in its own universe, what a supreme achievement HARRY POTTER is. The damn thing remains logically consistent throughout the entire series - because the whole damn thing was planned in advance.)

But if DA is not all that it could have been, it's certainly entertaining. Someone here likened it to Cameron's TITANIC. That's an apt comparison. In a way, I don't think we're really supposed to care for the characters. They're merely props to allow us to feast on all that antique and couture porn.

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

...And of course years ago people died younger and from so many other causes, before cancer had a chance to do the dirty.

In the '50s & '60s, the single most common slang term for cigarettes was "cancer stick." Not as common, but still widely used was "coffin nail." No, not all the medical evidence had been assembled at that point, but everyone who wasn't a complete moron realized it was a seriously unhealthy practice--which gives the lie to all those lawsuits by smokers who claimed they "never knew."

I was thinking of the war years (both, that is) and the earlier years of the last century when there were more work-related diseases, not to mention accidents. Of course these did (and still do) persist through the 1950s, 1960s and after.

Our Dad died from smoking related causes in 1966 (I was nine) so we were well aware of the possible / probable dangers long before cinemas segregated smokers, let alone the present anti-smoking laws.

[Donald Binks]

Our Dad died from smoking related causes in 1966 (I was nine) so we were well aware of the possible / probable dangers long before cinemas segregated smokers, let alone the present anti-smoking laws.

One of the most ludicrous things in British cinemas to me was the allowing of smoking in one half of the auditorium. No-one apparently had the brains to work out that smoke travels and those sitting in the "non-smoking" sections were in no way going to be smoke free.

In Oz, smoking was not/is not allowed in any theatre auditorium. I suppose fires resulting from nitrate film burning houses down lead to this. To this day, there are houses which require a fireman from the nearest fire brigade to be in attendance during a performance. Always good to know when one sees him, that he alone will be able to save 1,500 people from an inferno.

[Changsham]

Curious how smoking was regarded in the old days. I recall reading Ernest Schackleton's logs describing how he and his crew were marooned in the Antarctic. When they abandoned their ship he ordered that only the most essential survival supplies be taken which included the tobacco rations. The whole crew survived exposed for about eight months in the worst possible harsh climate on rations of blubber and tobacco before being rescued. Same as for the soldiers in the trenches. Tobacco was considered essential to help them get through unimaginable hardships.

[entredeuxguerres]

...The whole crew survived exposed for about eight months in the worst possible harsh climate on rations of blubber and tobacco before being rescued. Same as for the soldiers in the trenches. Tobacco was considered essential to help them get through unimaginable hardships.

Of course--it lifted their spirits; and in a desperate situation, nothing is more important than that. (Though that point, the anti-tobacco crazies would no doubt contest; I think they've succeeded in banning sales on US military bases.)

I hope this PBS-Nova special was shown Downunder--it's wonderful. http://www.pbs.org/program/chasing-shackleton/" target="_blank" target="_blank

[Changsham]

...The whole crew survived exposed for about eight months in the worst possible harsh climate on rations of blubber and tobacco before being rescued. Same as for the soldiers in the trenches. Tobacco was considered essential to help them get through unimaginable hardships.

Of course--it lifted their spirits; and in a desperate situation, nothing is more important than that. (Though that point, the anti-tobacco crazies would no doubt contest; I think they've succeeded in banning sales on US military bases.)

I hope this PBS-Nova special was shown Downunder--it's wonderful. http://www.pbs.org/program/chasing-shackleton/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Thanks for the Shackleton link. No doubt private enterprise and the black market will fill the void to supply the soldiers in time honoured tradition. Interesting that the most vilest wholesale murderous genocidal regimes in modern history tried to ban smoking completely for health reasons. Nazi Germany were aware of smoking dangers and were on the way to fully ban smoking until the war got out of hand. The Nazi's also tried to ban smoking in the military but failed spectacularly. And now Islamic State have banned smoking. Penalties range from an initial flogging to beheading for repeat offenders. One of their reasons if you can believe it is that it is regarded as slow suicide. They obviously prefer to do their own mass killings and offer a quicker suicide path to heaven for their own.

[Changsham]

BTW, just found this link while trying to refresh my memory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... laims.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

This article amuses me greatly. The entire *series* is simply GWTW set in another country (but hey, so was DR. ZHIVAGO.)

I admit that DA is a guilty pleasure for me. The production values are first rate, Maggie Smith is an eternal delight, most of the other actors are fine ... and then you have the scripts.

I've long said that DA suffers from "EASTENDERS disease": the more successful it gets the more outlandishly soapish it needs to keep the punters jonesing for more.

It didn't help when Dan Stevens opted out of the series. Fellowes tried to get Allen Leech to fill the void as antagonist/new-to-the-old against Bonneville, but it just doesn't work.

A real pity, because with the resources available, Fellowes could have planned out and made a real epic drama showing the gradual end of the country manse. (Watching DA makes me realize, in its own universe, what a supreme achievement HARRY POTTER is. The damn thing remains logically consistent throughout the entire series - because the whole damn thing was planned in advance.)

But if DA is not all that it could have been, it's certainly entertaining. Someone here likened it to Cameron's TITANIC. That's an apt comparison. In a way, I don't think we're really supposed to care for the characters. They're merely props to allow us to feast on all that antique and couture porn.

Thanks, that's very well said. The show for the most flows smoothly and eloquently but every now and then there is a screech of chalk on the blackboard where I wonder why did they divert the story down a tired and schmaltzy path. Just let the characters be like real humans. A very love hate experience.

[maliejandra]

I enjoy Downton Abbey, although I think it jumped the shark in season three. I still watch it. Part of the appeal is the opulence of the sets and costumes, and while the stories are certainly soapy they do a good job of inserting lots of historical details without being too pushy about them. Violet represents the old ways of life while the daughters are of the modern era.

As far as the smoking is concerned, I do think film makers feel a push toward eliminating as much of that as possible so that no young viewers can be brainwashed into thinking it is glamorous and desirable. And forcing those actors to smoke all the time probably isn't the nicest prospect either. (I know some actors opt for herbal cigarettes when playing characters who smoke.)

One thing I have never understood is the audience's love for Bates and Anna, and how Froggat always seems to get award nominations. I find them to be kind of dull and their storylines to be some of the most ridiculous.

If you like these kinds of shows I would highly recommend several others including Call the Midwife, Bomb Girls, and Mr. Selfridge.

[drednm]

I've probably posted this before, but one of the few historical oddities in the series is that, for the greatest part, these people live in a cultural vacuum. On only a few occasions can I recall any specific references to movies (Valentino and Bow I think and an outing to see Way Down East, even by the downstairs people. It seems they would have been very interested in cinema (unless of course the local town has no movie theater. There are "to dos" about installing telephones and radios (and even a taster), but only scant attention paid to jazz, usually connected to nighteries where evils lurk, and even less attention paid to London theater. As many times as the family go to London, I don't recall any mention of theater. Indeed they hardly seemed aware of exactly who Nellie Melba was. They may live in the sticks, but it always struck me as odd they lived in such a cultural vacuum. In the creators' defense, I suppose references to Ivor Novello, Gloria Swanson or The Big Parade would have been lost on most of today's viewers ... even of this series.

[maliejandra]

If those things wouldn't advance the plot, I don't see any reason why the writers should throw them in. There are a LOT of characters to keep track of and I'm sure it is hard for them to decide which to focus on and which to put aside each episode without having to worry about having to include a culture quota too.

[entredeuxguerres]

I've probably posted this before, but one of the few historical oddities in the series is that, for the greatest part, these people live in a cultural vacuum...

One of the most notable ways in which Mr. Selfridge exhibits its superiority to DA is by immersing the story in references to contemporary celebrities & events. Swanson, perhaps, didn't favor Selfridges with her custom, but another troupe of American movie stars visited the store, one of them impersonating, I think, She of the Flaming Red Hair. From jazz, to the Dollies, to Verdun, everything that was going on in the real world is reflected in the script. The producers of this series evidently didn't worry that it would be unkind to remind some viewers of their ignorance of these people and events.

I was never actually able to warm to the actor who plays Mr. Selfridge, but I appreciated his taste in fine cigars.

Best of all with respect to the contents of the show's script--the wretched 21st Century was left out of it!

[entredeuxguerres]

...As far as the smoking is concerned, I do think film makers feel a push toward eliminating as much of that as possible so that no young viewers can be brainwashed into thinking it is glamorous and desirable...

Young viewers are watching Downton? I got the impression it was a show for grown-ups.

[drednm]

If those things wouldn't advance the plot, I don't see any reason why the writers should throw them in. There are a LOT of characters to keep track of and I'm sure it is hard for them to decide which to focus on and which to put aside each episode without having to worry about having to include a culture quota too.

They'd be as important in "setting the time" and as historical context as anything else.

[silentfilm]

In season four of Downton there was a storyline where one of the Crawley cousins was frequenting jazz clubs, and struck up a friendship with a black trumpet player. I do agree that season three was infuriating at times (the actor playing Matthew should never have quit), but I still really enjoy it and don't miss an episode. And as for being culturally aware, in last week's episode they were giving tours of the house to raise money for the hospital charity, but were completely clueless about the history of the giant house.

I especially like how Thomas the butler started out as a villain, but now he is just a difficult person, but a sympathetic one. (Daisy the cook is getting really irritating now...)

I think that there is some unwritten rule that you cannot develop a TV series unless you have a large cast of regular characters. Gone are the days when you would have a private eye and his secretary as the only continuing characters. I suppose that this gives the writers more opportunities for stories. It also allows crews to film different characters in different storylines at the same time, shortening production time. I enjoy Downton because it is filled with marvelous actors who are not portraying cardboard, one-dimensional characters.

[drednm]

In season four of Downton there was a storyline where one of the Crawley cousins was frequenting jazz clubs, and struck up a friendship with a black trumpet player. I do agree that season three was infuriating at times (the actor playing Matthew should never have quit), but I still really enjoy it and don't miss an episode. And as for being culturally aware, in last week's episode they were giving tours of the house to raise money for the hospital charity, but were completely clueless about the history of the giant house.

I especially like how Thomas the butler started out as a villain, but now he is just a difficult person, but a sympathetic one. (Daisy the cook is getting really irritating now...)

I think that there is some unwritten rule that you cannot develop a TV series unless you have a large cast of regular characters. Gone are the days when you would have a private eye and his secretary as the only continuing characters. I suppose that this gives the writers more opportunities for stories. It also allows crews to film different characters in different storylines at the same time, shortening production time. I enjoy Downton because it is filled with marvelous actors who are not portraying cardboard, one-dimensional characters.

Yup clueless. Even after the art historian (Richard E. Grant) tried to help, no one took the slightest interest in the art around the house. Has any one of them ever mentioned a current book?

I suppose we don't tune in to watch a "salon," but I can't even remember any references to colleges they might have attended....

[Changsham]

One English period drama I would like to see remade to the scale of DOWNTON ABBEY is A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME. The original series made in the 1990's that covered the period from World War 1 to the Psychedelic 60's at about 7 hours long was far too trucated to cover the richness of the 12 Anthony Powell novels. Was hard to follow and confusing at times with the 100's of characters and complex abreviated continuity and needs repeat viewings to fully appreciate it. An extended version would not be wasteful sugar and tripe like DA. Production values and acting were far better with no modern political correctness and soapy plots thrown in. The Carl Davis soundrack was perfect in evoking the times. Was a brilliant insight into the evolving turbulent cultural, social and political climate of the early to mid 20th century as lived by the English middle and upper classes. Is kind of an antithesis to BRIDESHEAD REVISITED but complementary to each other. I have watched it at least four times and repeat viewings just gets better and better.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

One other DA comment.

The show is set in Yorkshire, which I believe is in the northeastern portion of England, yet everyone talks of going UP to London. Wouldn't London be south of them? Do all English people go UP to London, regardless of physical location?

Not a dealbreaker by any means, but the expression falls oddly upon my American ears.

[Frederica]

Yup clueless. Even after the art historian (Richard E. Grant) tried to help, no one took the slightest interest in the art around the house. Has any one of them ever mentioned a current book?

I suppose we don't tune in to watch a "salon," but I can't even remember any references to colleges they might have attended....

At that time and in that class? None of the women attended college, they were educated at home and then sent off to a "Ladies Academy" to be "finished." Sir Hugh Bonneville Crawley attended Oxbridge, where he didn't rub shoulders with the lower classes, but he did learn how to binge drink. Nevertheless he graduated with honors because he was an aristo and he happily never opened a book again.

[Spiny Norman]

All these things happen in Wodehouse, but there at least it's intentional.

[entredeuxguerres]

... None of the women attended college, they were educated at home and then sent off to a "Ladies Academy" to be "finished."...

Which could, however, result in an education superior to that acquired by their brothers at Oxbridge, frittering away their time with the pleasant debaucheries an unfettered life at Oxbridge afforded. Such was the education of Leslie Stephens' daughters, Mary Ward, Edith Wharton, numerous others who did not turn out so badly.

[Donald Binks]

One other DA comment.

The show is set in Yorkshire, which I believe is in the northeastern portion of England, yet everyone talks of going UP to London. Wouldn't London be south of them? Do all English people go UP to London, regardless of physical location?

Not a dealbreaker by any means, but the expression falls oddly upon my American ears.

It's just a figure of speech, probably coming from railway terminology where trains going to the main hub (London) were on the "up" rail and trains leaving (London) were on the "down" rail. As most in those days travelled by train, it easily passed in to everyday parlance.

[Donald Binks]

Yup clueless. Even after the art historian (Richard E. Grant) tried to help, no one took the slightest interest in the art around the house. Has any one of them ever mentioned a current book?

I suppose we don't tune in to watch a "salon," but I can't even remember any references to colleges they might have attended....

At that time and in that class? None of the women attended college, they were educated at home and then sent off to a "Ladies Academy" to be "finished." Sir Hugh Bonneville Crawley attended Oxbridge, where he didn't rub shoulders with the lower classes, but he did learn how to binge drink. Nevertheless he graduated with honors because he was an aristo and he happily never opened a book again.

I did have a bit of a titter at this. It's not altogether the norm though I should hasten to add! It was common for a batch of sons to be dealt with as follows - the first was of course the heir and needed to know about running the estate, the second went off to the military and the third took up the cloth.

[drednm]

I guess if you're rich enough, you don't need any real education...

[Donald Binks]

I guess if you're rich enough, you don't need any real education...

I suppose that's Donald Trump's excuse?

[Frederica]

I guess if you're rich enough, you don't need any real education...

I suppose that's Donald Trump's excuse?

He's naturally gifted.

[Frederica]

At that time and in that class? None of the women attended college, they were educated at home and then sent off to a "Ladies Academy" to be "finished." Sir Hugh Bonneville Crawley attended Oxbridge, where he didn't rub shoulders with the lower classes, but he did learn how to binge drink. Nevertheless he graduated with honors because he was an aristo and he happily never opened a book again.

I did have a bit of a titter at this. It's not altogether the norm though I should hasten to add! It was common for a batch of sons to be dealt with as follows - the first was of course the heir and needed to know about running the estate, the second went off to the military and the third took up the cloth.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps but certainly not in the 1920s. Even when it was "standard" it was really more a guideline than a rule--and all the sons were sent to college no matter what they did later in life. It kept them out of their parents' hair, assuming their parents could recognize them to begin with.

[Donald Binks]

In the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps but certainly not in the 1920s. Even when it was "standard" it was really more a guideline than a rule--and all the sons were sent to college no matter what they did later in life. It kept them out of their parents' hair, assuming their parents could recognize them to begin with.

Oh, I nearly forgot - if there was another son in the litter - he was sent orf to the Foreign Office. Did the parents see much of the issue? Not really, possibly the children were "presented" once a day - the governess and Nanny did the looking after until such time as the brood could be shipped orf to boarding school. I think it is still important in the U.K., as to which public school you were sent - especially for the middle class - and Eton still sends its former classmates into the top positions in society. (I went to Eton, don't you know. Yus, and in the afternoon the tour took us to Windsor Castle. Boom Boom. ----- get off).

[boblipton]

All these things happen in Wodehouse, but there at least it's intentional. :)

Perhaps it's intentional here, too.

Speak not slightingly of Bertram Wilberforce Wooster, who has written for his aunt's newspaper.

Bob