“They're going to be facing a very different world after the war.”
So far, I've refrained from commenting on the effect that the PBS edits of Downton Abbey's second season, because I believe it would be wrong to criticize the show for issues of plotting or pacing that arise only as a result of the show being brought stateside. Not only would that amount to whinging when I should instead be thankful that the show is being brought stateside by any legal means, but it would also go against my resolution to always keep authorial intent in mind when I write these reviews. But the editing problems of last night's episode were so severe that they must be addressed, especially since they ended up making already ludicrous plot even worse.
Downton Abbey has had the effect of bringing up the age old debate of just what a soap opera is, and what constitutes “soapy”, and can a soap opera or any of it's element be deployed in a way that makes for quality television. I've never consider Downton to be a soap opera, because like many people, I see the term “soap opera” as a derogatory one, used to indicate that a show A) uses a complex series of overwrought twists to create drama and B) treats these events as if they are believable and actually affecting. It's the second part that I adhere to the most, as I like to differentiate between soap operas and campy shows, the latter of which, like Revenge, are both aware of the ridiculousness of the heightened stakes, and all the more fun because of it. Downton, in my opinion, is at worst a melodrama (though I tend to drop the “melo-” when describing it), because at its best it focuses on character-based drama that's more or less believable.
However, the arrival of one Patrick Gordon, previous heir to the Downton throne, and former plot contrivance, has forced me to reconsider my take on the show, as it recycles on the oldest soap opera tropes (“a character previously believed to be dead returns”) in order to needlessly drive the action for an episode or two. As the episode makes abundantly clear, Patrick was the family member that was said to have died in the series first episode, and whose supposed death sparked off the search for a new heir, brought Matthew to Downton, and gave us all that first season goodness that we all remember so fondly.
Frankly I can decide which was the worst thing about Patrick's return. Was it the bit of retconning that the show dabbled in in order to manufacture more drama? Was it the fact that Julian Fellowes felt the need to add another layer to the Matthew-Mary romance, when it was acting so well previously? Was it the fact that this was yet another man in Edith's increasingly bizarre string of potential paramours, as the show continues in it's bizarre quest to convince that she is just completely unattractive? Is it the fact that the storyline is robbed of resolution, as Patrick just up and leaves before we get a chance to know if he was really the heir? Or was it that fact that it ended up being entirely pointless, since things were just the same when Patrick left as they were when he dropped?
In truth, it's likely a combination of these things, and together they ended up creating a plotline that was incredulous as it was boring. I'll say this about soap operas: as bat-shit insane as they can sometimes end up being, I can see how they manage to hold on to an audience. Things are always in a state of flux on those types of shows, and they beg you to keep watching, entertaining you with their utter insanity. Downton didn't even give us that; it was unbelievability without anything so satisfying as a pay-off.
Editing Issue: With the announcement of the war being over coming about halfway through the hour, I am reasonably certain that that was the ending of an episode in the original British cut. This means that Patrick's plotline actually existed across two episodes, and while that doesn't fix the story's main problems, I can see how it was maybe supposed to cause tension by serving as a hanging thread from one week to the other. Additionally, it would have spaced out Patrick's arrival and departure from Downton, thus making his frustration at the family's inability to determine his lineage a bit more believable.
The second disappointment of the hour focused on the Mr./Mrs. Bates storyline, one that seemed finished last week when Mrs. Bates was caught in a legal tangle thanks to the intervention of Richard Carlisle. However, for reasons that I can only assume have to do with Fellowes' inability to plan for a large episode order than he had the previous season, we get to see this plotline stretched out for another hour (and what I expect was another two episode when it aired in Britain.)
But even as I was bothered by the fact that it was popping up once again, I will commend the show for not giving us another grating appearance by Mrs. Bates, and instead making it about the commitment that Anna and Bates have to making their recent marriage stick. Granted, nothing really changed at the end of the hour, but I will give the show credit for not turning up the melodrama on this plotline as high as it could have. Of course, that doesn't excuse the show from taking the easy and character-robbing way out of this story by having Mrs. Bates apparently kill her self. (Nor the fact that this plotline sadly mirrors the Patrick plotline in terms of its lack of narrative weight.)
Editing Issue: Placing Bates' departure and return equidistance from the news of the war's end robs American viewers of the sense that Bates actually went anywhere, or did anything in an attempt to persuade Mrs. Bates to leave him and Anna alone.
What's disappointing about these two major plotlines, apart from their manufactured soapiness, is the fact that there were actually some good stuff on the edges, that probably would have made for a better episode had they been brought more to the foreground. Mary and Matthew's continued non-romance may not have move any more forward concretely, but it was nice to see them, and by extension, the show, acknowledge it more concretely. It also helped that Richard Carlise is in play, and his desperate attempts to hold onto Mary as his fiancée played out believably as his did what he does best and meddled, convincing Cora to bring back Lavinia so that Mary can produce a Crawley heir. And that doesn't even include consideration that Matthew seems to be regaining feeling, well...below the waist.
However, the arrival of one Patrick Gordon, previous heir to the Downton throne, and former plot contrivance, has forced me to reconsider my take on the show, as it recycles on the oldest soap opera tropes (“a character previously believed to be dead returns”) in order to needlessly drive the action for an episode or two. As the episode makes abundantly clear, Patrick was the family member that was said to have died in the series first episode, and whose supposed death sparked off the search for a new heir, brought Matthew to Downton, and gave us all that first season goodness that we all remember so fondly.
Frankly I can decide which was the worst thing about Patrick's return. Was it the bit of retconning that the show dabbled in in order to manufacture more drama? Was it the fact that Julian Fellowes felt the need to add another layer to the Matthew-Mary romance, when it was acting so well previously? Was it the fact that this was yet another man in Edith's increasingly bizarre string of potential paramours, as the show continues in it's bizarre quest to convince that she is just completely unattractive? Is it the fact that the storyline is robbed of resolution, as Patrick just up and leaves before we get a chance to know if he was really the heir? Or was it that fact that it ended up being entirely pointless, since things were just the same when Patrick left as they were when he dropped?
In truth, it's likely a combination of these things, and together they ended up creating a plotline that was incredulous as it was boring. I'll say this about soap operas: as bat-shit insane as they can sometimes end up being, I can see how they manage to hold on to an audience. Things are always in a state of flux on those types of shows, and they beg you to keep watching, entertaining you with their utter insanity. Downton didn't even give us that; it was unbelievability without anything so satisfying as a pay-off.
Editing Issue: With the announcement of the war being over coming about halfway through the hour, I am reasonably certain that that was the ending of an episode in the original British cut. This means that Patrick's plotline actually existed across two episodes, and while that doesn't fix the story's main problems, I can see how it was maybe supposed to cause tension by serving as a hanging thread from one week to the other. Additionally, it would have spaced out Patrick's arrival and departure from Downton, thus making his frustration at the family's inability to determine his lineage a bit more believable.
The second disappointment of the hour focused on the Mr./Mrs. Bates storyline, one that seemed finished last week when Mrs. Bates was caught in a legal tangle thanks to the intervention of Richard Carlisle. However, for reasons that I can only assume have to do with Fellowes' inability to plan for a large episode order than he had the previous season, we get to see this plotline stretched out for another hour (and what I expect was another two episode when it aired in Britain.)
But even as I was bothered by the fact that it was popping up once again, I will commend the show for not giving us another grating appearance by Mrs. Bates, and instead making it about the commitment that Anna and Bates have to making their recent marriage stick. Granted, nothing really changed at the end of the hour, but I will give the show credit for not turning up the melodrama on this plotline as high as it could have. Of course, that doesn't excuse the show from taking the easy and character-robbing way out of this story by having Mrs. Bates apparently kill her self. (Nor the fact that this plotline sadly mirrors the Patrick plotline in terms of its lack of narrative weight.)
Editing Issue: Placing Bates' departure and return equidistance from the news of the war's end robs American viewers of the sense that Bates actually went anywhere, or did anything in an attempt to persuade Mrs. Bates to leave him and Anna alone.
What's disappointing about these two major plotlines, apart from their manufactured soapiness, is the fact that there were actually some good stuff on the edges, that probably would have made for a better episode had they been brought more to the foreground. Mary and Matthew's continued non-romance may not have move any more forward concretely, but it was nice to see them, and by extension, the show, acknowledge it more concretely. It also helped that Richard Carlise is in play, and his desperate attempts to hold onto Mary as his fiancée played out believably as his did what he does best and meddled, convincing Cora to bring back Lavinia so that Mary can produce a Crawley heir. And that doesn't even include consideration that Matthew seems to be regaining feeling, well...below the waist.
Editing Issue: Much like the Patrick plotline, a week off might have made the tension more believable with all the roadblocks to Matthew and Mary getting together.
Cora also had a second plotline, in which she and Isobel snipe over the future of Downton as the war comes to a close. Though Cora's ultimate victory in keeping Downton a private house should come as a surprise to no one, it is an interesting note to close the season out on (assuming Downton's status doesn't change again). For a season that has been so interested in showing us how the war was disrupting the lives of this autocrats, there had been an effective pressing of the reset button, bringing us back to the status quo. Anything to protect the perception of the British class system, eh Fellowes?
Quotes and Other Thoughts:
You're right, I didn't mention either Ethel's continued baby trouble, or the budding relationship between Sybil and Branson. That's because I find the former boring, and the latter insubstantial.
Oh right, Daisy was in this episode too. But considering that all she did was continue her same “Woe is me, I'm a terrible person for marrying a dying man” shtick, I'm not just going to repeat what I said last week.
Oh, and maybe Ms. Patmore is going start getting food off of the blackmarket. Because that's something I would totally buy.
Shut up, Jane. Nobody cares about child. And if you make a pass at Robert (even worse, if he accepts), then somebody's getting punched.
“I'm an American. I don't share your native hatred of comfort.”
Cora also had a second plotline, in which she and Isobel snipe over the future of Downton as the war comes to a close. Though Cora's ultimate victory in keeping Downton a private house should come as a surprise to no one, it is an interesting note to close the season out on (assuming Downton's status doesn't change again). For a season that has been so interested in showing us how the war was disrupting the lives of this autocrats, there had been an effective pressing of the reset button, bringing us back to the status quo. Anything to protect the perception of the British class system, eh Fellowes?
Quotes and Other Thoughts:
You're right, I didn't mention either Ethel's continued baby trouble, or the budding relationship between Sybil and Branson. That's because I find the former boring, and the latter insubstantial.
Oh right, Daisy was in this episode too. But considering that all she did was continue her same “Woe is me, I'm a terrible person for marrying a dying man” shtick, I'm not just going to repeat what I said last week.
Oh, and maybe Ms. Patmore is going start getting food off of the blackmarket. Because that's something I would totally buy.
Shut up, Jane. Nobody cares about child. And if you make a pass at Robert (even worse, if he accepts), then somebody's getting punched.
“I'm an American. I don't share your native hatred of comfort.”
No comments:
Post a Comment